. 5.: 1:1)!
cvv-\..I 33?;
23.1139.

 

1v...

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
UI liversity

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

SUSTAINABILITY OF FOUNDATION-FUNDED GRANT
PROGRAMS BEYOND INITIAL FUNDING: A MULTICASE
STUDY AT SELECTIVE LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES

presented by

DEBORAH CHANG LECHUGA

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph.D. degree in Iigher, Adult, & Lifelong Educ.

 

 

\Qe-ct 2k) 187 . fi (312th

jor Professor’s Signature
Age-A E3 &0 g C?

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

 

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

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:IProj/Acc&Pres/CIRCIDateDuo.indd

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY OF F OUNDATION-FUNDED GRANT PROGRAMS
BEYOND INITIAL FUNDING: A MULTICASE STUDY AT
SELECTIVE LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES

By

Debbie Chang Lechuga

 

SUSTAINABILITY OF FOUNDATION-FUNDED GRANT PROGRAMS
BEYOND INITIAL FUNDING: A MULTICASE STUDY AT
SELECTIVE LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES
By

Debbie Chang Lechuga

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Higher, Adult and Lifelong Education

2010

ABSTRACT
SUSTAINABILITY OF FOUNDATION-FUNDED GRANT PROGRAMS
BEYOND INITIAL FUNDING: A MULTICASE STUDY AT
SELECTIVE LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES
By

Debbie Chang Lechuga

College and university leaders must remain responsive to their environments by
promoting institutional innovation and change. External grant-funders, such as
foundations, view themselves as initiators of change. Foundations can provide the
necessary tools to jump start innovation within colleges and universities. However,
despite the best intentions, not all colleges are able to sustain their programs or initiatives
beyond the foundation’s initial funding.

The central research question of the study was: How do liberal arts colleges
sustain foundation-funded programs beyond the initial grant period? Grounded in the
literature on organizational change (Clark, 2004; Kezar, 2001; Luddeke, 1999), and
program institutionalization and sustainability (Huberman & Miles, 1984; Levine, 1980;
Levison, 1994; Steckler & Goodman, 1989), this study examined how foundation-funded
programs are sustained at liberal arts colleges. The guiding conceptual framework, based
upon Shediac Rizkallah and Bone (1998), proposed that three primary factors contribute
to the sustainability of a program past initial funding: 1) program level factors, 2)
institutional level factors, and 3) environmental level factors. Utilizing this framework,
the current study utilized a multi-case study design. Four selective liberal arts colleges

were selected

to examine the sustainability of faculty career enhancement programs funded by the
Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. A

The results of this study revealed that eight factors, surrounded by environmental
influences, contribute to the sustainability process: 1) meets an institutional need, 2)
breadth of impact, 3) program effectiveness, 4) institutional context, 5) integration into
campus, 6) planning to sustain, 7) committed leader or champion, and 8) applied
organizational learning. A conceptual model based upon the guiding conceptual
framework and the findings from this study are presented along with implications for

research and practice.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This dissertation would not have been completed without the participation of the
individuals who agreed to speak with me about their experiences with, and impressions of
their institutions’ Mellon initiatives.

I would like to thank my dissertation committee, Roger Baldwin, Marilyn Amey,
Ann Austin, and Karen Klomparens. Their guidance and insights have helped make my
dissertation a better product. I am especially grateful for my dissertation chair, Roger
Baldwin, who has provided enduring support and mentorship throughout my doctoral
studies.

Finally, I would like to thank the Graduate School, the College of Education, and
the Faculty of the Higher, Adult and Lifelong Education program for providing me the
opportunity to attend Michigan State University, and the generous financial support to

pursue my doctoral studies as a full-time student.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ ix
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1
Operational Definitions of Key Terms ................................................................... 2
Rationale for the Study ............................................................................................ 3
The Problem ........................................................................................................... 4
Conceptual Underpinnings of the Study .................................................................. 6
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................ 7
Research Questions .................................................................................................. 8
Significance of the Study ......................................................................................... 9
Overview of the Research Design ........................................................................ 10
Limitations and Assumptions ................................................................................ 11

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 13

Organizational Change and Sustainability ............................................................ 14
Organizational change in higher education ............................................... 14
External factors affecting change: Role of foundations ............................ 19
The relationship between organizational change and sustainability .......... 22
Studies on sustaining change in higher education ..................................... 24
Organizational learning and change .......................................................... 28

Factors that Contribute to Sustaining Programs .................................................... 33
Contributors to institutionalization and sustainability ............................... 34
Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone’s framework ................................................ 38

Unanswered Questions: What’s Missing in the Literature .................................... 42
Institutional setting .................................................................................... 42
Case sampling ............................................................................................ 43
Impact of funding on sustainability ........................................................... 43
Research design ......................................................................................... 44

Overview of the Conceptual Framework ............................................................... 44
Defining sustainability ............................................................................... 45
The conceptual model for the study .......................................................... 46

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ........................... 52

Research Questions ................................................................................................ 52

Research Design and Rationale ............................................................................. 53
Using a case study approach ...................................................................... 53
Using a multiple case study design ............................................................ 54
Unit of analysis .......................................................................................... 55

Site Selection and Rationale .................................................................................. 56
Using faculty development programs ........................................................ 56
Using the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation ................................................ 56

Using liberal arts colleges .......................................................................... 57

Research Methods .................................................................................................. 60
Selecting the individual case sites ............................................................. 60
Selecting interview participants ................................................................. 62
Data collection ........................................................................................... 64

Data Analysis ......................................................................................................... 67

Rigor and Limitations ............................................................................................ 68

CHAPTER FOUR: INDIVIDUAL CASE STUDIES ANALYSIS .................................. 73

Guiding Conceptual Framework ........................................................................... 74

Background of the Grant ....................................................................................... 75

Case Number One: Bowling Lawn College .......................................................... 78
The proposed initiative .............................................................................. 78
The key players in the Mellon initiative .................................................... 81
The results of the implementation ............................................................. 82
Developing and implementing the Mellon initiative ................................. 85
What contributed to the sustainability of the Bowling Lawn
Mellon initiative: Participants’ reflections on the process ........................ 92
Exploring the case through the framework .............................................. 101

Case Number Two: Castlegate College ............................................................... 1 10
The proposed initiative ............................................................................ 111
The key players in the Mellon initiative .................................................. 113
The results of the implementation ........................................................... 115
Developing and implementing the Mellon initiative ............................... 118
What contributed to the sustainability of the Castlegate
Mellon initiative: Participants’ reflections on the process ...................... 121
Exploring the case through the framework .............................................. 127

Case Number Three: Hilltop College .................................................................. 133
The proposed initiative ............................................................................ 134
The key players in the Mellon initiative .................................................. 136
The results of the implementation ........................................................... 137
Developing and implementing the Mellon initiative ............................... 139
What contributed to the sustainability of the Hilltop
Mellon initiative: Participants’ reflections on the process ...................... 143
Exploring the case through the framework .............................................. 149

Case Number Four: Amber Hills College ........................................................... 156
The proposed initiative ............................................................................ 156
The key players in the Mellon initiative .................................................. 158
The results of the implementation ........................................................... 160
Developing and implementing the Mellon initiative ............................... 161
What contributed to the sustainability of the Amber Hills
Mellon initiative: Participants’ reflections on the process ...................... 165
Exploring the case through the framework .............................................. 170

vi

CHAPTER FIVE: CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS .............................................................. 183

Sustained Forms of the Mellon Initiative Across the Cases ................................ 183
Sustainability Factors Across the Cases .............................................................. 185
Comparing the Four Cases .................................................................................. 193
Influence and Impact of Sustainability Factors ................................................... 201
CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ........................................... 211
Summary of Study ............................................................................................... 211
Summary of Major Findings ................................................................................ 212
Discussion ............................................................................................................ 217
Toward a Conceptual Framework for Program Sustainability
Beyond Initial Funding ........................................................................................ 221
Comparing Models .............................................................................................. 228
Limitations of the Study ...................................................................................... 230
Implications for Practice ...................................................................................... 231
Implications for college and university leaders ....................................... 231
Implications for foundations or other external grantors .......................... 234
Suggestions for Future Research ......................................................................... 237
Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 238
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 240
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 247

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1. Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone’s (1998) sub-factors of
the program sustainability process ................... g .............................................. 41

Table 2.2. The sustainability factors included in the

guiding conceptual framework ........................................................................ 47
Table 3.1. Summary of incorporated sustainability factors ............................................... 60
Table 5.1. Seven categories incorporating all themes across cases ................................ 186
Table 5.2. Analysis of four cases through conceptual framework .................................. 203

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1. Product view of change ................................................................................... 23
Figure 2.2. Process view of change ................................................................................... 23

Figure 2.3. Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone (1996) framework for program sustainability...39

Figure 2.4. Guiding conceptual framework for the study .................................................. 46
Figure 4.1. Bowling Lawn College’s administration of Mellon initiative ........................ 81
Figure 4.2. Castlegate College’s administration of Mellon initiative .............................. 113
Figure 4.3. Hilltop College’s administration of Mellon initiative ................................... 136
Figure 4.4. Amber Hills College’s administration of Mellon initiative .......................... 158
Figure 5.1. Comparison of the four cases ........................................................................ 194
Figure 6.1. Proposed conceptual model for program sustainability ................................ 223

ix

Chapter One: Introduction
Beginning in 2000, a national foundation offered 5-year grants to a number of liberal arts
colleges. These colleges were to develop initiatives to enhance their faculty’s careers.
Although “successful” in the sense that the institutions and their faculty enjoyed many
benefits from the implemented programs, many of the most “helpful” and “valued”
components of the foundation-funded programs were unsustainable after the termination
Of funding. Consequently, about half of the programs ceased when the funding period

ended.

This scenario illustrates a common state-of-affairs that postsecondary institutions
encounter when an externally-funded program’s funds are terminated. In particular, this
scenario describes the focus of this study: How institutions sustain programs initiated on
“sofi”-monies beyond the initial grant period. Some of the liberal arts colleges in the
above scenario managed to find ways to sustain aspects, but not all, of their initiated
programs. This common situation led me to the central research question of my study:
How do liberal arts colleges sustain foundation-funded grant programs beyond the initial
grant period?

In this chapter, I discuss the general set-up of my study. First, I provide some
operational definitions of the key terms I use in my study. Second, I discuss the rationale
for my study by describing the main issues that relate to the problem informing this
study. Third, I describe my research problem as well as the conceptual underpinnings of
my study. I conclude with the purpose and significance of my study, and a brief

description of my research design and its limitations.

Operational Definitions of Key Terms

Before discussion the background and rationale of my study, I believe it is helpful
to clarify key terms. In the literature, “sustainability,” is frequently interchanged with
terms such as institutionalization, long-terrn maintenance, continuation (versus
discontinuation), long-term viability, built-in-ness, survival, durability, and longevity
(O’Loughlin, Renaud, Richard, Sanchez-Gomez, & Paradis, 1998). All these terms tend
to refer to “the extent to which a new program becomes embedded or integrated into the
‘normal’ operations of an organization” (O’Loughlin et al., 1998, p. 702-703) and with an
emphasis on a program’s “survival well beyond an initial grant funding period” (Steckler
& Goodman, 1989, p. 34). Whether it is called institutionalization, routinization, or
sustainability, the terms are often used interchangeably and convey similar ideas.

Based upon previous definitions noted in the literature, for the purposes of this
study the key terms are defined as follows:

Sustainability. Sustainability refers to the capacity of an institution to maintain a
program’s services at a level that will provide ongoing benefits after termination of
funding from an external or outside funding source (LaPelle, Zapka, & Ockene, 2006).
Sustainability differs from institutionalization, which is defined below, in the sense that
changes may occur to the original program in order for it to be sustained and the program
does not have to continue within its original organization structure (Shediac-Rizkallah &
Bone, 1998). For example, a faculty development program may begin as a program
administered by a newly created faculty development office. However, as time progresses

and budgets become more restrictive, the program might be moved into another

administrative space, such as a center for teaching and learning, in order to sustain the
faculty development program.

Institutionalization. Institutionalization refers to the long-term viability and
integration of a new program within an institution (Steckler & Goodman, 1989).
Institutionalization is considered to be the process by which “specific cultural elements or
cultural objects are adopted by actors in a social system” (Clark, 1968, p. 1). The
institutionalization of a program is the complete, unaltered, incorporation or integration
of the program into the institution or organization. I consider institutionalization to be one
method by which sustainability can occur.

Program. Program refers to any initiative or project in a university or college
setting that involves the management of individuals or units to produce a product,
outcome or goal. For this study, the terms program and initiative are used
interchangeably.

Non-academic program. Non-academic programs are those that are not directly
tied to the institution’s academic curriculum in the sense that they are not academic
degree programs. Examples include student affairs and student development programs
(Dickeson, 1999), research centers, and institutes, (Stahler & Tash, 1994). For the
'purposes of this study, faculty development programs are included in this definition.
Rationale for the Study

My interest in program sustainability at liberal arts colleges is marked by a simple
problem that post-secondary institutions encounter: How to sustain a program or
initiative (used interchangeably for the purposes of this study) that is implemented with

“soft” or external money. By “sustainability,” I refer to the capacity of an academic

institution to maintain a program or initiative at a level that will provide ongoing tangible
or intangible benefits after termination of external funding (LaPelle, Zapka, & Ockene,
2006)

Typically, the desire to sustain an extemally-funded program or initiative may be
grounded in the desire for some sort of change within the institution. This desire can be
viewed as emerging from one of two sources: stakeholders from within the institution
(i.e., senior administration, board of trustees, faculty), or from external sources (i.e.,
funding agencies or foundations with an interest in changing postsecondary institutions in
a certain way, state or federal policies). The quest for change can be either large,
transformational, institutional change (Kezar & Eckel, 2002a; Lawrence & Lorsch,
1986), or small, incremental, programmatic change (Staudenmayer, Tyre, Perlow, 2002).
Additionally, change can be either planned or reactive (Mintzberg, 1994; Peterson, 1997).

Although institutional change may be desired, sustaining an externally-funded
program or initiative beyond the grant period to maintain change has its own challenges.
Particularly when the fiscal belt tightens at an academic institution, an extemally-funded,
non-academic program is vulnerable to discontinuation. Unless the externally-funded
program is absorbed by the institution in some capacity, the program is often
discontinued upon the termination of the external funding period.

The Problem

The problem of this study emerged from the tension between two situations. First,
change is valued and considered necessary to universities and colleges if they intend to
remain competitive in a turbulent environment. Spom (1999) argues “successful

organizational adaptation for colleges and universities will require new and innovative

strategies to respond to the changing environment for higher education” (p. 6). Many
colleges and universities, particularly private institutions, use external funding sources,
such as foundation-funded grants, as a form of incentive to initiate innovation towards
institutional change and reform. Foundation grants can significantly contribute to the
offerings of a college or university. For example, in many cases colleges and universities
rely upon foundation grants to jump start a new program or project (Ward, 2001 ).
Second, foundations want to be able to have a lasting impact on change in
institutions (The Philanthropic Initiative, 2008,
http://www.tpi.org[about tpi/our missionaspx). Foundations are aware of the impact
they can have on institutions. Harcleroad and Eaton (2005) articulate the priority
foundations place on enacting change in institutions such as colleges and universities:
Institutional change continues to be a prime goal of foundations, as it has been for
most of the past century. Thus, although their grants still provide a relatively
small proportion of the total financing of institutions, they have had significant
effects on program development and even Operations. (p. 257)
Despite the limited funding that foundations may contribute to the larger institutional
budget, the programs or initiatives that develop with foundation funding can still have
significant effects on the institution. Therefore, ensuring that institutions are able to
sustain their funded-programs or initiatives beyond the initial grant period is a high
priority for the sponsoring foundations. Grant funders “know that it does little good to
fund breakthrough projects with no hope of continuance or replication” (Ward, 2001,
Introduction section, para. 3). For this reason, many grant hinders require that grant

seekers include a plan for sustainability in their proposals (Beery, Sentr, Cheadle,

Greenwald, Pearson, Brousseau, & Nelson, 2005).

Herein lies the problem. Despite the best intentions of institutions to be
responsive to their changing environments, as well as foundations’ requirements for
institutions to plan for sustainability as part of the application process (Beery et al.,
2005), not all institutions find themselves able to sustain those programs or initiatives
beyond the foundation’s initial funding and can “lapse back” into their routines prior to
the grant (June, 2010).

Because resources and time have been invested into developing the grant-fimded
programs, the institution faces public scrutiny with regard to the institution’s use or waste
of resources (Leveille, 2000). The impact of not sustaining a program can be costly. For
innovative projects intended to create change, Yin (1979) argues that an institution’s
inability to institutionalize such a project is more costly than the institution’s inability to
implement the project in the first place because of the full-scale costs incurred.
Furthermore, aside from the loss incurred at the institution, foundations may view the
resources given to institutions that are unable to sustain the initiatives as wasted
resources.

Conceptual Underpinnings of the Study

This study was grounded in theories of organizational change, program
institutionalization and program sustainability. Academic institutions undergo some form
of organizational change in order to sustain a new program or initiative. Scholars on
organizational change suggest that there are structural, human resource, political, and
cultural aspects (Birnbaum, 1991; Bolrnan & Deal, 2003; Hearn, 1996) that influence
organizational change. One perspective on change that is particularly relevant to

understanding how change can be sustained in higher education institutions is

organizational learning theory. Sustained change is likely to be enhanced when the
institution’s members view the change process as a learning experience (Levison, 1994).

Although the literature on organizational behavior research is well represented in
the field of higher education, there is less literature on program sustainability. Therefore,
in additional to reviewing literature from the field of higher education, I consulted the
body of work on program institutionalization and sustainability from the field of health
promotion and K-12 education. Although different contexts separate the fields of health
promotion and K-12 education, they intersect at a common point with regard to
sustaining programs that are initiated with soft monies.

Emerging fi'om the field of health promotion was one particular conceptual
framework, which seemed appropriate to my topic. Conceptualized by Shediac-Rizkallah
and Bone (1998), the model suggests that program sustainability beyond initial funding is
influenced by three inter-related factors: 1) project design and implementation factors, 2)
factors within the organizational setting, and 3) factors in the broader community
environment. In their model, each of the three factors contributes to the ability of a
program to be sustained past its funding period, with some factors affecting other factors.
Utilizing this model, my study sought to understand sustainability of foundation-funded
programs at liberal arts colleges beyond the initial funding period. I also sought to
examine the extent to which Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone’s (1998) model was applicable
to the sustainability process in liberal arts colleges.

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to understand the sustainability of programs fimded

by faculty career enhancement grants (initially funded by the Andrew Mellon

Foundation) at selective liberal arts colleges beyond the initial funding period. The study
used a multi-case study design. Specifically, this study sought to understand WHAT the
sustained initiatives looked like after the initial funding period, HOW the institution
sustained the initiatives post-funding, and WHICH factors contributed to the initiatives’
sustainability.

This study’s focus on sustainability was limited to a particular dimension of
sustainability: the sustainability of a program or service (Beery et al., 2005), which is
viewed as the continuation of specific programs and activities begun under the period of
initiative fiinding. In this case, sustainability can occur by retaining a program either in a
newly created organization or structure, or within existing organizations or structures: In
order to more specifically study the process of sustainability, I describe my research
questions in the next section.

Research Questions

This study’s central research question was:

How do liberal arts colleges sustain foundation-funded grant programs beyond the

initial grant period?

Previous research has suggested that sustained funding is a key factor in sustaining a
program (Bergman, 2000; Billig, 2000; Fountain, 2006; Ward, 1997). If that is the case,
to what extent can a program be sustained when the initial source of fimding is time-
limited? As such, this study was designed to understand the sustainability of programs
initiated with foundation grant money at four selective liberal arts colleges. Four
additional research questions helped build a more complete picture of the sustainability

process:

1. WHAT did the sustained initiatives look like at each of the institutions after the
funding period?

2. HOW did each of the institutions sustain the initiatives post funding?

3. WHICH programmatic, institutional and environmental factors contributed to
the sustainability of each Of the initiatives?

4. To what extent do the findings parallel the conceptual framework guiding this
study?

Significance of the Study
The results from this study provide a more in-depth understanding of the
processes that take place to sustain foundation—funded programs and any common factors
of program sustainability that facilitate the process. The findings of this study may be of
interest to faculty and university leaders who are considering the ways in which
externally-funded programs can be sustained beyond initial funding. Foundation officers
and other external funding agencies working with institutions may also find the
sustainability strategies revealed in this study as helpful tools when providing advice to
institutions so that the institutions can better sustain their funded programs.
It should be noted, however, that nOt all programs initiated with external funding
to implement change are worth sustaining. In fact, Green (1989) suggests:
The institutionalization of programs deserves more conceptualization before
assuming it is best measured by the persistence of organizations. Governments
and foundations might do well to think of their grants as investments in people
rather than investments in programs. Programs are merely vehicles for the
solution of problems and the training Of people to be able to solve other programs.
A grant should seek to support a program or project for the purpose of showing
the way to the solution of a problem or the enhancement of the quality of life.
This is the demonstration function of grants. But more lastingly, a grant should
seek to develop problem-solving abilities, experience, and leadership and

confidence in the community. These are the developmental functions of grants.
(Green, 1989, p. 44)

In response to Green’s point, I acknowledge that “a grant should seek to support a
program or project for the purpose of showing the way to the solution of a problem or the
enhancement of the quality of life . . . a grant should seek to develop problem-solving
abilities, experience, and leadership” (p. 44). Therefore, for the purposes of my study, I
selected faculty development programs to represent the type of grant-program described
by Green (1989) because in general, faculty development programs seek to enhance the
faculty career by providing support and leadership development that will enhance the
vitality of the college (Sorcinelli, Austin, Eddy, & Beach, 2007). Although I discuss my
methodology in greater detail in Chapter Three, my study utilizes faculty career
enhancement programs initially funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation as the type
of foundation-funded program for this study’s investigation.

Overview of the Research Design

This section briefly describes the methodological design of my study. The sample
for this qualitative study was selected using purposeful sampling (Merriman, 1998). After
reviewing 23 institutions that received grant funds from the Mellon Foundation to
implement faculty career enhancement programs, I grouped the institutions based upon
commonalities in program administration and selected one institution to represent each
group:

° Administered through a Newly Established Center.
° Administered through an Existing Center. O

° Administered through the Office of the Provost/Dean of Faculty in conjunction
with an appointed program coordinator.

0 Administered partly through Office of the Provost/Dean of Faculty and partly
through a Faculty Group, each separately administering parts of the initiative.

10

The sample of four institutions selected as case study examples included three institutions
with sustained programs and one institution with non—sustained programs.
Data were collected using the following methods:

1. Documents including internal campus reports, external foundation reports, and
information posted on the campus’ websites.

2. In-person and telephone interviews with facu1ty members, administrators and

staff; in several cases there were follow-up interviews and correspondence via

email.

3. Observations during intensive 3-5 day site visits.
Limitations and Assumptions

This study examined sustainability Of grant-funded faculty development programs
at selective liberal arts colleges. Therefore, this study did not examine program
sustainability at other types of higher education institutions. As private institutions, these
colleges are relatively insulated from much of the economic turbulence and state policies
that affect public institutions. Nevertheless, although this study examined sustainability at
selective liberal arts colleges that are well endowed, the issues of continuing programs
beyond initial funding is an issue that a wide range of institutions encounter regardless of
their financial wealth or strength.
Summary

In this chapter, I discussed the background and context of the problem that frames
my study to examine the sustainability of grant-funded faculty development programs at
selective liberal arts colleges. I highlighted the key conceptual ideas from the literature
that inform my study and guide my research questions. I discussed how my study

contributes to the existing body of research as well as how my findings intend to inform

practice. Finally, I highlighted the design of my study and its limitations.

11

The remainder of this manuscript is organized into five additional chapters. In
Chapter Two, I review the literature and theoretical framework most relevant to my
study. In Chapter Three, I describe and provide a rationale for my research design.
Chapter Four, which presents my findings, is divided into subsections. In each
subsection, I provide a case portrait and a within-case analysis of each of the institutions
that I investigated. In Chapter Five, I provide a cross-case analysis of the four institutions
included in my study to offer more generalized themes that contribute to sustainability.
Finally, in Chapter Six, I discuss my conclusions and compare the more generalized
findings from my study with the original conceptual framework, based upon Shediac-
Rizkallah and Bone (1998). I also discuss the implications of my findings for practice and

future research.

12

Chapter Two: Literature Review and Conceptual Framework

Scholars assert that colleges and universities need to remain responsive and
adaptable to their environments by promoting institutional change (Heifetz, Grashow, &
Linksy, 2009; Sporn, 1999). The desire for change can be initiated from within the
institution (i.e., in response to environmental pressures or internal realization that change
is needed), or the change can be initiated by an external entity (i.e., a foundation, external
grantor, or state policies). When a foundation is the instigator of change, the change can
be initiated with an institutional grant. However, despite good intentions, not all colleges
find themselves able to sustain their programs or initiatives beyond the foundation’s
initial funding. This is problematic because an institution’s inability to sustain programs
or initiatives that are deemed valuable can arguably be considered a waste of valuable
financial and human resources (Leveille, 2000). Therefore, the purpose of this study was
to understand how selective liberal arts colleges sustain grant-funded non-academic
programs beyond the initial grant period using a multi-case study design.

In this chapter, I discuss the relevant conceptual and empirical research in the
literature to provide the theoretical foundation that grounds this study. I drew upon the
fields of higher education, K-12 education, organizational behavior, and health promotion
education. Collectively, the theories and issues presented in this chapter framed the way
in which I approached my study. In what follows, first, I discuss the broad issue of
change in higher education, and how the two ideas of change and sustainability are
related. Then I describe one particular perspective of change—organizational learning—
that I believe enhances my understanding of change in higher education institutions.

Next, I review the topic of program sustainability as it is discussed in the literature, with

13

particular attention to the factors that contribute to program sustainability. Specifically, I
describe the conceptual model of program sustainability from the health promotion field
which I utilized to inform my conceptual framework. Then I discuss the existing gaps in
the literature pertaining to program sustainability. Finally, I describe how my conceptual
framework guided my study.

Organizational Change and Sustainability

To understand what contributes to sustaining a program, I believe it is important
to understand organizational change. As mentioned in Chapter One, I chose to utilize the
term sustainability rather than institutionalization because the term sustainability implies
a more flexible idea of the end ‘product’ and what that product looks like afier it is
considered ‘sustained.’ Based upon the literature on program sustainability, I define
sustainability as the capacity of an institution to maintain a program at a level that will
provide ongoing tangible or intangible benefits beyond the initial funding period
(LaPelle, Zapaka, & Ockene, 2006; Steckler & Goodman, 1989).

In what follows, I discuss the general idea of organizational change in higher
education and then proceed with one perspective on organizational change that is
applicable to understanding the notion of sustainability in colleges and universities—
organizational learning. I then discuss how sustainability is tied to the idea of
organizational change.

Organizational change in higher education. In response to particular
environmental influences such as market forces, changing demographics, new
technologies, increasing globalization, and calls for accountability (Duderstadt, 2000;

Newman, Couturier, & Scurry, 2004), leaders of higher education institutions feel

14

Significant pressure to adapt their institutions to their external environments. The
literature on organization change, including organizational development, organizational
design, and organizational learning, collectively suggests organizations need to adapt to
their environment in order to succeed in achieving institutional goals (Harman & Freeman
1977; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1986; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978; Sporn, 1999).

Beyond merely achieving institutional goals, some scholarship on change in
higher education asserts that change is necessary for institutions to adapt and remain
either “competitive” or merely just to “survive” (Sporn, 1999). However, most scholars
on organizational change agree upon the importance of continual institutional change, as
best reflected in Kezar’s (2001) statement: “The postmodern era is requiring
organizations to change; there is no way to avoid this cycle” (p. 2). In other words,
change is necessary for colleges and universities’ adaptation and survival (Heifetz,
Grashow, & Linksy, 2009).

In addition, the need for change can prompt college and university leaders to
reexamine the ways in which their institutions work in order to function more effectively.
Kezar (2001) explains, “Some scholars describe the changing context as a reason to
reexamine organizational structures and culture, necessitating internal change” (p. 1).
Therefore, it appears that how successfully an institution addresses internal change can
affect the ways in which institutions are able to respond, and therefore adapt, to their
environment.

Organizational factors affecting change. Scholars suggest there are several
organizational factors that affect organizational change. To briefly summarize, there are

structural (Birnbaum, 1991; Bolman & Deal, 2003), human resource (Bolman & Deal,

15

2003), political (Birnbaum, 1991; Bolman & Deal, 2003; Hearn, 1996), and cultural
dimensions (Birnbaum, 1991; Bolman & Deal, 2003; Hearn, 1996) that influence the
organizational change process in higher education institutions. Because of the various
dimensions that are part of the change process, scholars argue that this process can be
inefficient. Consequently, colleges and universities are slow to change (Berdahl, Altbach,
& Gumport, 2005; Gilbert, 1996; Kezar, 2001; Newman, Couturier, & Scurry, 2004;
Tierney, 1998). In what follows, I provide a brief explanation of the major dimensions
that affect change in higher education.

Structural. Higher education institutions are loosely coupled systems (Weick,
1979). In addition, colleges and universities. utilize a form Of governance called shared
governance. Decision-making, therefore, is often decentralized and conducted through a
governing process that is shared between faculty and administrators (Birnbaum, 1989;
Kezar, 2001). Although trustees or boards of regents have ultimate governance authority
over particular aspects of an institution (e.g., finances), the major academic decisions of
an institution are shared and decided between the faculty and administrators (Birnbaum,
1989; Kezar, 2001). As such, change in organizations with shared governance can be
slow and inefficient because ideally, decisions are made based upon a shared agreement
with the participation of many stakeholders.

Human resources. Employee turnover is relatively low in higher education
(Kezar, 2001). Unlike the business world, higher education has the tenure system, which
allows for faculty to stay in their jobs for their entire careers after a probationary period
(Tierney & Bensirnon, 1996). FinkelStein, Seal and Schuster (1999) noted that even part-

time and fixed-term faculty tend to stay at the same institution for relatively long periods

16

of time. Although there is higher turnover for administrative staff, when this is compared
to other sectors of work, their tenure is generally longer than workers in the business
world (Donofrio, 1990; Kezar 2001). Although long-term employee commitment is often
perceived to be a strength of an organization, the minimal turnover is also perceived as a
barrier to change by helping to maintain the status quo (Kezar, 2001).

Political. Decision making in colleges and universities is rooted in multiple power
and authority structures (Birnbaum, 1991; Kezar, 2001). Power in colleges and
universities is partially hidden and it is considered “socially unacceptable to exert power”
(Kezar, 2001, p. 69) in a collegial setting. Nevertheless, colleges and universities largely
rely upon referent power (power resulting from identification with the influenced group
or individual) and expert power (power resulting from expertise or special knowledge) to
influence decision-making rather other forms such as coercive power (as found in prisons
or military organizations), or legitimate power (as found in businesses) (Kezar, 2001).
For example, faculty tend to be influenced by individuals they trust and who have expert
knowledge, rather than through external incentives or control mechanisms (Birnbaum,
1991; Kezar, 2001).

However, colleges and universities also have competing authority structures in
addition to the power structure based on referent and expert power. There is academic
authority, maintained by the faculty, as well as legitimate authority, maintained by boards
of trustees and other institutional authorities that are in positions within the institution
who maintain legal rights to make decisions (Kezar, 2001). Furthermore, there is system-
based authority, which is maintained by state governing boards and other governmental

or political entities (Kezar, 2001).

17

The multiple power and authority structures of shared governance make decision
making in colleges and universities highly political, because decision-making is likely to
involve many individuals (Birnbaum, 1991). For this reason, colleges and universities, as
political organizations, “tend not to be ‘changeful’ [and] not very ready to adapt to
changes in the environment” (Brunsson, 1985p. 163). Therefore, the political dynamics
that are often involved in creating change can contribute to the slow pace of the change
process.

Cultural. Some scholars argue that colleges and universities have distinctive
cultures (Tierney, 1988). Moreover, colleges and universities can exhibit different
cultures within and between each other (Bergquist & Pawlak, 2008; Bimbaum, 1991).
The ways in which institutional cultures are categorized differ depending upon the
scholar on the topic, but commonalities exist across the differing taxonomies.
Collectively, the types of institutional cultures that are said to be present in colleges and
universities include: Collegial (Bergquist & Pawlak, 2008; Bimbaum, 1991); Managerial
or Bureaucratic (Bergquist & Pawlak, 2008; Bimbaum, 1991); Developmental (Bergquist
& Pawlak, 2008); Advocacy (Bergquist & Pawlak, 2008); Political (Bimbaum, 1991);
Anarchical (Birnbaum, 1991); Virtual (Bergquist & Pawlak, 2008); Tangible (Bergquist
& Pawlak, 2008).

Regardless of ways in which the cultures are classified, the overall point is that
there is not a single culture that describes any college or university. Instead, any one of
the cultures may be present on any given campus. In addition, subcultures exist within a
college setting, such as the simultaneous presence of academic and administrative

cultures. In general, the broader message is that “culture plays an important role in

18

shaping people and the structures they create” (Bergquist & Pawlak, 2008, p. ix). Thus,
change can be hindered when an institution’s culture is rooted in deep and symbolic
traditions such as organizational sagas (Clark, 1972; Fairweather, 1997). Because culture
is constantly evolving, but not self-perpetuating (Amey, 2005), an understanding of the
characteristics of a college or university’s culture is necessary not only to address
institutional needs and accomplish goals (Kezar, 2001), but also to initiate change by
combining traditional values with new ones (Tierney, 1988).

External factors affecting change: Role of foundations. Other factors that
affect change in higher education institutions are external sources, such as economic
conditions, social movements and trends, and government and external funding sources
(Gladieux, King, & Corrigan, 2005; McGuinness, 2005; Newman, Couturier, & Scurry,
2004; Zusman, 2005). Specific external sources, such as philanthropic foundations, can
influence specific change in colleges and universities. For the purposes of this discussion,
I focus on the role of foundations as an external factor that affects change in higher
education because foundations represent the type Of external factor that is directly related
to my study.

Tax-exempt charitable foundations have had a history with higher education as
initiators of change. These private, not-for-profit, grant-making organizations disperse
grants to third parties, such as colleges and universities, for purposes that are stipulated in
the foundation’s charter or constitution (Anheier & Romo, 1999). Foundations are
considered to be part of a third sector; they are neither part of the state nor market.
Hence, foundations consider themselves as ‘intermediary institutions’ between the state

and its citizens (Bulmer, 1999). Historically, federal and state governments did not

19

consider it their responsibility to get involved in many of the areas in which foundations
supported (Bulmer, 1999), which were areas pertaining to the study of social conditions
and social problems. For this reason, foundations have occupied a unique position in the
US. to initiate change in the non-profit sector without interference from federal or state
government.

Foundations have a direct influence on higher education. In 2004-2005, there
were an estimated sixty thousand foundations, with a significant portion of their funds
awarded to colleges and universities (Harcleroad & Eaton, 2005). Although criticized for
the shifting nature of foundations’ interests in what they choose to fund, the Foundation
Center Report stresses that “the constant change in the interest of foundations reflect[s]
the changing needs of the society and higher education’s responses” (Harcleroad &
Eaton, 2005, p. 257). This aspect of foundations arguably makes them “uniquely
qualified to enable innovation” in higher education institutions (Anheier & Toepler,
1999, p. 15) as well as to help those institutions take social risks (Anheier & Toepler
1999)

However, the literature regarding foundations as an external influence for change
in higher education is mixed between supportive perspectives and critical perspectives
(Clotfelter, 2007). On a broad institutional level, and one that is most applicable to this
study, Harcleroad and Eaton (2005) suggest “external associations [such as foundations]
can play an important role in providing badly needed alternative funding and/or more
effective operational use of existing funds” (p. 255). Specifically, foundations are
considered to be “a valuable resource for institutions with budget problems” (Harcleroad

& Eaton, 2005, p. 257). In other words, the funding from foundation grants can

20

contribute to the operating budget so that the college may have the ability to provide
particular services or programs.

Representing the more critical perspective, Clotfelter (2007) suggests that the
relationship between higher education and foundations is a “model of competing
interests” (p. 222). For example, although foundations strive to “devote their efforts to
changing society” (F leishman, 2007, p. xiv) they “rarely seek to measure, or even
comprehend, the extent of the changes they actually produce” (Fleishman, 2007, p. xiv),
keeping universities and colleges accountable for any outcomes. Also, critics perceive
foundations as limited in their ability to facilitate transforrnative change. A study by
Proietto (1999) revealed the one foundation program Officer’s interpretation of the impact
of foundation funds on institutional change:

There’s a difference between someone who scores the points and someone who

makes the assist. Philanthropy makes the assist. It doesn’t score the points. The

people in the field, who care about it from the beginning, are the ones who make
the transformation happen. Philanthropy just assisted in that process. (Proietto,

1999,p.281)

Despite the divide between supportive and critical perspectives of foundations in
the literature, what has been consistent in the literature is the perspective that many
foundations have significant, but various, financial effects on colleges and universities or
units within those institutions. As Harcleroad and Eaton (2005) acknowledge, “this is
particularly true in the funding of colleges and universities, since the American system is
based on income from varied sources” (p. 255). Foundations contribute to the functioning
of colleges and universities on different levels. Foundations can support research that the

government does not support (Rothschild, 1999). In addition, foundation grants can be

instrumental in establishing new academic fields or redirecting current or old fields of

21

study (Harcleroad & Eaton, 2005). Overall, the literature suggests that foundations
provide more benefits than harm to colleges and universities.

Now that I have discussed the primary organizational factors and foundations as
an external factor that can affect change in colleges and universities, I turn to a more
detailed discussion of the relationship between organizational change and sustainability.

The relationship between organizational change and sustainability. There are
several connections between change and sustainability in the organizational change
literature. The issue of sustainability often comes out of conversations about institutional
or organizational change (B. Clark, 2004; T. Clark, 1968; Levine, 1980; Lueddeke,
1999), although the term used more often is institutionalization. As mentioned before,
although I draw a distinction between the terms institutionalization and sustainability,
these‘terms have been used interchangeably in a majority of the organizational change
literature. Therefore, I drew upon the literature that employed the term institutionalization
to enhance my understanding of sustainability.

There is consensus in the literature that organizations undergo change in order to
sustain a particular program or initiatiVe. However, the findings and conclusions from the
research that links organizational change with sustainability appear to depend upon
whether one views change as an outcome or as a process. For example, some scholars,
particularly in the fields of health sciences, conceptualize organizational change as a
result of institutionalization because organizational change first requires the
institutionalization of innovative ideas. In other words, institutionalization leads to
organizational change (Brownson, Kreuter, Arrington, & True, 2006; Powers, 2000;

Richards, O’Shea, & Connolly, 2004; Wilson & Kurz, 2008). In this instance,

22

organizational change is considered a product or goal (i.e., an outcome, end result, or an
objective that has been accomplished). A visual representation of this conceptualization

of change is depicted below in Figure 2.1.

Adoption Implementation Institutionalization Organizational
Change

Figure 2.1: Product View of Change

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other scholars, in education for example, tend to view organizational change as a
process, in which institutionalization is considered either one of several steps or stages in
the overall change process (e.g., Clark, 2004; Levine, 1980), or view institutionalization
as what an institution undergoes during change (Kezar, 2001, 2007, 2008; Kezar &
Eckel, 2002a, b; Maier & Weidner, 1975). Change is viewed as an entire process rather
than an outcome. A visual representation of this type of change is depicted below in

Figure 2.2.

 

Organizational Change

Adoption H Implementation H Institutionalization

Figure 2.2. Process View of Change

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I previously mentioned, the literature above utilizes the term

23

institutionalization rather than sustainability, without making distinctions between the
two. Thus one may ask the question, how do ideas of institutionalization coincide with
sustainability? Institutionalization can be viewed as a part of the organizational change
process for achieving sustainability. For the purposes of my study, I view organizational
change as a process, and institutionalization is considered a part of the change process.

In summary, there are two differing perspectives on change—either as an
outcome or as a process. This study assumes that organizational change is a process to
achieve sustainability. In addition, institutionalization can be a part of the organizational
change process. In the next section, I review the literature on the empirical work on
sustaining change in higher education and the key findings from that literature.

Studies on sustaining change in higher education. Few empirical studies have
examined sustained change in higher education. Nevertheless, there are notable examples
that informed my study. One example represents more theoretical implications; another
represents more action-oriented implications.

Theoretical ideas for sustaining change. Clark’s (2004) multi-case study of
sustained change in the mid-19905 suggests that sustainability is part of the cycle of
change in colleges and universities and that for sustained change to occur, institutions
must be able to adapt and be flexible. Clark concludes “sustained transformation depends
on a ‘steady state’ infrastructure [e.g., central administrative unit] that pushes for change”
(p. 5). Clark asserts that although change requires an institution to be flexible and
adaptable, sustaining change requires an infrastructure or core that is stable or solid
enough to continually push for and remain committed to that change. In other words,

according to Clark, the key to sustaining change is a stable infrastructure or core and

24

focusing on developing this core or infrastructure should be the goal of an institution.
Therefore, Clark suggests that the infrastructure should exhibit the following behaviors:
1) re-enforcing interaction, 2) perpetual momentum, and 3) ambitious collegial volition. I
briefly discuss these ideas next.

Re-enforcing interaction. According to Clark (2004), “sustained change in
universities is rooted in changes on a number of fronts that lead to a combined
infrastructure in which the substantial alterations are mutually supportive” (p. 92). Clark
stresses the importance of the interlocking or integrating newly institutionalized elements
with old elements on campus. The integration of new with old, according to Clark’s
findings, prevents the institution from “sliding back to the old status quo” (p. 92), or
returning to the daily practices and routines prior to the initiated change. Moreover, Clark
asserts that a check-and-balances form of interaction between collegial and managerial
styles of leadership needs to be in place in order to maintain balance between the
different interests regarding the change initiative. In other words, a balance between the
needs expressed by the faculty and those expressed by administration must be maintained
in order for the change initiative to become integrated into a college or university.

Perpetual momentum. Another key element is the institution’s ability to maintain
perpetual momentum or energy to move the change initiative forward. Clark (2004)
asserts that “momentum is acquired from the cumulative thrust of small steps” (p. 93) or
the accumulation of small changes or incremental adjustments. In other words, Clark
stresses the importance of “small incremental gains” (p. 93) based upon the application of

knowledge learned through experience and discourages expectations that change occurs

25

based upon a new idea or “lucky throws of the dice in selecting one major investment”
(p- 93)

Ambitious collegial volition. Finally, Clark (2004) describes a more obscure
concept that institutions need to sustain change—ambitious collegial volition. Clark
(2004) defines ambitious collegial volition as “the will to take the risk of being highly
proactive, even entrepreneurial, despite contrary, even hostile academic questioning .
about the propriety of this choice was evident in all the institutions studied” (p. 94). In
other words, Clark emphasizes the role of a collective, institutional will, or what I would
describe as a strong institutional commitment, that underlies an institution’s ability to
maintain perpetual momentum and integration of the new program.

In sum, Clark (2004) asserts that sustainability of change in colleges and
universities depends on the presence of re-enforcing interaction, perpetual momentum,
and ambitious collegial volition. Although empirically based, Clark’s (2004) findings are
more abstract and do not easily translate into practice.

Organizational actions for sustaining change. In contrast, Lueddeke (1999)
attempts to provide specific organizational strategies for sustaining change based upon
organizational theory and learning theory models. Lueddeke (1999) provides a
conceptual model to sustain change in colleges and universities and advises that an
institution should consider particular actions in order to sustain change. First, colleges
and universities should identify the needs of the institution through a needs assessment
and analysis. Lueddeke (1999) suggests that through the identification of institutional
needs, institutions can identify the actions that will bring about changes in performance.

Lueddeke (1999) also states that the identification of an institution’s human resource

26

needs paves the way for good working relationships between administration and staff.
Lueddeke (1999) asserts that good working relationships between administration and
staff facilitates a culture of trust and momentum regarding the change initiative. Without
trust and momentum, according to Lueddeke, the individuals within the institution are
less likely to embrace the change initiative to make it a part of the institution’s culture.

Second, Lueddeke (1999) suggests that institutions develop a research team to
investigate how “others” have addressed the identified need. Lueddeke (1999) also states
that the benefits of institutions engaging in peer-comparative approaches include the
acquisition of new information that may refine their understanding of what is needed. In
addition, the approach provides the institutions with a gauge of what may or may not
work at peer institutions, and also allows the institutions to survey the market conditions.

Lueddeke’s (1999) third action is the formation and development of a change
strategy for the institution. Lueddeke (1999) emphasizes the use of multiple frames, as
suggested by Bolman and Deal (2003) in the development of a strategy. In addition,
Lueddeke (1999) emphasizes the use of collaborative leadership (Bensirnon & Neumann,
1993) and the use of teamwork in creating the change strategy to ensure that power is
shared and “silent assumptions” on campus regarding the change strategy are brought
forward.

The fourth action is the acquisition of the necessary resource support and resource
capacity. Lueddeke (1999) suggests that support is dependent upon whether senior
management views the change initiative as beneficial to the institution. Moreover, if the
initiative proves to be successful, central administration is more likely to find the means

to permanently fund the initiative.

27

Lueddeke’s (1999) fifth action is implementation of the change initiative. During
this phase of the change, Lueddeke (1999) emphasizes the importance of team leadership.
In particular, Lueddeke (1999) suggests that team thinking and team learning (Bensirnon
& Neumann, 1993; Senge, 2006) allow the change to become better incorporated into the
institution’s culture.

Finally, Lueddeke (1999) emphasizes the role of formative and summative
evaluation of the change initiative. Lueddeke (1999) suggests that administrators pay
particular attention to how one area of change on campus affects other areas on campus.

In sum, Clark (2004) and Lueddeke (1999) represent differing perspectives on
sustaining change. There are abstract elements to sustaining change—such as re-
enforcing interaction, perpetual momentum and ambitious institutional volition; there are
also more practice-oriented dimensions to sustaining change—such as identifying needs,
developing a strategy, building a permanent resource capacity, and evaluating. Although
helpful in some respects, there are empirical and conceptual gaps in the literature
regarding the sustainability process Of an initiative beyond initial funding. In what
follows, I discuss another perspective of change that is particularly relevant to
understanding of how change can be sustained. This perspective incorporates ideas of
organizational learning.

Organizational learning and change. Boyce’s (2003) literature review of
innovations in higher education noted similarities and parallels in the literature on change
and the literature on organizational learning. Boyce concluded that missing in higher
education literature on sustained innovative change is the application of organizational

learning ideas. With the exception of Lueddeke’s (1999) work, which considered more

28

specifically the role of individual learning theory in sustaining organizational change, the
link between organizational learning and sustained organizational change should be
further explored. In this section, I present key ideas from the literature on organizational
learning and discuss how these key ideas are relevant to my research study.

Overall, there are two camps of scholarship on organizational learning (Argyris,
1999). On the one hand, there is the practice-oriented, prescriptive literature on
organizational learning (labeled “the learning organization literature”) which focuses on
understanding the elements of what would be considered to be the ‘ideal’ learning
organization (Argyris, 1999; Argyris & Schon, 1996). On the other hand, there is the
scholarly literature of “organizational learning,” which focuses on questions such as
“what does ‘Organizational learning’ mean?” and “How is organizational learning at all
feasible” (Argyris, 1999; Argyris & Schon, 1996). Because of the topical nature of this
study, I have assumed a practice-orientated position on the notion of organizational
learning. Therefore, aligned with the practice-oriented literature, I assumed that
organizational learning is feasible, has meaning, and that an organization can learn in a
productive manner (Argyris, 1999).

How can the literature on learning organizations provide a lens for understanding
how institutions sustain programs in a changing learning environment? According to
Argyris and Schon (1996), organizational learning occurs when the following two
circumstances are present: 1) there must be a change to an organization’s theory-in-use,
which are the actions or practices that occur within the organization, and 2) the learning,
discoveries, inventions and evaluation must be recorded in the organizational memory,

which serves as the basis for the organization’s theory-in-use. Argyris and Schon (1996)

29

also propose that there are two types of organizational learning—single-loop learning and
double-loop learning. I briefly describe and discuss the differences between each type
below.

Single-loop learning. Single-loop learning occurs in a situation in which
corrections in behavior occur “without questioning or altering the underlying values of
the system” (Arygris, 1999, p. 68). The example frequently used to demonstrate this type
of learning is a thermostat. Because a thermostat is programmed to detect variances in
temperature, and merely adjusts its “behavior” by turning the heat on or off as a reaction,
it is considered a single-loop learner because it does not question why the temperature
might be either too hot or too cold, nor does it question why it was programmed the way
in which it was programmed.

In a college or university, this type of learning would be reflected in how an
administrator adjusts a program. For example, single-loop learning would be reflected in
an administrator who relies upon lecture formats for workshops. The program evaluation
might reveal that participants find the workshops boring, irrelevant, or not a good use of
their time. The administrator, using single-loop learning, might try to provide handouts in
response to the evaluations. However, the administrator’s overall approach to solving the
problem is unaltered by providing more of the same—more lecture style workshops and
more material. The administrator, using single-loop learning, does not consider that the
style in which workshop is offered should also be adjusted to include other pedagogical
methods other than lecture approaches.

Double-loop learning. Double-loop learning occurs in a situation where

correction or adjustment of behavior occurs when the system’s methods or programming

30

values are questioned first, and then appropriate actions are implemented (Argyris, 1999).
In other words, the correction to behavior does not originate from doing more of the
same, as displayed by the administrator who gives handouts to participants attending a
lecture style workshop. Double-loop learning would require the administrator to
restructure the way in which the workshop is conducted by providing other delivery
methods than lectures. The administrator would need to challenge his or her assumptions
that the lecture style is an effective approach for a workshop. New priorities and norms
would need to be created. Arygris and Schon (1996) suggest that this type of learning
leads to more effective and lasting change.

In a sense, double-loop learning is the type of change advocated by scholars in
higher education. In scanning the literature on higher education, themes such as the need
to be adaptable and flexible (Clark, 2004; Spom, 1999), to rethink current structures and
experiment (Bean, 1998; Boyce, 2002), to regularly revisit institutional goals and
priorities (Dickeson, 1999; Tierney, 1998; Kirp, 2003), engage in ongoing institutional
assessment (Ewell, 2008; Palomba & Banta, 1999; Peterson, 1999), and support the
development of the students, faculty and administrative staff (Baldwin & Blackburn,
1981; Gappa, Austin, & Trice, 2007; Sorcinelli, Austin, Eddy, & Beach, 2006) are
prevalent. Similarly, these “calls” parallel the practice-oriented literature’s description of
an ideal learning organization, which according to Argyris and Schon (1996), exhibit the
following characteristics: 1) organizational adaptability and flexibility; 2) ability to avoid
“stability traps” and a propensity to experiment; 3) readiness to rethink the organization’s
goals, purposes, and approaches for attaining those goals; 4) a willingness to question and

evaluate processes and progress in the organization; and 5) an understanding that

31

organizations are comprised of people who are capable of and willing to learn in order to
help and support the organization.

In sum, the ideas from the organizational learning literature are consistent with
the ideas of sustained or successful organizational change. In fact, the ideas seem to be
remarkably similar in nature. Both emphasize the need to be adaptable and flexible,
rethink current structures and experiment, regularly revisit institutional goals and
priorities, engage in ongoing institutional assessment, and support organizational and
human development. In addition, Kezar (2001) observes that within the organizational
learning literature, institutional commitment is identified as a factor necessary to facilitate
change.

Summary. Up to this point, I have discussed several ideas about how
organizational change is sustained. I first discussed organizational change in colleges and
universities and the unique features of an academic institution that affect the change
process. I also discussed how organizational change and sustainability are related. I then
discussed how organizational change has also been conceptualized as a process through
which an organization learns.

As previously mentioned, I discussed organizational change because colleges and
universities need to undergo some form of change in order to sustain a new program. In
order to understand what contributes to sustaining a program, I discussed what
contributes to sustaining organizational change. Although these larger perspectives on
what contributes to sustained change are informative, the focus of these perspectives
remains at the institutional level of sustained change. Because my study examined

program sustainability, I also consulted the literature on program sustainability to

32

understand what program level factors may contribute to sustainability. Therefore, from
this, I move from the discussion of perspectives on organizational change and sustaining
organizational change, to a discussion focused on the factors that contribute to sustaining
programs within institutions.

Factors that Contribute to Sustaining Programs

In this section, I discuss the literature on program sustainability within an
institution. For this part of my literature review, I relied heavily upon the literature from
the fields of higher education, K-12 education, and health promotion. 1 found the term
“institutionalization” was prominent in the higher education and K—12 education
literature, particularly between 1980 and 2000. The term “sustainability” was
predominantly used in the field of health promotion. Although I have chosen to utilize the
term sustainability and its particular definition as noted in Chapter One, I draw upon the
literature that includes both terms because I view institutionalization as a part of the
sustainability process.

As a point of clarification, my review of the literature on program sustainability
and institutionalization does not include studies on program implementation. Unlike the
literature that focuses on the influences that contribute or inhibit program
implementation, or the implementation process of a program in an institution, the
literature on institutionalization or sustainability assumes program implementation. In
what follows, I synthesize the literature on program institutionalization and program
sustainability from the K-12 education, higher education, and health promotion fields to

note the key findings and influences that are suggested to affect program sustainability.

33

Contributors to institutionalization and sustainability. Some studies have
focused on understanding the factors contributing to failed institutionalization or the
barriers to institutionalization (Levine, 1980). Other studies have examined both
successful and less successful cases of institutionalization, suggesting that
institutionalization is not simply successful or unsuccessful, but rather that
institutionalization falls somewhere on a continuum between high institutionalization and
low or absent institutionalization (Huberrnan & Miles, 1984; Levison, 1994; Pontbriand,
2002). In this section, I highlight the major themes identified in the literature as
contributors to program institutionalization or sustainability.

Organizational fit. One of the themes in the literature that contributes to the
institutionalization or sustainability of a program is the program’s fit with the institution
(Levine, 1980; Levison, 1994; Pontbriand, 2002; Steckler & Goodman, 1989). For
example, Levine’s (1980) study of failed institutionalization in colleges found that
incompatibility of the program with the institution contributed to failed
institutionalization of innovative programs. In a different study of the institutionalization
of community programs in K—12 settings, Levison (1994) found that philosophical fit, as
demonstrated in the program’s ability to have a direct connection with the core values of
the school or curriculum, was the most influential factor contributing to the program’s
ability to be institutionalized. Organizational fit was also identified as a contributing
factor in Steckler and Goodman’s (1989) study of the sustainability of health programs
beyond initial funding. Hence, the concept of “organizational fit” as a factor contributing
to both institutionalization and sustainability of a program has been found in a variety of

settings.

34

Institutional integration. A second theme identified in the literature is the
program’s ability to become an integral part of the institution (Bauld, Judge, Barnes,
Benzeval, MacKenzie, & Sullivan, 2005; Huberman & Miles, 1984; Johnson, Hays,
Center, & Daley, 2004; Levison, 1994). Therefore, a program’s ability to become
integrated within the institution is more likely to become institutionalized or sustained.
Huberman and Miles (1984) identified the importance of a program’s ability to shed its
novelty or experimental status and become a durable component on campus in order to be
integrated into the institution. Levison (1994) characterize institutional integration as the
program’s ability to find an unambiguous place in the institution’s objectives. In other
words, students, parents, and staff members would be able to say that the program is an
identifiable component of the school or the curriculum. Other researchers characterize
integration as the program’s ability to find a “home” or a permanent place within the
organization (Bauld et al., 2005; Johnson et al., 2004). In general, the idea of the
program’s ability to become a permanent component of the institution has been suggested
in the literature to be a factor contributing to institutionalization or sustainability.

F lexibilior. A third theme in the literature on program institutionalization and
sustainability is the idea of the flexibility, either on the part of the institution or the
program itself (Levine, 1980; Levison, 1994; Scheirer, 2005; Wharf Higgins, Naylor, &
Day, 2008). For example, Levison (1994) suggests that adaptation on the part of the
institution enhances the program’s ability to become institutionalized. Similarly,
Huberman and Miles (1984) suggest that organizational transformation is necessary for
program institutionalization. As part of an institution’s flexibility, Wharf Higgins, Naylor

and Day (2008) emphasize the importance Of an institution’s ability to create and

35

implement the necessary policies and infrastructures to accommodate the new program.-
Meanwhile, Scheirer (2005) suggests that the program itself should be flexible and adapt
to its organization. Overall, the literature documents the need for flexibility either on the
part of the institution or the part of the program.

Organizational stability. A fourth theme in the literature is seemingly
contradictory from that which was mentioned above. Some research suggests that the
stability and maturity of the organization contributes to the sustainability of a program
(Huberman & Miles, 1984; Steckler & Goodman, 1989). For example, Steckler and
Goodman (1989) suggest that mature organizations provide a stable foundation for new
programs. In addition, although Huberman and Miles (1984) found that organizational
transformation was necessary for program institutionalization, the researchers also found
that personnel stability was a factor in the institutionalization process. Moreover,
Huberman and Miles (1984) found that institutionalization failed in institutions where
internal resistance to the program was prevalent. In sum, the notion of a relatively stable
organization seems to be another theme that contributes to the institutionalization or
sustainability of a program.

Leadership. A fifth theme in the literature that is suggested to contribute to
program institutionalization or sustainability is the presence of leadership (Huberman &
Miles, 1984; Levison, 1994; Steckler & Goodman, 1989). For example, Huberman and
Miles (1984) emphasize the role of stable and pressing leadership demonstrated by an
institution’s administration. In addition, Huberman and Miles (1984) suggest that leaders
need to be able to prevent internal resistance to the program and decrease tensions

between teachers and administrators in order for the program to become institutionalized.

36

Levison (1994) focuses on the leadership exhibited at the program level, suggesting that
institutionalization is influenced by the presence of a strong program leader. Similarly,
Steckler and Goodman (1989) suggest that program sustainability is influenced by the
organization’s ability to foster a program champion. Therefore, whether the leadership is
from upper administration or from the program level, the literature suggests that
leadership is an important role in the institutionalization or sustainability of a program.

Support. A sixth theme in the literature that is suggested to contribute to program
institutionalization or sustainability is support, whether it is support from those that the
program is intended to serve, from upper or central administration, or other key
constituencies in the community (Huberman & Miles, 1984; Levison, 1994; Scheirer,
2005). For example, Huberman and Miles (1984) found that lack of support or feelings of
indifference toward a program led to the program’s inability to become institutionalized.
Meanwhile, Levison (1994) found that the loyal support of students for a K-12
community service program as well as administrative support contributed to the schools’
institutionalization of the program. Likewise, Scheirer (2005) found that support from
community stakeholders contributed to the sustainability of health promotion programs
within the community. Essentially, the literature suggests that support provided by a
community or an influential group contributes to the institutionalization or sustainability
of a program.

Provision of benefits. A seventh theme in the literature that is suggested to
contribute to program institutionalization or sustainability is the program’s ability to
provide benefits (Huberman & Miles, 1984; Levine, 1980; Scheirer, 2005). For example,

Levine (1980) found that a program’s decline in its profitability and benefits contributed

37

to failed institutionalization. Scheirer (2005) found that program sustainability was
enhanced when the benefits of the program are provided to clients in ways that are
readily perceived. Meanwhile, Huberman and Miles (1984) also found that a program’s
ability to achieve widespread use and benefits across the institution contributed to the
program’s institutionalization. Hence, the literature suggests that the perception and
distribution of the program’s benefits facilitate the institutionalization or sustainability Of
a program.

Environment. A final theme in the literature suggests that environment affects the
ability of an institution to institutionalize or sustain a program (Huberman & Miles, 1984;
Levison, 1994). Huberman and Miles (1984) found that institutions that did not
institutionalize their programs were institutions that implemented the programs during
times of “environmental turbulence.” Levison (1994) had similar findings that suggested
the program’s implementation timing with unique external situations occurring within the
school’s environment inhibited the institutionalization process.

In summary, eight themes describing the influences contributing to program
institutionalization and sustainability are present in the literature. Although the themes
are helpful in providing an understanding of what influences the sustainability of a
program, it is difficult to conceptualize which factors may be more influential than others
in the sustainability process.

Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone’s framework. Prior research collectively has
identified many possible factors that contribute to the sustainability of a program.
However, the factors are numerous, varied, and at times contradictory. Moreover,

because the literature spreads across different fields, the findings reveal different sets of

38

factors. Thus, it can be difficult to discern which factors are more prominent in the
process to sustain a program in colleges and universities.

Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone (1998) posit that there are three primary factors that
contribute to the sustainability of a program past initial funding: 1) project design and
implementation factors, 2) factors within the organizational setting, and 3) factors in the
broader community environment. In their model, each of the three factors contributes to
the ability of a program, or project, to be sustained past its funding period, with some
factors affecting other factors. An illustration of this model, as conceptualized by

Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone (1998) is provided below in Figure 3.

 

Project Design
Implementation
Factors

 

 

 

 

 

a

C°anunily Program Sustainability
Envrronmental

Factors

 

 

 

 

 

 

Organizational
Setting
Factors

 

 

 

 

Figure 2.3. Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone (1996) Framework For Program
Sustainability

Based upon research in the field of health promotion, Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone (1998)
frame their factors as sets of issues or sub-factors that administrators of community-based

programs should consider as guidelines for sustainability planning.

39

At the project or program level, Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone (1998) provide six
sub-factors that affect program sustainability. These sub-factors include: 1) the
negotiation process between the funder and the grant recipient to implement the project,
2) the project’s effectiveness and visibility, 3) the duration of the grant period, 4) the
project’s financial situation prior to and during the grant period, 5) the project type or the
project’s intent and design, and 6) the availability of professional or staff training to
administer the program.

At the organizational or institutional level, Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone (1998)
provide three sub-factors that affect program sustainability. These include: 1) the
institution’s strength in terms of its maturity, stability and resources, 2) the integration of
the project with existing programs/services (if done at all), and 3) the quality of
leadership or presence of a program champion.

Finally, at the community or broader environmental level, Shediac-Rizkallah and
Bone (1998) provide two sub-factors that affect program sustainability. These sub-factors
include: 1) socioeconomic and political factors that may affect the project and institution
as well as directly affect the sustainability of the project itself, and 2) level and depth of
community participation and involvement in sustaining the project. A summary of these

11 issues or sub-factors is depicted below in Table 2.1.

40

Table 2.1. Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone’s (1998) sub-factors of the program sustainability
process.

 

Project level sub-factors ° Project negotiation process
' Project effectiveness

° Project duration

° Project financing

0 Project type

° Training

 

Organizational level sub-factors ' Institutional strength

° Integration with existing
programs/services

0 Program champion/leadership

 

Environmental level sub-factors ' Socioeconomic and political
considerations

° Community participation

 

 

 

 

Although helpful in conceptualizing sustainability as a three-category model with
project, institutional/organizational and environmental factors, there is a drawback to this
model. The model is based upon research conducted within the context of community-
based health promotion programs, which is distinct from the context of higher education.
In addition, although the model displays three primary areas that affect sustainability, a
closer look at the model reveals 11 issues or factors that contribute to the sustainability of
a program. Therefore, because Of the large number of factors represented in the model, it

is difficult to determine which factors might have more of an effect on program

41

sustainability over other factors. However, this framework appears to be one of the more
comprehensive explanations of program sustainability. In addition, the model is both
broad and comprehensive enough to be adaptable to higher education.

Overall, the findings from the literature are helpful to understand what factors
may affect sustainability at colleges and universities. Factors such as the importance of
support from other stakeholders in the community may not be applicable, nor does the
notion of “clients” readily translate to the higher education context. Nevertheless, the
basic framework from Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone (1998) is a reasonable starting point
to view sustainability in a higher education setting.

Unanswered Questions: What’s Missing in the Literature

In this section, I describe the gaps that are present in the literature and how my
study intended to fill in those gaps. I have classified these gaps in the literature by the
institutional setting in which a majority of the studies were conducted, the case sampling,
the scope of the topic, and the studies’ research design.

Institutional setting. Most of the literature written about institutionalization or
sustainability within a higher education context is from a large research university
standpoint. Operationally, liberal arts colleges may be viewed as universities on a smaller
scale; however, in many cases, liberal arts colleges operate differently because of their
smaller scale. Administratively, liberal arts colleges are much less decentralized because
of their size. Dean and associate dean positions tend to be ones that are rotated amongst
the faculty; administrative support staff tends to be small. Lessons learned from large
research universities regarding ‘better ways to administer a college’ do not always

translate easily to small liberal arts colleges. This is particularly the case when the lessons

42

learned require additional human or fiscal resources, resources that are not easily
acquired at a small liberal arts college. Considering there are over 600 Liberal Arts
Colleges (Carnegie Foundation, 2005,
http://www.carnegiefoundationcrglclassificlfionsflidegup?kev=805) in the United
States, it is inappropriate to assume that lessons learned from case studies conducted
exclusively at research universities can be easily transferred to a small college setting.

Case sampling. The cases utilized in the major contributory works of Levine
(1980) and Clark (2004) represent extreme cases of institutionalization or sustainability.
For example, the cases utilized were institutions undergoing large transformational
change, with highly innovative programs. But not all scenarios involving the issue of
sustainability are as drastic as the cases investigated in these prior studies. For example,
what if the “risk” confronted by the institution really is not that great of a risk? In fact,
what if the program under investigation is a low-risk opportunity? Or what if the
institutions are not necessarily seeking ‘major improvement,’ but rather, slight
improvement? Would the findings from Levine (1980) or Clark’s (2004) work be
supported by the findings from my current study?

Impact of funding on sustainability. The prominent work by Clark (2004) and
Levine (1980), for example, does not address the issue of funding (e.g., initiatives started
with soft monies) which is directly related to the creation Of the programs examined in
my study. Funding is an issue that affects the sustainability of a program (Bergman,
2000; Billig, 2000; Fountain, 2006; Ward, 1997). An institution has a finite amount of
resources to work with to operate the institution; therefore, money matters. If funds for a

program are terminated, then the program also may be terminated. When a program does

43

not have central administration’s support, funding becomes even more of an issue in
sustaining a terminally funded program. With the exception of the empirical studies in the
field of health, the funding issue has been relatively unconsidered as part of the topic of
sustainability.

Research design. With the exception of Clark (2004) and Levine (1980), the
majority of studies on sustainability in educational settings have utilized a single-case
study design (e.g., Fountain, 2006; Teraguchi, 2002). Although insightful in
understanding elements that contribute to the sustainability of programs, there is a
notable disadvantage in utilizing single case study designs. When the insights are limited
to one case, it can be challenging to make sense of the significance of highlighted factors
because there is nothing to compare or contrast with those findings. Thus, the present
study employed a multi-case study design to address the variance in forms of
sustainability (Merriman, 1998; Yin, 2009).

In sum, research that examines program sustainability beyond the initial grant
period in different types of higher education institutions, draws upon cases that represent
the polar ends of a spectrum as well as those in the middle, and utilizes a multi-case study
design is needed to enhance current knowledge on the topic.

Overview of the Conceptual Framework

Because of the comprehensive representation of program sustainability by
Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone (1998), I chose to incorporate their model to guide my
study. Although the guiding conceptual model is from the field of health promotion, I felt
that the three levels—proj ect level, institutional level, environmental level—are

applicable to the ways in which scholars in higher education conceptualize intra-

44

institutional relationships and processes in colleges and universities. For example, it
parallels the ideas in the conceptual frameworks grounding studies that examine
relationships utilizing ecological models (McDaniels, 2008; Renn, 2004) as well as
literature that speaks to the issue of balancing the differing goals present in a college—
intemal programmatic versus broader institutional goals (Keeling, Underhile, & Wall,
2007) versus even broader environmental or societal goals (Albertine, Alfred Presily, &
Reigelman, 2007). Therefore, the fact that Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone’s (1998) model
describes relationships in a way that seemed compatible with current ways of thinking
about intra-organizational relationships in higher education led to my decision to include
their model in my conceptual framework for this study.

Before I describe the ways in which my conceptual framework guided my study, I
briefly revisit my definition Of sustainability as it pertained to my study. Because
sustainability has been defined in various ways across the literature, I feel it is important
to clarify howl define sustainability in my study.

Defining sustainability. As previously mentioned, some scholars have defined
sustainability not merely as an “either-or” outcome (i.e., being sustained as program
versus being not sustained as a program). Instead, sustainability can be viewed on a
continuum with high degrees of sustainability and low degrees of sustainability
(Huberman & Miles, 1984; Levison, 1994; Pontbriand, 2002).

Informed by these varied notions of sustainability, I define sustainability as the
capacity of an institution to maintain an initiated program at a level that will provide

ongoing benefits after the termination Of initial funding. Therefore, how well an

45

institution adapts to change while maintaining some component of an original idea (in
this case a program) is the basis of my definition of sustainability.

The conceptual model for the study. My conceptual framework draws upon the
model by Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone (1998). My conceptual framework is portrayed

below in Figure 2.4.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Program
Effectiveness
Program Type
/ —’
Environmental: A
Socroeconomrc and i Program Sustainability
Political Factors

 

 

 

 

 

 

Integration with
Existing Services

 

 

Leadership

 

 

 

Figure 2.4. Guiding Conceptual Framework for the Study

As previously mentioned, Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone (1998) suggest that there
are sustainability factors within each program, institutional, and environmental level. I
borrowed five of the original 1] factors that are noted in Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone’s
model to include in my framework. These five factors would represent the sustainability
factors guiding my study: 1) program effectiveness, 2) program type, 3) integration into
existing programs or services, 4) leadership or program champion, and 5) environmental,

socioeconomic and political considerations (See Table 2.2).

46

Table 2.2. The sustainability factors included in the guiding conceptual framework.

 

Program factors ° Program effectiveness

0 Program type

 

Institutional factors 0 Integration with existing programs/services

° Leadership/program champion

 

Environmental factors 0 Socioeconomic and political considerations

 

 

 

 

Although I discuss in greater detail howl narrowed the factors from 11 to five for my
study in Chapter Three, here I provide a brief discussion of each factor that I have
included in my guiding conceptual framework. It should be noted that although Shediac-
Rizkallah and Bone (1998) frame the sustainability factors as factors and issues, and thus
blurring the boundary between what is a “factor” and what is an “issue,” I have chosen to
utilize the term “factor” throughout my study.

Program effectiveness. The first sustainability factor is the program effectiveness
of the initiative. For example, the initiative would be considered effective if the
participants in the study perceived the initiative to be successful or providing benefits to
the institution. In addition, effectiveness could be determined by the visibility of the
initiative on campus. Finally, effectiveness would be determined by examining the
desirable and undesirable effects of the initiative on the campus.

Program type. The second sustainability factor is program type. For example,
program type would be determined by understanding whom the initiative is intended to
serve. In addition, the type of problem that the program is intended to prevent or resolve

would contribute to an understanding of the type of initiative that was implemented.

47

Integration with existing programs or services. The third sustainability factor is
the integration of the initiative with existing programs or services on campus. For
example, the initiative’s integration would be determined by examining the extent to
which the initiative is a part of the operating practices of the institution. The initiative’s
integration would also be determined by examining the extent to which the initiative’s
goals or mission are compatible with the college’s mission.

Leadership or program champion. The fourth sustainability factor is the extent to
which leadership influences the sustainability. This includes identification of a program
leader or champion. In addition, understanding the attributes or traits of the program
leader or champion would assist with understanding how leadership influences the
sustainability process. Other questions concerning leadership would include: What
actions did the champion take to advance or support the Mellon initiative? Is the program
endorsed from the top? And how well is the program supported by the institution?

Socioeconomic and political considerations. The final factor is the extent to
which socioeconomic and external political considerations influence the sustainability
process. For example, the general socioeconomic and political environment affecting the
sustainability of the program would be examined. In addition, the extent to which the
external economic or political influences support or hinder the sustainability process
could be examined to determine this factor’s affect on sustainability.

Because the original model by Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone (1998) was created
based upon research findings in the field of health promotion, there are precautions that I
must acknowledge in my adoption of this model as part of my conceptual framework.

First, as depicted in the model, environmental factors play a direct role in program

48

sustainability as well as an indirect role through program and institutional factors.
Because health promotion programs exist within community settings, it makes sense that
environmental factors would have both direct and indirect effects on program
sustainability. However, whether or not environmental factors play an equally important
role in my study, which is situated in the context of higher education and specifically
liberal arts colleges, is uncertain. In particular, I did not anticipate that community
participation, a factor presented in the Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone (1998) model, would
be a factor relevant to my study. In addition, Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone’s model is
unclear as to whether or not the effects on program sustainability are equal across the
three factor levels.

Second, Shediac-Rizhallah and Bone’s (1998) model has clear one-way
directional effects between and among factors. For example, institutional factors have an
effect on program factors, but program factors do not have an effect on institutional
factors. There are no two-way directional effects in the original model, where program
and institutional factors have simultaneous effects on each other. Directional effects
could play out differently in the context of higher education because of the relative flat
administrative structures of colleges. Because I was unsure of the extent to which the
model, as conceived by Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone (1998), would represent the cases in
my study, I left the model intact and unaltered for my conceptual framework.

Overall, however, I felt it was reasonable to anticipate that the key factors
affecting program sustainability in a higher education context could parallel the model as
presented by Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone (1998). Therefore, I anticipated that program

effectiveness and type are key program level factors that would affect sustainability; I

49

anticipated that program integration and leadership are key institutional factors that
would affect sustainability; and I anticipated socioeconomic and/or political
considerations would be environmental factors that would affect sustainability, although
possibly less of a factor than the program or institutional factors because, unlike public
colleges or universities, liberal arts colleges do not receive direct support from the state
(Breneman, 1994).

Summary. In this chapter, I presented the major bodies of literature that have
informed my research study. This was presented in four sections. In the first section, I
discussed the organizational and external factors that affect change in higher education
institutions. I also discussed the relationship between organizational change and
sustaining change within higher education. In addition, I discussed the elements that
contribute to sustained organizational change and how organizational learning is useful in
understanding sustained change. In the second section, I discussed the scholarly literature
on program sustainability after initial funding and the key findings in that literature that
attempt to explain how program sustainability is achieved. In the third section, I
discussed what are the gaps in the current literature on program sustainability. Finally, I
discussed my conceptual framework, based upon the reviewed literature, and how my
framework has guided my topic and research questions.

From this point forward in the manuscript, I present the procedures by which I
conducted my study and an analysis of my findings. 1 provide a more detailed description
of my methodology for my study in Chapter Three, descriptions of my case portraits and

analyses of my within-case findings in Chapter Four, a cross-case analysis of my findings

50

in Chapter Five, and a discussion of my implications from my study as well as

suggestions for future research in Chapter Six.

51

Chapter Three: Research Design and Methodology

The purpose of this study was to understand the sustainability of grant-funded
non-academic programs beyond the initial funding period. Specifically, the study was
designed to examine the sustainability of faculty career enhancement grant-initiatives
beyond initial funding from the Andrew Mellon Foundation at selective liberal arts
colleges utilizing a multi-case study design. Therefore, this study sought to understand
WHAT the sustained initiatives looked like after the funding period, HOW the
institutions sustained the initiatives post funding, and WHICH factors contributed to the
programs’ sustainability.
Research Questions

The central research question for this study was: How do liberal arts colleges
sustain foundation-funded grant programs beyond the initial grant period? Four additional
research questions helped build a more complete picture of the sustainability process. The
additional four questions were:

1. WHAT did the sustained initiatives look like at each of the institutions after the
funding period?

2. HOW did each Of the institutions sustain the initiatives post funding?

3. WHICH programmatic, institutional ‘and environmental factors contributed to
the sustainability of each of the initiatives?

4. To what extent do the findings parallel the conceptual framework guiding this
study?

The first question helped me to define ‘sustainability’ by examining what form
the initiatives ultimately took after the initial funding expired.
The second question allowed me to understand the steps that each institution

undertook to sustain the programs, starting from the initial planning stages through the

52

time data were collected. Focusing on the how provided concrete examples of the
practical and administrative processes undertaken by the institutions.

The third question allowed me to understand the factors that contributed to the
sustainability of the initiatives. In other words, the question allowed me to examine
sustainability within the context of the guiding conceptual framework, as described in
Chapter Two, and focus on the program, institutional, and environmental factors that
contributed to the sustainability of the programs.

Finally, the fourth question allowed me to compare my findings with the
conceptual framework that guided this study. This comparison was important because the
basis of the guiding conceptual framework emerged from the field of health promotion,
which contextually has similarities to as well as differences from the field of higher
education. Therefore, this question allowed me to go back to the conceptual framework
which guided my thinking and make the appropriate adjustments to the original
conceptual framework within the context of this study and its findings. The revisions to
the conceptual framework would enable me to propose future directions for research on
this topic.

Research Design and Rationale

In this section I describe my research design and explain my methodological
choices. Specifically, I provide a rationale for my research methods with particular
attention to my decision to utilize a multi-case study design and my choice of the unit of
analysis.

Using a case study approach. Case studies are appropriate for investigating a

“contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context, especially when the

53

boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (Yin, 2009, p. 18).
I anticipated that studying the process of sustainability would require a perspective that
takes into account the ‘real-life’ context in which the process develops (Yin, 1994).
Therefore, this particular study seemed to lend itself well to a case study approach.

In addition, case studies not only rely upon multiple sources of information “with
data needing to converge in a triangulating fashion” (Yin, 2009, p. 18), but the type of
inquiry also “benefits from the prior development of theoretical propositions to guide
data collection and analysis” (Yin, 2009, p. 18). My study was informed by a conceptual
framework which was built upon prior research on organizational change and program
sustainability. Specifically, my data collection and analysis were guided by Shediac-
Rizkallah and Bone’s (1998) conceptual framework focusing on the program,
institutional and environmental factors that would possibly contribute to sustainability.

Using a multiple case study design. A multi-case study design is appropriate
when the researcher is seeking two outcomes: 1) a deep understanding of the context and
details of each case and 2) an identification of aspects or elements that can be compared
or contrasted across the cases so that more general conclusions can be drawn (Huberman
& Miles, 1994; Merriman, 1998). A multi-case study design has an advantage over a
single case study design. Often the findings from a multi-case study are “considered more
compelling, and the overall study is therefore regarded as being more robust” (Yin, 2009,
p. 53). In other words, the advantage of a multi-case design is its ability to create greater
generalizablity beyond the conclusions of a single case. This characteristic was important
to me. Because my study was informed and guided by an existing theoretical framework

by Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone (1998), I was interested in investigating whether or not

54

my guiding framework was applicable to more than one case. Not only was 1 interested in
understanding the process by which liberal arts colleges sustained programs beyond the
initial funding period, I was also interested in determining the extent to which the
framework by Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone (1998) from the field of health promotion
adequately described the sustainability process within a higher education context.
Therefore, a multi-case study design allowed me to utilize a ‘replication’ logic (Yin,
2009) in the sense that I examined the same unit Of analysis at more than one site, but not
in the sense that the exact conditions were present for each case. Instead, by examining
more than one case, I hoped to determine the extent to which the findings across cases
were similar to or different from each other and to Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone’s (1998)
conceptual framework.

Unit of analysis. A case study is utilized when a researcher is interested in
understanding or exploring an issue through one or more examples. In case study
research, these examples are “bounded units” or “bounded systems” (Creswell, 2007),
meaning that the subject or subjects to be studied have some boundary. Having these
boundaries helps to define the cases to be studied—what the cases are and what they are
not (Yin, 1994). In case study research, these units of analysis typically are organizations,
groups, individuals, or processes (Merriman, 1998). My unit of analysis was the
institutional process to sustain faculty development programs initiated with grant fimds
from the Mellon Foundation.

For a multi-case study design, the unit of analysis is constant across the multiple
sites. Consequently, my focus on the institutional process to sustain the grant initiative

remained consistent across the four cases that I investigated.

55

Site Selection and Rationale

In this section, I provide my rationale for the sites of my study. In particular, I
answer questions regarding the specific subject matter I investigated such as “Why use
faculty development programs as an example?” “Why use the Andrew W. Mellon
Foundation as an example?” and “Why use liberal arts colleges?”

Using faculty development programs. Faculty are at the heart of higher
education and its vitality (Gaff, 1975; Gappa, Austin & Trice, 2007). Maintaining faculty
vitality is an important issue, but can be easily overlooked when competing with other
institutional priorities such as developing new nano-technologies or new medical
advances. Science and engineering will continue to be an area that will receive financial
support through agencies such as the government and National Science Foundation for
the foreseeable future. Faculty development, on the other hand, unless tied to science and
engineering, is considered one of the many ‘other’ areas that are competing for funding.
Because faculty development programs are neither research centers nor academic
departments, they are in competition with other services on campus for funding. From the
perspective of faculty members, faculty development is an area from which funding is
most often cut during times of fiscal constraint (Altman, 2004). Thus, for the purposes of
this study, the use Of faculty development programs as the example for understanding
program sustainability is particularly appropriate because of the relative instability that
faculty development programs experience in terms of funding priorities at any given
institution.

Using the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. For this study, the Andrew W.

Mellon Foundation was selected because of the particular grant program that the

56

I foundation provided to support faculty development. The foundation distributed grants
three times in cohorts of approximately eight institutions, providing grants to 23
institutions. Because the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation distributed this particular grant
similarly to all 23 participating institutions, the grant amount and grant period ($600,000
to 8700,00 over a period of 5 years) were comparable in amount and length. This enabled
me to control for the grant program duration and grant program financing factors, which
are considered to be influential factors in sustaining programs beyond initial funding
(Shediac-Rizkallah & Bone, 1998). In addition, because of the consistent nature in which
the grant was distributed to the institutions by the foundation, I attempted to control for
the project negotiation factor in Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone’s (1998) original
framework. All institutions received a one-year planning grant.

Using liberal arts colleges. In general, a majority of research in higher education
that focuses on organizational behavior tends to draw upon large universities, and in
particular, large public universities. Often the rationale for greater research emphasis on
large public institutions draws upon the argument that large, public universities serve the
largest number of students. As Ehrenberg (2003) argues:

Put simply, the vast majority of American college students attend public higher

education institutions and thus what is happening to public higher education is

much more important to our nation’s well-being than what is happening to

selective private colleges and universities. (p. 2)

In other words, the focus on large, public universities warrants greater attention because
the number of affected individuals is greater than the number of individuals at small
liberal arts colleges.

However, other scholars have pointed to the value of liberal arts colleges and how

an understanding of liberal arts colleges contributes to the overall understanding of higher

57

education. For example, countering arguments that the impact of a liberal arts college on
individuals is minimal (and therefore would not warrant empirical study), Astin (2000)
observes:

Residential liberal arts colleges in general, and highly selective liberal arts

colleges in particular, produce a pattern of consistently positive student outcomes

not found in any other type of American higher education institution. Moreover,
the selective liberal arts colleges, more than any other type of institution, have
managed not only to affect a reasonable balance between undergraduate teaching
and scholarly research, but also to incorporate a wide range of exemplary

educational practices in their educational programs. (p. 77)

Therefore, not only does Astin (2000) argue that there are consistent positive student
outcomes associated with attending liberal arts colleges, but he also suggests that liberal
arts colleges are able to maintain a reasonable balance of role responsibilities for their
faculty.

Breneman (1994) suggests that liberal arts colleges, because Of their small size,
“represent both an educational ideal and an economic type” (p. 12). Yet liberal arts
colleges have much in common with large universities. Like any large university,
selective liberal arts colleges are dependent on the quality of their academic programs
and the ability for their faculty to adapt to the changing interests of their students. In
addition, like large universities, liberal arts colleges are dependent on outside funding to
support program innovation and experimentation (McPherson & Schapiro, 2000).

However, by narrowing this study to selective liberal arts colleges, I was able to
control for some factors that, according to the literature, affect program sustainability
after initial funding. I attempted to control for several factors noted at an institutional

level in Shediac-Rizkallah and Bones (1998) framework. One of these factors was

institutional strength. Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone (1998) noted that the maturity of an

58

organization is a factor within the organization setting that can affect program
sustainability. Thus, by utilizing selective liberal arts colleges, which are similar in
financial endowment and relative age, I hoped to control for this factor.

I also attempted to control for institutional size. Liberal arts colleges, known for
their small size, tend to have more centralized decision-making processes than large
universities. Utilizing institutions that structurally represent a more tightly-coupled
system with more centralized decision-making processes helps to control for the
differences Ward (1996) found which suggested tightly coupled systems are more apt to
institutionalize initiatives than are loosely coupled systems. The following table
summarizes the factors I incorporated into my conceptual framework and my rationale

for including only five of the original 11 factors (See Table 3.1).

59

Table 3.1.

Summary of Incorporated Sustainability Factors

 

Original Shediac-Rizkallah
and Bone (1998) Factors

Ability to Control in Study
Design

Incorporated into
Conceptual Framework

 

Program Negotiation Process

Program Effectiveness

Program Duration

Program Financing

Program Type

Training

Yes: All institutions were
approached by foundation

No: Institutions managed
assessment efforts

Yes: All institutions received
grant for five years

Yes: All institutions received
similar amounts of funding
No: Institutions selected how to

utilize funds

Not directly applicable to context
of study

Not included in framework

Included as factor in

framework

Not included in framework

Not included in framework

Included as factor

Not included as factor

 

Institutional Strength

Integration with existing
programs/services

Program champion/leadership

Yes: All institutions were similar
in size and financial wealth

No: Institutions differed in
implementation of grants

No: All institutions administered
grants differently

Not included in framework

Included as factor

Included as factor

 

Socioeconomic and political
considerations

Community participation

No: Institutions located in
different states/Grants
administered during different
periods

Not directly applicable to higher
education settings

Included as factor

Not included as factor

 

 

 

 

 

Research Methods
In this section, I describe the process by which I selected my institutional case
examples for my multi-case study as well as the participants in my study. I also describe

the process by which I collected my data.

60

Selecting the individual case sites. The sample for this study was selected using
purposeful sampling (Merriman, 1998). I selected cases that met specific criteria that I
had created. To establish my criteria for selection, I first began by examining all 23
institutions that received grants from the Mellon Foundation to create faculty career
enhancement programs on their campuses. After reviewing documents and reports from
each of the 23 institutions, I grouped the institutions based upon commonalities in
program administration of the Mellon grant. I used program administration to categorize
the colleges based upon the assumption that administration of a project affects its
implementation, execution, and sustainability (Beery et al., 2005; Steckler & Goodman,
1989). As a result, the following categories were established:

0 Programs administered through a newly established center.
° Programs administered through an existing center.

0 Programs administered through the Office of the Provost/Dean of Faculty with an
appointed coordinator position.

0 Programs administered by the Office of the Provost and a group of faculty
members.

Three of the 23 institutions were not included in the grouping; these three
institutions had no institution-level initiatives because they implemented only
collaborative programs with other institutions. Of the remaining 20 institutions, four
institutions administered their Mellon initiatives through a newly established center.
Another four institutions administered their Mellon initiatives through an existing center.
Eight institutions administered their Mellon initiatives through the Office of the Provost

or Dean of Faculty, but with an appointed coordinator. The remaining four institutions

61

administered their Mellon initiatives through a collaborative arrangement between the
Office of the Provost or Dean of Faculty and a group Of faculty members.

After grouping the remaining 20 institutions, I determined the extent to which
each of the institutions had evidence Of sustained programs, utilizing current material on
websites and document files. Institutions that had the most sustained elements of their
Mellon initiatives were identified as possible cases for study. After examining current
material on websites, reviewing document files and conversations with Chief Academic
Officers, 1 found that a majority of institutions that were grouped into the fourth category,
“Administered by Provost Office and Group of Faculty,” did not Show evidence of
sustained programs at the institution level. As a result, the sample of four institutions
selected as case study examples included three institutions with sustained programs and
one institution with programs that were not sustained.

The four institutions listed below (using pseudonyms) were selected based upon
the established criteria mentioned previously, their ability to represent each type of
program administration, and their willingness to participate as a case study example.

' Bowling Lawn College: Administered through a new center developed
specifically for faculty development.

° Castlegate College: Administered through a separate director position (created
for the purposes of coordinating the grant) and currently housed in an already
established center.

0 Hilltop College: Administered through the Provost/Dean’s Office in conjunction
with an appointed faculty member (referred by the institution as the Catalyst).

° Amber Hills College: Administered through the Provost/Dean’s Office for one

set of initiatives and coordinated by faculty members for another set of initiatives
(acting as independent coordinating bodies).

62

Selecting interview participants. Similar to Clark’s (2004) multi-case approach
to understanding the sustainability of change in colleges and universities, I sought to
understand the process through the individuals who did the “work” in implementing and
sustaining the grant initiatives. Clark’s (2004) assertion that “the best way to find out
how universities change the way they operate is to proceed in research from the bottom-
up and the inside out” (p. 2) seemed to fit my investigatory approach. Therefore,
individuals who were involved in the implementation and sustainability of the grant
initiatives were a significant source of information.

My first round of key informants was identified through my primary informant
from each site—the Chief Academic Officer. Through an initial e-mail (See Appendix A)
and a follow-up telephone conversation, I asked each Chief Academic Officer to
recommend key individuals with whom I could speak regarding the implementation and
delivery of the grant initiative(s). I sent an email to these individuals, introducing myself,
briefly describing my study, and asking if the individual would be willing to speak with
me about his or her role in the grant initiative (See Appendix B). Approximately three to
four interviews were scheduled for each institution toward the beginning of each of my
site visits. I considered this to be a realistic number for the small size of the institutions.

Additional participants were selected through a snowball or network method
(Patton, 2001) in which participants are identified through the original set of participants.
In other words, my second round of key informants was identified through the first round
of key informants. After speaking with this first round of individuals, I asked each one of
them if there were individuals that they would recommend that I should speak with

regarding the implementation and delivery of the grant initiative(s). In some cases, these

63

individuals offered this information during the interviews. I contacted this additional set
of participants either by email or by telephone to set up an interview toward the
conclusion of my site visit.

Data collection. Because the focus of my study was to understand the process by
which the faculty development programs were sustained, I assumed an interpretive
research orientation (Merriman, 1998) approach to my study, rather than a positivist or
critical research stance and endorsed the philosophical assumption that qualitative
research is based upon the view that “reality is constructed by individuals interacting with
their social worlds” (Merriman, 1998, p. 6). In other words, this study acknowledges that
the data obtained in this study are constructed from the experiences and perceptions of
those involved with sustaining the faculty development programs—the focus of this
study.

To ensure that the participants’ perspectives led my analysis of the data and to
avoid the dominance of my (the researcher’s) perspective, my objective was to
understand the process from the participants’ points of views (Merriman, 1998) and to
triangulate my data sources. As such, this study incorporated participant interviews, site
visits and document analyses (Glesne, 2006; Merriman, 1998). In an attempt to make
comparisons across my cases, I made efforts to collect similar data from each institution.

Data were collected from the following sources:

1. Documents including internal campus reports, external foundation reports, and
information posted on the campus’ websites.

2. In-person and telephone semi-structured and open-ended interviews using an
interview guide with faculty members, administrators and staff; in several cases

there were follow-up interviews and correspondence via email.

3. On-site observations during intensive 3-5 day site visits.

64

Documents. At the beginning stages of data collection, I obtained a significant
amount of information from written documents and institutional websites regarding the
grant program at each of the institutions. The documents that I heavily relied upon in this
study were the institutions’ grant proposals and annual reports that were submitted to the
Mellon Foundation for the purposes of updating the foundation about the progress of the
grant. These documents provided historical and chronological perspectives (Glesne,
2006) on the implementation and sustainability process of the grant initiatives. This
allowed me to triangulate with the historical accounts provided through interviews. The
documents also provided names of participating individuals I could interview as well as
information about each of the institution’s grant initiative to help guide my interview
questions.

I also drew upon on-line datalsources to obtain more current information about
the status of the grant initiatives. As I did with the annual reports, I used information
from the institutions’ websites to triangulate information with that from interviews.

Interviews. Interviews with program participants were another significant source
of information. A “researcher’s account of the studied scene should be built on the
information provided by the most knowledgeable (and candid) members of the scene”
(Van Maanen, 1979, p. 545). As such, I relied heavily upon the data obtained from the
conversations that I had with the participants of this study.

Interviews with participants occurred during the 3- to 4-day site visits, with
follow-up phone call conversations and email correspondence after the site visits. I
interviewed key individuals who either were on sabbatical and therefore not on campus,

or had scheduling conflicts via telephone. In person interviews were conducted in a space

65

chosen by the participant. Most of these interviews were conducted in the person’s office;
some were conducted in open meeting spaces.

The perspectives of 29 participants are included in this study. This number
represents the key individuals involved with the Mellon initiative at their respective
institutions and other recommended individuals that were identified for interviews. Each
interview with a participant lasted between 45 minutes and 75 minutes. Some participants
were interviewed multiple times either because of scheduling issues or for the purposes
of gathering follow-up information. At the start of each interview, I explained the
purpose and design of my study as well as issues of confidentiality (See Appendix C).
Each participant was assured that confidentiality would be maintained and that I would
use generic titles for each of the participants and pseudonyms for the sites. All
participants were given the option of not having the interview taperecorded, as required
by the Michigan State University Institutional Review Board. Some of the participants
chose not to be tape-recorded, in which case I took detailed notes and confirmed
information back to the participant to ensure that my notes were accurate. I also had
several follow-up conversations with these participants to confirm and clarify information
(Merriam, 1998).

I used a semi-structured interview protocol (Rubin & Rubin, 1995) in order to
achieve comparable data across the cases (Fountain & Frey, 2005). I asked questions
such as “Tell me about the role you played in implementing/administering the Mellon
grant initiatives” and “What have been the challenges that you have encountered in
implementing/administering the Mellon grant initiatives” for the purposes of gaining an

understanding of the sustainability process from the participants’ perspectives. In general,

66

I allowed the participants to speak as much as they were willing about the Mellon grant,
probing the participants to speak about their experiences and impressions regarding the
implementation and sustainability of the grant initiatives (See Appendix D). Therefore, I
did not pursue specific elements of the conceptual framework in prompting the
participants during the interview process. However, participants were given several
opportunities to provide additional insights or information that might have been relevant
to the guiding framework through multiple conversations that occurred during the study.

On-site observations. Observing the faculty and administrators in their campus
settings helped deepen my understanding of the cases. During my site visits, I looked for
physical evidence of sustainability of the grant initiatives. For example, I looked to see
how visible particular physical structures were on campus, the extent to which these
structures were permanent, and where particular offices were located on campus in
relationship to other offices. To assist my data collection during my site visits, I took
photographs of each campus and particular physical structures. 1 did not photograph any
of the participants for the purposes of maintaining confidentiality.
Data Analysis

Data analysis occurred concurrently with data collection. Consistent with a
qualitative study, and, in particular, case study research, I began to analyze mydata as I
collected my interview data (Merriman, 1998). I approached data collection and analysis
as an interrelated process (Creswell, 2007; Huberman & Miles, 1994) in order to guide
the data collection process in selecting my participants, and to collect new data through

follow-up interviews to fill in any “gaps” of my data (Huberman & Miles, 1994).

67

My data analysis consisted of a three-step process. First, I analyzed documents
that were collected prior to case selection; the documents were analyzed in accordance
with the principles outlined by Huberman and Miles (1994) and Yin (2009). After
collecting data from the site visits, I moved to the second step of the process and
developed case portraits for each of the institutions. I began with outlines that I drafted
immediately after each site visit. These outlines were then fleshed out into a more
narrative form, using transcribed data from the interviews, interview notes, field notes,
annual report documents, and other collected materials. Using my first three research
questions as a guide, I conducted a within-case analysis for each of the cases. I analyzed
for common themes (Merriam, 1998) based upon the Observations of the participants
interviewed in this study. I also used Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone’s (1998) conceptual
framework as my guide to analyze the data for additional themes pertaining to
sustainability.

The third step was a cross-case analysis to identify common themes across the
four cases, using the first three research questions as a guide. Using my fourth research
question as a guide, I analyzed my findings in the context of the guiding conceptual
framework (Shediac-Rizkallah & Bone, 1998) to determine the extent to which the
conceptual framework appropriately matched my study’s findings. I utilized matrices and
other diagrams to analyze my data according to models suggested by Huberman and
Miles (1994).

Rigor and Limitations
This section describes the ways in which I attempted to ensure a sufficient level of

methodological rigor throughout my study. I also describe the limitations of this study,

68

along with an explanation of how I attempted to compensate for these inherent
limitations.

Methodological rigor. Case study research is Often criticized for its perceived
lack of rigor because of the possibility of a researcher conducting careless, biased work
with little attention to systematic procedures in data collection or analysis (Yin, 2009).
This study attempted to employ several of Yin’s (2009) case study tactics to establish
validity and reliability. Yin (2009) recommends that case study researchers apply the
following four tests to ensure methodological rigor: 1) construct validity, 2) internal
validity, 3) external validity, and 4) reliability. In what follows, I describe howl
attempted to address issues of validity and reliability within my study following the
guidelines set forth by Yin (2009).

Construct validity. Construct validity is established through “identifying correct
operational measures for the concepts to be studied” (Yin, 2009, p. 40). To establish
construct validity, I based my operational measures of organizational change and
program sustainability on previous research reported in the literature. During my data
collection, I incorporated multiple sources of information (documents, interviews,
Observations) and asked key informants to review drafts of my case study portraits and
narratives.

Internal validity. Internal validity is established by creating “causal relationships,
whereby certain conditions are believed to lead to other conditions” (Yin, 2009, p. 40).
Although this particular test is more prominent in experimental or quasi-experimental
research, internal validity can be attained through pattern matching and explanation

building (Yin, 2009). In my study, I attempted to maintain internal validity by

69

considering other possible explanations for each case’s outcome. Therefore, I triangulated
my data in an attempt to establish the most plausible explanation for each case’s
outcome.

External validity. External validity is achieved by “defining the domain to which
the study’s findings can be generalized” (Yin, 2009, p. 40). Qualitative research is not
intended for generalizability (Merriman, 1998). However, I incorporated a multi-case
design with the hope that my findings would be better positioned to find more
generalizable themes that could be transferred to other sites. In addition, I utilized a
guiding conceptual framework (Shediac-Rizkallah & Bone, 1998) developed outside of
the field of higher education that is both broad and comprehensive in its implications for
the purposes of comparing my findings to an external standard.

Reliability. Reliability is the ability to demonstrate “that the operations of the
study—such as the data collection procedure—can be repeated, with the same results”
(Yin, 2009, p. 40). In order to address issues of reliability, I utilized similar procedures
for contacting participants, and employed semi-structured interview protocols to illicit
comparable information from my participants.

Limitations. As with any research project, this study has limitations. First,
because this study relied heavily upon individuals’ retrospective accounts in order to
reconstruct events, a significant amount of data can be subjective and potentially biased
(Pettigrew, 1995). In addition, the recalled information can be inaccurate or even
incorrect (Van Maanen, 1979) based upon what an individual chooses to remember or
forget. Because much of the information is retrospective, as individuals recall the

information, they are simultaneously making-sense of the past and their experiences

70

(Weick, 1995). Again, the consequence is that the data are not merely a series of events
or occurrences, but rather an individual’s account of connections that they have made or
are making as they reflect upon the past during the interview.

Another form of informant bias can come from documents. In the case of my
study, many of the documents that I drew upon were annual reports from the institutions
to the Mellon Foundation. Because these documents were produced to update the
foundation with regards to the progress of the grant, as well as to demonstrate
appreciation for the grant, the documents cannot be taken as unbiased perspectives or as a
literal recording of events (Merriam, 1998).

Not all bias can be attributed tO the informants in the study. As the researcher of
this qualitative study, I acknowledge the potential of my own researcher bias (Merriam,
1998) in collecting and interpreting the data. Because the sensemaking is happening
through me, the interpretations and conclusions drawn from this study are highly based
upon the position from which I view and interpret the world.

An additional limitation is that this study has only four cases. Therefore, not all 23
institutions that received the grant were studied in—depth. Hence, the phenomenon is not
fully represented in this study. Although the study is limited to four cases, the
implications from the findings are nonetheless relevant. The advantages of utilizing four
cases for this study include the following: First, narrowing the categories, and thus the
number of cases, allows for the reader to learn about each case in greater depth.1 Second,

utilizing the best example from each category provides the reader with a spectrum of

 

’ Although I could have included more cases for comparison, the understanding of each
case may not have been as in-depth because of the limitations of time and resources
available to me to complete this study.

71

possible administrative approaches. The reader may choose which approach is best suited
for one’s own campus’s needs, resources and culture.

Finally, although it has been argued that initiatives are more likely to be sustained
at a small, private liberal arts college than at a large university (Boyce, 2003), the
implications from this study nevertheless may be relevant to other institutions because of
the lessons learned through an understanding of the processes each institution
experienced, even if the institutions in this study are smaller in size than many higher
education institutions.

In this chapter I described the methodology for my study and discussed the
rationale for my design. The next two chapters present the collected data. Chapter Four
presents the four cases. I describe the processes and outcomes of sustainability at each of
the four institutions. I also provide a within-case analysis through the guiding conceptual
framework (Shediac-Rizkallah & Bone, 1998). Chapter Five presents the comparisons
across the four cases. In Chapter Six, I explore the implications of the findings from my

study.

72

Chapter Four: Individual Case Studies Analysis

The purpose of this study was to examine the sustainability process of the Mellon
grant-funded career enhancement programs at four liberal arts colleges. I visited each site
for approximately three to five days. Prior to, during, and after my site visits, I spoke with
individuals at varying levels who were involved in the implementation and execution of
the grant programs. I examined reports collected by Mellon Foundation and various
prepared documents from the four institutions. Transcripts, interview notes, field notes,
annual reports, and collected documents were open coded for themes related to
sustainability, as well as coded for themes based upon the guiding conceptual framework.

In this chapter, I provide a description and analysis of the four institutional cases
in this study—Bowling Lawn College, Castlegate College, Hilltop College, and Amber
Hills College. The intent of this chapter is to demonstrate how each institution’s approach
to and experience with the Mellon grant was a unique sustainability process, which
produced various forms of sustainability. I have divided this chapter into six sections. In
the first section, I briefly review the conceptual framework that guided my study and
analysis. In the second section, I discuss the background of and the Mellon Foundation’s
intent for the grant. 1 provide the background description before describing the four
individual cases because all institutions in this study received the same type of grant,
from the same foundation. I also describe the nature of the four cases in this study and
discuss the characteristics that the institutions share.

In the remaining four sections of this chapter, I provide portraits and within case
analyses of the four cases examined in my study. For each case, I describe the

institutional context, the Mellon grant initiative as it was proposed by each of the

73

institutions, the key players involved in the implementation and sustainability process,
the results of the Mellon initiative, the sequence of events that describe the development
and implementation of the Mellon initiative at each campus, and the themes that
influenced the sustainability of the Mellon initiative as perceived through the eyes of the
participants. Finally, I analyze the sustainability process Of each case through the guiding
conceptual framework.

Guiding Conceptual Framework

My multi-case study was designed to answer my study’s central research
question: How do liberal arts colleges sustain foundation-funded grant programs beyond
the initial grant period? As the basis of my conceptual framework, I drew upon Shediac-
Rizkallah and Bone’s (1998) framework on program sustainability to organize and
analyze my case studies. As previously mentioned in Chapter Two, in Shediac-Rizkallah
and Bone’s (1998) model, there are program, institutional, and environmental level
factors that influence program sustainability. As such, there are a total of 11 factors: six
individual program level factors, three institutional level factors, and two environmental
level factors.

For the purposes of my study, five of the original 11 factors were incorporated
into my conceptual framework; this included two program factors (program effectiveness
and program type), two institutional factors (integration into existing programs and
leadership), and the environmental factor of socioeconomic and political considerations. I
attempted to hold constant the other six sub-factors in my research design (program
negotiation process, grant program duration, program financing, training, institutional

strength, and community participation).

74

Background of the Grant

The purpose of this section is to provide an understanding of the Mellon
Foundation’s intent for offering 23 liberal arts colleges faculty career enhancement
grants. I provide a brief history of how the Mellon Foundation came to the decision to
provide the faculty career enhancement grants. I also describe the invitation process to
the 23 liberal arts colleges.

Between 1995 and 1998, the Mellon Foundation engaged in a number of
conversations with presidents and chief academic officers of selective liberal arts
colleges. Three issues were of greatest interest to the group of presidents and academic
officers. These issues pertained to faculty development, governance, and student life.
Although all three areas were deemed critical to liberal arts colleges, the issue of
professional support of faculty members emerged highest on the liberal arts colleges
leaders’ lists of institutional priorities. The rationale was described as follows:

The selective liberal arts colleges are very dependent on the quality of their

academic programs and on the intellectual liveliness Of their communities. These

communities consist of small faculties; many members remain at the institution
for their entire professional careers, carry significant teaching responsibilities, and
have few close colleagues in their respective areas of scholarly interest. To
maintain the general excellence and attractiveness of these colleges, it is essential
to find ways of keeping faculty members vitally engaged in developments in their
fields and alive to the changing interests of undergraduate students. (Mellon

Foundation Report Summary)

Based upon this rationale, the Mellon Foundation invited seven colleges to
consider in greater depth the needs of their faculty through the development and
implementation of a five year grant sponsored by the Mellon Foundation. As such, the

purpose of the grant would be to provide the institutions the opportunity to develop some

model professional development programs that may be shared more broadly with other

75

liberal arts colleges. The focus would be for institutions to devise faculty career
enhancement, or professional development, programs appropriate to the needs of faculty
members in liberal arts colleges. Two additional cohorts of eight institutions were invited
to consider the same Mellon proposal in subsequent years.

The Foundation’s invitation to the institutions for participation. The Andrew
w. Mellon Foundation Offered three rounds of grant proposal invitations. The first round
was offered to seven institutions in 1999; the second round was offered to eight
institutions in 2001; the third round was offered to eight institutions in 2002. Institutions
were given similar parameters for their participation and in development of their
proposals to the Mellon Foundation. In general, each institution was to implement its
version of the Mellon initiative that would enhance its faculty’s careers in ways most
appropriate to the needs of its faculty over a period of five years.

To facilitate the proposal development process, the Mellon Foundation offered the
institutions an additional fimded year in the form of a planning grant. The intent of the
planning grant was to help prepare the colleges to return to the Mellon Foundation with a
full grant proposal. The planning grant would enable the institutions to address, in an
informed way, the professional needs of faculty over the course of the faculties’ careers.

The participating institutions responded to the planning grant with similar
approaches. During the one-year planning grant phase, each institution put together its
own task force or committee to brainstorm and/or assess its faculty’s needs. The
committees often comprised of the institution’s chief academic Officer and members of its
faculty. Each institution then designed a proposal comprised of faculty career

enhancement projects or programs to implement at its respective campus. In sum, the

76

institutions received a one-year planning grant, plus a five-year implementation grant to
develop faculty career enhancement programs for their campuses.

Setting up the case portraits. The four institutions presented in this current study
were selected to represent the 23 liberal arts colleges that received funding from the
Mellon Foundation. As selective liberal arts colleges, the 23 participating institutions, and
thus the four campuses included in this study, share common institutional characteristics.
The typical student enrollment is approximately 2000. The faculty size ranges between
150 to 200 members. At least 90 percent of the faculty hold doctoral or equivalent
terminal degrees in their respective fields. The endowments of the 23 institutions are
among the largest of all liberal arts colleges in the nation, with some of the institutions
maintaining endowments close to or over one billion dollars. The institutions are similar
in its academic rigor with low faculty to student ratios. As liberal arts colleges, the
institutions’ primary focus on teaching requires faculty to maintain teaching loads of at
least three courses per semester. In addition, as selective liberal arts college, the 23
institutions are increasing their expectations for greater research and scholarship from
their faculty.

The next four sections of this chapter describe the case profiles of the four
institutions and their differing experiences in the sustainability of their grant initiatives. I
present each case in a similar format. First, I introduce each institution by summarizing
the contextual features of each campus. Next I describe the Mellon initiative as it was
proposed for implementation at each institution. I describe the key players involved in the
implementation and sustainability of the Mellon initiative. I also discuss the results of the

Mellon initiative to provide the reader with an idea of the benefits that each campus

77

gained from the implementation process, even if the initiative itself was not sustained.
Then I describe the primary events during the development and implementation of the
Mellon initiative at each campus. This is presented for the purposes of transitioning into
my next discussion on the themes and factors contributing to the sustainability of the
initiative. After I discuss the various themes that the participants attributed to the
sustainability of the Mellon initiative, I provide an analysis of the sustainability process
utilizing the guiding conceptual framework.

Case Number One: Bowling Lawn College

Bowling Lawn College is a scholarly oasis that sits in a residential part of a mid-
sized urban city. Known for its high standards of scholarship and its special emphasis on
intemationalism, multiculturalism, and service to society, the co-educational, Protestant-
affiliated but nonsectarian college enrolls approximately 2000 students. As a commitment
to international harmony, Bowling Lawn has flown the United Nations flag with the
United States flag since 1950 when Bowling Lawn had begun to place an emphasis on
internationalism by recruiting students from abroad. Of the approximate 165 full-time
faculty members, 40 percent of the faculty members are pre-tenure. Hence, Bowling
Lawn College has a relatively large cohort of junior faculty members.

The proposed initiative. Bowling Lawn proposed a series of programs and
seminars that would help their faculty to be “more collegial, innovative, and adventurous
in plotting their career paths, more confident of their value to the colleges, and more
engaged in developing their futures” (Mellon Foundation Summary Report). The
proposed programs and seminars that would define the Mellon initiative at Bowling

Lawn College included the following:

78

New faculty seminar. Bowling Lawn envisioned this component of the Mellon
initiative as an orientation program for the first-year faculty members. In addition to the
orientation program, first-year faculty members would have a one-course reduction in the
second semester in order to provide time to collaborate with a senior colleague.

Co-mentoring program in teaching and scholarship. Bowling Lawn envisioned
this component of the initiative as opportunities for junior and senior faculty to learn
from one another by collaborating in any of a wide variety of activities or projects—-
shared scholarship, joint teaching, curriculum development, evaluation of classroom
teaching. New faculty would share fresh disciplinary perspectives with senior faculty on
newly emerging interdisciplinary emphases, and on new ways to integrate technology
into teaching. In exchange, the new faculty would benefit from the more senior faculty,
who would draw upon their professional experiences, status and knowledge of campus
culture.

Faculty exchanges. Bowling Lawn envisioned this component as semester-long,
inter-college faculty exchanges. Participating Bowling Lawn faculty members would
select a college to serve as a host institution for the exchange. As such, the participating
faculty members would engage in half-time teaching duties at a participant selected
college and full participation in the culture and activities of the host department and
college. The reduced teaching load would allow the visiting faculty member to devote
time to personal scholarship and perhaps to pursue a scholarly collaboration with
colleagues in the host institution.

Workshops for academic departments and programs. Bowling Lawn envisioned

this component as a set of workshops for departments and academic units to facilitate

79

collaboration within their departments. The intent was to have the workshops lead to new
working relationship between faculty members or with students on research projects.

Workshops for department chairs and program directors. Bowling Lawn
envisioned this component as a set of workshops for department chairs and unit directors
focused on developing mutual understanding and support between departments and
programs. In addition, the workshop would provide chairs and directors strategies for
developing their collaboration and leadership skills.

In addition to the above listed faculty support programs, Bowling Lawn College
proposed the development of a new faculty development center to administer the Mellon
initiative and serve as the campus resource for faculty development. Bowling Lawn
College represents the type of campus that administered the Mellon initiative through the
establishment of a new faculty development center referred to as the Center for
Scholarship and Teaching. Figure 4.1.. is a visual representation of this type of campus

administration of the initiative.

80

      
  

Center for Scholarship
and Teaching

 

  
    
    

new faculty
seminar

 

department
workshops

 

 

 

 

 

     
       
   

co-
mentoring

 

 

dept chair
workshops

 

 

 

faculty
exchanges

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.1. Bowling Lawn College’s Administration of Mellon Initiative

The key players in the Mellon initiative. The implementation, execution, and
sustainability of the Mellon initiative at Bowling Lawn College involved the following
key players:

Planning Advisory Committee. A joint faculty-administration committee was
created to guide the development and implementation of the Mellon initiative. Fifteen
faculty members and four administrators represented the committee. Since the
implementation of the Center for Scholarship and Teaching, the committee has continued
to serve as the center’s advisory committee and reviews all assessments and reports
pertaining to the effectiveness and future direction of the center.

Center for Scholarship and Teaching ’s Director and Associate Director. The

Center for Scholarship and Teaching has been administered by a director and associate

81

director. The director and associate director positions are filled by tenured faculty
members. Selected by way of an internal search that is conducted by the provost in
collaboration with the college’s Faculty Advisory Council, the director and associate
director hold three-year terms, which may be extended at the discretion of the provost.
Past and present directors and associate directors have been members of the Planning
Advisory Committee; thus the faculty members occupying the director and associate
director roles have been involved with the Mellon initiative since the planning stages.

Provost. Since the implementation of the Mellon initiative, the provost position
has twice transitioned. Both former provosts at the time of the Mellon grant period were
self-described, as well as described by the faculty, as large supporters of the Mellon
initiative. The current provost, who assumed the position in 2009, is not from the
Bowling Lawn faculty, and therefore less knowledgeable about the history and
development of Bowling Lawn’s Mellon initiative. Nevertheless, the current provost is
described by the current director of the Center for Scholarship and Teaching as “very
supportive of the center.”

The results of the implementation. The implementation of the Mellon initiative .
at Bowling Lawn College led to three results, as identified by the participants of this
study.

Center for Scholarship and Teaching. The primary result of the Mellon initiative
was the Center for Scholarship and Teaching. The center was opened in fall 2002 and
continues as a fully operational unit on campus. As previously mentioned, a director

administers the center and reports to the provost. However, the provost and director insist

82

that decision-making processes with regard to the center remain within the director’s
authority.

The Center for Scholarship and Teaching is a faculty development and support
center. It does not provide support for students. A separate learning support center exists
on campus for the students; the learning support center for students provides guided
assistance with learning skills such as writing, time management, and tutoring. With
additional support from an associate director and two half-time staff assistants, the Center
for Scholarship and Teaching handles all faculty development issues. In addition, the
center Offers seminars, programs, one-on—one counseling, and grant funding information.
Because faculty members fill the director and associate director positions, both faculty
members receive course releases in exchange for their administrative services to the
center.

Faculty development programs. The individual faculty development programs
that are offered through the faculty development center represent a second result of the
Mellon initiative. As proposed in the Mellon grant proposal, the programs offered
through the center focus on supporting the life—cycle, or the transitions and stages, of the
faculty career. As such, the center offers programs for new and early career faculty, mid-
career faculty, and visiting professors. In addition, the center’s mission focuses on both
research and teaching aspects of faculty work at Bowling Lawn College. All programs or
events are typically held in the center; the center has a multi-purpose meeting space that
is frequently used to host the gatherings and events.

The faculty development programs have evolved since the opening of the Center

for Scholarship and Teaching. As explained by the current director, the co-mentoring

83

programs are in altered forms as the “connected colleagues” program and the “take a new
faculty member out to lunch” program. The “New Faculty Seminar” has evolved into a
two-semester program. The workshops for department chairs and directors have evolved
into the “Mid-Career Seminar.”

Not all of the proposed programs are currently offered. For example, the faculty
exchange program proved to be unpopular at the early stages of the grant and currently is
not offered by the center. Department workshops, also, are no longer Offered. Instead of
departmental workshops, the center has developed two sets of programs with a more
interdisciplinary approach in bringing the faculty together. These new sets of programs
are weekly or monthly events that bring faculty together to talk about their teaching or
research. These interdisciplinary talks about teaching or research are often held at noon;
lunch is provided free of charge by the center to attendees. The events are considered
informal, in the sense that no RSVPS are required. Featured “faculty presenters” are not
asked to “present” their research, but rather to utilize their topics as a springboard for a
roundtable discussion about methodology, research questions or issues in the classroom.

Cultural shift on campus. A third result from the Mellon initiative at Bowling
Lawn College was, as some participants described, a cultural shift on campus. In other
words, participants believed that, as a result of the college’s experience with the Mellon
initiative, the perception and attitude toward faculty development shifted from a negative
perspective to a more positive one. The first director documented her observation of a
culture shift on campus:

There has been a cultural shift at [Bowling Lawn] in trying to get the community

to see that the need for development is not a failure . . . to recognize that

development is a lifelong process. (First Director, Bowling Lawn College Self-
Assessment Report)

84

Similarly, the associate director commented on how perspectives on faculty development
have changed on campus since the implementation of the Mellon initiative:

If you had asked me five, seven years ago, I never would have seen this coming,

the success and enthusiasm for the [Center] and the overall support, for

developing and supporting faculty. (Associate Director, Bowling Lawn College)
Although not an intended goal at the time Of proposal development, it seems that in
addition to the Center for Scholarship and Teaching and the support programs it
administers, the Mellon initiative resulted in a culture change on campus. The role of
faculty development on campus has shifted from being treated as a remedial stage of a
faculty member’s career, to encouraged opportunities for career growth and
enhancement.

Developing and implementing the Mellon initiative. The sustainability process
at Bowling Lawn College was methodical. In 1999, Bowling Lawn College was awarded
its one-year planning grant from the Mellon Foundation to develop its faculty career
enhancement program(s) on campus. The focus during the planning period was on
understanding a system or structure that would best support the Bowling Lawn faculty.
Bowling Lawn College concluded that the focus of its Mellon initiative would be on the
development and maintenance of a faculty development center to administer faculty
development programs.

Developing the Center. The idea to develop a faculty development center was the
result of many collected ideas regarding how to best support faculty at Bowling Lawn
College, as well as the institution’s gradual push toward greater faculty-student research

collaboration. In what follows, I discuss how the results of Bowling Lawn’s needs

assessment coincided with the overall direction the college was headed. I then discuss

85

how the two circumstances contributed to the college’s development of the Mellon
initiative.

Needs assessment results. Assessing the needs of the Bowling Lawn faculty was
one of the major steps toward the decision to create a faculty development center. The
faculty’s needs and opinions were collected through a series of focus groups. The
planning committee pulled together nine focus groups to talk about how the Mellon grant
support would best help faculty to be more effective in their work. The collected focus
groups’ responses were then used as a guide in developing what type of campus faculty
support system would be best for Bowling Lawn.

Several themes emerged from the collected focus groups’ responses. The first
theme was the idea of “overworked faculty.” The director of the center recounted that
there was a “dominant consensus that faculty were being pulled in too many and different
directions” (Director, Bowling Lawn College). Similarly, one of the former provosts
stated, “Faculty felt their efforts were stretched too thin as instructors with heavy
teaching, service, and advising loads” (Former Provost A, Bowling Lawn College). In
addition, another former provost recalled that faculty work lives were described as “too
incoherent, scattered and rushed” (Former Provost B, Bowling Lawn College).

Prompted by the findings from the needs assessment, the Planning Committee set
out to further explore the idea of a center. Teams of faculty visited peer institutions to
learn about their centers for faculty support. In their findings, the faculty learned that
many of their peer institutions have centers but the centers are focused on teaching and
learning, Often addressing student as well as faculty needs. Thus, Bowling Lawn College

decided it “didn’t want the center folded in with the student learning center [on campus]”

86

(Director, Bowling Lawn College). The college “wanted the faculty to have their own
center” (Faculty Planning Participant B, Bowling Lawn College).

Institutional push toward faculty-student research. In addition to the theme of
overworked faculty, faculty felt increasing pressure to be more productive researchers.
This pressure was felt in spite of being faculty members at a liberal arts college where
teaching is traditionally emphasized over research productivity. In addition, faculty were
expected to engage in more faculty-student research collaborations. One faculty
participant proceeded to describe this pressure as “the growing institutional expectation
for the faculty to engage in more research and scholarship with each other and with
students” (Faculty Planning Participant B, Bowling Lawn College). Bowling Lawn
College, therefore, “was moving in a direction that would encourage their faculty to work
with students on research” (Former Provost A, Bowling Lawn College).

Prior to the invitation from the Mellon Foundation, Bowling Lawn College had
been planning for a way to strengthen their “commitment to [their] core liberal arts values
and the learning goals we outline in our mission statement and statement of purpose and
belief’ (Bowling Lawn College Self-Assessment Report). As elaborated by one of the
former provosts:

[Bowling Lawn] was putting together a capital campaign to raise money to put

faculty and students together to do collaborative research. However, the college

thought that if the faculty-student collaborative research direction were to be
successful, then faculty should be thinking more in-depth about how scholarship
influences their teaching. (Former Provost A, Bowling Lawn College)

From the historical accounts of the participants, it appears that Bowling Lawn

College participants viewed the timing of the Mellon grant as coinciding with the new

direction that the college was headed. However, Bowling Lawn campus administrators

87

knew the college needed to be more sensitive to the needs of the faculty. The campus
administrators were aware of the views and concerns expressed by the faculty in the
focus groups. Therefore, Bowling Lawn College administrators knew that if the
expectation for increased faculty-student collaboration was not pitched to the faculty in a
way that worked for the faculty, the move toward greater faculty-student collaboration
would encounter resistance from the faculty. As one of the former Provosts emphasized:

The [Administration] did not want to have the faculty think that Bowling Lawn

was just adding things on to their plate . . . So we wanted to emphasize the

connection between scholarship and teaching. (Former Provost A, Bowling Lawn

College)

Campus administrators felt that the college’s move toward encouraging more
faculty-student research collaboration could be enhanced through the development of a
support center for faculty scholarship and teaching. In essence, a planning participant
further explained Bowling Lawn “needed a coherent way to structure and provide support
[to their faculty]” (Faculty Planning Participant A, Bowling Lawn College) so that
faculty could better integrate their scholarship and teaching.

In summary, the results from the needs assessment combined with the general
direction of the college suggest that the faculty wanted the areas of their work lives to be
better integrated. Faculty felt overworked and too scattered in their work lives.
Meanwhile, faculty were aware of the institution’s growing expectation for them to
become more productive as researchers and to engage in more faculty-student research
collaborations. One of the faculty planning members interviewed for this study stated:
“The faculty expressed a desire to have a center that would provide them with

information, guidance and tangible assistance in their development as effective scholars,

teachers and advisors” (Faculty Planning Participant A, Bowling Lawn College). Taking

88

cues from other peer institutions, Bowling Lawn College felt the best way to approach
the faculty needs would be in the creation of a faculty development center.

Implementing the Center for Scholarship and Teaching. The implementation of
the faculty development center was the result of careful decision making and planning.
Particular attention was focused on the name of the center as well as its physical location
on campus.

Naming the center. Before the center was named, the faculty planning committee
first decided upon creating the future center’s mission. Therefore, the name of the center
emerged through the development of the mission statement. As the planning committee
developed the center’s mission, they felt that “scholarship” stood out as a focus, based
upon the direction that the institution was moving. Moreover, the committee felt that a
center focused on scholarship would relate to the faculty who expressed a desire for
assistance in their development as effective scholars, teachers and advisors. The
developed mission “was circulated broadly throughout the campus” (Faculty Planning
Participant A, Bowling Lawn College) in an attempt to receive input and reaction from
the faculty. In the end, the name of the center was created from the mission to emphasize
the two areas that the faculty wanted to emphasize—scholarship and teaching.

Physical location. The planning committee decided upon the location of the
center after consideration of several options on campus. After a recommendation from
the librarian to place the center in the library and a subsequent tour of the library, the
library was selected as the place in which the center would reside. One planning
participant elaborated on the decision:

[The library] was central and [faculty involved] liked the idea of the [Center]
being a metaphor for center by being placed in a building that is literally in the

89

center of campus, rather than being sent into exile on the periphery. (Faculty
Planning Participant B, Bowling Lawn College)

The college subsequently provided $25,000 in setup fees from the operating
budget to pay for walls and office equipment. The committee concluded that a director,
associate director, and two half-time assistants would staff the center. The committee also
decided that the director and associate director positions would be filled by faculty
members; each receiving course releases for their administrative roles. One assistant
would be grant-funded; the other assistant was to be paid by the college.

Opening of the Center for Scholarship and Teaching. The Center for Scholarship
and Teaching opened in fall 2002, two years after the college received the
implementation grant from the Mellon Foundation in 2000. Although the operation of the
center started on grant-funded support, the college planned to have the center
incorporated into the institution’s operating budget over the five-year grant period.
Hence, in the year 2002, the college’s operating budget contributed 30 percent of the
center’s operating budget toward administrative costs for the center. In 2003, the
college’s operating budget contributed another 30 percent toward administrative costs for
the center. In 2004, the college again contributed another 30 percent toward
administrative costs. To ensure that funds would be available, the college “re-did the
[campus] administrative structures to free up funding to allocate it to the center, and
incorporated it [the Center] into the Operating budget” (Former Provost A, Bowling Lawn
College).

Currently, as the associate director emphasized, the center is “completely
institutionalized” in the sense that the center is “part of the [institutional] culture, even

more so than the statistics indicate in the self-study” (Associate Director, Bowling Lawn

90

College). The associate director proceeded to explain how the center is part of the
institution’s culture because of the institution’s requirement for new faculty to participate
in the center’s activities:

The large number of new faculty that have been hired by the college in the last six

to eight years have all passed through the New Faculty Seminar [hosted through

the Center]. To them [the new faculty], the [Center] has always been there, and it
was one of their first introductions to the college, the place where they bonded
with peers, and a source of support and development. (Associate Director,

Bowling Lawn College)

Hence, from the perspective of the early career faculty members, the center has always
been a part of the institutional culture.

Challenges to implementation. The implementation of the Mellon initiative at
"Bowling Lawn College was not without challenges. The primary challenge Bowling
Lawn College encountered was changes in leadership within the center, as well as in the
provost position. Toward the end of the Mellon grant period, the first director of the
center became ill and quickly passed. Many participants of the study attributed the initial
momentum and success of the center and the Mellon initiative to the first director.
Participants also acknowledged the halt in momentum at the time of the first director’s
illness. “The center was ratched down” (Center Staff Assistant, Bowling Lawn College)
in the sense that the center and its programs were put on hold.

Since fall 2008, a new director has assumed the responsibilities of the center.
Some participants have observed a change in the direction and focus of the center as a
result of changes in leadership. One of the former provosts explained with the following:

Well, changes in provosts, and leadership in the center have affected the direction

and focus of the center. [The First Director] was from the sciences, and was

deeply engaged with student collaborative research. Now it’s moved away from

emphasizing the integration of scholarship and teaching to more of an orientation
to the college. . . I’m not completely sure why the focus has strayed a bit, but it’s

91

likely because of the changes in leadership. (Former Provost A, Bowling Lawn
College)

Although the changes in leadership ultimately did not affect the overall sustainability of
the Mellon initiative at Bowling Lawn College, participants did note the passing of the
first director as a challenge the college was able to overcome with the appointment of the
second director.

Moving forward post-first director. The second director focused on moving
forward with the center. The second director continued to offer the programs that were
successful during the first director’s leadership. In addition, the second director has added
a series of interdisciplinary scholarly discussions called “Conversations About Our
Scholarly Lives” and “Talking About Teaching” to the list of the center’s programming.
The second director maintains the confidentiality rule of the center, established by the
first director, which is “What happens in the [Center], stays at the [Center]” (Bowing
Lawn College Self-Assessment Report). In other words, the second director continues to
ensure that a trusting relationship continues between the faculty and the center by
ensuring that faculty perceive the center as separate from campus administration.

What contributed to the sustainability of the Bowling Lawn Mellon
initiative: Participants’ reflections on the process. Six themes emerged from the
participants’ interviews regarding what they believed contributed to the successful
implementation and sustainability of the Mellon initiative. From the perspective of the
Bowling Lawn participants in this study, the participants primarily defined the
sustainability of the Mellon initiative as the Center for Scholarship and Teaching.
Although the programs offered through the Center for Scholarship and Teaching are

considered to be a part of the Mellon initiative as well, a majority of the participants

92

interchanged “Mellon initiative” with “The Center for Scholarship and Teaching.” Thus,
the Bowling Lawn participants equated the sustainability of the Mellon initiative with the
Center for Scholarship and Teaching.

The following six themes reflect the observations made by those involved in the
implementation and sustainability of the Mellon initiative or the Center for Scholarship
and Teaching. In an attempt to capture the participants’ voices and perspectives, I utilized
their language in describing the themes. The themes are 1) planning, 2) applied
institutional learning, 3) trust, 4) campus administrative support, 5) committed leadership,
and 6) filling an unmet need. Because there is overlap in the themes, the six themes are
interrelated and not mutually exclusive of one another.

Planning. Many participants attributed the successful implementation and
subsequent sustainability of the Mellon initiative to planning. Planning occurred both
prior to and during the implementation of the Mellon initiative. Two planning sub-themes
emerged from conversations with the participants. These themes are 1) inclusive planning
and 2) planning for incremental funding transition.

Inclusive planning. Several participants attributed the success of the Mellon
initiative to the inclusive planning process in which Bowling Lawn College engaged. One
former provost involved with the Planning Committee stated, “I think the strengths [of
the implementation process] were in the way they did the planning . . . it involved the
voices of many individuals” (Campus Administrator B, Bowling Lawn College). In other
words, Bowling Lawn College’s planning approach involved more than planning

committee meetings. First, the Planning Committee held a series of workshops/focus

93

groups with the faculty on campus. One planning participant described the meetings as
follows:

It was a broad group of people who came together, in all combinations to learn

what [the faculty’s] needs were and what [types of support] the campus was not

providing. (Faculty Planning Participant C, Bowling Lawn College)

One participant involved in the initial planning stage of the Mellon initiative
elaborated upon the planning committee’s desire to involve many faculty members, even
if doing so was a less efficient method: “It was a very planful, perhaps inefficient
process, but [the Planning Committee] felt that the center was not going to be useful if
the faculty weren’t the ones crafting it” (Faculty Planning Participant A, Bowling Lawn
College). The inclusive planning process not only allowed the Planning Committee to
obtain a more thorough understanding of the Bowling Lawn faculty needs, but it also
provided the faculty as a whole with some sense of ownership over the direction of the
Mellon initiative.

Planning for incremental funding transition. Several participants also attributed
the sustainability of the Mellon initiative to the planned transition of funds. At Bowling
Lawn College, the process of transitioning the Operating expenses of the Mellon initiative
from soft funding to hard funding was a multi-year process. One administrator described
the process of transitioning the funding sources: “[The Center] originally started with all
grant money and the college has managed to, in increments, been able to include [The
Center] into the operating budget” (Campus Administrator A, Bowling Lawn College).
One former provost further elaborated on this process:

We did [the transition] slowly . . . converted [the Mellon initiative] from soft

funding to hard funding, under the administration of myself and the subsequent
Provosts . . . we redid the administrative structures to free up funding to allocate it

94

to the center . . . and incorporated [The Center] into the operating budget (Campus
Administrator B, Bowling Lawn College).

The key strategy used to help sustain the Mellon initiative was Bowling Lawn College’s
plan to incrementally transition the funding support of the Mellon initiative from the
Mellon grant to the college’s operating budget. This plan to incorporate the center into
the operating budget was detailed in writing in Bowling Lawn’s Mellon initiative
proposal to the Mellon Foundation. To be able to execute this action successfully, it
appears that having the commitment to sustain the Mellon initiative and establishing a
concrete plan to follow through with the commitment were important steps in the
sustainability of the Mellon initiative.

Applied institutional learning. A second theme, which describes what
participants attributed to the successful implementation and sustainability of the Mellon
initiative, is the idea of applied institutional learning. By applied institutional learning, I
refer to the institution’s ability to demonstrate actions that reflect the lessons learned.
Learning did not only occur during the initial planning stages of the Mellon initiative;
learning was ongoing in the form of constant assessment of the center and the programs
the center provided.

Several participants spoke about the faculty and institution’s willingness to learn
about the needs of faculty and what forms of support would work best to address the
needs of the faculty. In addition, participants not only emphasized the faculty and
institution’s willingness to learn, but the faculty and institution’s commitment to apply
what had been learned to ensure that the Mellon initiative would be considered valuable

to the college.

95

The application of learning centered around two sub-themes. First, the ongoing
assessment of the center and its programming was used to continually improve upon the
center and its program offerings. Second, the second director and associate director were
faculty who not only participated in the faculty development seminars and programs, but
also took the lessons that were learned through their participation in the seminars to
inform and guide their administration of the center.

Learning through assessment. Both directors of the Center for Scholarship and
Teaching had been highly engaged in ongoing assessment of the center and its programs
since the genesis of the center. One planning participant emphasized, “[The First and
Second Directors are] always assessing the needs of the faculty” (Faculty Planning
Participant A, Bowling Lawn College). The current director of the center stated that
feedback from the faculty regarding program session offerings is “always seriously
considered” (Director, Bowling Lawn College) whether the feedback is in a form that is
formal (i.e. program session evaluation forms and surveys), or informal (observations and
program session attendance). The director and associate director would utilize the
evaluations to alter the programs as necessary in order to ensure the needs of the faculty
are continually addressed. For example, the center’s administrators found that program
topics based upon assessed faculty interests rather than demographic characteristics
resonated better with the faculty:

We found faculty had little interest in meeting as groups that share a social

characteristic such as race, gender or sexuality. As an alternative, we offered

faculty opportunities to connect . . . to discuss issues of academic interest. (First

Director, Bowling Lawn College Self-Assessment Report)

Hence, instead of pushing particular programming objectives, the directors used

the feedback to learn if and how the programs offered through the Center are meeting the

96

needs of the faculty. The application of the directors’ learning through assessment and
feedback is evident in the modifications and refinement of the programs over time.

Learning through program participation. Some participants attributed the
sustainability of the center to the willingness of faculty members to utilize lessons
learned from the programs provided by the Center for Scholarship and Teaching in
enacting changes on campus. The director described the success of the Mellon initiative,
“The Center’s benefits have been in its return on its [Bowling Lawn College’s]
investment” (Director, Bowling Lawn College). In other words, the director believed that
faculty who engage in the center’s programming apply what they learn as new campus or
department leaders or through the development of new campus policies and programs.
The director provided the example of herself and the Associate Director as products of
participating in the Center’s faculty development programs.

Overall, Bowling Lawn College administrators hoped the experience with the
Mellon initiative would provide an opportunity for the college “to have a better sense of
key points in faculty careers, when intervention is most useful, and a better understanding
of how and when the college can be most helpful” (Mellon Foundation Summary
Report). Bowling Lawn administrators anticipated that the Mellon initiative would
provide the college with the Opportunity to learn about the needs of its faculty as well as
to learn ways that would best support its faculty. Moreover, faculty who participated in
the center’s programs were able to apply their learning as administrators on campus.

Trust. Several participants attributed the sustainability of the Mellon initiative to
the establishment of trust between faculty and campus leaders at Bowling Lawn College.

Many participants described the presence of a high degree of trust between campus

97

administration and the faculty. One faculty participant described the faculty-
administration relationship as follows:

At [Bowling Lawn College] there is an absence of tension between faculty and

[campus] administration. There are firewalls in place and trust established.

Faculty feel like administration supports them without being overbearing or [like]

a parent. (Faculty Planning Participant B, Bowling Lawn College)

Participants acknowledged that the development of the center had the potential to
either maintain trust or create mistrust. One participant recalled the anxiety that circulated
amongst the faculty: “There was real anxiety amongst the faculty when the [Center for
Scholarship and Teaching] was formed because of fear that it would be too close to
[campus] administration” (Faculty Planning Participant A, Bowling Lawn College). To
alleviate the anxiety, the planning committee and campus administrators ensured to
maintain a sense of trust with regard to the development and administration of the center.
For example, the center was placed in the library as a symbolic representation of the
center’s independence from campus administration. The director of the center noted the
symbolic placement of the center: “The space that the center is located [in] represents it

9”

as a ‘safe place (Director, Bowling Lawn College). The center was purposefully placed
in the library, which was considered to be a neutral space on campus and separate from
campus administration.

Faculty also have trust in the director even though the director reports to the
Provost. Faculty are confident that confidentiality is maintained when they seek advice
from the director. One participant explained the trust exhibited by the director’s
leadership:

When they [faculty] go to [the Director] for problems, they know that [the

Director] will keep what is said confidential from the Provost . . . and in the case
that [the Director] does have to report something to the Provost, [the Director]

98

always asks or consults with that person before going to [the Provost]. (Faculty
Planning Participant B, Bowling Lawn College)

In sum, the efforts made to ensure trust between the faculty and administration
regarding the Mellon initiative were viewed by the participants as contributing to its
sustainability.

Campus administrative support. Many participants also credited the
sustainability of the Mellon initiative to campus administration’s ongoing support for the
development of the center. One of the former Provosts stated, “[The idea of a Center for
Scholarship and Teaching] was well received by the faculty. . . so it became a funding
priority [for the College]” (Former Provost B, Bowling Lawn College). The priority that
campus administration placed on the Mellon initiative by making the center a funding
priority was an important factor in sustaining the initiative.

The Center for Scholarship and Teaching has remained a priority among the
campus administration business items. Among the various topics or issues on campus, the
center is not considered an “other business” issue on the agendas of the Bowling Lawn
faculty meetings. As the Associate Director of the center explained:

The director of the [Center] also gives a report at each of the faculty meetings,

right after the reports by the President and Provost's report, and I believe that this

not only ensures that all faculty are aware of the activities and efforts of the

Center, but also signals its central role and importance within the college.

(Associate Director, Bowling Lawn College)

The priority that is placed upon the center is further exemplified in a statement
from one of the campus administrative participants: “We [Bowling Lawn College] treat

[the Center] like any other academic program” (Campus Administrator B, Bowling Lawn

College). In other words, the center is not on the periphery of campus, but instead

99

considered “core” to the institution, in much the same way as academic programs are
considered on campus.

Committed leadership. Many participants felt that the committed leadership,
represented by the actions of the directors and campus administrators, was another factor
in the sustainability of the Mellon initiative. Bowling Lawn participants spoke
extensively about the leadership exhibited by the first and second directors of the center,
as well as the former provost at the beginning of the grant period. For example, many
participants believed the first director was responsible for the expansion and momentum
of the center at the beginning stages. To exemplify the significance of the first director’s
role in the beginning stages of the center, the center has been renamed to the [First
Director’s name] Center for Scholarship and Teaching.

In addition, participants described the first and second directors as individuals
who “had their ears to the ground,” or individuals who were in tune with the needs of the
faculty. Finally, participants believed that the former provost was “instrumen ” (Faculty
Planning Participant B, Bowling Lawn College) in the development of the Mellon
initiative and serving as the administrative advocate for the sustainability of the center. In
sum, Bowling Lawn participants believed that the sustainability of the Mellon initiative
was the result of the committed leadership of these individuals. Because this theme
overlaps with the leadership factor in the guiding conceptual framework, I provide further
discussion regarding the leadership attributes of these individuals in my analysis of the
case through the framework.

Addressing an unmet need. Finally, many participants noted the fact that the

Mellon initiative provided the institution with the resources to create a support system

100

that was absent from the College. Several participants noted the absence of and desire for
a centralized faculty development system on campus during the planning stages of the
Mellon initiative. One former Provost confirmed that “there was no prior center for
faculty development at [Bowling Lawn College]” (Former Provost A, Bowling Lawn
College). The Mellon initiative, in the form of the Center for Scholarship and Teaching,
has not only filled the void of faculty development on Bowling Lawn’s campus, but also
filled a recognized need observed by the faculty and campus administrators.

Exploring the case through the framework. To understand the sustainability
process in more detail and to highlight points for cross—case comparison in Chapter Five,
I provide my analysis of the sustainability factors through Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone’s
(1998) framework, focusing on the program, institutional and environmental factors.
Although some overlap exists between the themes that emerged from the interviews and
the guiding conceptual framework, an analysis using the framework helps to further
explain the sustainability process. For this and the other three cases in this chapter, I
discuss each of the sustainability factors as presented in the guiding conceptual
framework, utilizing the terminology and language of Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone.

Program factors. Program factors greatly contributed to the sustainability of the
Mellon initiative at Bowling Lawn College. The perceived eflectiveness Of the Center for
Scholarship and Teaching was an influential program factor in the Mellon initiative’s
sustainability. This perception reinforced Bowling Lawn College’s plan to implement a
Center for Scholarship and Teaching. In addition, the type of program or initiative that
Bowling Lawn created with the Mellon grant funds, as a campus wide initiative, also

factored into the sustainability of the Mellon initiative. Together, these two program

101

factors played an important role in the sustainability of Bowling Lawn’s Mellon
initiative.

Program effectiveness. Although it appears from the beginning that Bowling
Lawn College was committed to the development of the center, the center’s effectiveness
nonetheless played a role in the college’s continued commitment to sustaining the Center.
Bowling Lawn administrators “could see the successes of the Center early on in the
implementation process” (Former Provost A, Bowling Lawn College). Assessment
records of the Center and the Center’s programs from 2004 and 2007 indicate high
satisfaction scores from the faculty community. Although lack of time on the part of
faculty to participate is cited as the greatest barrier to the use Of the Center’s programs,
the Center’s self-study surveys suggest that the programs are widely used by the faculty
and the programming is perceived as valuable by the faculty.

Program type. Bowling Lawn used the Mellon grant to develop a faculty
development center, through which programs would be offered to support the faculty
across the lifecycle, rather than using the grant to develop a number of independent
programs. In other words, the strategy that Bowling Lawn took in utilizing its grant
resources was the development of a broad resource for the institution—the Center for
Scholarship and Teaching. Stated differently, Bowling Lawn’s Mellon initiative was
broad in its reach because the college viewed the initiative as an institutional project,
rather than a project that would assist just specific groups of individuals.

The breadth of the center’s reach is exemplified through the main programmatic
components of the center—the early career faculty seminar and the mid-career seminar.

These programs reach the two largest faculty groups on campus, which are the early

102

career and mid-career faculty members. The director describes the two sets of programs
as the programs with “obvious return on investment” (Director, Bowling Lawn College).
In other words, because 40 percent of the Bowling Lawn faculty are pre-tenure, Bowling
Lawn College has much invested in its junior faculty. Therefore, providing adequate
support for teaching and research to the junior faculty members increases the likelihood
that they are able to meet the required standards for obtaining tenure. In terms of the mid-
career faculty, because the focus of the mid-career faculty seminar is on leadership and
providing support for the transition to department chair or program director positions, the
Center provides support to the mid-career faculty members.

Institutional factors. In addition to the program factors, institutional factors
contributed to the sustainability of the Mellon initiative at Bowling Lawn College. The
center’s ability to integrate with existing programs or services on campus was an
institutional factor in the sustainability of the Mellon initiative. Intentionally designed to
fit into the fabric of Bowling Lawn’s culture, the center was perceived by the participants
as well integrated with the existing campus services. In addition, leadership with regard
to the Mellon initiative and the center played a significant role as an institutional factor in
the implementation, execution, and sustainability of the Mellon initiative at Bowling
Lawn.

Integration with existing programs or services. The Mellon initiative was well
integrated with the landscape of Bowling Lawn College on several levels. First, although
Bowling Lawn College offered internal grant opportunities for faculty research prior to
the development of the center, the opportunities were not centralized. The idea of

centralizing the services and creating a “one-stop—shopping” approach appeared to be at

103

the request of the faculty. Emphasizing the need for a centralized support center, one of
the former provosts affirmed that the college wanted “to take advantage of the strengths
of the college and be able to provide resources to the faculty that were already in place . .
. in a sense to centralize what was already existing on campus” (Former Provost B,
Bowling Lawn College). Therefore, although some of the programs were “new,” such as
the New Faculty Seminar and the mid-career seminar, many of the resources that the
center currently houses, such as research grant information, already existed on campus.

The center also fit into the new direction that Bowling Lawn College was moving.
Bowling Lawn College was “moving in a direction that wanted to encourage their faculty
to work with students on research” (Former Provost A, Bowling Lawn College). The
name of the center, as well as the center’s mission statement, emphasize the areas of
scholarship and teaching in faculty life at Bowling Lawn College. The center has thus
come to symbolize the value of combined scholarship and teaching in faculty work at
Bowling Lawn College.

Finally, the goals and purpose of the center coincide with the reward structure set
in place at Bowling Lawn College. The college has a professional development
requirement as part of its annual review of the faculty. Hence, professional development
is valued not only through the presence of the center, but also in the way that Bowling
Lawn College proceeds with its faculty review process.

Program champion/leadership. Leadership was crucial for the sustainability of
the center. In fact, this factor was one of the themes that emerged from the participants.
There was not, however, one program champion that could be singled out in this case.

Instead, three individuals at different points in time stand out—the two directors that the

104

center has had since its inception, and the provost at the time of the initiative’s
development. I discuss each of these individual’s attributes and how each individual
contributed to the sustainability of the center. After discussing each individual, I discuss
the commonalities among all the individuals as program champions.

The first director was nominated by the planning committee “because she was
already doing [faculty] mentoring. She had a unique sense of perspective of being a
faculty member and knowing their needs” (Faculty Planning Participant C, Bowling
Lawn College). In addition, the first director, as a member of the planning committee for
the center and the faculty steering committee for the grant, and was in-tune with the
development and implementation plans of the center. In general, the first director was
described as a “superstar” by her colleagues.

The year the second director came on board was a transitional time in the
sustainability of the center and a test of the new second director’s leadership. However,
by the time the second director assumed the position that was left by the first director, it
appears that the faculty at Bowling Lawn College had already embraced the importance
and significance of the center and its services. As the second director remarked upon her
first year as director and the impact that the first director had on the Bowling Lawn
faculty community:

[That] year was powerful . . . it was like the whole community was rallying

behind the Center because of [the First Director] . . . because she was a superstar .

. . she was the driving force behind the Center. (Director, Bowling Lawn College)

Although the first director’s leadership was instrumental in creating momentum

for the Mellon initiative, the second director has been equally recognized as a leader in

continuing the momentum of the Mellon initiative and the center. The second director

105

stepped into the role that was championed by an individual who was “beloved” by the
faculty and had suddenly passed. As one of the participants stated, “[Second Director]
stepped in under circumstances that would be perceived as being really difficult because
of the timing of [First Director’s] death” (Faculty Planning Participant C, Bowling Lawn
College). Because of the circumstances surrounding the second director’s inauguration
into the director’s position, many faculty acknowledged the challenges that the second
director might encounter as a “replacement” for the first director.

The second director seemed clear in her leadership role. According to one
participant involved in the initial planning grant of the Mellon initiative, “[The Second
Director] said that she was not going to be a [First Director] Substitute” (Faculty
Planning Participant A, Bowling Lawn College). In other words, the second director
would extend the components of the center that were successful while taking the ideas
behind the programs that were less successfirl and creating revised versions of them. The
second director, who had her own interests in faculty development, also utilized the
opportunity to extend the reach of the programming by including a seminar for visiting
faculty. In sum, the second director did not merely replicate what the first director had
accomplished, but instead saw a leadership opportunity to help grow the center in ways
that reflected what the center had learned from the self-assessments as well as what she,
herself, had learned as a prior participant in the programs.

Although unique as individuals and as leaders, both directors have shared
commonalities. Each has a quality that resonates with the faculty, but in their own ways.
One planning participant elaborated, “both [Directors] have their car to the ground. . .

both [are] kind, willing to listen, and aren’t afraid of confrontation” (Faculty Planning

106

Participant C, Bowling Lawn College). Having their “ears to the ground” is reflected in
the directors’ reliance on and use of assessments to guide decision-making with regard to
programming. “[They are] always assessing the needs of the faculty” (Faculty Planning
Participant A, Bowling Lawn College) to guide the programming of the center.

The third individual that has been credited as “instrumental” (Faculty Planning
Participant B, Bowling Lawn College) in moving the grant project forward was the
provost involved at the beginning of the grant. The former provost was a self-described
“huge supporter” (Former Provost A, Bowling Lawn College) of the center and the
Mellon initiative. In addition, the faculty viewed the former provost as the campus
administrative voice in support of the center. It was the former provost’s suggestion to
reorganize the administrative structures in order to free-up funds that would then be
allocated to the center’s budget. In general the former provost was viewed as an ally of
the faculty. In fact, the faculty’s perception of the former provost was that of an
individual “whose identification remained with the faculty” (Faculty Planning Participant
A, Bowling Lawn College). Many participants believed that without the former provost
as an ally, the Mellon initiative would not have received as much campus administrative
support for the initiative.

Collectively, the three individuals were the program champions. Both directors
had the energy to maintain the momentum necessary to keep the center moving forward.
Meanwhile at the institutional level, the former provost’s ability to be the administrative
bridge was critical in making the center an “administrative priority” and freeing up funds
to support the center. However, all three individuals were effective listeners, listening to

the faculty and understanding what the faculty needed to be more effective in their roles

107

as researchers and teachers. Moreover, the three individuals were effective in their ability
to execute the necessary actions to ensure that the Mellon initiative would provide the
appropriate support to the Bowling Lawn faculty.

Environmental factors: Socioeconomic and political considerations.
Environmental factors, or socioeconomic and political considerations, played a less
influential role in the sustainability of the Mellon initiative at Bowling Lawn College.
Although political factors were not found to have contributed to the sustainability of the
Mellon initiative, socioeconomic factors appeared to have a mild effect on the overall
sustainability of the Mellon initiative and the center. Bowling Lawn College had planned
to incorporate the center into the operating budget upon receiving the grant. The nation’s
economy was relatively strong between the years 1999 and 2007. During those years
when the college was gradually transitioning the center’s funding into the college’s
operating budget, the college’s endowment was strong. Although the year 2009 was a
time of economic recession, the college was not in a position where additional funds
needed to be contributed toward the center—the Center was already incorporated into the
budget.

Summary. Bowling Lawn College’s Mellon initiative was focused on the design
and implementation of a faculty development center from which faculty development
support programs would be administered. The implementation of the Mellon initiative at
Bowling Lawn College resulted in the Center for Scholarship and Teaching and the
various faculty development programs that the Center administers. In addition, Bowling
Lawn experienced a cultural shift that has moved toward greater acceptance of and

support for faculty development as a result of the Mellon initiative. As part of the process

108

to sustain the initiative, Bowling Lawn slowly incorporated the budget of the center into
the operating budget of the college over the course of the grant period. In order to assist
with the incorporation, the college adjusted the administrative structures in order to free
up funding to support the Mellon initiative and the development of the center. The
participants in this study attributed the success and sustainability of the Mellon initiative
to six themes—planning, applied organizational learning, a culture of trust and strong
leadership, campus administrative support, committed leadership, and addressing an
unmet need.

In addition to highlighting the themes that emerged from the participants’
perspectives, I analyzed the sustainability process through the guiding conceptual
framework. The program factors of program eflectiveness and program type were found
to contribute to the sustainability of the Mellon initiative. The assessed effectiveness of
the center appeared to have affirmed the college’s decision to sustain a Center for
Scholarship and Teaching. In addition, rather than creating a number of programs for
faculty, Bowling Lawn College chose to invest its resources into developing a center to
administer the Mellon grant initiative programs. The broad, institutional approach that
Bowling Lawn College took by focusing on the development of a center rather than on
the development of a set of individualized programs was found to be another factor in the
sustainability Of the Mellon initiative.

Institution factors of integration into existing programs or services and leadership
also were found to contribute to the sustainability of the Mellon initiative. Bowling
Lawn’s approach to the Mellon initiative was to create a center that would centralize all

faculty development resources on campus. Bringing together services and programs that

109

were already present on campus helped to prevent duplication while solidifying the
significance of the center on campus. In addition, the administrative leadership at the
institutional as well as the program levels was found to help the momentum of the
center’s implementation and continuation. The institution garnered the necessary
administrative and institutional support while ensuring that the center fit with the needs
of the target audience—the faculty—as well as the needs of the institution.

Although environmental factors were found to have less of an impact on the
sustainability of the Mellon initiative, I found that the socioeconomical influences of the
nation at the time of the Mellon grant may have helped place the college in a position
where the college was financially stable enough to maintain the center beyond the initial
grant period.

Case Number Two: Castlegate College

Castlegate College sits in a small college town in the rural part of the state.
Castlegate is renowned for its pioneering achievements in education, long history of
curricular innovation, and the campus’ gothic architecture and well-manicured lawns.
Originally opened as a women’s college, the co-educational, independent college enrolls
approximately 2,500 students. More than 70 percent of the faculty members live either on
campus or within close proximity to campus.

Castlegate’s education is shaped by the study of art and the college’s use of
original source materials as essential teaching elements in several departments. The
college is cited as the first college in the United States to include a museum among its

facilities. Although Castlegate was established as an institution independent of particular

110

denominational ties, the college “has long understood the importance of religious
exploration and formation to education” (Castlegate College website).

The proposed initiative. Castlegate College developed its Mellon initiative as a
set of campus-wide and individual programs that would address the following three
aspects of faculty life:

Strengthening intellectual connection. Castlegate envisioned a series of
organized, community building activities called “Faculty Conversations.” The intent of
the Faculty Conversations was to create cross-disciplinary opportunities for faculty to
learn of each other’s research and teaching strategies, and explore topics of mutual
interests.

Helping individual faculty members balance work. In order to understand in
greater depth the extent to which competing demands on faculty time affect productivity
and vitality, Castlegate proposed the development of a “Time Balance Study.” The
proposed campus study would examine the ways in which Castlegate faculty members
utilize their time with regard to faculty work.

Developing and encouraging the vitality of faculty. Finally, Castlegate proposed
to support faculty at different stages of their careers in ways that were not already
provided by existing programs through the administration of funds or mini-grants. These
funds or mini-grants would provide faculty members opportunities to pursue a variety of
scholarly or intellectual projects.

To assist with the administration of the three components Of the Mellon initiative,
Castlegate created a Director for Faculty Research Development position to perform the

following duties:

lll

[The Director for Faculty Research Development would] work with the faculty,
the Dean of Faculty, and relevant faculty committee and campus offices to
address the [three] issues of [intellectual] community, balance, and the
revitalization and valuing of teaching, research and intellectual inquiry.
(Castlegate College Mellon Proposal)
The Director for Faculty Research Development would initiate and carry out the three
elements of the Mellon initiative proposal. First, the director would coordinate the
Faculty Conversations in order to strengthen intellectual connections on campus. In other
words, the director was responsible for organizing the seminars by selecting themes that
would be Of interest to faculty across the campus. Second, the director was responsible
for coordinating the Time Balance Study to examine the ways in which Castlegate faculty
members utilize their time. Finally, the director was the “point-person,” according to the
current Director for Faculty Research Development, with regard to revitalizing the
faculty’s scholarly and research interests. The Director for Faculty Research
Development accomplished this aspect in the following way:

. . . administer funds to support faculty members—individually or in groups—to

pursue a variety of scholarly or intellectual pursuits. . . The [mini-grant] fund

would support faculty interests at preliminary stages (before the faculty member
actually knows what the final product—if any—might be) or provide support
tailored to a faculty member’s specific situation. (Castlegate College Report to the

Mellon Foundation)

In sum, the Director for Faculty Research Development was expected to
coordinate all three components. In addition, Castlegate College intended to create an
Office for Faculty Research Development to provide administrative support for the
Director for Faculty Research Development. Castlegate College instead chose to fold the
Director for Faculty Research Development position into the campus’ existing Learning

and Teaching Center midway through the grant period. As such, Castlegate College

represents the type of campus that administered the Mellon initiative through the

112

establishment of a coordinating position, which eventually was housed within an existing

teaching and learning center on campus. Figure 4.2. is a visual representation of this type

 

 

 

of administration.
Director for Faculty Learning, Teaching (and
Research Development - - - ‘- Research) Center
faculty

conversations

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.2. Castlegate College’s Administration of Mellon Initiative

The key players in the Mellon initiative. The implementation, execution, and
sustainability of the Mellon initiative at Castlegate College involved the following key
players:

Planning Committee and Task Force. The Planning Committee and Task Force
was a committee of approximately 12 faculty members, appointed by the provost. The
committee was a diverse group of faculty, representing various disciplines and different
career stages. The committee was developed solely for the purposes of planning the
Mellon initiative proposal. Since the implementation of the initiative, the committee has
disbanded.

Director for Faculty Research Development. The Director for Faculty Research

Development position has “evolved over the course of the Mellon initiative” (Director for

113

Faculty Research Development, Castlegate College). The position is a three-year term
position. A tenured faculty member, appointed by the provost, fills the role in exchange
for a course release. Since the implementation of the Mellon initiative, the Director for
Faculty Research Development transitioned three times——three faculty members serving
as the Director for Faculty Research Development and one administrator serving as
interim director.

The first faculty member who occupied the position was a tenured faculty
member heavily involved in the planning stages. However, the faculty member fell ill
during the first year of the three-year appointment and consequently stepped down from
the director position. An administrator-faculty member subsequently assumed the
position for the following year as the interim second director while an internal search was
conducted to appoint a new director.

The third Director for Faculty Research was a tenured faculty member who was
not involved in the planning stages. Deeply committed, nonetheless, in moving the
director position forward, the third director helped define the roles of the position and
began a working relationship with the administrators affiliated with the college’s
Learning and Teaching Center.

As of fall 2009, the fourth director, appointed by the provost, is a tenured faculty
member. The faculty member has spent a majority of her career at Castlegate College.
Although not involved in the planning stages, the fourth director was a faculty participant
in the Faculty Conversations component of the Mellon initiative.

Learning and Teaching Center administrators. The Learning and Teaching

Center, eventually renamed the Learning, Teaching, and Research Center, was the

114

student-learning center on campus. The center’s administration comprises of a director,
associate director, and administrative assistant to the center. Although not involved in the
planning or implementing stages of the Mellon initiative, the center eventually became
home to the Director for Faculty Research Development and the Mellon initiative.

Provost. Since the implementation of the Mellon initiative, the person occupying
the provost position has transitioned once. The provost in office during the Mellon grant
period was directly involved in the planning stages of the Mellon initiative. As the
Provost and Dean of Faculty, the Provost oversaw the Mellon initiative and appointed the
third and fourth directors for Faculty Research Development. Since the appointment of
the fourth Director for Faculty Research Development, a new provost has presided over
the faculty.

The results of the implementation. The implementation of the Mellon initiative
at Castlegate College led to four results, as identified by the participants in the study.

Director for Faculty Research Development. One result of the Mellon initiative
was the Director for Faculty Research Development position. Although the Director for
Faculty Research Development no longer awards mini grants to the faculty, as was
proposed in the original Mellon initiative, the position has become a valuable addition to
the Castlegate community as the liaison role between faculty and administration. One
faculty participant described the value of the Director for Faculty Research Development
in the following manner: “[The Director] bridges communication by acting as a faculty
liaison between the faculty and . . . [campus] administration” (Faculty Planning

Participant D, Castlegate College). Serving as a liaison, the Director for Faculty Research

115

mentors faculty at all career stages and coordinates programs and events for the faculty.
The director elaborated on how she viewed the position:

I serve as . . . like a mentor. . . providing insight and feedback to both senior and

junior faculty members as a resource that is outside of the department because the

department is where faculty are evaluated. . . you know, why would someone go
to the department head when you know that the department head is the one who
will evaluate you in the end? So I’m like that colleague support . . . that’s a part of
what I do. (Director for Faculty Research Development, Castlegate College)

The mentor, liaison role was absent at Castlegate prior to the Mellon initiative.
Although the actual role of the Director for Faculty Research Development, as defined in
the original Mellon initiative, has been modified, the Director for Faculty Research
Development fills the mentor, liaison role that Castlegate College needs.

Faculty conversations. A second result of the Mellon initiative was the Faculty
Conversations. The Faculty Conversations component of the Mellon initiative continues
to serve the community building function that was proposed in Castlegate’s Mellon
proposal. The Director for Faculty Research Development explained “from my
understanding, the faculty conversations were deemed very valuable at the end of the
grant, so the Provost came up with monies to sustain them” (Director for Faculty
Research Development, Castlegate College). However, the Faculty Conversations
continue in a modified form. Currently, the Director for Faculty Research Development
invites faculty to develop groups to discuss topics of mutual interest. The director
subsequently assists the faculty members in coordinating the groups and provides
monetary support for food, materials and books. Therefore, whereas previously the
director selected the topics for the groups, currently the faculty approach the director with

topics and themes to develop groups. Nevertheless, the Faculty Conversations still

address the original goals of the proposed Mellon initiative. This was to create

116

community by providing opportunities for faculty to get together over mutual, scholarly
interests.

Results from the Time Balance Study. The third result of the Mellon initiative
was the Time Balance Study. The Time Balance Study, although executed as a one-time
study, produced results that benefited the Castlegate community in two ways. First, the
results provided information to the third Director for Faculty Research Development to
help guide her decision-making with regard to the type of support that would be needed
in assisting faculty. For example, findings from the study suggested that although faculty
felt attending workshops on particular topics was helpful, the faculty did not have time to
attend. For this reason, the third director initiated a “grants for lunch” series during her
time as director “where people who have successfully gotten a grant share their
experiences [with other faculty members]” (Third Director for Faculty Research
Development, Castlegate College). Similarly, based upon the finding that faculty did not
have time to find publishers for their materials, the third director developed “Publishing
Day.”

The first time, I invited someone from the publishing company to speak with the

faculty about publishing [with the represented company]. . . Then the following

year I invited 3 publishers [to campus] . . . one time we had one rep who said he
would be willing to read 8 to 10 manuscripts before coming to campus. . . that
was very popular [with the faculty]. . . and it applied to both new and senior
faculty. (Third Director for Faculty Research Development, Castlegate College)

Second, the findings from the Time Balance Study resulted in a publication for
some faculty. A group of faculty members from one of the departments took the results of
the study and published an article. Thus, the Time Balance Study not only led to

information‘that the third Director for Faculty Research Development utilized to develop

programs for faculty, but also led to a faculty publication.

117

Learning, Teaching and Research Center. The final result of the Mellon
initiative was a change in the campus’ perception of the Learning and Teaching Center
because the institution folded the Director for Faculty Research Development position
into the center. Formerly named the Learning and Teaching Center, the center originally
served as the campus learning resource and writing center for students. Since the
incorporation of the Director for Faculty Research Development into the center, the
center is now the Learning, Teaching and Research Center. As such, the center is focused
on serving faculty as well as students.

The incorporation of the Director for Faculty Research Development into the
center and the renaming of the center have resulted in a positive change on campus. The
Director for Faculty Research Development explained:

I like the idea of having the center seen as not remedial [as had been the case

when formerly known as the Learning and Teaching Center] but instead a place

that emphasizes scholarship, research and teaching as one thing . . . that faculty,
like students, are learning too . . . that faculty members at a liberal arts college can
continue research in the classroom through their teaching by doing more
experiential approaches as well as finding ways to make the transition from
graduate student to professor by finding publishing opportunities. (Director for

Faculty Research Development, Castlegate College)

The renaming of the center to the Learning, Teaching, and Research Center has
not only provided a home for the Director for Faculty Research Development position, it
has also facilitated a more positive change in the perception of the Learning and Teaching
Center. This change from the Learning and Teaching Center to the Learning, Teaching,
and Research Center is a symbolic representation of Castlegate College’s espoused value
of emphasizing both scholarship and teaching in its mission.

Developing and implementing the Mellon initiative. The development and

implementation of the Mellon initiative at Castlegate did not unfold in a predictable

118

manner. Castlegate encountered several staffing set-backs during the implementation of
the initiative, while it simultaneously worked through transitions within the campus
administrative infrastructure.

Planning. Castlegate’s Planning Task Force developed the Mellon initiative
proposal based upon a list of faculty concerns and needs that emerged from interviews
with faculty members on campus. According to one planning participant, “[The Faculty]
emphasized the importance of fostering intellectual connections that would make faculty
work more fulfilling and sustainable” (Faculty Planning Participant A, Castlegate
College). As the Planning Task Force developed ideas for the Mellon initiative, the Task
Force “agreed that activities to address the needs [of the faculty] should benefit the
largest number of faculty, representing all ranks and stages of career and personal
situations” (Faculty Planning Participant B, Castlegate College).

In addition, the Task Force believed a coordinator would be necessary to carry out
Castlegate College’s Mellon initiative proposal. Therefore, the Task Force emphasized
the creation of the Director for Research Development. The director would act as the unit
to coordinate intellectual community building activities, administer the “Time Balance
Study,” provide mentoring in research, and work as a liaison between the faculty and
campus administration.

Challenges to implementation. Great emphasis was placed on the development of
the Director for Faculty Research Development position because of the large amount of
responsibilities expected of the role. However, Castlegate experienced set backs when
establishing the director position. In particular, the first director for Faculty Research

Development held the position for only one academic year because of the onset of an

119

illness. The second person occupying the position was an administrator-faculty member
who held the position in the interim. As a result, the establishment of the position, as well
as activities associated with the Mellon initiative, were delayed.

Thus, the appointment of a new Director for Faculty Research Development was
not made until the third year of the grant. Not only did progress on the execution of the
Mellon initiative slow, but the intent to develop an Office for Faculty Research
Development to provide administrative support to the Director for Faculty Research ,
Development was dropped.

Securing necessary campus connections. Although the role and leadership
demonstrated by the third Director for Faculty Research Development will be discussed
later, the third director played an instrumental role in obtaining the support of the provost
to sustain the Faculty Conversations. Once the third director assumed the position, she
advocated for the continued administrative support for the Faculty Conversations.
According to the third Director for Faculty Research Development:

I told the Provost, of all the things they [Castlegate College] should keep, it

should be the faculty conversations. It was a wonderful way (for little money) to

have curriculum workshops, have others read each other’s work, and stimulate
intellectual community. (Third Director for Faculty Research Development,

Castlegate College)

In addition to advocating for the continued support for Faculty Conversations
through the Provost’s Office, the third Director for Faculty Research Development
initiated conversations with the administration of the Learning and Teaching Center
regarding collaborative efforts in supporting faculty through joint sponsorship of

programs. The administrators of the Learning and Teaching Center were receptive to the

idea proposed by the third Director for Faculty Research Development because:

120

[The Director of the Learning and Teaching Center] and I had decided to expand

[the services of the Learning and Teaching Center] to include faculty

development, because in a sense, we were already providing that service in an

informal way, and truly, when you think about it, faculty development and student
learning . . . they go together here, you really can’t have one without the other.

(Learning, Teaching, and Research Center Administrator A, Castlegate College)
By the end of the Mellon grant period, the Learning and Teaching Center was renamed
the Learning, Teaching, and Research Center. In addition, the Director for Faculty
Research Development was considered one of the administrators of the Learning,
Teaching, and Research Center. Meanwhile, the Faculty Conversations continued to be
coordinated under the Director for Faculty Research Development with funding from the
Office of the Provost.

What contributed to the sustainability of the Castlegate Mellon initiative:
Participants’ reflections on the process. Four themes emerged from the participants
regarding what they believed contributed to the sustainability of the Mellon initiative.
The Castlegate participants equated the sustainability of the Mellon initiative with only
certain components of the original Mellon initiative. In particular, the participants viewed
the sustained Mellon initiative as the continued position of the Director for Faculty
Research Development and the Faculty Conversations. Therefore, for the remainder of
the discussion of Castlegate, I interchange Mellon initiative with Director for Faculty
Research Development and the Faculty Conversations because of the participants’
perspective of the sustained Mellon initiative as comprising just those two components.

The four themes reflect the observations made by the faculty and administrators
involved in the sustainability of Castlegate’s Mellon initiative. I discuss the themes

utilizing the language of the participants. The themes are l) timing of grant, 2) folding

the Director for Faculty Research Development into the Learning and Teaching Center,

121

3) leadership from the third Director for Faculty Research Development, and 4) fulfilling
a need on campus. These four themes are interrelated and not mutually exclusive of one
another.

Timing of grant. Many participants attributed the sustainability of the Mellon
initiative to the mere timing of the Mellon grant as coinciding with transitions occurring
at Castlegate. Participants spoke extensively about the transitions that Castlegate
experienced at the time of the Mellon grant period. According to one campus
administrator, Castlegate was “still fine-tuning its [administrative] structure” during the
Mellon grant period (Campus Administrator B, Castlegate College). In essence, the
Mellon grant overlapped with the transition period at Castlegate. Thus, the third Director
for Faculty Research Development emphasized that because the college was going
through a period of transition during the grant period, the circumstances allowed her the
flexibility to improvise. “I felt the grant timing was just right and it added another
dimension to the change that Castlegate was undergoing” (Third Director for Faculty
’ Research Development, Castlegate College). Therefore, the unique timing of the Mellon
grant coinciding with the campus transition in administrative infrastructure allowed for
the Mellon initiative to be viewed “as a time to experiment and see where the initiatives
implemented would take Castlegate because of the transitions that Castlegate was dealing
with at the time” (First Director for Faculty Research Development, Castlegate College).

Folding the director position into the Learning and Teaching Center. Several
participants felt that the sustainability of the Mellon initiative was attributed to the
decision to move the Director for Faculty Research Development into the Learning and

Teaching Center. When Castlegate College drafted its proposal for the Mellon initiative,

122

the college had intended for the Director for Faculty Research Development to work
within a new Office for Research Development. However, the Office for Research
Development never came to fruition. As a result, the Director for Faculty Research
Development worked independently, but in association with the Office of the Provost.
Several participants commented that the Director for Faculty Research Development was
“isolated . . . off on the outskirts” (Learning, Teaching and Research Center
Administrator A, Castlegate College).

Because the Director for Faculty Research Development, and thus the Mellon
initiative, was perceived as off on the outskirts, the third Director for Faculty Research
Development began talking and working with the Learning and Teaching Center
“because we [The Learning and Teaching Center] were beginning to do new faculty
events” (Learning, Teaching, and Research Center Administrator B, Castlegate College).
The third Director for Faculty Research Development further explained her thinking
regarding the merger:

There’s a tension between teaching and research here [at Castlegate] because of
the limited time . . . because faculty here have a five course load . . .it seemed
important and symbolically good to put research with teaching and learning and
to not have the Director for Research Development off in some other place.
(Third Director for Faculty Research Development, Castlegate College)
Rather than maintaining two separate entities, Castlegate College administrators made the
decision to bring the Director for Faculty Research Development position into the
Learning and Teaching Center to “work in collaboration with the [Learning and Teaching

Center] in organizing events” (Learning, Teaching and Research Center Administrator B,

Castlegate College).

123

 

The result of the move has not only given a home to the Director for Faculty
Research Development and the Faculty Conversations programs, but it also has
transformed the former Learning and Teaching Center that had a reputation as a remedial
center into the Learning, Teaching and Research Center that has become “a place that
emphasizes scholarship, research and teaching as one thing—that faculty, like students,
are learning too” (Director for Faculty Research Development, Castlegate College).
Although the move was more of a symbolic move than a physical move, it nonetheless
required the efforts of the Director for Faculty Research Development and the
administrators of the Learning and Teaching Center to work together and plan how the
incorporation of the director’s position would be beneficial to both sides. As a result, the
symbolic placement of the director position helped to solidify its “place” and identity on
campus.

Leadership of the Third Director for Faculty Research Development.
Participants also attributed the successful sustainability of the Mellon initiative to
particular leadership actions on the part of the third Director for Faculty Research
Development. First, the position was not solidified until the third year of the grant when a
third person was appointed to become the third director. Because of the instability of the
position, the third director had no starting point to interpret the position:

Well, [the First Director] got ill after the first year, so the position wasn’t really

jelled in any real sense. . . when I was asked to take on the position, I read the

proposal, and I had some guidelines on what were the goals of the [Director for

Faculty Research Development] position. . . but for the most part, I had to invent

the position. (Third Director for Faculty Research Development, Castlegate
College)

124

In essence, the third director’s ability to create the Director for Faculty Research
Development in a way that would contribute to the campus community and meet a need
helped to secure the position’s place on campus.

In addition, participants at Castlegate noted the third director’s discussion with the
Provost, and her request for the continued support for the Faculty Conversations as a key
moment in sustaining the Mellon initiative. To many of the campus administrators and
faculty, the sustainability of the Faculty Conversations component is greatly attributed to
the proactive action of the third director as well as the responsiveness of the Provost to
support the continuation of the Faculty Conversations component of the initiative. One
faculty planning participant explained her assessment of the Mellon initiative:

Oh, by far [Third Director for Faculty Research Development] is the reason why

the Faculty Conversations got the support it needed from the Provost. [Castlegate

College] has always been supportive of faculty here, but, it needs . . . it requires

people to go to them, say something, bring attention to it . . . I mean, how else

would they [administration] know? (Faculty Planning Participant B, Castlegate

College)

Hence, the proactive actions of the third director in approaching the Provost for continued
funding for the Faculty Conversations was a key factor in the sustained support for the
Mellon initiative. Because this theme overlaps with the leadership factor in the guiding
conceptual framework, I provide further discussion regarding the leadership of the third
director in my analysis of the case through the framework.

F ul/illing a need on campus. As previously mentioned, the role of the Director
for Faculty Research Development addressed an identified need on campus. Several
participants in this current study noted that “[Director for Faculty Research

Development] serves a real need at [Castlegate]” (Learning, Teaching and Research

Center Administrator A, Castlegate College) by serving as a mentor to the faculty and as

125

a liaison between faculty and campus administration. Another campus administrator also
explained that the Director for Faculty Research Development fills a need at Castlegate:

[Castlegate] already had a grants office to help faculty members navigate the

grant process. But the college wanted a faculty [member] to act as a colleague to

others to help them understand what grants to apply [for], what to do with their
research from their dissertation, etc. (Learning, Teaching and Research Center

Administrator B, Castlegate College)

In addition, the Faculty Conversations were purposely “designed to fill an unmet
need” (Castlegate College Mellon initiative proposal) by the Planning Task Force.
Castlegate participants noted the Faculty Conversations program addressed the need for
community that Castlegate hoped to address with the Mellon initiative. For example, one
faculty member explained:

There were several opportunities to participate in seminars, but they either were

confined to one discipline or area, like Jewish studies . . . environmental studies . .

. or had a more formal end product requirement. (Faculty Member A, Castlegate

College)

The Faculty Conversations were developed to create intellectual community without the
formal expectation that a scholarly product would result. The third Director for Faculty
Research Development elaborated upon the need that the Faculty Conversations program
filled on the Castlegate campus:

The Faculty Conversations . . . we didn’t have such opportunities prior to the

grant, and so when it was realized that it [the Faculty Conversations] was a

wonderful way, and for so little money, to have curriculum workshops, have

others read each other’s work, stimulate intellectual community . . . it just
demonstrated that the faculty really craved these discussion groups. . . and I think
as long as [the Faculty Conversations] continue to meet the needs of the faculty,
the institution will continue its commitment to it. (Third Director for Faculty

Research Development, Castlegate College)

Therefore, unlike prior faculty seminars that were intended to develop a scholarly

product, the goal of the Faculty Conversations was to create scholarly community.

126

In essence, Castlegate College intended for the Faculty Conversations component
of the Mellon initiative as well as the Director for Faculty Research Development
position to address particular needs on campus. As such, participants noted that the
ability for the Mellon initiative to fill an unmet need contributed to the sustainability of
the Mellon initiative.

Exploring the Case Through the Framework. In this section, I provide my
analysis of the sustainability process of the Mellon initiative utilizing my conceptual
framework as a guide. To reiterate, the sustained Mellon initiative is the continued
Director for Faculty Research Development position and the Faculty Conversations.
Although some overlap exists between the themes that emerged in the interviews and the
guiding framework, the analysis using the framework helps to further explain the
sustainability process. In what follows, I examine the sustainability process using the
guiding conceptual framework, focusing on the program, institutional and environmental
factors.

Program factors. Program factors contributed to the sustainability of the Mellon
initiative at Castlegate College. The perceived program ’s effectiveness played an
important role in determining what components of the grant initiative would be sustained
beyond the initial funding. In addition, the program type that defined the Faculty
Conversations was far-reaching and flexible to accommodate the many interests of
faculty on campus. These factors contributed to the sustainability of the Faculty
Conversations.

Program effectiveness. Castlegate campus administrators and faculty perceived

the Mellon initiative and the three components that made up the Mellon initiative as

127

effective. Perceived effectiveness was an important factor in the sustainability of the
Faculty Conversations. The Faculty Conversations, as a campus program that funded
small campus projects and opportunities for the Castlegate faculty, was considered by
several campus administrators to have been “highly successful.” One of the staff
participants elaborated upon the perceived success of the Faculty Conversations: “Well, I
believe because of the enthusiasm and success of the faculty conversations, the provost
pledged to continue funding the program” (Learning, Teaching and Research Center Staff
Member, Castlegate College). Faculty members in the Castlegate academic community
expressed similar perceptions of enthusiasm toward the Faculty Conversations program.
For example, one faculty member described the sense of appreciation she felt because of
the Faculty Conversations:
I know many [Castlegate faculty members] who participated [in the Faculty
Conversations], and were so thankful too for the opportunities to engage with
others on campus . . . and we were fed, which was nice . . . but mostly just to get
together with others, you know, especially when you’re at the assistant professor
rank. (Faculty Planning Participant E, Castlegate College)
Likewise, one campus administrator noted the steady participation by the faculty in the
Faculty Conversations:
The faculty have really taken to the Faculty Conversations. The first year [of the
Faculty Conversations], there was . . . a level of faculty participation of over 50
percent, which spanned all disciplinary divisions. . . . So far this academic year,
the Faculty Conversations are involving over 60 percent of the faculty, spanning
all disciplinary divisions. (Campus Administrator C, Castlegate College)
Although Castlegate had various ways of assessing the effectiveness of the Mellon
initiative, it appears that the enthusiasm and responsiveness of the faculty community

with regard to the Mellon initiative was a contributing factor in the sustainability of the

Mellon initiative.

128

Program type. The type or intent of the various components of the Mellon
initiative at Castlegate also influenced its sustainability. For example, the Planning Task
Force had “agreed that activities to address the needs [of the faculty] should benefit the
largest number of faculty, representing all ranks and stages of career and personal
situations” (Faculty Planning Participant B, Castlegate College). In other words, the
members of the Planning Task Force were aware that the Mellon initiative activities
should reach as far as possible throughout the faculty community. The focus on creating
the Faculty Conversations to reach a wide array of faculty appeared to help solidify its
effectiveness and eventual support from the provost to absorb the financial cost of that
component into the operating budget.

In addition, the fimction of the Director for Faculty Research Development
position was broad enough in impact to be able to remain a funding priority with the
Provost. The Director for Faculty Research Development position and the director’s role
as a “bridge” (Third Director for Faculty Research Development, Castlegate College) or
“liaison” (Current Director for Faculty Research Development, Castlegate College)
between the faculty and administration were seen as providing an impact that is
widespread.

Institutional factors. In addition to the program factors, institutional factors
contributed to the sustainability of the Mellon initiative at Castlegate College. The
integration of existing resources and services was found to help sustain the Director for
Faculty Research Development position. The decision to move the Director for Faculty
Research Development into Castlegate’s Learning and Teaching Center and rename the

Center to reflect the move, contributed to the current sustainability of the director

129

position and the responsibilities and programs that the director manages. In addition,
leadership from the third Director for Faculty Research Development was found to have
influenced the sustainability of the Director for Faculty Research Development position
and the Faculty Conversations.

Integration with existing programs/services. Prior to its incorporation into the
Teaching and Learning Center, the Director for Faculty Research Development stood
independently amongst the various units on campus. Moving the Director for Faculty
Research Development into the Teaching and Learning Center and renaming the Center
to reflect the move solidified the Director for Faculty Research Development’s place on
campus. Folding the position into the center was portrayed by the participants as an
“easy” decision because the campus administrators “supported [the move] because it
wouldn’t cost anything” (Campus Administrator A, Castlegate College). In addition, the
third director elaborated upon the good fit of the Director for Faculty Research
Development position within the center: “[Castlegate College] values both teaching and
research and faculty need to be good at both” (Third director for Faculty Research
Development, Castlegate College). The integration of the Mellon initiative and the
former Learning and Teaching Center allowed for the Mellon initiative and the Director
for Facuty Research Development to have a ‘home.’ Furthermore, because the former
Learning and Teaching Center was a well established unit on campus, the integration of
the Mellon initiative with the Center helped secure the sustainability of the initiative by
its becoming part of an entity that was already well supported and funded by campus

administration.

130

Program champion/leadership. In spite of the frequent changes in leadership, one
individual who occupied the position for the full three-year term was considered key in
maintaining the momentum and enthusiasm of the Mellon initiative. The third director for
Faculty Research Development assumed the role as the initiative was on going into its
third year of the grant period without guidance or training to administer the Mellon
initiative. In spite of the lack of guidance or training, the third director was able to help
define the director role as a liaison between faculty and various units on campus, as well
as between the various units on campus. The third director elaborated upon her
experience as follows:

I think my major contribution [to the role] was supplying the communication

between the Dean of Planning and Administration, the Grants office, the

Development Office, the Research Committee, and the Learning and Teaching

Center because the structure of [Castlegate] at the time was undergoing transition.

(Third director for Faculty Research Development, Castlegate College)

The third director’s strength resided in her ability to communicate with others and
opening channels of communication between administrative units. By becoming a direct
line of communication between the faculty and administration, and by giving voice to the
faculty during the time of transition and more communication between units, the third
' director was able to solidify the need and importance for the position.

Environmental factors: Socioeconomic and political considerations.
Environmental factors, or socioeconomic and political considerations, were not found to
have a role in the sustainability of the Mellon initiative at Castlegate College. However,
socioeconomic factors may affect the sustainability of the Director for Faculty Research

Development position in the future. Although Castlegate is a private, well endowed

institution, the Castlegate participants were aware that the College is nonetheless affected

13]

by the national economy. For example, the current Director for Faculty Research
Development observed the effects of the national economy on Castlegate: “the [Director
for Faculty Research Development] position serves a need at Castlegate and I would like
to see it continue, but in a time of retrenchment, everyone is cutting back and we’ll see”
(Director for Faculty Research Development, Castlegate College). Nevertheless, the
position and the Mellon initiative continue with the support of the College and the Office
of the Provost.

Summary. In spite of initial set backs in the implementation of the Mellon
initiative, Castlegate College had four results by the end of the grant period: the Director
for Faculty Research Development, the Faculty Conversations Programs, the findings
from the “Time Balance Study” of the campus’s faculty work and time, and a new
resource center for faculty and students called the Learning, Teaching and Research
Center.

Castlegate College sustained a majority of the elements from the Mellon
initiative—namely the Director for Faculty Research Development position and the
Faculty Conversations program that the Director for Faculty Research Development-
coordinates. Participants in the current study attributed the sustainability of the Mellon
initiative to four themes—timing of grant, folding the Director for Faculty Research
Development position into the Learning and Teaching Center, leadership provided by the
third Director for Faculty Research Deve10pment, and the initiative’s ability to fulfill a
need on campus.

In addition to highlighting the themes that emerged from the Castlegate

participants’ perspectives, I analyzed the sustainability process through the guiding

132

conceptual framework. The factors of program efilectiveness and program type were
found to greatly contribute to the sustainability of the Director for Faculty Research
Development position and Faculty Conversations. Institutional factors of integration into
existing programs or services and leadership also were found to contribute to the
sustainability of the sustained components of Castlegate’s Mellon initiative. The Director
for Faculty Research Development filled a need on campus and the integration of the
Director for Faculty Research Development with the campus’ existing Learning and
Teaching Center were found to help secure a presence of the director’s position on
campus. In addition, the leadership provided by individuals occupying the Director for
Faculty Research Development greatly affected the sustainability of the Faculty
Conversations component of the Mellon initiative.

Although environmental factors were not found to affect the sustainability of the
sustained components of Castlegate’s Mellon initiative, it is certainly possible that future
socioeconomic factors will affect the sustainability of the Director for Faculty Research
Development position.

Case Number Three: Hilltop College

Hilltop College sits on top of a tree-covered hill overlooking the suburbs of a
large metropolitan city. Initially founded as a men’s college by frontier people, the
college’s mission was “to nurture leadership for education, commerce, religion, and
government” (Hilltop College website). Today, the coeducational, nonsectarian college
enrolls approximately 2100 students. The college offers an “authentic liberal arts
education” (Hilltop College website) that has an emphasis on faculty-student

collaboration.

133

Although faculty are encouraged to engage in research, teaching remains a
priority at Hilltop. Hilltop’s tenure process and all subsequent review processes focus on
teaching. Particular attention is paid to a faculty member’s rapport with students, course
organization, innovation, and rigor, ability to address various learning styles, and
demonstrating passion in one’s respective field.

The proposed initiative. Hilltop College’s Mellon initiative was designed as a
series of funded career enhancement and support opportunities for faculty. Through the
Mellon initiative, faculty could “apply” for funds in one three categories. The faculty
would then implement the events or activities if their proposals were accepted for funding
from the college.

Strengthening intellectual communities. This category of funding opportunities
was envisioned for faculty to create programs or events emphasizing communication and
community building among the faculty members, and to provide time to spend with other
'academic colleagues on shared intellectual pursuits. Therefore, rather than having the
college organize events to stimulate intellectual community, the Mellon initiative would
fund faculty members interested in coordinating the intellectual community building
events or groups.

Venture fund. This category was for faculty members who found themselves in
unique situations within their careers. Therefore, “venture funds” were funded
opportunities for these faculty members to develop new projects, explore new areas of
interest, or to take new directions in their careers. Essentially, the venture funds were for
faculty members experiencing professional stagnation or looking for ways to grow within

their careers.

134

Strategic allocation of faculty time. This category funded opportunities for
faculty members to earn expanded sabbatical time equivalent. Typically, the sabbatical at
Hilltop provides faculty a semester’s leave at full pay after six years of teaching. Because
the faculty normally teach three courses a semester at Hilltop, faculty would be released
from three courses. The Strategic Allocation of Faculty Time opportunity would allow
faculty member to receive an addition courses off from teaching either in the semester
preceding or following the sabbatical. In other words, under this category, faculty could
receive funds to extend their time off from three courses to four courses.

In essence, faculty developed proposals for projects that could either be for the
purposes of strengthening intellectual communities, for enhancing their own careers, or
for extending their sabbatical time from three courses off to four courses off. The Mellon
initiative administrators at Hilltop did not focus on creating programs that would
strengthen intellectual community, as was the case with the Faculty Conversations at
Castlegate or the Social Gatherings at Amber Hills (which will be discussed later in Case
Number Four). Instead, Hilltop College’s administrators of the Mellon initiative placed
responsibility on the faculty to propose and create their own support programs. Thus,
Hilltop College considered a variety of projects to be funded as long as the faculty could
demonstrate the intent and goal of their proposed projects would be either to create
community on campus or enhance their careers.

The Office of the Provost oversaw the administration of the Mellon initiative,
with the administrative support of a faculty coordinator labeled the “Catalyst.” The
Catalyst was a part-time position, appointed by the Office of the Provost, filled by an

emeritus faculty member who received a work compensation stipend.

135

Hilltop College represents the type of campus that administered the Mellon
initiative through a faculty coordinator who worked closely with the Provost or Dean of

Faculty. Figure 4.3 is a visual representation of the administration of the Mellon

 

 

 

 

 

initiative.
Provost/ Catalyst
Dean of Faculty
Funds for Venture Strategic
Intellectual Funds Allocation
Community of Time

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.3. Hilltop College’s Administration of Mellon Initiative

The key players in the Mellon initiative. The implementation, execution, and
sustainability of the Mellon initiative at Hilltop College involved the following key
players:

Provost and Associate Provost. The Provost and Associate Provost presided over
the development and implementation of the Mellon initiative. Together, they
administered a survey to assess the needs of the Hilltop faculty for the Mellon initiative.
In addition the two administrators coordinated a half-day conference with Hilltop faculty
to develop ideas and help guide their decision-making on how to best utilize the Mellon
initiative to support the faculty. As the Mellon initiative was implemented, a group of
faculty from the half-day conference was convened to become the Faculty Advisory

Committee. The committee has since served as advisors to the Provost and Associate

136

Provost in decisions pertaining to faculty development and support as the standing
committee called the Faculty Development Committee.

Although the provost position has experienced one transition since the
implementation of the Mellon initiative, the associate provost position has remained
constant and primarily responsible for faculty development at Hilltop.

Catalyst. The Catalyst position was filled by an emeritus faculty member of the
college, working closely with the Provost and Associate Provost on the Mellon initiative.
Although the Catalyst and the Provost agreed to keep the terms of the position on a
renewable year-to-year basis, the Catalyst remained in the position throughout the Mellon
grant period. The Catalyst has been a faculty member at Hilltop College for his entire
career and is considered to be a well respected, energetic, and “dedicated individual” by
campus administration and the faculty community.

The results of the implementation. The implementation of the Mellon initiative
at Hilltop College led to four results, as identified by the participants of this study.

Intellectual communities. The implementation of the Mellon initiative resulted in
the development of several reading and support groups focused around common interests.
Some of the groups, such as the Community of Women Scientists and Perspectives on
Modernity, annually renewed their requests for funds to continue their groups because of
the support the groups provided to the faculty members. In addition to the groups, a series
of events called Faculty Fridays and Musings were developed to recognize the
achievements of faculty across the campus. All intellectual communities were developed
by faculty members who received funds under the intellectual communities component of

the Mellon initiative.

137

The Faculty Fridays and Musings continue under the administration of the Center
for Student Research and Fellowships, formerly known as the Honors Program. Although
the faculty member who served as the director of the Honors Program and created the
Faculty Fridays and Musings has returned to the faculty full-time, the two programs
Continue in the same capacity as they were implemented, despite the new administration
of the Center for Student Research and Fellowships.

Hilltop College’s Venture Award. The implementation of the Mellon initiative at
Hilltop also resulted in the development of a new “Hilltop College Research Foundation
’ Venture Award.” Hilltop’s award fund was “inspired by and modeled on the career-
enhancing objectives of the Mellon Venture Fund” (Campus Administrator A, Hilltop
College). Therefore, in order to maintain the opportunities that the Mellon initiative’s
Venture Fund provided to the faculty, Hilltop developed a similar award fund. More
discussion about this process will appear later in this section.

Faculty development committee. The implementation of the Mellon initiative also
resulted in the development of a Hilltop Faculty Development Committee. In response to
the experience with the Mellon initiative, and as an effort to achieve faculty input in how
the college may best support faculty, Hilltop developed its first Faculty Development
Committee. Upon reflection regarding the value of the new Faculty Development
Committee, one administrator remarked, “This [Faculty Development Committee] group
fills a much-needed role at [Hilltop]” (Campus Administrator B, Hilltop College). As a
standing campus committee, Hilltop’s Faculty Development Committee continues to
“provide guidance in Hilltop’s efforts to support its faculty members on campus”

(Campus Administrator A, Hilltop College).

138

Institutional learning. Finally, the implementation of the Mellon initiative
resulted in a better understanding of Hilltop’s faculty needs. One administrator explained
the lessons learned from the Mellon initiative.

I believe that there is another benefit that the [Mellon initiative] had that is not

counted in the specific benefits we think of that attach to the individual

components of the [Mellon initiative]. I would call it the Mellon experience, or,
that is, the prospect of receiving the grant, as well as the execution of the grant,
led us to think hard about the issues around faculty career satisfaction and career
needs. . . and through the process . . . we stepped back and analyzed the issue in
ways that we likely would otherwise not have done. In that sense, the Mellon
grant was a catalyst that propelled us forward in our role as good academic
administrators. (Campus Administrator A, Hilltop College)

Several administrative participants mentioned the value gained through Hilltop’s
experience with the Mellon initiative. As noted above, campus administrators believed,
albeit retrospectively, one of the effects of the Mellon initiative was the knowledge and
understanding of their faculty that resulted from the Mellon grant experience.

Developing and implementing the Mellon initiative. The following briefly
describes how Hilltop College developed and implemented the Mellon initiative.

Planning stages. For the Hilltop campus administrators, the focus of the one-year
planning period for the Mellon initiative was to assess the Hilltop faculty’s needs. One
campus administrator elaborated upon the efforts of the Hilltop administration to
understand the needs of the faculty:

The Mellon grant, or rather the prospect of the grant, precipitated our efforts to

find out what our faculty felt their greatest needs were, what they wanted most in

their careers at this point. (Campus Administrator A, Hilltop College)
To assess the needs of the faculty, Hilltop College distributed a survey and then held a

conference as an opportunity to follow up on the survey findings. One administrator

further described the needs assessment experience:

139

We did a written survey, followed by a half-day faculty conference to discuss the
results of the survey. And we found out something we did not know, that
unequivocally and overwhelmingly our faculty wanted more time above all, not
money, not working conditions, not recognition, but time to do their work

better. (Campus Administrator A, Hilltop College)

Ultimately, Hilltop College administrators determined that the most appropriate way to
use the Mellon initiative was as funding opportunities to the faculty that addressed the
two identified needs: “The pervasive sense of a lack of time for both personal and
professional activities, and the desire for a stronger sense of intellectual community
among the faculty” (Faculty Advisory Committee Member A, Hilltop College).

Administration of the initiative. Although administration of the Mellon initiative
was housed within the Office of the Provost, the Catalyst was the primary coordinator of
the Mellon initiative. One of the campus administrators summarized the role of the
Catalyst:

[The Catalyst’s] role is to advertise the program to the faculty, to speak with those

who may be interested in applying for support [through the Mellon initiative], and

to facilitate the process of application and selection of grants [through the Mellon
initiative]. He reports directly to the provost's office. (Campus Administrator A,

Hilltop College)
The Catalyst interpreted his position in the following manner:

I would describe myself as a mini-hub. The proposals would come to me, and
then the Provost, Associate Provost and myself would decide which proposals
were to be funded or not, and under which category [strengthening intellectual
communities, venture fund, or strategic allocation of faculty time], or [whether
they were] to be redirected to another source of funding within the institution.

(Catalyst, Hilltop College)
The Catalyst also counseled with faculty members interested in submitting proposals
ahead of time to give feedback on the proposals before they were submitted. After

submission, the proposals were evaluated by the Catalyst, the Provost and the Associate

140

Provost, who based the decision to fund the project on the proposal’s appropriateness in
meeting the goals of the Mellon initiative and its quality.

Making adjustments. Hilltop College made alterations in the Mellon initiative as
the initiative was executed. Campus administrators and the Catalyst, through annual
evaluation of the Mellon initiative, discovered that granting a one-course reduction
through the Strategic Allocation of Faculty Time component created disruption in course
offerings for the students. Although Hilltop campus administrators understood the
benefits to the faculty members in granting the one-course reductions, campus
administrators made the decision that granting one-course reductions had effects on
students that outweighed the benefits. One campus administrator elaborated upon the
issue:

We gained a greater understanding of the non-monetary costs of the one-course

reductions at a place like [Hilltop]. Quite frankly, our perception of the loss of

continuity for the students and the lower quality of the replacements made the
course releases less attractive in practice, and we decided monies were better
invested in other ways. (Campus Administrator B, Hilltop College)
Although the faculty found the course reassignment option to be helpful, these
arrangements had unintended consequences that affected the students and student
learning. In other words, the benefits to the faculty resulting from the course
reassignment option had negative effects on student learning.

In addition, campus administrators and the catalyst discovered that many faculty
members were applying for funding under the Building Intellectual Communities
category “to spend time on new projects” (Campus Administrator A, Hilltop College)—

projects that were actually more in line with the Venture Fund category. This, in a sense,

forced the college to reexamine the purpose of the Course Reassignment option and the

141

Strengthening Intellectual Communities categories. Subsequently, campus administrators
realized that the intent of “providing faculty with more time” could be achieved by
redefining what was meant by “time.” The clearer definition of “time” was documented
by campus administrators in a report to the Mellon Foundation:

We have learned that when our faculty members talk about a need for more time,

they think foremost of major portions of time in which to carry out major research

projects. As a result, we decided that the most effective use of allotments from
this [grant] firnd . . . would be to fund full-semester leaves for faculty members.

(Hilltop College Report to the Mellon Foundation)

As a result, Hilltop College administrators of the Mellon initiative decided that more
emphasis would be placed upon awarding funds through the Venture Fund component
than through the Strategic Allocation of Faculty Time and Strengthening Intellectual
Communities components. This adjustment in drinking about Hilltop’s faculty needs
allowed for the administrators of the Mellon initiative to understand what components of
the Mellon initiative were the most valuable to the Hilltop faculty and the institution. In
essence, Hilltop campus administrators concluded that the Venture Fund component
would be sustained beyond the initial grant period.

Transition to sustain. In 2007 Hilltop College began the steps to transition the
funding of the Venture Fund component of the Mellon initiative to Hilltop College’s
funding sources. The Catalyst described the transition as “the phase-in, phase-out process
of the grant” (Catalyst, Hilltop College), and elaborated upon the transition:

The [Hilltop College] Research Foundation would take on the smaller requests

[for funding], such as funding smaller projects or lab equipment, while the

[Alumnus Donor] Fund would take over the full semester leave requests.

(Catalyst, Hilltop College)

In essence, two campus funds were identified to take over the Venture Fund component

of the proposed Mellon initiative. The already established Hilltop College Research

142

Foundation was identified to fund small project requests, such a funds to initiate pilot
projects, that were originally made through the Venture Fund, while another Alumnus
Donor Fund (name changed for anonymity) was identified to fund larger projects
requests, such as semester leaves for exploring new directions in research, that were
originally made through the Venture Fund.

Hilltop prepared for the transition of funding resources by ensuring that the new
funding sources would have the capacity to absorb the costs of the Venture Fund. One
campus administrator explained: “The College has been bolstering up those resources to
be able to absorb the role that the [Mellon initiative] grants fulfilled (Campus
Administrator B, Hilltop College).

In sum, Hilltop College administrators decided to sustain the Venture Fund
component of the Mellon initiative by identifying existing campus firnds to take over the
objectives of the Mellon initiative’s Venture Fund. However, to ensure that the identified
existing funds would be able to fulfill the new objectives adequately, Hilltop College
“bolstered up” the Alumnus Donor Award Fund in anticipation for the transition. As
such, Hilltop College “added to the [Alumnus Donor Award Fund] from new donations”
(Catalyst, Hilltop College) as well as reallocated existing resources to the Alumnus
Donor Award Fund.

What contributed to the sustainability of the Hilltop Mellon initiative:
Participants’ reflections on the process. Six themes emerged from the interviews with
participants regarding what they believed contributed to the sustainability of the Mellon
initiative. As a point of clarification, the Mellon initiative at Hilltop College was

considered to be the funding opportunities that were coordinated by the Catalyst.

143

Therefore, the sustained Mellon initiative at Hilltop College is the continued version of
the Venture Fund because the Venture Fund was a form of funding opportunities. For this
reason, I interchange Venture Fund with Mellon initiative because from the perspective
of the participants at Hilltop, the Venture Fund is the sustained Mellon initiative.

The six themes reflect the observations made by those involved in the
sustainability of the Mellon initiative: 1) planning for financial transition, 2) nature of
initiative, 3) persuasion from the provost, 4) applied institutional learning, 5) culture of
faculty support, and 6) meeting a need. These themes are related and not mutually
exclusive.

Planning for financial transition. Several participants in this current study
believed that a key factor that contributed to the sustainability of the Mellon initiative
was the administration’s planning for and transition of the funding sources to sustain the
Venture Fund. The plan to transition occurred approximately half way through the grant
period. The Catalyst remarked upon this plan for transition:

Well, they knew the [Mellon initiative] was going to end . . . and administration

concluded that this was something worth keeping if they could find the funding

source. (Catalyst, Hilltop College)
Hilltop College had no planned intentions from the beginning to sustain the Mellon
initiative as it was proposed. Instead, Hilltop College decided to sustain components of
the Mellon initiative as the implementation of the initiative unfolded. Thus, although
there was not a plan to sustain the Mellon initiative at the beginning of the
implementation, a plan was formulated mid-way through the grant period once

effectiveness of certain components of the grant initiative had been determined by

campus administration.

144

Nature of the Mellon initiative. Many participants also felt that the open and
flexible nature of the Mellon initiative contributed to the sustainability of the initiative on
campus. One faculty member explained: “[The Mellon initiative] seemed open ended
enough to help faculty become better faculty members” (Faculty Planning Member C,
Hilltop College). Another faculty member who received funding through the Mellon
initiative stated: “[The Mellon initiative] was open, so people could utilize [the
opportunities] in lots of ways. . . it was flexible” (Faculty Planning Member D, Hilltop
College). In other words, faculty members valued the various funding opportunities made
available through the Mellon initiative for them to create their own supports.

Moreover, campus administrators viewed the Mellon initiative as highly flexible,
not just in the way in which Hilltop College applied the initiative to its campus, but also
in the way in which the Mellon Foundation framed the grant. Hilltop College campus
administrators found that the flexible, open nature of the Mellon initiative allowed the
college to tailor the initiative in a way that would maximize benefits. The flexibility of
the initiative also allowed campus administrators to adjust the initiative as Hilltop learned
what components of the initiative worked best for the faculty. Thus, the flexibility of the
initiative allowed Hilltop College to adjust the initiative in a way that it would continue
to best address its faculty’s needs.

Persuasion from the provost. Several of the Hilltop participants mentioned the
provost’s leadership and ability to persuade the board of the Hilltop College Research
Foundation to create a separate award that would continue providing funding for part of
the Mellon initiative once foundation funding ended. One campus administrator

elaborated upon the development of the new award fund:

145

The provost had recommended that the [Hilltop College Research Foundation]
board follow the lead of the Mellon Venture Fund . . . in this case for larger and
more ambitious projects. The board approved the proposal, and since [then] the
[Hilltop College Research Foundation] Venture awards annually provide
substantial funding to one or more faculty members pursuing research that takes
her or him or a team down new pathways . . . and that is innovative and or career
transforming (Campus Administrator B, Hilltop College)

Participants believed that the creation of the new award fund was the direct result of the

provost’s action to approach the board of the foundation and make his request for the new

type of award. For example, the Catalyst asserted:

I would attribute much of the continuation of the [Mellon initiative] to the

advocacy of our provost, making a case that a greater priority needed to be given

to career enhancement type grants that were patterned after the Mellon Venture

Fund and helping the board to see their importance. (Catalyst, Hilltop College)
Hence, participants believed that much of the sustainability of the Mellon initiative was
directly attributed to the actions and advocacy of the provost. Because this theme
overlaps with the leadership factor in the guiding conceptual framework, I provide further
discussion regarding the leadership of the provost in my analysis of the case through the
framework.

Applied institutional learning. Campus administrators spoke of the many lessons
learned that occurred during the grant period. One campus administrator reflected upon
the institution’s experience with regard to the Mellon initiative:

I would say we recognized clearly that much had been gained in the exercise itself

. . .the extensive process of discussion and survey of the faculty members to

discover their ideas for enhancing faculty careers was very instructive in its own

right, quite apart from our hope for the outcomes in the grant itself. (Campus

Administrator A, Hilltop College)

As a result of Hilltop’s involvement with the Mellon initiative, campus administrators

discovered that the Strategic Allocation of Faculty Time had negative effects on the

institution that outweighed the benefits to the faculty members. For this reason, campus

146

administrators decided to place more emphasis on semester leaves through the Venture
Fund than on one-course reductions through the Strategic Allocation of Faculty Time
component. The college’s willingness to apply what had been learned through its
experience with the Mellon initiative seemed to help the college reexamine and refine
what components of the Mellon initiative were worth sustaining. One campus
administrator elaborated upon the lesson learned:

These [Venture] awards have been immensely helpful to faculty recipients as they

have allowed them to pursue critical elements of their research and pedagogy, and

we have learned how to [implement the Venture Fund Award] effectively after

much prior doubt. (Campus Administrator B, Hilltop College)
In addition, campus administrators pointed to the Mellon experience itself as providing a
foundation for administrators to better support faculty in the future. Thus, one
administrator explained that in addition to gaining a new faculty research award, the
Mellon initiative provided administration with new lessons or tools they could be apply
to address future faculty support issues:

Actually getting the Mellon grant helped us to address some of those problems in

the short term, and to find ways of addressing the issue beyond the term of the

grant. (Campus Administrator B, Hilltop College)
One administrator commented on how the campus administrator came to view the Mellon
initiative as an investment: “We viewed the grant, not only as a means of meeting the
more immediate needs of current faculty members, but also as a long-term investment in
our faculties of the future” (Campus Administrator A, Hilltop College).

Thus, beyond the actual sustained component of the Mellon initiative, campus
administrators believed that the lessons learned from the campus’ experience with the

Mellon initiative provided new tools and informed strategies to continue to support its

faculty beyond the initial grant period.

147

Culture of faculty support. Several participants attributed the sustainability of the
Mellon initiative to an already established supportive culture at Hilltop College. One
participant explained the college’s support of faculty:

The College has had a history of putting a lot of resources toward faculty
development . . . the [Hilltop College Research Foundation] is about 50 years old,
so there’s that . . . but also, when a faculty member wants something, I think
faculty feel they can go to the Provost, and although the Provost may not always
give money, the Provost is at the very least, receptive to hearing that faculty
member’s needs. (Faculty Planning Member B, Hilltop College)
Because the values of the Mellon initiative coincided with Hilltop’s preexisting culture
for supporting faculty, participants felt that sustaining the Mellon initiative enhanced and
reinforced Hilltop’s dedication to supporting faculty. Therefore, participants believed that
sustaining the Mellon initiative fit into Hilltop administrators’ interest in maintaining its
faculty through the investing in faculty development.

Meeting a need. Finally, a few participants in the study mentioned the Mellon
initiative filled a need that was unaddressed prior to the Mellon grant. The Catalyst
described the need the Mellon initiative filled: “Well, I think [the Mellon initiative] was
popular because it created a venue for [the faculty] to put their energy into something that
was reasonable” (Catalyst, Hilltop College). In other words, not only did the Mellon
initiative provide Hilltop faculty opportunities for funding that fit into their research
interests, but it also provided the opportunities through an application process that was
not laborious or time consuming for the faculty.

The Catalyst proceeded to explain how in spite of Hilltop College’s push to have

its faculty engaged in research, he felt that many non-science faculty members have

limited options to fund their research:

148

There was lower representation from faculty in the sciences, but I suspect it is
because the science disciplines are better funded. . . so unless you’re in the
sciences, you don’t have as many opportunities for funding [your research]. I
believe that is another reason why [the Mellon initiative] was as popular as it was.
(Catalyst, Hilltop College)

By way of the Mellon initiative, Hilltop College created permanent opportunities
for faculty to obtain “time” needed to conduct their research, beside the sabbatical, in
ways that not only benefited the individual faculty members, but also in ways that did not
create unintended negative consequences for the students.

Exploring the case through the framework. In this section, I provide my
analysis of the sustainability process utilizing my conceptual framework as a guide.
Although some overlap exists between the themes that emerged in the interviews with the
participants and the guiding framework, an analysis using the framework helps to further
explain the sustainability process. To reiterate, the sustained Mellon initiative is the
campus’ version of the Mellon Initiative’s Venture Fund, which is supported by two
campus foundation funds. In what follows, I examine the sustainability process at Hilltop
College, focusing on the program, institutional and environmental factors of the
framework.

Program factors. Program factors were found to have greatly contributed to the
sustainability of the Mellon initiative at Hilltop College. The perceived eflectiveness of
the Venture Fund was a significant program factor in sustaining that component of the
Mellon initiative and providing rationale for the Hilltop administrators to place less

emphasis on the Strategic Allocation of Faculty Time component. In addition, the type of

program that the Mellon initiative represented, as a set of flexible funding opportunities,

149

factored into the sustainability of the Mellon initiative and the objectives of the Mellon
initiative.

Program eflectiveness. The Mellon initiative, as a set of funding opportunities,
was perceived effective by campus administration and the faculty members who
participated or took advantage of Mellon initiative. In general, the funding opportunities
were considered to be popular among the faculty members. One campus administrator
stated, “Basically it was a successful program inasmuch as it brought things into
existence that would otherwise not have happened” (Campus Administrator B, Hilltop
College). The Catalyst asserted the effectiveness of the Mellon initiative by stating,
“There has been no shortage of requests [for firnding through the Mellon initiative]” by
the faculty to request funds for projects. The Catalyst explained that Hilltop College
would receive an average of 11 requests per year; about one-half of those requests would
come from both senior and mid-career tenured faculty.

The popularity and effectiveness of the funding opportunities provided reason for
Hilltop College to sustain the Venture Fund by creating the Hilltop College Foundation
Venture Fund and having another Hilltop College Fund’s resources increased to take over
the opportunities the Venture Fund provided. One campus administrator summarized this
point:

The [Venture Fund] component was a huge success. . . the short-term benefits, as

well as the long-term [benefits], were clear to us . . . the Mellon Venture Fund

allowed us to offer faculty intellectual space, a sense of options, possibilities . . .

and it was clear that as long as the fund benefited the faculty, we [Hilltop College]

would continue to, once the grant period ended, to find a way to continue the
support . . . (Campus Administrator B, Hilltop College)

Ultimately, the responsiveness of the faculty toward the Mellon initiative seemed to

contribute to the college’s decision to find ways to sustain the Venture Fund component.

150

Therefore, because of the perceived effectiveness of the Mellon initiative, the Mellon
initiative became a Hilltop priority for continued funding beyond the grant period.

Program type. Program type also was found to have had an influence on the
sustainability of the Mellon initiative. The way in which the Mellon initiative was
designed appealed to a broad range of individuals because of the various ways in which
the faculty could participate in the program, whether it was for career enhancement at the
individual level or stimulating intellectual connections at the broader community level.

The Venture Fund was intended to support faculty members who wanted to
develop new projects, explore new areas of interest, or pursue new directions in their
research or careers. Specifically, the grants provided “substantial funding to one or more
faculty members pursuing research that take her or him (or a team) down new pathways,
and is innovative and/or career transformative” (Hilltop College Report to the Mellon
Foundation). Examples of projects included faculty exchanges, curriculum development,
team teaching, retooling, and guest faculty member visits. The award could fund
individuals or teams of individuals. Therefore, a wide range of types of opportunities that
could be considered for funding reached a large number of faculty. The broad appeal of
the Mellon initiative, and specifically the Venture Fund, made the firnding opportunities
attractive to the faculty members in its ability to be flexible enough to support projects in
various forms. As such, the initiative was far reaching in its ability to affect a large group
of faculty members.

Institutional factors. In addition to the program factors, institutional factors were
found to contribute to the sustainability of the Mellon initiative at Hilltop College.

Hilltops’ ability to integrate with existing programs or services on campus was found to

151

be an institutional factor in the sustainability of the Mellon initiative. Specifically,
Hilltop’s ability to use existing resources to absorb the goals and functions of the Mellon
initiative contributed to its sustainability. In addition, leadership provided by the Catalyst
also contributed to the sustainability of the Mellon initiative.

Integration with existing programs/services. The ability of Hilltop College to find
a way to integrate the Mellon initiative using existing resources was found to greatly
contribute to the sustainability of the Venture Fund. Thus to sustain the Venture Fund, the
objectives of the Mellon Venture Fund were absorbed by two separate college funds. The
smaller projects that the Mellon Venture Fund supported were adopted by an existing
alumnus donor fund on campus. Meanwhile, a new award was created out of a current
campus foundation, the Hilltop College Research Foundation. The new award fund,
called the Hilltop College Research Foundation Venture Award, provided the financial
support for the leave requests related to retooling one’s career. Together, the new award
along with the existing alumnus donor fund maintains the spirit and goals of the Mellon
Venture Fund award.

Program champion/leadership. Much leadership was attributed to the provost in
securing funding for absorbing the Mellon initiative, as well as the stability of the
Catalyst, who played a key role in working with the faculty and helping them to develop
ideas and enthusiasm to apply for the funds.

As previously mentioned, several participants related the sustainability of the
Mellon initiative directly to the actions and advocacy of the provost. The provost’s ability

to persuade the board of the Hilltop College Research Foundation into creating a new

152

funding award based upon the principles of the Mellon Venture Fund facilitated the
college’s ability to have the financial resources to sustain the initiative.

The Catalyst also provided consistent leadership throughout the Mellon grant
period to ensure that faculty understood the purpose and opportunities available through
the Mellon initiative. The consistent leadership provided by the Catalyst allowed the
faculty to become familiar with the career enhancement opportunities. This helped
maintain interest in the Mellon initiative.

Moreover, the Catalyst enjoys his role in working with faculty members:

The Provost had asked me to be the catalyst, and if I would occupy the role for the

duration of the grant . . . but I asked to have the role changed to a yearly term, so

if the Provost were unhappy with me, or if I wanted to do something else, then we

would both retain the option of me leaving the position. But, well [laughs] I’m

still here. (Catalyst, Hilltop College)

Therefore, in spite of the open option for the emeritus faculty member to leave the
Catalyst position, the faculty member chose to stay. The Catalyst explained his reason for
remaining in the position: “I enjoy what I do, working with individuals . . . but it’s a
learning opportunity for myself as well, learning what others are doing, what they are
interested in, where they are going [with their research]” (Catalyst, Hilltop College). In
other words, the Catalyst believed he benefited from occupying the position while he
helped others.

Moreover, the Catalyst, as an individual working closely with the Provost, was in
a key position to influence both the campus administration and faculty members.
Therefore, the Catalyst was a person that both campus administration and faculty could
trust. This sense of trust was necessary for the Catalyst as the “face” of the Mellon

initiative and his ability to reach out to the faculty members to generate enthusiasm to

participate in the Mellon initiative. In addition, through the close relationship with

153

campus administration, the Catalyst was also able to provide his perspective on the
effectiveness of the Mellon initiative.

En vironmental factors: Socioeconomic and political considerations.
Environmental factors, or socioeconomic and political considerations, were not found to
have a role in the sustainability of the Mellon initiative at Hilltop College. Hilltop
College is a private, liberal arts college and therefore relatively insulated from political
influences of the state. Much like its peers, the College is dependent upon the wealth of
its endowment and tuition dollars. Therefore, the college’s endowment can be affected by
changes in the nation’s economy.

Nevertheless, there was no mention of any socioeconomic or political factors by
any of the participants with regard to the sustainability of the program. Although
economic effects can be felt at liberal arts colleges through the health of their
endowments, there was little effect on the sustainability of Hilltop’s Mellon initiative
because of the types of existing resources from which the college drew. In other words,
because the college drew upon an institutional foundation that has endured financial ups
and downs for approximately 50 years, this financial source had already demonstrated its
stability and was in a position to assume the responsibility that the Mellon Venture grant
awards did during the grant period.

Summary. Hilltop College’s experience with the Mellon initiative led to several
results. One result was campus programs to bring faculty together across the disciplines;
another was the development of a new college research fund to continue the objects of
the Mellon Venture Fund award granted through the Mellon initiative. A new Faculty

Development Committee for the campus emerged from the experience with the Mellon

154

initiative. In addition, campus administration enhanced its learning about the needs of the
Hilltop Faculty.

Hilltop sustained the Mellon initiative by focusing on sustaining the Venture Fund
component. Hilltop accomplished this by using existing funding resources in two specific
ways. First, Hilltop College created a new Hilltop College Research Foundation Venture
Award to address half of the objectives of the Venture Award component of the Mellon
initiative. Second, Hilltop College utilized an existing alumnus donor fund to address the
remaining half of the Venture Award component of the Mellon initiative. Thus, the
sustained form of the Mellon initiative at Hilltop College is not in its original, nor a
centralized form, but in two different forms of funding.

The Hilltop participants in this study believed that the sustainability of the Mellon
initiative was influenced by six themes—planning for transition, the nature of the Mellon
initiative, persuasion from the provost, applied institutional learning, Hilltop’s culture of
faculty support, and the initiative’s ability to meet a need on campus. In addition to
highlighting the themes that emerged from the Hilltop participants’ perspectives, l
analyzed the sustainability process through the guiding conceptual framework. The
factors of program effectiveness and program type were found to greatly contribute to the
initiative’s sustainability.

Institutional factors of integration into existing programs or services and
leadership also were found to contribute to the sustainability of the sustained component
of Hilltop’s Mellon initiative. The Venture Fund was absorbed by the college’s existing
resources in order to become sustainable. Meanwhile, leadership by the provost helped to

secure continued funding for the Mellon initiative. External environmental factors,

155

however, were not found to affect the sustainability of the sustained components of
Hilltop’s Mellon initiative.
Case Number Four: Amber Hills College

Amber Hills College is located in a small college town, nested in the middle of
hills and lush foliage. The town is an approximate one-hour drive in any direction to the
closest large town. Initially founded for “training young men for professional life”
(Amber Hills website), the co-educational, nonsectarian college is known for its
incorporation of Oxbridge-style tutorials in its curriculum. The college maintains one of
the largest endowments of the 23 institutions that received the Mellon grant.

Approximately two-thirds of the faculty members are tenured. To emphasize
Amber Hill’s priority on teaching, “the College has built its reputation around teachers
and teaching” (Amber Hills website). Amber Hills College student course evaluations,
distributed at the end of each semester, are heavily relied upon in faculty tenure
decisions.

The proposed initiative. Amber Hills College envisioned its Mellon grant
initiative as a set of group and individual opportunities. These opportunities were targeted
to the more senior group of faculty members on campus. The senior group was targeted
because they were “anticipated to account for approximately 40 percent of the faculty
before the end of the grant period” (Amber Hills College Report to the Mellon
Foundation). This group of individuals was defined as full professors who are “not ready
for retirement, and although perhaps tempted to ‘rest on their laurels,’ are considered
eager to keep their careers moving forward (Mellon Foundation Report). Although

Amber Hills initially targeted the Mellon initiative toward the faculty who were over the

156

age of 50, the target population was eventually redefined as faculty members who are 12
years past tenure in order for more individuals to benefit from the Mellon initiative.
Amber Hills College’s proposed Mellon initiative had three components:

Renewal leaves. This component of the Mellon initiative was envisioned as
funded opportunities to provide individual faculty members time off to reflect upon and
revitalize their scholarship and teaching. To ensure that the renewal leaves were distinct
from a sabbatical, Amber Hills framed the renewal leaves as once-in-a-career opportunity
for “faculty who felt [they] really need help, had come to . . . a point where they needed
to make some decisions to do something defrnitive to reinvigorate what they [as faculty]
were” (Campus Administrator A, Amber Hills College).

Intergenerational relationships. This component of the Mellon initiative was
envisioned as organized campus community building activities designed to foster
intergenerational relationships among the faculty. However, in the implementation of the
Mellon initiative, the intergenerational relationships component morphed into organized
social gatherings for the senior faculty members, with less emphasis on intergenerational
connections.

Resident scholars program. This component of the Mellon initiative was
envisioned as a community-enhancing program that would bring visiting scholars to the
campus for a semester with the intent of fostering close scholarly collaborations with
members of the Amber Hill faculty. 1

The project was overseen by administrators in the Dean of F aculty’s Office, with
the assistance of two senior faculty members serving as program coordinators. While the

Dean of Faculty Office administered and coordinated the Renewal Leaves and Resident

157

Scholars Program components, the senior faculty program coordinators managed the
Intergenerational Relationship component, which manifested itself as social dinners and
gatherings for the senior faculty population of the college.

Amber Hills represents the type of campus that administered the Mellon initiative
using the Provost/Dean of Faculty Office to coordinate one part of the initiative and a
small group of faculty to coordinate another part of the initiative. However, the
Provost/Dean of Faculty and the faculty coordinators worked independently as separate
coordinating entities. Figure 4.4 is a visual representation of the administration of the

Mellon initiative at Amber Hills College.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dean of Faculty __________________ Faculty Coordinators
Renewal Resident Dinners/
leaves Scholars Socials

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.4. Amber Hills College’s Administration of Mellon Initiative

The key players in the Mellon initiative. The implementation and execution of
the Mellon initiative at Amber Hills College involved the following key players:
Planning Committee. A committee formed by the Dean of Faculty, comprised of
senior faculty members and other campus administrators. The committee was charged to
develOp the proposal based upon the needs of the senior faculty. Utilizing information

‘1‘an1 from group discussions, one-on-one interviews, and open-ended surveys with the

158

senior faculty members, the planning committee developed the four components of the
Mellon initiative.

Dean and Associate Dean of Faculty. Both the Dean and Associate Dean of
Faculty were highly involved in the planning stage of the Mellon initiative. Three of the
components of the Mellon initiative were administered directly out of the Dean of
Faculty’s Office. Therefore, the Dean and Associate Dean coordinated the Renewal
Leaves program and the Resident Scholars program. Both the Dean and Associate Dean
of Faculty remained in their positions throughout the Mellon grant period and have
continued to serve in their positions. Although the Dean of Faculty remains as an Amber
Hills faculty member, the Associate Dean came to Amber Hills as a full-time
administrator.

Faculty Program Coordinators. Two faculty members served as program
coordinators during the implementation of the Mellon grant period. Both program
coordinators were veteran faculty members, intended to represent the population of
faculty to whom the Mellon initiative was targeted. The program coordinators were
responsible for the “Intergenerational Relationship” component of the Mellon initiative,
but interpreted and implemented the component as social gatherings for the senior
faculty. Both program coordinators were members of the planning committee.

Director of Corporate and Foundation Relations. A full-time administrator,
serving as the Director of Corporate and Foundation Relations, was asked by the Dean of
Faculty’s Office to serve as a bridge between the Faculty Program Coordinators and the

Dean of Faculty’s Office. As the Director of Corporate and Foundation Relations at

Amber Hills, the director had been serving as a liaison between extemal-funders and the

159

institution for over 20 years. In spite of not having faculty status, the director served as
the appointed leader of the Mellon initiative.

The results of the implementation. The implementation of the Mellon initiative
at Amber Hills College led to three results, as identified by the participants of this study.

Renewal Leaves Program. The implementation of the Mellon initiative resulted
in the “Renewal Leaves Program.” The Renewal Leaves “provided selected senior faculty
members an opportunity, as a paid leave, for a semester, to try something new, or
different, with their research or scholarship” (Campus Administrator A, Amber Hills
College). Many of the faculty members who received a renewal leave believed that the
“career impact” of the opportunity was significant in “genuinely reorienting my research
interests” (Faculty Member A, Amber Hills College).

Social Dinners. The implementation of the Mellon initiative also resulted in the
Social Dinners, which sought to build community within the senior faculty community.
The Social Dinners, held several times each year, were hosted events providing “the
opportunity to interact with colleagues in other departments” (Faculty Planning Member
A, Amber Hills College). Dinners were held at an upscale restaurant near campus. The
dinners were described as “nice, sit-down, three course meals” (Faculty Member A,
Amber Hills College). The dinners were planned as an interactive activity so that faculty
would switch seats at each course to have an opportunity to speak with others. Several
faculty members expressed appreciation of the events, noting the “tangible” aspect of the
dinners. One faculty member elaborated:

Faculty like to feel appreciated with something concrete. Although merit pay

raises are nice, people can forget about them throughout the year. Appreciation
doesn’t have to come in the form of money . . . although some would say that

160

money is nice, but can quickly be forgotten or already spent. (Faculty Member B,
Amber Hills College)

Institutional lessons learned. Finally, the implementation of the Mellon initiative
resulted in an enhanced understanding of the needs of the Amber Hills senior faculty
members. Although Amber Hills College has not sustained its original Mellon initiative,
several participants felt that the Mellon initiative provided the institution with a greater
understanding about how to support faculty in general and a new sense of direction on
how to support senior faculty more effectively. One participant stated upon reflecting on
the Mellon grant experience:

The Mellon grant did change the mindset of how to support faculty and an

awareness developed out of the experiences. . . without a doubt, it documented the

needs of faculty and the appropriate responses. (Campus Administrator B, Amber

Hills College)

Likewise, faculty coordinators felt they “appreciated the process and going through the
process of coordinating” (Faculty Coordinator A, Amber Hills College). In other words,
the experience with the Mellon initiative provided the institution with an opportunity to
learn about its faculty. Moreover, the initiative provided the opportunity for
administrators and faculty alike to learn through the implementation process what
strategies worked and did not work to support the senior faculty.

Developing and implementing the Mellon initiative. The development and
implementation of the Mellon initiative was challenging for the individuals involved in
the process. Although Amber Hills planned and executed the Mellon initiative in much

the same fashion as other institutions in this study, Amber Hills encountered many

challenges throughout the term of the grant.

161

Planning. Much of the planning of the Mellon initiative proposal was conducted
by the planning committee. Utilizing written surveys, the planning committee collected
responses from the senior faculty group to determine how the Mellon initiative would
address the issues raised in the survey findings. One Faculty Coordinator recounted that
“it [planning process] took forever” (Faculty Coordinator A, Amber Hills College) to
develop a proposal as a faculty group. Another Faculty Coordinator noted, “It took eight
months of us meeting . . . to figure out what to do . . . how to move forward” (Faculty
Coordinator B, Amber Hills College).

In addition to the long planning period, the planning committee, after reviewing
the results of the survey of the senior faculty needs, discovered no clear pattern of faculty
needs. One Faculty Coordinator explained, “What faculty wanted was all over the board
with pockets of commonalities” (Faculty Coordinator B, Amber Hills College).
Ultimately, the decisions behind the social dinners were drawn from the likes and dislikes
of the faculty coordinators themselves: “The group sat and said well, what would WE
like? . . . We like dinners . . .we like leaves and time of’ (Faculty Coordinator A, Amber
Hills College).

Divided administration of initiative. As the planning committee put together the
Mellon initiative proposal, the committee decided to divide the administration of the
Mellon initiative between the Dean of Faculty’s Office and a group of faculty program
coordinators. One campus administrator explained the division of responsibilities:

The implementation of the project got divided amongst the groups . . . [Faculty

Coordinators] were supposed to do the [Social Gatherings] thing. The renewal

leaves were decided by a group [of administrators headed by the Dean of

Faculty], and the driving force was me saying, okay, what are we doing? How are
we getting you guys on board? (Campus Administrator C, Amber Hills College)

162

In essence, the administration and coordination of the Mellon initiative was handled by
two separate units—the Dean of F aculty’s Office and faculty program coordinators—
with an appointed administrator to serve as the facilitator coordinating the two entities.
Challenges of implementation. Participants mentioned particular challenges that
occurred during the implementation of the Mellon initiative. For example, although the
Renewal Leaves were intended to motivate senior faculty members who were stagnant in
their research and careers, faculty members who were perceived by campus
administration as “fine” and already productive, ended up in the pool of those selected for
the Renewal Leaves. One of the campus administrators elaborated on a loop-hole that
was discovered as the Mellon initiative was implemented:
The renewal leaves were intended to reinvigorate those faculty members who
were, I don’t want to say deadwood, but . . . needed motivation to be more
productive . . . and to some extent, the renewal leaves did just that, but in addition
to those folks, there were faculty members, who were already very productive and
doing great stuff, who ended up in the pool of applicants for consideration. And
that was an administrative challenge. How do you target certain individuals
without singling them out? (Campus Administrator C, Amber Hills College)
Another challenge that participants mentioned was the coordination of the social
dinners. For example, one campus administrator mentioned her frustration over the
faculty coordinators overseeing the Social Gatherings component of the initiative: “The
faculty coordinators really didn’t do anything . . . they had to be reminded to send out
notices and such [to the faculty regarding the social gatherings]” (Campus Administrator
C, Amber Hills College). The faculty coordinators, themselves, noted their challenges
over the logistics in planning the gatherings:
How do you do it [have social dinners] and not alienate the other groups [i.e.,

early career faculty]? There was talk of inviting more faculty to be more
inclusive, but then it takes away from the idea of having a group . . . and smaller

163

groups are more manageable . . . you can have the opportunities to actually talk to
more individuals. (Faculty Program Coordinator B, Amber Hills College)

Finally, Amber Hills College found that the Resident Scholars component of the
Mellon Initiative was not as popular as had been anticipated.

The resident scholars [component of the Mellon initiative] . . . that essentially

went nowhere. I mean it was pretty much a failure. It just didn’t work logistically.

. . and I think we rerouted a lot of that money that would have gone to that into

additional support for renewal leaves which were immensely popular. (Campus

Administrator C, Amber Hills College)

In sum, Amber Hills discovered some logistical challenges during implementation
of the initiative. The targeted individuals for whom the Renewal Leaves were intended
and those who participated did not necessarily match. The Social Dinners were not
meeting the intergenerational intent of the original proposal. The Resident Scholars
program required too much coordination to locate individuals to participate.

Beyond the grant period. Amber Hills College did not sustain any components of
the Mellon initiative, as it was proposed and implemented, beyond the initial funding
period. All activities funded by the Mellon grant were discontinued with the termination
of the grant. However, the experience with the grant has stimulated conversation on
campus to develop an emeritus center. In the words of one of the campus administrators,
the emeritus center would “maintain the legacy of the grant” (Campus Administrator B,
Amber Hills College). As such, the college is in the early stages of planning an emeritus
center with the guidance of a committee. Hence, although Amber Hills College has not
sustained tangible forms of the Mellon initiative after the grant period, campus

administrators suggest that an intangible form of the grant initiative has been sustained

through the formation of the emeritus center planning committee.

164

What contributed to the sustainability of the Amber Hills Mellon initiative:
Participants’ reflections on the process. As previously mentioned, the Mellon grant
initiative, as it was implemented, was not sustained beyond the initial grant period.
Therefore, the Renewal Leaves, Social Dinners, and Resident Scholars programs are no
longer offered at Amber Hills. However, an intangible form of the Mellon grant has been
sustained at Amber Hills College. Specifically, an ad hoc planning committee has formed
to plan the development of an emeritus center for the campus. As previously mentioned
one campus administrator explained that the committee and future emeritus center were
specifically created and “intended to maintain the legacy of the Mellon grant.” Rather
than putting efforts toward maintaining the Mellon grant in its proposed form, Amber
Hills College has chosen to “move forward to take the next step in supporting [Amber
Hills’] senior faculty members” (Campus Administrator A, Amber Hills College). In
spite of Amber Hills’ intangible sustained form of the Mellon initiative, I refer to Amber
Hills College as the institution that did not sustain components of the Mellon initiative in
the sense that none of the components, as originally proposed or implemented by the
institution, have been sustained in a tangible or even a modified form.

Four themes emerged from the participants regarding what they believed
contributed to the discontinuation of the Mellon initiative after the grant period. The
following four themes represent the observations and reflections made by those involved
in the implementation and execution of the Mellon initiative. The themes are 1) narrow
impact of initiative, 2) more of the same, 3) lack of leadership, and 4) lack of funding.

Narrow impact of initiative. Several participants attributed the discontinuation of

the Mellon initiative to the narrow scope of the Mellon initiative as it was proposed and

165

implemented at Amber Hills College. One campus administrator elaborated how the
relationship between an initiative’s impact and reach affects the initiative’s sustainability:

When the impact doesn’t reach as far and isn’t so broad, it’s easier to let [it] go . .

. but when the impact is broad, it is more difficult for the institution to let go of

the commitment. (Campus Administrator A, Amber Hills College)

Another campus administrator reflected upon the narrow impact of the Renewal Leaves
component of the Mellon initiative:

The renewal grants went to a small percentage of [Amber Hills] faculty . . . it

would have been nice to have been able to spread that support around . . . more

like through more course releases. That might have had a larger impact on the
whole community [at Amber Hills]. (Campus Administrator B, Amber Hills

College)

To further exemplify the narrow impact of Amber Hills’ Mellon initiative, another
campus administrator explained Amber Hills College’s history with regard to sustaining
programs initially funded by the Mellon Foundation:

[Amber Hills] has sustained many projects that were originally funded by the

Mellon Foundation and have been taken up by the institution and sustained. . . but

those sustained projects were broad in their reach and impact, unlike the renewal

leaves portion of the Mellon initiative. (Campus administrator C, Amber Hills

College)

In general, partiCipants suggested that one of the primary reasons why the Mellon
initiative was not sustained in its proposed form was the fact that a bulk of the proposed
initiative had a narrow emphasis on supporting faculty at the individual level, rather than
at a broad, institutional level. However, it appears that the planning committee had
difficulty determining how to use the Mellon initiative to broadly reach the faculty

members because of the planning committee’s difficulty in discerning a clear pattern in

the faculty’s needs at the time of proposal planning.

I66

More of the same. Several participants noted that although there was appreciation
for the Mellon initiative and the opportunities the initiative provided, the Mellon
initiative provided “more of the same [support], taken in the traditional path” (Campus
Administrator B, Amber Hills College). In other words, many participants in the study
acknowledged that the components of the Mellon initiative were not innovative or
different from what the institution was already providing. One campus administrator
elaborated upon the traditional nature of the initiative components:

We know . . . we knew . . . what faculty want . . . they like leaves, and they like

getting together. So in a sense, that’s what we gave them. I would hardly call what

we did innovative. (Campus Administrator C, Amber Hills College)

The Renewal Leaves component of the Mellon initiative was described as “highly
ambitious” (Campus Administrator B, Amber Hills College), in the sense that the college
was investing a’maj ority of the grant funds in a few individuals with the hope that those
individuals would emerge from the leaves more productive. However, the Renewal
Leaves were also “very expensive” (Faculty Coordinator A, Amber Hills College) and
“more of the same” (Campus Administrator B, Amber Hills College) because the college
was merely giving the faculty another opportunity to take a paid leave. The social
gatherings also were viewed as “more of the same” by some campus administrators in the
sense that the campus had already been providing social gatherings for faculty on
campus.

Overall, although campus administrators acknowledged that the faculty, who

participated in the Mellon initiative, appreciated the opportunities, campus administrators

believed that the Mellon initiative was not providing faculty support that Amber Hills

167

was not already providing. The Mellon initiative was enhancing forms of faculty support
that were already offered at Amber Hills.

Lack of leadership. Both faculty program coordinators and campus administrators
suggested that a lack of leadership contributed to the discontinuation of the Mellon
initiative after the grant period. Many participants in this study attributed much to the
initial planning efforts to a particular faculty member involved in the initial planning
stages. However, the individual removed himself from the initiative once the initiative
was implemented.

The planning really owes a lot of the energies and vision to [faculty member]. . .
he drove it. He was smart and he understood and he pulled these ideas together.
And the whole [Mellon initiative] owes a lot to him. . . for some reason, he
stepped out once the project got launched . . .and it went on forward but I think
with his commitment [and] his energy gone . . . it didn’t have as much energy. . .
there wasn’t this single person who was like . . . man, I’m just really committed to
this. I’m going to make sure this happens. (Campus Administrator C, Amber Hills
College)

Another campus administrator elaborated upon the Mellon initiative leadership:

A project run by a committee can go along [to make the initiative work] but it
would always help if you have somebody who is just really committed to it and is
going to make sure people are on board . . . in the Dean’s Office, [the Mellon
initiative] was one of many, many things we were trying to do and get
accomplished. (Campus Administrator B, Amber Hills College)

Particularly with regard to the Social Gatherings, one campus administrator
acknowledged that the continuation of the social dinners was dependent upon an
individual or group of individuals to take the lead:
The social dinners . . . it needs somebody who is willing to take it on. . .you need
someone to make that happen. . . it can be supported by the Dean’s office, but you
need somebody who has the personality and the drive to say let’s take it on. . .

let’s keep talking [to each other]. (Campus Administrator C, Amber Hills
College)

168

The Faculty Coordinators also acknowledged the necessary leadership that would
be needed to continue the Social Dinners components, but the coordinators believed that
the leadership should originate from someone or someplace else, such as campus
administration. In general, the Faculty Coordinators did not appear to possess ownership
of the Social Dinners. Moreover, the Faculty Coordinators felt they were lacking
administrative guidance on their responsibilities as Faculty Coordinators. One faculty
program coordinator recalled the ambiguity experienced through the process: “We really
didn’t have any guidance on what to do . . . and expectations on what to do” (Faculty
Program Coordinator B, Amber Hills College). It appears that rather than the Faculty
Coordinators working with the Dean of F aculty’s Office to coordinate the social
gatherings, the Faculty Coordinators interpreted their role as working for the Dean of
Faculty’s Office in coordinating the Social Dinners. Overall, Amber Hills College lacked
the presence of a champion to lead the Mellon initiative, not just to bridge the two
coordinating administrative units and take ownership of the initiative, but also to
maintain the momentum and enthusiasm of the initiative itself. Because this theme
overlaps with the leadership factor in the guiding conceptual framework, I provide firrther
discussion regarding leadership in my analysis of the case through the guiding conceptual
framework.

Lack of funding. Finally, some participants attributed the discontinuation of the
Mellon initiative to lack of funds. For example, one campus administrator suggested that
the downturn of the economy contributed to the institution’s decision not to continue the
Mellon initiative programs: “The ending of the grant coincided with the downturn of the

economy” (Campus Administrator A, Amber Hills College). Similarly, one of the faculty

169

program coordinators suggested that “lack of funds” was a barrier to the continuation of
the social gatherings: “I’m rather disappointed that the dinners have discontinued . . . but
the answer [from administration] is always money” (Faculty Program Coordinator C,
Amber Hills College).

Although Amber Hills College’s endowment is large, some participants. cited
“lack of funds” as one of the reasons for the institution’s inability to sustain the Mellon
initiative as it was implemented. However, some participants also believed that lack of
funding was not the primary reason for the discontinuation of the Mellon initiative. In
fact, some participants challenged the idea that “lack of funds” was a legitimate reason
for the Mellon initiative’s discontinuation, particularly with regard to the inexpensive
social dinners. Nonetheless, a few campus administrators and faculty mentioned funding
as one of the reasons for the discontinuation of the Mellon initiative at the end of the
grant period. Because this theme overlaps with the environmental factor of the guiding
conceptual framework, I provide further discussion regarding the external economic
influence on the sustainability of the initiative in my analysis of the case through the
guiding conceptual framework. I

Exploring the case through the framework. Because the case at Amber Hills
differs significantly from the other three cases in this study, the focus of this analysis also
is different. The focus of Amber Hills’ case is on understanding why the Mellon initiative
was not sustained as it was implemented beyond the initial grant period, even though
benefits were gained from the components of the initiative such as the Social Dinners and

the Renewal Leaves.

170

In this section, I provide my analysis of the Amber Hills College’s process that
led to the discontinuation of the Mellon initiative in its proposed form. I limit my analysis
to the Social Dinners and the Renewal Leaves program for two reasons. First, the Social
Dinners and Renewal Leaves components were considered to be the more “successful”
components of the Mellon initiative. The Resident Scholars Program, on the other hand,
did not generate enough interest from faculty to participate. For this reason, the Resident
Scholars Program was considered to be a “failure” and was quickly discontinued midway
through the grant period. Second, the Social Dinners and Renewal Leaves were activities
comparable to the sustained activities at Bowling Lawn, Castlegate, and Hilltop. Yet,
Amber Hills College was not able to sustain these components of its Mellon initiative.

In this section, I explain how the factors from the guiding conceptual framework
contributed to the sustainability of the Mellon initiative. Although some overlap exists
between the themes that emerged in the interviews with the participants and the guiding
framework, the framework helps to further explain the sustainability process. In what
follows, I examine the sustainability process at Amber Hills focusing on the program,
institutional and environmental factors of the guiding conceptual framework.

Program factors. Some of the reasons why the Mellon initiative did not continue
in its proposed form can be attributed to the factors of program eflectiveness and
program type. In this section, I first discuss the perceived effectiveness of the main
elements of the Mellon initiative—the renewal leaves and the social gatherings—to
understand the extent to which perceived effectiveness may have contributed to the

sustainability of the Mellon initiative. Then I discuss how the programs’ “type” as they

171

were implemented also contributed to the discontinuation of the initiative at the end of
the grant period.

Program eflectiveness. There were varying and, in some cases, conflicting
perspectives of the Mellon initiative’s effectiveness. In general, campus administrators
felt that the Mellon initiative as a whole “fulfilled its purpose in the sense that it
documented the needs of the senior group of faculty members and what may be the
appropriate ways of addressing those needs” (Campus Administrator B, Amber Hills
College). However, they also believed that the “renewal leaves had more of an impact on
the faculty then did the dinners” (Campus Administrator B, Amber Hills College)
because “it helped meet the needs that were identified by the college” (Campus
Administrator A, Amber Hills College). Those identified needs, from the perspective of
campus administration, were to enhance senior faculty members who were experiencing
. stagnation in their careers. Therefore, in determining which components of the Mellon
grant were more effective than other components, campus administrators felt that the
Renewal Leaves were more effective than the Social Dinners.

There was little disagreement between faculty and campus administrators on the
perceived benefits of the Renewal Leaves to the individual faculty members who
received them. Recipients felt the renewal leaves were “career changing” (Faculty
Member A, Amber Hills College) and were “so grateful for the opportunity” (Faculty
Member B, Amber Hills College). Likewise, campus administrators emphasized the
benefits of the renewal leaves component of the initiative:

Those who were granted these [renewal] leaves undertook very meaningfirl

projects and adjusted their careers in significant ways. . . [it] was a great
opportunity for retraining, self-assessment, and examination of

172

personal/professional goals. . . excellent for morale among experienced faculty
members. (Campus Administrator A, Amber Hills College)

However, some faculty members and campus administrators noted that there was
an administrative problem with the implementation of the renewal leaves program.
Although the Renewal Leaves program was intended to reinvigorate stagnant faculty,
already productive faculty members were able to take advantage of the Renewal Leaves
opportunity. The Renewal Leaves did help stagnant faculty members, but non-stagnant
faculty members benefited as well. Although this unintended consequence affected the
perceived execution of the Renewal Leaves component of the Mellon initiative, in
general, faculty and administrators believed that the Renewal Leaves were effective in
reinvigorating the senior faculty members who received the leaves.

Unlike the Renewal Leaves’ perceived effectiveness, there was disagreement on
the perceived effectiveness of the Social Dinners. Many campus administrators perceived
the Social Dinners as “less than effective” (Campus Administrator B, Amber Hills
College) in meeting the needs of the Amber Hills faculty because the dinners “were for a
social purpose and therefore didn’t shape faculty careers like the way the [renewal]
leaves did” (Campus Administrator C, Amber Hills College). Meanwhile, the Faculty
Coordinators had a more positive perspective on the Social Dinners’ effectiveness. One
coordinator explained:

[Social] Dinners were meeting the community need that was mentioned by the

faculty through the surveys. Faculty were finding themselves too busy to talk to

one another and they wanted to be able to have more time devoted to that.

(Faculty Coordinator A, Amber Hills College)

Described by the Faculty Coordinators as “lively and useful” (Faculty Coordinator B,

Amber Hills College), to them the dinners “served to boost morale and build an esprit de

173

corp” (Amber Hills College Report to the Foundation) among the senior faculty
members. Thus, the Faculty Coordinators of the events perceived the Social Dinners to be
effective in meeting the need for faculty community.

Nevertheless, overall it appears that the perceived effectiveness of the Social
Dinners, like the perceived effectiveness of the Renewal Leaves, was not a strong enough
factor to continue the events after the grant period ended. Therefore, it is likely that at
Amber Hills College, perceived effectiveness was not a primary factor in contributing to
the sustainability of the Mellon initiative.

Program type. Program type as a factor appears to have had more of an influence
in the sustainability of the Mellon initiative at Amber Hills College than perceived
program effectiveness. First, in examining the target audience for whom the programs
were developed, all the programs were intended for a sub population of the faculty
community—specifically for the senior faculty members on campus. One campus
administrator explained the specificity of the Mellon initiative: “The Mellon grant was a
low-risk opportunity to meet a specific need” (Campus Administrator C, Amber Hills
College).

As for the Renewal Leaves, although the impact on the faculty was deep and in
many cases career changing, the impact was narrow because the leaves were focused on
making an individual impact versus a campus impact. Sustaining the leaves would have
been too costly from the perspective of campus administration, especially considering
Amber Hills College currently “already has a very generous [sabbatical leave] policy”
(Faculty Coordinator A, Amber Hills College). Thus, the Renewal Leaves, which

arguably were the most valuable of the three elements of the program, were expensive to

174

maintain beyond the grant period. In addition, because the Renewal Leaves were an
individual approach to supporting faculty, versus an institutional approach, the college
felt less inclined to sustain the initiative beyond the grant period.

The Social Dinners had a similar limitation because the target population was the
senior faculty, even though by comparison the Social Dinners “touched the most people”
(Faculty Coordinator B, Amber Hills College). However, all activities associated with the
Mellon initiative were targeted to a specific population at Amber Hills.

In sum, the type of initiative that defined the Mellon experience at Amber Hills
was narrow in focus. This was because of the limited audience the initiative targeted
(senior faculty members), and because of the small number of faculty members that
. benefited from participation in the initiative. As a result, the Mellon initiative was not
broad enough in its impact to continue beyond the initial grant period. Therefore, the type
of initiative that was proposed by Amber Hills College was a more important factor than
program effectiveness in the institution’s inability to sustain the Mellon initiative.

Institutional factors. The discontinuation of the Mellon initiative after the grant
period was also influenced by institutional factors. The components of the Mellon
initiative did not integrate themselves into the existing programs or services or into the
fabric of the Amber Hills campus in their proposed forms. As for the Social Dinners, the
absence of a program champion to maintain the momentum of the initiative affected the
continuation of the dinners beyond the grant initiative, in spite of the relatively low
funding requirements.

Integration with existing programs/services. In general, the components of the

Mellon initiative were not programs that could have been integrated with the campus’

175

existing programs or services because of the targeted nature of the programs toward the
senior faculty group. As previously mentioned, campus administrators viewed the Mellon
initiative as addressing a specific need that had been identified, rather than a broad
campus need. Therefore, although the Mellon initiative may have been effective in
meeting the specific need, particularly through the Renewal Leaves, it did not match the
institution’s mission or larger goals.

Moreover, the Social Dinners and the Renewal Leaves, as they were
implemented, duplicated existing opportunities on campus, but in a more exclusive
fashion. For example, campus community building opportunities were already in place at
Amber Hills. The Social Dinners, on the other hand, once implemented, became more
exclusive to the senior faculty members. Thus, in terms of meeting a broad goal of
stimulating community across campus, the Social Dinners, as they were implemented by
the Faculty Coordinators, would not have achieved that broad reaching goal, nor would
the Social Dinners have enhanced the pre-existing social gatherings already in place.
Similarly, Amber Hills College “already has a very generous [sabbatical] policy”
(Faculty Coordinator A, Amber Hills College) that the faculty and campus administration
openly acknowledge.

In addition, the Renewal Leaves component was considered too expensive to be
absorbed by the institution, especially given Amber Hills’ generous sabbatical policy.
Thus, because of the narrow scope of Amber Hill’s Mellon initiative, the initiative was
not absorbed into any of the existing campus resources. Moreover, the services and
support that the Mellon initiative provided not only duplicated existing supports on

campus, but also excluded the non-senior faculty members from participating in the

176

opportunities. Hence, campus administrators could not justify integrating an initiative that
was not meeting the broader needs of its faculty community.

Program champion/leadership. There were two ways in which the absence of
leadership had a large effect on the momentum of the Mellon initiative and its inability to
be sustained as it was implemented beyond the initial grant period. First, because the
coordination of the initiatives was divided between the Dean of F aculty’s Office and the
Faculty Coordinators, there was no identifiable program champion leading the whole
Mellon initiative. In addition, there was no program champion to synthesize the needs of
the Amber Hills senior faculty to create an initiative that met the broad interests of the
larger senior faculty group. Instead, the planning committee relied on their own interests
and what they wanted, rather than utilizing the information gathered from the
administered surveys, to create events and opportunities based upon the interests of the
Amber Hills senior faculty. Meanwhile, the campus administration had particular faculty
members that they wanted to reinvigorate through the Mellon initiative. In essence, a
clashing of agendas and a lack of a program champion created a program that did not
meet the broader needs of the faculty and the institution.

Second, the absence of a program champion affected the sustainability of the
Social Dinners component of the Mellon initiative. As one of the faculty coordinators
stated frankly, “In the absence of someone being able to organize the dinners, the dinners
and social gatherings just dissipated” (Faculty Coordinator B, Amber Hills College). One
campus administrator elaborated upon her observations regarding the absence of
leadership to carry the social gatherings beyond the initial grant period: “There really

wasn’t anyone willing to embrace or . . . I guess, absorb the cause or the spirit” (Campus

177

Administrator C, Amber Hills College). Consequently, when the grant ended, there was
no commitment by the faculty coordinators or any other faculty member to sustain the
gatherings. In other words, there was not a champion present to maintain the momentum
of the social dinners.

Interestingly, one Faculty Coordinator did not appear to think that the leadership
should have been, or ever was, with him/her. Instead, this faculty coordinator seemed to
think that the leadership and responsibility for sustaining the Social Dinners rested with
campus administration. In fact, the Faculty Coordinator expressed “some disappointment
in the administration for not being paternal enough, so to speak” in sustaining the Social
Dinners (Faculty Coordinator A, Amber Hills College). The Faculty Coordinator
proceeded to explain the minimal cost of the social gatherings:

If I were put in charge of finding a financial way, I would certainly try. . .

Admittedly, the [renewal] leaves were very expensive. But for a fraction of one

leave, the college could have, like, four dinners a year . . . and at a nice restaurant

or some place. If you spend 50 dollars on each person, and you say that you’re
going to have, maybe 50 individuals? The cost is . . . only $2500 for each dinner.

That’s so inexpensive to have such a great opportunity for the faculty. (Faculty

Coordinator A, Amber Hills College)

Even when a group of faculty attempted sustain the socials by holding the
gatherings themselves at a faculty member’s house, the group decided that “having
potlucks just doesn’t work” (Faculty Coordinator B, Amber Hills College) in terms of
maintaining the social gatherings. One Faculty Coordinator elaborated upon the
challenges when coordinating social events: “It is one thing to have a dinner at a

restaurant, but it’s another thing to have to clean up your house and host [the event]”

(Faculty Coordinator A, Amber Hills College).

178

Although there was interest in sustaining the social gatherings, there was no one
willing or able to coordinate. Although one coordinator stated that she wished the college
continued the Social Dinners, she also believed that there would be “no time” to
coordinate the gatherings. Even though she admitted that she could go for weeks not
seeing her colleagues, and that she “hardly speaks” to her best friend, she emphasized the
challenge in finding the time to coordinate any gatherings. Elaborating further, the
coordinator stated:

I like the idea of being ‘parented’. . . having someone else to ‘host’ and take care

of things, but not in a patronizing way. . . coordinating these [gatherings] is hard,

it takes effort. (Faculty Coordinator A, Amber Hills College)

In other words, this particular faculty coordinator did not feel like the leadership
responsibility rested on her, but rather, on “someone else” whether that “someone else”
was from campus administration or another faculty member. In the absence of a clear
program champion to create a campus initiative that met the broad needs of the
community, the Mellon initiative was unsustainable beyond the Mellon grant period.
Hence, despite the low financial cost of the Social Dinner, the absence of a program
champion highly contributed to their discontinuation.

Environmental factors: Socioeconomic and political considerations.
Environmental factors, such as socioeconomic factors were not found to have
significantly contributed to the sustainability of Amber Hills College’s Mellon initiative.
Although some participants noted that “the ending of the grant coincided with the

downturn of the economy” (Campus Administrator A, Amber Hills College), there was

not sufficient evidence to suggest that this was a contributing factor in the sustainability

179

of the Mellon initiative because the grant period for Amber Hills College was between
2001 and 2006, years in which the economy was financially strong.

External political considerations also did not appear to have influenced the
sustainability of the Mellon initiative, in spite of the long established relationship that
Amber Hills College has with the Mellon Foundation. One participant described the
relationship between Amber Hills and the Mellon Foundation as the following:

[Amber Hills] has worked closely with Mellon for many years. . . Many of those

working at Mellon came from liberal arts colleges. . . I would call the relationship

as defmitive. . . So when Mellon says “we’re going to do X” or “we suggest that
you should do X,” we listen [to Mellon]. (Campus Administrator C, Amber Hills

College)

Another participant also spoke about the relationship between Amber Hills
College and the Mellon Foundation: “Mellon understands liberal arts colleges . . . and
Mellon is always one of [Amber Hills College’s] top donors” (Campus Administrator B,
Amber Hills College). The long history that Amber Hills College has with the Mellon
Foundation is well acknowledged by the campus administrators of Amber Hills.
However, in spite of the close relationship that Amber Hills College has with the Mellon
Foundation, there appeared to be little connection between this funding relationship and
the sustainability of the Mellon initiative.

Summary. Although Amber Hills College had results from the implementation of
the Mellon initiative—the Renewal Leaves program and the Social Gatherings—the
college did not sustain any tangible forms of the Mellon initiative. Four themes emerged

from the participants that describe what they believe contributed to the discontinuation of

the Mellon initiative after the grant period—the implemented initiative was narrow in its

180

impact, the initiative created more of the same types of faculty support that the campus
already provided, the lack of a program champion, and a'lack of funding.

In addition to highlighting the themes that emerged from the Amber Hills
participants’ perspectives, I analyzed the sustainability process through the guiding
conceptual framework. The program factor of program effectiveness was not a strong
factor in the sustainability of the Mellon initiative. However, program type was found to
greatly contribute to the sustainability of the Mellon initiative. The Mellon initiative, as it
was implemented in the way in which it was proposed lacked the broad impact needed
for Amber Hills to sustain the initiatives.

Institutional factors of integration into existing programs or services and
leadership also were found to contribute to the sustainability of Amber Hills College’s
Mellon initiative. As programs that were targeted specifically for the more senior faculty
members, the initiative remained separate from other programs on campus. In addition,
the absence of a program champion prevented the Mellon initiative from maintaining
momentum to sustain itself beyond the grant period, even when the financial cost was
minimal in the case of the social gatherings. Finally, environmental factors such as ‘
economical or political factors were not found to have greatly contributed to the
sustainability of Amber Hills’ Mellon initiative, although some participants noted the
ending of the Mellon grant period coincided with the downturn of the economy.

It is important to note that Amber Hills College’s decision not to sustain the
Mellon initiative appears to have been a conscious decision. Some participants affirmed

that the Mellon initiative fulfilled its purpose by motivating some senior faculty members

to take new directions with their research, providing campus administration with the

181

opportunity to learn about the needs of the senior faculty members, and documenting the
appropriate types of support to meet those needs. Therefore, rather than trying to sustain
the Mellon initiative in its original form, Amber Hills College has sustained an intangible
form of the grant by building upon what was learned from the Mellon grant experience.
Amber Hills has chosen to sustain the legacy of the Mellon grant by planning for a more
tangible support system for the senior faculty at Amber Hills—a goal similar to what
Amber Hills was seeking to achieve with the original Mellon initiative.

Nevertheless, because Amber Hills College did not sustain the Mellon initiative in
its proposed form, its process and sustained form of the initiative differ from the other
three cases in this study. In Chapter Five, I discuss the similarities and differences among

the four cases in a cross-case analysis.

182

Chapter Five: Cross-case Analysis

In this chapter, I provide a cross-case analysis of the four institutions in this
study—Bowling Lawn College, Castlegate College, Hilltop College, and Amber Hills
College. The intent of this chapter is to discuss the similarities and differences in the
outcomes and sustainability process across the four institutions. First, I compare the
varied ways in which the Mellon initiative was sustained at each institution. Then I
compare the themes reflecting the participants’ voices regarding what they believed
contributed to the sustainability of the Mellon initiative at their respective campuses.
Afterward, I discuss how the four cases compare with each other. Finally, I discuss the
influence and impact each factor had on the sustainability process across the four cases.
Sustained Forms of the Mellon Initiative Across the Cases

The purpose of this section is to revisit each institution’s sustained Mellon
initiative. This purpose is related to the first research question in my study: WHAT did
the sustained initiatives look like at each of the institutions? In what follows, I review
each institution’s sustained form of the Mellon initiative, as perceived by the participants
in this study.

The four institutions had different sustained forms of the Mellon initiative.
Bowling Lawn College’s sustained Mellon initiative was the Center for Scholarship and
Teaching and the various faculty development programs that the center administers.
Castlegate College’s sustained Mellon initiative is the Director for Faculty Research
Development position and the Faculty Conversations program that the Director for
Faculty Research Development coordinates. Hilltop College’s sustained Mellon initiative

is the campus’ version of the Mellon Venture Fund, which is fimded by two campus

183

resources. Finally, Amber Hills College’s sustained Mellon initiative is in the form of a
planning committee to develop a future emeritus center. Amber Hills College has not
sustained any of the original components of its implemented Mellon initiative. Instead,
Amber Hills has sustained the “legacy of the Mellon grant.”

The four institutions, therefore, have sustained their Mellon initiatives quite
differently. The sustained Mellon initiatives among the four institutions differ in the
extent to which the implemented form of the Mellon initiative has remained intact and the
extent to which the initiative has been modified. Bowling Lawn College has sustained its
Mellon initiative more intact than the other three institutions. Although some of the
programs offered through the Center for Scholarship and Teaching have been modified,
Bowling Lawn College’s sustained Mellon initiative, as the Center for Scholarship and
Teaching, has remained relatively unmodified. Castlegate College and Hilltop College,
on the other hand, have sustained portions of the original Mellon initiative, but not all
components. Therefore, Castlegate College and Hilltop College’s sustained Mellon
initiatives are moderately intact and modified forms of the original Mellon initiative.
Amber Hills College has not sustained any of the proposed components of its original
Mellon initiative; instead, Amber Hills College has a planning committee for a future
emeritus center to maintain the “legacy of the Mellon grant.” As such, Amber Hills
College has sustained an intangible form of the Mellon initiative.

Together, the four cases represent three types of sustained Mellon initiatives: I)
mostly intact and mostly unmodified sustained initiative, 2) moderately intact and

modified sustained initiative, and 3) intangible sustained initiative. In the next section, I

184

discuss the factors across the four cases that the participants in the study believed
contributed to the sustainability of the Mellon initiative at their campuses.
Sustainability Factors Across the Cases

This section discusses the factors that contributed to the sustainability of the
Mellon initiatives beyond the initial grant period across the four cases. This is related to
the second research question in my study: HOW did each of the institutions sustain the
initiatives? Although each case revealed different themes related to what contributed to
the sustainability of their institution’s Mellon initiative, when examined across the four
cases, the themes can be grouped into seven categories. The seven categories are intended
to incorporate all themes that emerged across the cases. I present the seven categories
beginning with the themes most prominent across the four institutions: I) committed
leader or champion, 2) meets an institutional need, 3) institutional context, 4) institutional
plans to sustain, 5) reach or impact of initiative, 6) applied organizational learning, and 7)

environment (See Table 5.1).

185

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edam toga 53:85 93:90
coma wEde Hflaaqmoea 83:: Hfigfiomtwa 7289098 08% 06 .«o :52on 35.—
.«o #84 .3 p80: 87; 38.32 .3 38: SE .3 38: 87; 0.88 3255 .«o #84 ..an<
Efiwoa razogoa
warms?“ 329
E wEEwB 83:: .3328 E 8: 33 20:2...
3592th 3:23:35 wfinomou 8m comzmqab toga biofi $5 Kenna 98 roman—m owo=eU
.3 p80: 87: “xx—age. 98 07:53 How BEBE mo 25:50 .3680 £855 neg—E.—
8238 26:3
Hmugqmomtmn H350 mzummxo mam—=3 bEEEoo E5832
Hfifiqmomta Hflfiamomga .3 85 acumen 55 82058 98 :88: m. @8825 owe—EU
.3 pogo: SE .3 pogo: 82. 38: SE 20% 9 BEBE 28% mo waif. .8.“ poo: a 82 BEE Sag—.30
E3086
nosaamofian mmofioo
.838 mamas—Eon 50¢
98 Eon—magma Boa 583m Baggage c850 toga QEEopeoq
smacks: 3.83093 9 @0583 28 can .338 ouo=eU
Hagan—Bea wag—mo— »: 8252880 bBofl 5953 853.550 €253 531—
.3 p30: 87; pom—99¢. pogo: SE 032 35 mo 2330 SE o Z mango:— mam—Rem
«gawk 332 235:25
38.39....— =M $3233 .8 Bang: «£53: 3399 EESBEQE .3 amused
3:65 numfiav. u. SENS: 3:83.335 Ezegius aw»: 3555.6

 

 

mommU amp—ca. 3822. =< 3:82:85 motowawo eo>om ._.m 039—.

186

Committed leader or champion. The theme of committed leader or champion
emerged at all four institutions in this study as a contributing factor in the sustainability
of the Mellon initiative. Participants from Bowling Lawn College attributed much of the
successful implementation and momentum of the Mellon initiative to particular
individuals on campus—the center’s two directors and a former provost. Similarly,
Castlegate College participants attributed much of the momentum of the Mellon initiative
to the third Director for Faculty Research Development. Hilltop College representatives
acknowledged the provost’s request to the Hilltop College Research Foundation to
develop a new award fund to sustain the Mellon initiative. The type of leadership
exhibited by the program champions at Bowling Lawn, Castlegate, and Hilltop resembles
the collegial leadership described by Birrnbaum (1991). These individuals were in tune
with the needs of the faculty, maintained open communication, and ensured that they
were viewed as peers to the faculty rather than as superiors (Binnbaum, 1991). Amber
Hills College participants, on the other hand, acknowledged that leadership was missing
in the implementation of the Mellon initiative, which particularly affected the Social
Dinners’s sustainability.

The theme of leadership as a contributing factor in the sustainability process
coincides with Shediac Rizkallah and Bone’s (1998) sustainability factor of leadership
and role of a program champion or leader. It also coincides with other studies that have
included leadership as factors in the institutionalization of a program (Huberman &
Miles, 1984; Levison, 1994; Steckler & Goodman, 1989). Although the notion of
leadership as an influence on strategic change in higher education is well documented

(Bensirnon & Neumann, 1993; Bimbaum, 1991; Chaffee, 1998; Kezar, 2001; Morrill,

187

2007), this study’s findings suggest that not only is leadership a contributing factor in the
sustainability process, it appears to be one of the more consistently influential factors in
the sustainability process because of its prominence across all four institutions.

Meets an institutional need. The theme of meeting an institutional need also
emerged at all four of the institutions in this study. Bowling Lawn College had no
centralized faculty development support center in place prior to the Mellon initiative.
Likewise, Castlegate College and Hilltop College participants viewed the Mellon
initiative as an opportunity to create new supports for faculty that were not in place prior
to the Mellon initiative. As such, all three institutions created support systems that would
fill an institutional need on campus. Amber Hills College, on the other hand, created
programs that met an explicit, targeted need by focusing on a specific group of faculty
members. Moreover, the Mellon initiative at Amber Hills College replicated campus
programs that were already available to faculty members. As one campus administrator
asserted, the Mellon initiative created “more of the same” types of faculty support.

This theme of meeting an unmet need coincides with previous findings regarding
sustainability factors. For example, prior research has documented the importance of
assessing and analyzing the needs of an institution that the program is addressing
(Lueddeke, 1999; Steckler & Goodman, 1989). However, the findings from this study
suggest that the institutions that identified need at a broader, institutional level were more
able to sustain their Mellon initiatives.

Institutional context. The theme of institutional context emerged as an umbrella
label to describe the unique, campus-related situations that the institutions experienced

during the grant period. Institutional context was noted as a sustainability factor at three

188

of the institutions in this study. Bowling Lawn College attributed much of the success
and sustainability of the Mellon initiative to a culture of trust between faculty and campus
administrators. Castlegate College attributed much of the success and sustainability of the
Mellon initiative to the timing of the grant as it coincided with administrative
infrastructure transitions on campus. Meanwhile, Hilltop College attributed the
sustainability of the Mellon initiative to an already present culture of faculty support on
campus.

Institutional planning. The theme of institutional planning emerged at three of
the institutions in this study. Bowling Lawn College participants acknowledged the
extensive planning that was included in the development and sustainability of the Mellon
initiative. Moreover, Bowling Lawn College administrators acknowledged the
comrrritrnent the institution made to the Mellon initiative early in the planning stages of
the initiative: “[Bowling Lawn College] doesn’t like to take grants unless we know we
can make the commitment to it” (Campus Administrator A, Bowling Lawn College).

Although not in a similar manner, Castlegate College and Hilltop College
administrators implemented plans to sustain their Mellon initiatives midway through their
grant periods. Castlegate College participants viewed the planned move to fold the
Director for Faculty Research Development into the carnpus’ existing Teaching and
Learning Center as a factor that contributed to the sustainability of the position. Hilltop
planned for the transition from the Mellon grant to existing fund sources on campus to
ensure that valued components of the Mellon initiative would continue beyond the initial

grant period.

189

In frameworks modeling program institutionalization or sustainability, planning is
frequently noted as the first stage of the institutionalization or sustainability process
(Beery et al., 2005; Clark, 2004; Kezar, Glenn, Lester, & Nakamoto, 2008; Levine,
1980). It is important to note that all four institutions utilized some form of planning in
the beginning stages, as was required by the Mellon grant invitation, and yet not all four
institutions sustained their Mellon initiatives. What appears to distinguish Bowling Lawn,
Castlegate and Hilltop’s cases from Amber Hills’ case is that Bowling Lawn, Castlegate
and Hilltop utilized planning to help sustain their Mellon initiatives, rather than utilize
planning to merely implement the initiative. In addition, the findings from this study
appear to contrast with scholars who suggest that planning for sustainability needs to
occur at the beginning of the process (Pluye, Potvin, Denis, Pelletier, & Mannoni, 2005),
as was the case with Bowling Lawn College. Castlegate and Hilltop’s cases suggest that
planning to sustain may occur at some later stage of the sustainability process.

Reach or impact of initiative. Related to the theme of meeting an institutional
need, the theme of reach or impact emerged at two of the institutions in this study. Hilltop
College administrators of the Mellon initiative acknowledged the flexible and open
nature of the Mellon initiative as it was implemented on campus. This allowed many
faculty members to participate and apply for firnds. In a sense, the flexible nature of the
Mellon initiative at Hilltop College broadened its impact because of its applicability to a
wide range of faculty members. Hilltop College’s Mellon initiative stood in contrast to
Amber Hills College’s Mellon initiative. At Amber Hills, the Mellon initiative was
specifically targeted to a sub-group of faculty members on campus. In addition, the more

successful component of the Mellon initiative (the Renewal Leaves) had a narrow impact

190

because the Renewal Leaves were awarded to a small number of faculty. The ability for a
program to have a wide impact coincides with prior research suggesting that a program’s
ability to achieve widespread use increases its ability to become institutionalized
(Huberman & Miles, 1984).

Applied organizational learning. The theme of applied organizational learning
emerged at two of the institutions in this study. Bowling Lawn College administrators
were conscious of the need for ongoing evaluation and applying any lessons learned
during the implementation of the Mellon initiative. Similarly, Hilltop College
administrators viewed the Mellon initiative as a learning opportunity through which the
institution would determine which components of the initiative worked best and would be
worth sustaining.

The theme of institutional applied learning coincides with several related ideas
from the literatures on organizational change and organizational learning. The theme of
applied learning coincides with previous research that suggests that ongoing assessment
is necessary to sustain change (Lueddeke, 1999). In addition, the theme of applied
learning coincides with theories of organizational learning (Argyris & Schon, 1996;
Arygris, 1999), which suggest that organizational changes occur when an institution’s
actions or practices are modified through single loop or double loop learning. Both
Bowling Lawn College and Hilltop College were quick to apply lessons learned as the
Mellon initiative developed. But beyond merely applying insights learned from
assessments and evaluations, Bowling Lawn College and Hilltop College demonstrated
forms of double-loop learning by rethinking structures and changing approaches when

incorporating adjustments to the Mellon initiative. The double-loop learning that

191

occurred at Bowling Lawn College and Hilltop College also required flexibility, not only
on the institution’s part, but also on the part of the Mellon initiative itself. Thus,
supporting previous studies that documented the need for flexibility and adaptation in
sustainability (Scheirer, 2005), the cases of Bowling Lawn and Hilltop demonstrate that
sustainability is influenced by the initiative’s ability to be flexible and adaptable as
adjustments are made based upon lessons learned.

Environment. Finally, environmental conditions emerged as a factor from the
participants at one of the institutions in this study. Some participants at Amber Hills
College, at the institution that did not sustain the Mellon initiative as it was implemented,
attributed some of the Amber Hills’ inability to sustain its initiative to the lack of
available fimding and the downturn of the national economy. This theme coincides with
the broader environmental influences of Shediac- Rizkallah and Bone’s (1998)
framework that are suggested to influence the sustainability of a program beyond the
initial funding period. However, although Amber Hills participants cited funding as a
reason for the discontinuation of the Mellon initiative, it is difficult to conclude that lack
of funds and the poor national economy are strong contributing factors in Amber Hills’
case. Amber Hills College maintains one of the largest endowments of the four
institutions examined in this study. Moreover, as one campus administrator revealed,
Amber Hills has sustained Mellon-funded initiatives in the past, but those initiatives were
broader in their impact on campus. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the
initiative’s narrow impact, rather than lack of continued funding, was a more prominent

factor in the termination of the Mellon initiative at Amber Hills.

192

Comparing the Four Cases

This section provides a comparison of the four cases. I discuss the ways in which
the sustainability factors influenced the different forms of the Mellon initiatives. In the
previous two sections of this chapter, I discussed each institution’s version of its
sustained Mellon initiative. I also discussed the themes describing the participants’
reflections regarding the sustainability factors across the four institutions. In this section,
I compare and discuss the cases as examples of how the sustainability process at each
institution led to one of the following sustained versions of the Mellon initiative: I)
mostly intact and mostly unmodified, 2) moderately intact and modified, or 3) only
intangible (See Figure 5.1).

For the purposes of organizing my discussion, I begin by discussing the three
cases that represent the first two types of sustained Mellon initiatives—l) mostly intact
and mostly unmodified, and 2) moderately intact and modified. Therefore, I first discuss
Bowling Lawn College as the institution representing type number one. I then discuss
Castlegate College and Hilltop College as different examples of type number two.

Finally, I discuss Amber Hills College as the third type of sustained Mellon initiative.

193

 

 

 

 

:_Sm:m 9 BE :2 .
wage:

Ba? 1255: .

“03:: 38.82 .
BoZ

3:23:65 :< “oz .

aim—BBQ x33 .

Harse: 2:: Es...

 

0.52:0 ofitfigm .
£596 9 BE Bum—0Q .
€2.33 32%.... .3: .
“BEE Beam .

BoZ 3:22:55 932 .
QEmBBoA w:obm .

32:6 :25:

 

 

 

 

 

:oEmSE.

accuses as: .
53.9% 9 :aE BEBE .
wEEBA B=QQ< 3:4 .
83:: Beam .

BoZ 3:225sz 335 .
3:30:34 w:o.:m .

Homo—.00 Baa—ammo

 

 

 

oases
Beamsm usages:

 

 

 

02:25 83%
BEBE as ass 35

 

 

 

 

 

 

“5.5 .«o wEEE. .
BPS. mo 05:50 .
£83m 8 5E bam— .
wEEBA
Bag... :3: .
8:9:— BEm .
BoZ
3:23:65 3002 .
:EmHoBoq w:o.=m .

Homo—BU :3m4 w:=3om

 

 

 

 

03335 ©8335 BEBED
.582 .885 >382

 

 

 

 

 

 

mom—«O Son 05 no 5552380 ._.m 0.33.»

194

Bowling Lawn College: Mostly intact, mostly unmodified form of the Mellon
initiative. Of the four institutions, Bowling Lawn College’s sustained version of the
Mellon initiative is most similar to its originally implemented version with a few
alterations to the individual programs offered through the Center for Scholarship and
Teaching. Overall, however, Bowling Lawn College’s sustained Mellon initiative
remains the most intact and most unmodified version of the implemented Mellon
initiative.

In addition to sustaining a mostly intact, mostly unmodified form of the original
Mellon initiative, Bowling Lawn College exhibited many attributes that appear to have
contributed to the college’s sustained Mellon initiative. First, Bowling Lawn College had
strong leadership at the institutional and program levels throughout the implementation
phase and into the present. Second, Bowling Lawn College’s approach in its development
of a Center for Scholarship and Teaching was intended to meet an identified, institutional
need, rather than the interests of a select group of faculty members. Third, and related to
the above mentioned point, Bowling Lawn’s Mellon initiative had a broad impact on the
college through its ability to provide a variety of programs and services to all faculty on
campus. Fourth, the directors of the Center for Scholarship and Teaching not only
engaged in ongoing evaluation and assessment of the center and its programs, but also
applied the feedback regarding the programs to make appropriate programmatic
adjustments. In addition, as former participants in the center’s programs, the current
director and associate director utilized lessons learned in decision-making and
administration of the center. Fifth, Bowling Lawn College made early plans to sustain the

Mellon initiative beyond the initial grant period by gradually incorporating the Center for

195

Scholarship and Teaching’s budget into the college’s central operating budget. Finally, a
culture of trust, exemplified through the assurance that the assistance provided by the
center was “set aside from the [faculty] evaluation process” (Bowling Hills College self
study report), contributed to the institutional context that facilitated the sustainability of
the Mellon initiative. In addition, the timing of the Mellon grant coincided with Bowling
Lawn’s push for faculty to integrate their scholarship with classroom teaching. This also
contributed to the institutional context that facilitated the sustainability of the Mellon
initiative.

In essence, it is reasonable to conclude that Bowling Lawn College’s ability to
sustain its Mellon initiative, as mostly intact and mostly unmodified, was the result of the
following factors: strong leadership, the initiative’s ability to meet an institutional need,
the initiative’s broad impact, high applied institutional learning, early plans to sustain the
initiative, a culture of trust, and the timing of the grant.

Castlegate College and Hilltop College: Moderately intact and modified
forms of the sustained Mellon initiative. Although Castlegate College and Hilltop
College represent different sustainability processes and different sustained forms of the
Mellon initiative, both cases have moderately intact and modified forms of their sustained
Mellon initiatives. In other words, both institutions’ sustained versions of the Mellon
initiative are a portion of the original Mellon initiative and in modified forms more
compatible with their institutions’ contexts and needs.

Castlegate College. Castlegate College sustained its Mellon initiative through the
continuation of the Director for Faculty Research Development position and the Faculty

Conversations program. The director position has evolved to become a part of the

196

Learning, Teaching and Research center on campus. In addition, the role of the Director
for Faculty Research Development has greater emphasis on the mentor or liaison aspects
of the role than was the case when the position was first created. Similarly, the Faculty
Conversations are administered differently than they were initially implemented with
more of the thematic ideas for topics emerging from the faculty than from the Director
for Faculty Research Development. These components of the original Mellon initiative
have been sustained. However, the sustained components have been modified since the
implementation of the original Mellon initiative.

The case at Castlegate College parallels some factors found at Bowling Lawn
College. First, Castlegate College had strong leadership from the third Director for
Faculty Research Development. The leadership demonstrated by the third Director for
Faculty Research Development contributed to the stability of the director position after an
unstable first two years. In addition, the provost’s commitment to sustain the Faculty
Conversations beyond the grant period was the result of the third Director for Faculty
Research Development’s imploring. Second, similar to the case at Bowling Lawn
College, Castlegate College’s Mellon initiative met an identified institutional need for a
greater intellectual bond and a faculty liaison to assist faculty develop research agendas.
Third, the Mellon initiative had a broad impact on campus. The nature of the Faculty
Conversations was open and flexible, allowing for faculty at all stages and in various
fields and disciplines to participate. In addition, the Director for Faculty Research
Development served all faculty regardless of career stage or field.

Unlike Bowling Lawn College, however, Castlegate College did not exhibit

evidence of applied learning, in spite of the “Time Balance Study” that was incorporated

197

into the original Mellon initiative. Although the “Time Balance Study” was executed and
produced publications for some faculty members interested in the topic, little concrete
evidence was found to suggest that the insights gained or the lessons learned from the
“Time Balance Study” were applied to enhance the Mellon initiative.

In addition, Castlegate College did not plan to sustain its Mellon initiative at the
outset of the grant period, as was the case at Bowling Lawn College. However,
Castlegate College did plan to transition the Director for Faculty Research Development
toward the end of the grant period in order to provide the director position a “home” on
campus.

Finally, Castlegate College experienced considerable campus transition in its
administrative structures during the Mellon grant. Although the campus was in a state of
flux, many participants believed the Mellon grant was a positive addition to the changes
already occurring at Castlegate. Thus, the Mellon initiative complemented the
institutional changes that were already underway.

Castlegate College differs from Bowling Lawn College in the degree to which the
Mellon initiative was sustained. Bowling Lawn College sustained its Mellon initiative as
mostly intact and mostly unmodified from the implemented version, whereas Castlegate
College sustained its Mellon initiative partly intact and modified from the implemented
version. In addition, Castlegate’s experience with the Mellon initiative differs from
Bowling Lawn College in the nature of the leadership pertaining to the Mellon initiative,
the application of institutional learning with regard to the Mellon initiative, the timing of
the institution’s plan to sustain, and the administrative re-structuring on Castlegate’s

campus that coincided with the timing of the grant.

198

In sum, it is. reasonable to conclude that Castlegate College’s ability to sustain its
Mellon initiative as partly intact and modified, was the result of the following factors:
strong leadership, the initiative’s ability to meet an institutional need, the initiative’s
ability to have a broad impact, plans to sustain the initiative, and timing of the grant that
coincided with the institution’s organizational transitions.

Hilltop College. Hilltop College sustained its Mellon initiative through the
continuation of the Mellon Venture Fund, but in a modified form as two funding
opportunities. Therefore, similar to Castlegate, Hilltop College’s sustained Mellon
initiative included only a portion of the original Mellon initiative and in a modified form
from the way in which it was originally implemented.

The case at Hilltop College parallels some of the factors present at Bowling Lawn
College. Hilltop College had strong leadership provided by the provost to secure the
development of funds to sustain the Mellon initiative. In addition, Hilltop’s implemented
Mellon initiative as a set of funding opportunities was broad in its reach and impact by
providing a flexible venue for all faculty to obtain funding for professional development.
Moreover, Hilltop College exhibited a high degree of applied learning by implementing
changes to the Mellon initiative throughout the grant period and making necessary
adjustments to the sustained form of the Mellon initiative.

However, unlike Bowling Lawn College, Hilltop did not plan to sustain the
Venture Fund component of the Mellon initiative from the beginning of the grant period.
Instead, similar to the case with Castlegate College, Hilltop made plans to sustain the
Mellon initiative midway through the grant period by locating alternative funding sources

to absorb the sustained Mellon initiative. Moreover, the college bolstered the funding

199

resources in preparation for the transition. In addition, unique to Hilltop College’s
situation was Hilltop’s preexisting culture that was supportive of faculty and a lengthy
history of supporting its faculty.

In sum, it is reasonable to conclude that Hilltop College’s ability to sustain its
Mellon initiative as partly intact and modified, was the result of the following factors:
strong leadership from the provost, the initiative’s ability to meet an institutional need,
the initiative’s ability to have a broad impact, plans to sustain the initiative, and an
institutional history and culture of supporting faculty.

Amber Hills College: Intangible form of the Mellon initiative. Of the four
institutions, Amber Hills College was the only one that did not sustain its Mellon
initiative in some tangible form. The institution’s “sustained” Mellon initiative is in an
intangible form through the “legacy” of the Mellon initiative.

In addition to not sustaining the original Mellon initiative and sustaining only an
intangible form of the initiative, Amber Hills College exhibited many sustainability
factors that contrasted with the factors that were present at the three institutions that did
sustain components of their original Mellon initiatives. First, unlike Bowling Lawn,
Castlegate, and Hilltop Colleges, Amber Hills exhibited weak leadership with regard to
the Mellon initiative. Second, unlike the other three institutions, Amber Hills’
implemented Mellon initiative did not have a broad impact, but instead a very narrow
impact, designed to “meet a specific need.” Third, unlike Bowling Lawn and Hilltop
Colleges, the lessons learned from the Mellon grant experience at Amber Hills were not
applied during the grant period to the original Mellon initiative. Although lessons appear

to have been applied after the Mellon grant period, by way of planning for an emeritus

200

center, the lessons learned were not applied to the implemented Mellon initiative. Fourth,
Amber Hills did not develop a plan to sustain the implemented Mellon initiative. Finally,
Amber Hills College did not seem to need the Mellon initiative as much as Bowling
Lawn, Castlegate, and Hilltop Colleges. Faculty felt relatively supported in their careers
irrespective of the Mellon initiative. In other words, although some gains were made
when the Mellon initiative was implemented, Amber Hills participants did not believe
that much would be lost if the Mellon initiative was not sustained as it was implemented.

In sum, the four institutions, when compared with each other, demonstrate varied
sustainability processes. In addition, the four cases demonstrate the different forms of
sustainability, ranging from the mostly intact, mostly unmodified sustained form of the
Mellon initiative at Bowling Lawn College, to the intangible sustained form of the
Mellon initiative at Amber Hills College. There were also in between examples of
moderately intact, modified sustained forms of the Mellon initiative at Castlegate and
Hilltop Colleges.
Influence and Impact of Sustainability Factors '

In this section, I focus on the impact of the factors in the sustainability process
across the four institutions. This is related to the third research question of my study: 3)
WHICH programmatic, institutional, and environmental factors contributed to the
sustainability of each of the initiatives?

In order to answer these questions, I revisited the guiding conceptual framework
of my study. My guiding conceptual framework incorporated five of Shediac-Rizkallah
and Bone’s (1998) 11 factors. In keeping with Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone’s (1998)

notion of program factors, institutional factors, and environmental factors, I ensured that

201

 

my guiding conceptual framework represented the three areas. Therefore, the
sustainability factors pertaining to the program included 1) program effectiveness and 2)
program type. The sustainability factors pertaining to the institution included 3)
integration with existing programs and services, and 4) leadership or program champion.
Finally, the sustainability factors related to the external environment included
socioeconomic and political considerations.

I looked across the four cases to determine the degree to which each factor was an

influence on the process to sustain at each of the institutions (See Table 5.2).

202

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5.2. Analysis of Four Cases Through Conceptual Framework
Program Program Integrate Leadership! Environment
Effectiveness Type With Program (Economic and
Programs or Champion Political)
Services
Strong Strong Strong Strong Weak influence:

Bowling Influence: Influence: Influence: Influence:

Lawn Strong economy

College Center’s Center was far Center was Three may have helped
effectiveness reaching in its compatible individuals institution’s
validated impact on with and considered ability to
institution’s campus. integrated champions. gradually sustain
investment in into Center.

Center. institution
culture.
Strong Moderate Strong Strong Weak Influence:

Castle-gate Influence: Influence: Influence: Influence:

College Neither economic
Mellon initiative Mellon Director Third Director nor political
considered initiative position was made the factors appeared
effective. general integrated position to affect

enough to into existing valuable to the sustainability.
reach a wide Center. institution.
array of
interests.
Moderate Strong Strong Strong Weak Influence:

I-Iilltop Influence: Influence: Influence: Influence:

College Neither economic
Mellon initiative Mellon Absorbed Provost nor political
considered initiative into advocated for factors appeared
effective. provided institution necessary to affect

funding using funding for sustainability.
options to existing continued
faculty that resources. support.
were not Catalyst
offered by provided
other funding momentum.
sources.
Weak Influence: Strong Strong Strong Weak Influence:

Amber ' Influence: Influence: Influence:

Hills Mellon initiative ' Ending of grant

College had mixed Mellon Mellon Leadership coincided with
perspectives of initiative was initiative was was not downturn of the
effectiveness, too narrow in not integrated present to economy, but
but was never impact to into existing sustain the institution is
considered receive services. Social well-endowed.
ineffective. continued Dinners. Lack

support. of a champion.
Strong: 2 Strong: 3 Strong: 4 Strong: 4 Weak: 4
Moderate: 1 Moderate: 1
Weak: l
MODERATE STRONG STRONG STRONG WEAK

 

 

 

 

 

 

203

 

As represented in Table 5.2, I first examined the degree to which each factor was
a “strong influence,” a “moderate influence,” or a “weak influence” in sustaining the
Mellon initiatives at each of the four institutions.

A factor was labeled as a “strong influence” if the factor met the three following
conditions: 1) approximately 75 percent of the participants at each institution attributed
the sustainability to that particular factor; 2) document analysis supported the
perspectives of the participants; 3) observations made during site visits supported the
perspectives of the participants.

A factor was considered a “moderate influence” if the factor met the following
three conditions: 1) between 25 percent and 75 percent of the participants at each
institution attributed the sustainability to that particular factor as defined by the
participants; 2) document analysis supported the perspectives of those participants; 3)
observations made during site visits supported the perspectives of those participants.

A factor was considered a “weak influence” if the factor met the following three
conditions: 1) less than 25 percent of the participants at each institution attributed the
sustainability to that particular factor as defined by those participants; 2) document
analysis did not support the perspectives of the participants; 3) observations made during
site visits also did not support the perspectives of those participants.

After determining whether a factor was a strong influence, a moderate influence,
or a weak influence in each case, I compared the influence across the four cases. If a
factor was strong at three or four institutions, I concluded that overall, the factor was a
strong influence. If a factor was considered to be strong at only two of the institutions, or

considered to be moderate at three or four of the institutions, I concluded that overall, the

204

factor was a moderate influence. If a factor was a strong influence at only one or none of
the institutions, or if a factor was weak at three or more institutions, I concluded that
overall, the factor was a weak influence.

Not all factors were equally influential. The environmental factor (socioeconomic
and political factors considerations) was a weak influence across the four institutions.
Although some participants at Amber Hills noted the ending of their Mellon initiative
coincided with the downturn of the economy, fewer than 25 percent of the participants
noted this as influential in sustaining the initiative. One individual at Bowling Lawn
College noted the strength of the economy as a factor in contributing to the institution’s
ability to sustain the Mellon initiative. None of the participants at Castlegate College or
Hilltop College referenced the national economy as having an effect on the sustainability
of the Mellon initiative.

The program factors (program type and program effectiveness) and institutional
factors (leadership and integration into existing programs and services) differed in their
influences on the sustaining the Mellon initiative. Program type was a strong influence
(strong influence at three institutions). Program effectiveness was moderately influential
(strong influence at two institutions, moderate influence at one institution, weak influence
at one institution). Leadership was strongly influential at all four institutions. Integration
into existing programs and services was also strongly influential at four institutions. In
what follows, I discuss each of the factors in greater depth, beginning with the factors
that were found to have the strongest influence on the sustainability process.

Leadership as a strong influence on the sustainability process. Leadership was

found to be the most influential factor in the sustainability process across the four

205

institutions. Because many participants across the four institutions identified leadership
as contributing to the sustainability of their Mellon initiatives, I found leadership to be
the most influential factor in the guiding conceptual framework.

The institutions that sustained their Mellon initiatives relatively intact were
institutions that could point to the influence of a program champion or a committed
leader. Bowling Lawn College had several individuals in the upper administrative and
program levels acting as program champions. These individuals were not only committed
to the Mellon initiative, but were able to work with the faculty population to ensure that
the Mellon initiative met faculty needs. Similarly, Castlegate College had the Director for
Faculty Research Development who worked as a liaison and mentor with the faculty.
Although the third Director for Faculty Research Development represents more qualities
of a program champion, the institution has been able to maintain the Director for Faculty
Research Development through the careful selection of an individual to carry the
initiative forward. Hilltop College had the provost who utilized his leverage as a member
of upper administration to secure the necessary resources in order to sustain the initiative.
Meanwhile, the Catalyst provided the necessary momentum to maintain faculty interest in
Hilltop’s Mellon initiative. Amber Hills College demonstrated little committed leadership
or drive from a program champion. As one of the Amber Hills participants stated, “There
wasn’t this single person who was like . . . man, I’m just really committed to this.” In
other words, Amber Hills College lacked an individual to carry the initiative forward.

Integration into existing programs or services as a strong influence on the
sustainability process. Integration into existing programs or services was found to be a

strongly influential factor contributing to the sustainability process across the four

206

 

institutions. Bowling Lawn College participants noted the Mellon initiative’s ability to
bring together existing faculty support resources with new faculty support programs into
one central unit. In addition, participants emphasized the compatibility of the Center for
Scholarship and Teaching’s mission with the institution’s move toward greater
scholarship collaboration between faculty and students. Castlegate College participants
noted the integration of the Director for Faculty Research Development as an influential
factor in the sustainability of the Mellon initiative. Likewise, Hilltop College participants
noted the integration of the Venture Fund into the newly created Hilltop College
Research Foundation Venture Award and the Donor Alumnus Fund to sustain the
objectives of the Venture Fund post-Mellon grant funding. Amber Hills College simply
did not attempt to integrate any components of its Mellon initiative into its existing
campus structures.

Program type as a strong influence on the sustainability process. Another
factor that the findings indicated was strong influence across the institutions was program
type. Program type, or the intent and design of the program, was found to be a strong
influence at Bowling Lawn College, Hilltop College, and Amber Hills College. However,
it was only a moderate influence at Castlegate College. Bowling Lawn College’s Mellon
initiative was designed to appeal to as many faculty as possible through the creation of a
faculty development center from which various faculty support programs would be
offered. Bowling Lawn’s focus on developing a Center was cited by many Bowling Lawn
participants as a factor in the Mellon initiative’s sustainability. Likewise, Hilltop College
participants pointed to the flexible and open nature of its Mellon initiative, thus having a

wide appeal to its faculty. Meanwhile, Amber Hills participants noted that one of the

207

primary reasons why they felt the Mellon initiative was not sustained was the Mellon
initiative’s narrow focus as it was implemented on campus.

Program effectiveness as a moderate influence on the sustainability process.
Across the institutions, program effectiveness was found to have a moderate influence on
the sustainability process. Although program effectiveness was a strong influence at
Bowling Lawn College and Castlegate College, it was a moderate influence at Hilltop
College and a weak influence at Amber Hills College. Bowling Lawn College
participants asserted that the success of the Center for Scholarship and Teaching
reinforced the institution’s decision to invest in the project. In addition to the participants’
perception of the Mellon initiative’s effectiveness, the Center for Scholarship and
Teaching was highly visible on campus with permanent signage and a permanent place in
the library. Similarly, Castlegate College participants suggested the Mellon initiative’s
success influenced the sustainability of the Faculty Conversations. In addition, through
the merging of the Director for Faculty Research Development with the Learning,
Teaching and Research Center, the Mellon initiative has greater visibility on campus.
Hilltop College participants acknowledged the Mellon initiative’s effectiveness on
campus, but only half of the participants attributed the initiative’s sustainability to its
success. The perspectives on the Mellon initiative’s effectiveness at Amber Hills College
were mixed. However, perceived effectiveness was not considered by a majority of the
Amber Hills participants to have influenced the discontinuation of the Mellon initiative.

Environmental factors as a weak influence in the sustainability process.

Finally, Environmental Factors were found to be only a weak influence in the

sustainability process across the institutions. The strength of the national economy was

208

cited by some participants at Amber Hills College as a possible influence on the
discontinuation of the Mellon initiative because the end of the Mellon grant coincided
with the downturn of the national economy. However, considering that Amber Hills
College has the largest endowment of the four institutions, the environment factor
appears to have had less ofan effect on the sustainability of the initiative than the other
factors in the conceptual framework.

The national economy was found to be a weak influence at Bowling Lawn
College because only one participant noted the Mellon grant period occurring during a
time in which the national economy was strong. Participants at Castlegate College or
Hilltop College did not note that the economic condition of the nation influenced the
sustainability outcomes at their institutions.

In sum, the factors that had the strongest influence on the sustainability process
were leadership or program champion and integration into existing programs or services.
These were considered to be strong factors at all four institutions. The second strongest
influence was program type. This factor was considered to be strong at three of the
institutions but only moderate at one. Program effectiveness was considered to be a
moderate factor across the institutions. Although it was a strong factor at two of the
institutions, it was moderate at one institution and weak at another institution. Finally, the
external environment was found to be a weak influence across the four institutions.
Summary

This chapter provided a cross-case discussion of the findings in this study. First, I
compared forms in which the Mellon initiatives were sustained across the four cases.

Afterward, I compared the factors that contributed to the sustainability of the Mellon

209

initiatives across the four cases to develop a list of sustainability factors. Then I discussed
how each case, representing different processes of sustainability and different sustained
forms of the Mellon initiative, compared with each other. Finally, I analyzed the
influence of each factor from the guiding conceptual framework.

In my last chapter, Chapter Six, I propose a conceptual model based upon the
principles in the guiding conceptual framework and the findings from this study. I
compare the extent to which my findings and my proposed conceptual model parallel the
guiding conceptual framework. I also discuss the implications from this study’s findings

and provide suggestions for practice and future research.

210

Chapter Six: Conclusions and Implications
This concluding chapter brings together the findings from this study to offer
insights learned and recommendations for practice and future research on program
sustainability, beyond the initial grant period. First, I briefly revisit the purpose and
design of my study. Then I summarize and discuss the major findings of the study. Next,
I propose a conceptual model based upon the elements of the guiding conceptual
framework and the findings from this study. Finally, I offer implications for practice and

for future research.

 

Summary of Study

The purpose of this study was to understand the sustainability of grant-funded
non-academic programs beyond the initial funding period. This topic arose from the
following problem: Despite the best intentions of colleges and universities to be
responsive to their changing environments, as well as foundations’ requirements for
institutions to plan for sustainability as part of the application process (Beery et al.,
2005), many higher education institutions are unable to sustain those programs or
initiatives beyond the initial funding period.

This study was designed to examine the sustainability of faculty career
enhancement grant-initiatives at selective liberal arts colleges beyond initial funding from
the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. This research utilized a multi-case study design. The
central research question for this study was:

How do liberal arts colleges sustain foundation-funded grant programs beyond the

initial grant period?

211

More specifically, my study attempted to answer the following additional four research

questions:

1. WHAT did the sustained initiatives look like at each of the institutions after the
funding period?

2. HOW did each of the institutions sustain the initiatives post funding?

3. WHICH programmatic, institutional and environmental factors contributed to
the sustainability of each of the initiatives?

4. To what extent do the findings parallel the conceptual framework guiding this
study?

Grounded in the literature on organizational change, program institutionalization,
and program sustainability, I utilized Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone’s (1998) program
sustainability model from the field of health programs and services as the guiding
conceptual framework for my study. I drew my sample cases from a population of 23
liberal arts college that received faculty career enhancement grants from the Andrew
Mellon Foundation. I examined four colleges as part of my multi-case study design to
understand the extent to which each institution sustained its Mellon grant initiative and
the processes by which the initiative was sustained or not sustained.

Summary of Major Findings

The four cases suggest that institutions can sustain a grant-funded initiative in a
variety of ways, ranging from almost completely sustained in its original form, to not
sustained in its original form, but sustained in an intangible form. The findings from the
four cases suggest that particular factors contribute to and have differing influences on
the sustainability process. The following is a summary of the primary factors found to
contribute to the sustainability of a grant-funded program beyond the initial grant period

based upon the findings of this study.

212

Presence of a program champion or committed leader. The findings from this
study suggest that one of the most influential factors in sustaining a program is the
presence of a program champion or committed leader. The findings from this study
resemble prior research findings that have emphasized the role of a program champion in
the success or sustainability of a program (Huberman & Miles, 1984; Levison, 1994;
Shediac-Rizkallah & Bone, 1998; Steckler & Goodman, 1989;). However, the findings
from this study further suggest that the role of the program champion or committed leader
does not have to be fulfilled by a single person. In fact, the case of Bowling Lawn
College suggests that as long as the individual occupying the leadership role is willing to
immerse him or herself into the project or program, the momentum of the program
champion does not have to be broken in times of personnel change.

Institutional context. The findings from this study also suggest that institutional
context can affect the sustainability of an initiative beyond the initial grant period. More
specifically, the findings suggest that a culture of trust between faculty and
administration, a culture and history of supporting the needs of the faculty, and timing of
the grant can all influence the sustainability of the initiative. Although this factor was not
included in Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone’s (1998) framework, this finding supports
scholars’ assertion that institutional culture and other contextual variables play an
important role in managing (and sustaining) change in institutions (Bolman & Deal,
2003), and specifically in colleges and universities (Birmbaum, 1990; Kezar, 2001;
Tierney, 1998).

Meets an institutional need. Although Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone (1998)

proposed that the “type of program” that is implemented affects the sustainability of the

213

program beyond the initial grant period, the findings from this study suggest that the
program’s ability to meet an institutional need, as well as the breadth of the program’s
impact on the campus, may more accurately describe what distinguishes between those
programs that are sustained and those that are not. The findings from this study suggest
that a program’s ability to meet an institutional need, rather than a more narrowly
targeted need, contributes to the sustainability of the program. Several studies have
documented the importance of including a needs assessment component in the planning
phase of program development (Lueddeke, 1999). This study, however, suggests that
institutional leaders should consider the type of need that the program is intended to
address. If the identified need is specific and short-term, it may not be necessary to
sustain the program. On the other hand, if the identified need is widespread and ongoing,
the institution is likely to feel a greater obligation to sustain the program.

Impact of program. Related to the program’s ability to meet an institutional
need, the findings from this study suggest that an initiative’s ability to achieve a broad
impact versus a narrow impact affects a campus’ willingness to commit to the program.
This was the case at Amber Hills College. In other words, the breadth of an initiative’s
impact affects the likelihood that campus leaders will continue supporting the initiative
beyond the initial funding period. This finding closely parallels previous research
suggesting that the breadth of its impact affects the sustainability of a program
(Huberman & Miles, 1984; Pontbriand, 2002).

Ability to integrate into the campus. The findings from this study suggest that
an institution’s ability to integrate an initiative into the existing services or fabric of the

campus contributes to the sustainability of the initiative. This finding supports previous

214

findings that emphasize structural adaptation as an element in sustaining a program
(Levison, 1994), as well as the importance of a program’s “philosophical fit” (Levison,
1994) or connection to the vision or core values of the institution (Pontbriand, 2002). The
cases described in this study would suggest that some campus structural dimensions
(Bolman & Deal, 2003) factored into the ability of the institution to sustain or not sustain
the initiative. However, the cases also suggest that the institutions that were able to
integrate the initiative either designed the initiative to be integrated (as in the case with
Bowling Lawn College), or altered the existing institutional structure to accommodate the
initiative (Castlegate College), or altered the initiative in addition to the existing
institutional structure to accommodate the initiative (Hilltop College).

Applied institutional learning. Although the campus administrators at the
institutions in this study frequently noted lessons learned from the Mellon experience, the
application of the lessons learned appeared to help at least some of the institutions that
sustained their Mellon initiatives. Much effort is required to make changes and
adjustments based upon the new information. Thus, the application of lessons learned,
rather than the mere documentation of the learning, contributes to the sustainability of the
initiative. Through adjustments, the initiatives evolved in ways that fit better with the
institution. Institutional fit has been suggested in the literature as a factor in
sustainability. Although the initiative may not “fit” well when a proposal is drafted, the
initiative can be modified to improve its fit in the institution by applying lessons learned.

The influence of applied learning parallel’s Arygis and Schon’s (1996) notion of
double—loop learning. The institutions that utilized double-loop learning applied the

lessons learned through program evaluations, and when appropriate, changed some of the

215

implementation and execution approaches during the grant period. The notion of applied
learning also supports Boyce’s (2003) recommendation for theorists to consider the role
of organizational learning in the sustainability of programs. Rather than using the reactive
application of learning that is demonstrated in single-loop learning, double loop learning
requires a reflective, questioning of assumptions application of learning. It was this type
of learning that Bowling Lawn College and Hilltop College administrators demonstrated
through their reflective processes and then application of what they learned to adjust their

Mellon initiatives.

 

Planning to sustain. The findings from this study suggest that sustainability of an “
initiative requires planning to sustain. Although some institutions will state that they have
made a commitment to an initiative, not all institutions plan to sustain the initiative. In
the cases of this study, the planning to sustain came from campus administration. The
implications of the value of campus administration’s support parallels the many scholars’
claims that support for an initiative is the result of political influences (Bolman & Deal,
2003), but specifically, the political influences of campus or central administration
(Levison, 1994). The findings from this study would suggest that political influences
represented in central administration might factor strongly into the sustainability of the
initiative at each of the campuses.

The findings from this study further suggest that planning to sustain does not have
to occur at the beginning stages of the initiative’s implementation; instead, planning to
sustain may occur later during the grant period. In fact, the findings from Castlegate and
Hilltop suggest that institutions do not have to go into a grant initiative with the intention

of sustaining the initiative; the decision to sustain may arise from the experience with the

216

initiative. However, the bottom line is without planning efforts to sustain the initiative at
some point during the grant period, it is unlikely that the initiative will be sustained after
the termination of the grant funding.

Program effectiveness. The findings of this study suggest that perceived program
effectiveness contributes to the sustainability of a program. However, the findings also
suggest that it is less of a factor when other factors, such as leadership, institutional
context, meeting and institutional need, and breadth of impact, are taken into
consideration. The participants at the three institutions that sustained their Mellon
initiatives viewed their initiatives as effective. At Amber Hills College there was a split
between participants who believed the initiative was effective and those who believed the
initiative was less effective. However, no participants at Amber Hills believed the
initiative was not effective. In the case of Amber Hills College, program effectiveness
was less of a factor in the college’s discontinuation of the initiative than factors such as
leadership and the breadth of the program’s impact on campus.

Discussion

Several ideas from the literature on organizational change, program
institutionalization and program sustainability informed my study. In this section, I
discuss the larger implications of this study’s findings within the context of the literature
that framed this study.

Organizational change and sustainability. The first body of literature that
informed my study was organizational change and the relationship between
organizational change and sustainability. The literature has characterized organizational

change as either a product (Brownson et al., 2006; Powers, 2000; Richards, O’Shea, &

217

Connolly, 2004; Wilson & Kurz, 2008) or a process (Clark, 2004; Kezar, 2001, 2007,
2008; Levine, 1980; Maier & Weidner, 1975). To align with most educational
perspectives and theorists, my perspective viewed organizational change as a process.
Moreover, I assumed that organizational change would be necessary in order to sustain an
initiative.

The cases in this study generally support the perspective that organizational
change is required to sustain an initiative. The three institutions that sustained, at

minimum, some components of the original Mellon initiative did undergo some

 

organizational change, whether it was erecting a physical unit, adjusting a physical unit to
absorb a position, or creating a new funding resource and increasing the existing funding
resources. Moreover, the institution that did not sustain any components of the original
Mellon initiative did not undergo any organizational change.

However, the cases in this study also revealed that organizational or institutional
change can be a product resulting from the sustainability process. For example, Bowling
Lawn College not only underwent organizational change to sustain the Mellon initiative,
but also ended up with institutional change in the form of a culture shift where the need
for faculty development is regarded as a positive rather than a remedial component of the
faculty career. In this sense, organizational change was not just part of the process to
sustain the Mellon initiative, but also an end product. Similarly, Castlegate College,
which was undergoing organizational change during the Mellon grant, ended up with
institutional change in the form of a learning, teaching and research center for faculty and
students. Castlegate, therefore, was able to use organizational change to sustain part of its

Mellon initiative, and have institutional change as a result of the process. Amber Hills

218

College, which did not sustain its Mellon initiative, did not engage in organizational
change, nor did institutional change result from the Mellon initiative experience. Amber
Hills College has neither experienced organizational change as a process nor as a result.
From these three cases, it is reasonable to conclude that sustaining the Mellon initiative
required organizational change and organizational change occurred at those institutions
that sustained their initiatives.

However, Hilltop College’s case does not parallel this implication. Hilltop

College utilized organizational change to sustain its Mellon initiative. The institution

 

created a new fund and reallocated resources to an existing resource to support the “‘
sustainability of the Venture Fund. Yet, the Mellon experience did not result in a change

in culture like Bowling Lawn, or a change in the perception of an existing center like

Castlegate. Instead, Hilltop College’s sustained Mellon initiative enhanced the

institution’s already supportive culture for faculty development. In other words, unlike

Bowling Lawn College or Castlegate College where a culture shifi resulted from the

Mellon experience, Hilltop College was able to maintain its supportive culture for faculty

through sustaining the Mellon initiative. Therefore, rather than creating a change in

culture or cultural perspective on campus, Hilltop College, through sustaining the Mellon

initiative, was able to maintain its espoused value of supporting its faculty.

The implications from this finding are that organizational change can be both a
part of the process to sustain a program or initiative as well as a result. However, the case
example provided by Hilltop suggests that although an institution may need to engage in
organizational change as part of the process to sustain, the result of the change process

does not have to lead to large cultural change, as was the case at Bowling Lawn or

219

Castlegate College. Instead, the process to sustain can lead to an institution’s ability to
uphold its espoused values when the sustained initiative matches the institution’s existing
values. In other words, organizational change, as part of the process to sustain, can also
result in the maintenance or support of an already espoused vision or mission.

Sustainability factors. The second major body of literature that informed my
study was the literature on institutionalization and program sustainability. Overall, the
findings from this study generally support previous findings on program
institutionalization and sustainability. Factors such as leadership (Huberman & Miles,
1984; Levison, 1994; Shediac-Rizkallah & Bone, 1998; Steckler & Goodman, 1989), the
reach of the program (Huberman & Miles, 1984), and the integration of the program into
existing structures (Bauld et al., 2005; Huberman & Miles, 1984; Johnson et al., 2004;
Levison, 1994; Shediac-Rizkallah & Bone, 1998) appear to be the more influential
factors in this study. Moreover, institutional context needs to be taken into consideration
in a higher education institution’s process to sustain an initiative. Colleges and
universities have unique cultures and are constantly evolving in response to the
environment. The case examples from this study demonstrate that institutional context is
a factor that also needs to be considered when developing and sustaining an initiative.

Although continued funding of a project, or finding the funding, is a concern for
many institutional leaders, the findings from this study suggest that money is not
necessarily the primary factor in the sustainability or termination of a project. In fact, the
four cases in this study, as a sample of a larger group of 23 higher education institutions,
were institutions with very large endowments. Moreover, Amber Hills College, the

institution that did not sustain the Mellon initiative, has the largest endowment of the four

220

 

institutions. Therefore, when funding is held relatively constant, the findings from this
study suggest that funding is less of a factor in sustaining an externally-funded program
when taking into account other factors such as leadership, the reach of the program, and
the context of the institution.

Sustainability as a matter of degree. Prior research has suggested that
institutionalization or sustainability is not a yes-no concept, but rather a matter of degree
(Huberman & Miles, 1984; Levine, 1980; Levison, 1994). The findings from this study
support the idea that sustainability is a matter of degree. However, the findings from this
study also acknowledge that sustainability can be both tangible and intangible. Whereas
prior research has considered a program to be sustained as long as some component is
visible, the Amber Hills participants in this study maintain that their institution has still
sustained its Mellon initiative, but in an intangible form of a “legacy” through the
planning efforts to develop an emeritus center. Thus, rather than the visualizing the
sustainability spectrum as consisting only degrees of sustainability that assumes only
tangible forms of sustainability, perhaps the spectrum should range from “highly intact
sustainability” to “intangible sustainability.”

Toward a Conceptual Framework for Program Sustainability Beyond Initial
Funding

This section addresses my fourth research question: 4) To what extent do the
findings parallel the conceptual framework guiding this study? I also attempt to bring
together the various elements mentioned in this chapter to provide my own conceptual

model of the sustainability process of foundation-funded programs at liberal arts colleges.

221

Although the guiding conceptual model generally agrees with the findings from
this study, it lacks factors that seem particularly relevant to institutions of higher
education. This is understandable because Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone’s (1998) model is
based upon findings from programs in the field of health promotion where community
factors have greater influence on the process and organizational structures differ from
college and university structures. Moreover, the model does not emphasize the gradation
of each factor’s influence.

As previously mentioned, the five factors I used from Shediac-Rizkallah and
Bone’s (1998) model were found to have varying effects on the sustainability process at
the four liberal arts college in my study. Themes based upon the participants’
perspectives revealed themes that overlap with factors present in Shediac-Rizkallah and
Bone’s (1998) model, as well as factors that are not present in the model. Therefore,
based upon the findings of my study, I propose the following conceptual model that
integrates the five factors from the guiding conceptual framework with the themes and

findings from this study (See Figure 6.1).

222

 

 
 

d

I Program-Related
’ Factors

   
  

Meets
Institutional
Need

Environmental Influences

Institution-Related \ \

 

Institutional
Context

 

 
  
 

Breadth
of Impact

   
  

Program
Effectiveness

Committed
Leader or
Champion

  
 
 
 

~

Process to Sustain
Programs Beyond
Initial Funding

  
  
 
  

Applied
Organizational
Leamin ;

\ Program and Institution-
\ ‘ Related Factors

~———‘

 

. Very Strong Factor
——-> Strong Factor

—> Moderate Factor

 

 

 

Figure 6.1.

223

    
 

 
  
    
 
 

 

  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
    
 

 
 
 
 

 
   

Integration
Into Campus

  
   
 

   
  

Planning
to Sustain

  
 

  

 

    

  

Proposed conceptual model for program sustainability

 

  
  
  
 

Unlike Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone’s three-part model, my conceptual model has
four parts: 1) factors that are program related, 2) factors that are institution related, 3)
factors that are program and institution related, and 4) factors that are attributed to the
external environment. In addition, I distinguish the varying influences of each factor
based upon either the presence of the theme across the four institutions, or the factor’s
strength as analyzed through the guiding conceptual fi'amework. In what follows, I
discuss each of the factors in my model. I begin with the program-related factors. Then I
discuss the institution-related factors. I follow that discussion with the factors related to
both the program and institution. Finally, I discuss the factor related to the external
environment.

Program meets an institutional need. The first program-related factor is the
extent to which the program meets an institutional need. The participants at the
institutions that sustained their Mellon initiatives believed that the initiative continued to
meet an identified need on campus. Although the Mellon initiative at Amber Hills
College met a need on campus, the need was specific and targeted, and not considered to
be a need that was institutional. Because this theme emerged at all four institutions, and is
related to the “program type” factor in the guiding conceptual framework, I present this
factor as a very strong factor in the process to sustain.

Program has a broad impact. Related to the need factor, the second program-
related factor is the extent to which the program has a broad impact on campus. The
participants at the institutions that sustained their Mellon initiatives believed that the
initiative had a broad impact or had effects that were far reaching. Participants at Amber

Hills College, on the other hand, did not believe that the Mellon initiative at their campus

224

was far reaching; instead, the impact on campus was considered to be narrow because of
the targeted nature of the program. Because this theme emerged at two institutions, and is
related to the “program type factor in the guiding conceptual framework, I present this
factor as a strong factor in the process to sustain.

Program is perceived as effective. The last program-related factor is the extent
to which the institution perceives the program as effective. At two of the institutions,
perceived effectiveness was found to contribute strongly to sustain their Mellon
initiatives. However, perceived effectiveness may have less of an influence than
institutional need or impact. Amber Hills College, for example, was split in its perception
of the Mellon initiative’s effectiveness. Faculty and administrators viewed some
components of the Mellon initiative as more effective than others. However, in the end,
the perceived effectiveness of the initiative was not a strong enough factor to persuade
the institution to sustain the initiative. Because of this factor’s lower influence on the
sustainability process compared to other program-related factors, based upon the findings
of this study, I present this factor as a moderate factor. ‘

Institutional context. The first institution-related factor, institutional context, is
an overarching theme to capture the unique circumstances at the institutions that
contributed to the sustainability of the Mellon initiatives. The timing of the grant as it
coincided with other institutional issues was a factor that contributed to the sustainability
of the Mellon initiative at two of institutions. In addition, a preexisting culture of faculty
support contributed to Hilltop’s ability to sustain the initiative. Thus, the findings from
this study suggest that institutional context plays a role in an institution’s ability to

sustain a program beyond the initial funding period. Because institutional context

225

emerged at three institutions, I present this factor as a strong influence in the process to
sustain.

Program’s ability to integrate into existing services. The second institution-
related factor is the ability for the institution to integrate the program into its existing
services or structure. The three institutions that were able to sustain their Mellon
initiatives found ways to integrate the Mellon initiative on campus to make the initiative a
part of the institution. Moreover, the institution that did not integrate the Mellon initiative
into its existing campus structures did not sustain the Mellon initiative as it was originally
implemented. Because this factor was found to be a strong influence across all four
institutions in the guiding conceptual framework, I present this factor as a very strong
influence in the process to sustain.

Planning to sustain. Related to the factor mentioned above, the third institution-
related factor is the institution’s willingness to plan for the sustainability of the initiative.
The three institutions that sustained their Mellon initiatives planned for sustainability,
whether it was at the beginning of the grant period, or midway through the grant period.
Because this factor emerged at three of the institutions, I present this factor as a strong
influence in the process to sustain.

Presence of committed leadership or program champion. Presence of a
committed leader is the first of two factors that cannot be considered exclusively as a
program-related factor or an institution-related factor. Therefore, it is a factor that spans
both the program and institution levels of sustainability. This was a prominent theme that
emerged across all four institutions. In addition, the presence of a committed leader was

one of the most influential factors of the five factors from the guiding conceptual

226

framework. Hence, leadership is included in my model as a very strong factor that
contributed to the sustainability of the Mellon initiative.

Application of learning. Application of learning is the second of two factors that
are applicable to both the program and institution. This factor represents the ability for
the institution to apply lessons learned to the Mellon initiative, as well for the initiative
itself to apply lessons learned. The institutions that were able to sustain their Mellon
initiatives made adjustments to their initiatives over the course of the grant period. The
adjustments that were made were based upon assessments and reflection to make the
initiatives valuable to the faculty members and to the institution. Because the application
of learning occurred at two institutions, I present this factor as a moderate influence on
the process to sustain.

Environmental influences. The final factor is an environmental level factor.
Although this factor was determined as a weak factor in the process, I have not
completely dismissed the factor as an influence on the sustainability process. Some
participants felt that the national economy did or could have an influence on the
sustainability of the Mellon initiative. In addition, because colleges and universities work
within an external environment, I have presented the external environment as surrounding
the eight factors. A dotted line separates the environment from the eight factors to signify
the permeable boundary between higher education and its surrounding environment.

In summary, the components of the guiding conceptual framework seem to
generally represent the findings of this study. However, the framework lacks specific
factors that emerged from the findings. Moreover, the visual representation of the

components does not seem to fit the higher education context. Therefore, utilizing the

227

principles from the guiding conceptual framework and the findings from this study, I
developed a model that I believe better represents the sustainability process in higher
education.

Comparing Models

This section compares the guiding conceptual framework based upon Shediac-
Rizkallah and Bone’s (1998) model with the model I have proposed based upon the ideas
from the guiding model and the findings from this study. As previously mentioned,
Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone’s (1998) model, based upon work in the field of health
promotion, portrays the sustainability process as a combination of program,
organizational, and environmental factors. The specific factors from the guiding
conceptual model were 1) program type, 2) program effectiveness, 3) integration of
program into existing programs and services, 4) leadership or program champion, and 5)
socioeconomic and political considerations. In general, these factors parallel some of the
findings from this study, but with some exceptions.

The proposed model that I present includes a majority of components from the
guiding conceptual model. My model includes the influences of program effectiveness,
integration of program into the campus, leadership or program champion, and
environment. However, my model is distinct in several ways. First, the guiding
conceptual model presented the factors at three levels: 1) program, 2) organizational, and
3) environmental. Because of the nature of the liberal arts colleges used in this study,
where hierarchy is relatively flat and boundaries between faculty and administrators are
permeable, my model presents two factors that straddle the program and institution

levels. Therefore, rather than “levels,” my model presents the factors by their

228

 

“affiliation”-—-factors affiliated with the program, factors affiliated with the institution,
factors affiliated with the program and institution, and factors affiliated with the
environment.

Second, the factor of program type was clarified by becoming two separate
factors: 1) a program’s ability to meet an institutional need, and 2) a program’s breadth of
impact. These two themes emerged from the participants’ perspectives and seemed to
better represent the particular ways in which the initiative itself influenced the
sustainability process, rather than the broad, ambiguous idea of “program type” as
presented by Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone (1998).

Third, other themes that emerged in the data such as the influences of applied
learning, planning to sustain, and institutional context are absent in the guiding
conceptual model. Because of the unique nature of college and universities as complex
institutions that exhibit both managerial and academic cultures, these three themes seem
applicable to the sustainability process in higher education institutions.

Fourth, environmental influences are represented as surrounding the eight factors
in the process to sustain, thus symbolizing the encircling influence that the environment
has on the sustainability process. This is distinct from the guiding conceptual model
where environmental factors are included in and having direct influences on the
sustainability process. Again, the field of health promotion is more directly connected to
its environment and community, whereas higher education institutions may not
necessarily be directly affected by environmental influences. However, the influence of
the environment on colleges and universities can depend on the institution itself. This

study utilized selective, well-endowed liberal arts colleges. Therefore, the findings from

229

this study revealed less external influences on the sustainability process than what may
occur at public institutions. However, because the influence of the environment can be
both direct and indirect depending upon the type of higher education institution, my
proposed model represents the environmental influence as surrounding all eight factors in
the process.

Finally, this study focused on the strength of each of the factor’s influence on the
sustainability process. This was not represented in the guiding conceptual framework.
However, the guiding conceptual framework represented interactive influences between
the factors. This study did not focus on the extent to which the factors influenced other
factors in the process to sustain.

Limitations of the Study

Before proceeding to the implications section of this chapter, I believe the
limitations of this study should be revisited. First, this was a qualitative study. As such,
qualitative data, while rich in description, is influenced by the perceptions and
recollections of the participants (Merriam, 1998). F urtherrnore, as the researcher of this
qualitative study, I acknowledge that my own biases (Merriam, 1998) affected the
collection and interpretation of my data.

Second, this study was limited to a selective group of liberal arts colleges. Many
institutions of higher education do not fit the institutional profile of the colleges
represented in this study. Therefore, the implications for practice and future research are
influenced by my biases as a researcher as well as the findings that are drawn from a

sample of institutions that do not generally represent all higher education institutions.

230

Therefore, implications drawn from this study should be considered with an institution’s
distinctive context and culture in mind.
Implications for Practice

Not all institutions may want or need to sustain a grant-funded initiative beyond
the initial grant period. Amber Hills College exemplifies this point. However, the
findings from this study provide several implications for institutions. These implications
for practice do not follow a recipe or formula. Instead, they represent ideas for
institutional leaders considering the possibility of sustaining a terminally-funded project
or program, as well as for foundation officers and external grantors evaluating funding
proposals from colleges and universities.

First, I offer a set of recommendations for institutional leaders who are
considering the possibility of sustaining a terminally-funded project or program. In
addition, I have provided a list of recommendations for grant-funders to consider when
reviewing grant applications and annual reports.

Implications for college and university leaders. College and university leaders
who would like to sustain their grant-funded programs beyond the initial grant period
may consider the following recommendations based upon the findings of this study.

A program champion or committed leader is essential to maintain momentum
Much of an institution’s ability to sustain an initiative or program beyond the grant’s
funding period is dependent on the presence of a program champion to carry the energy
of the initiative. Without an individual working as an advocate and driver of the initiative,
the institution has little incentive to continue its support or to strategize ways to sustain

the initiative. Moreover, the nature of the required leadership is dependent upon the

231

nature of the institution and the initiative. For example, in institutions where
administrative support for the program is already present, leadership might need to take
the form of an individual who is able to maintain the momentum of the program. In
institutions where programs do not readily have the commitment of central administration
may need an individual to actively advocate for the continued support of the program.

Administrative support is key. This study’s findings suggest that administrative
commitment is an influential factor in sustaining a program. Bowling Lawn College,
Castlegate College and Hilltop College each had the support of the Provost’s Office to
ensure that the Mellon initiative would be sustained beyond the initial grant period. In
essence, the three institutions received the commitment from an important administrative
office in order to sustain the initiative. This point, however, should not be confused with
administrative support to implement the initiative. Amber Hills College’s campus
administration was supportive of the Mellon initiative’s presence on campus. However,
Amber Hills campus administration was not supportive enough to sustain the Mellon
initiative beyond the initial grant period and instead “let it go.”

Keep in mind the institutional culture and context. The culture and context of
the institution contribute to the implementation and sustainability of an initiative. More
specifically, an initiative needs to fit into the culture and context of the institution. If the
institution’s culture is not supportive of the goals of the initiative, and if the institution is
not moving in a direction consistent with the initiative’s goals, it is not likely that the
initiative will receive the commitment from faculty and administration to be sustained.

Ensure the initiative will have a broad impact. The broader the impact, the more

likely the institution will remain committed to the initiative. If the initiative’s impact is

232

 

too narrow, institutional leaders will be hard pressed to make sustaining the initiative a
funding priority, regardless of whether the initiative met its goals or whether it was
perceived as effective.

Use existing resources. Two of the institutions in this study relied upon their
existing resources to help absorb components of the Mellon initiative. Castlegate College
merged the Director for Faculty Development Position into an existing center to give the
Mellon initiative a “home.” Hilltop College began to “bolster-up” one of its campus
resources in anticipation of absorbing some of the objectives of the Venture Fund. The
college also used another funding source to create a new funding award to maintain the
other objectives of the Venture Fund.

Think about planning to sustain. The institutions that were able to sustain some
part of the Mellon initiative developed plans that would place the initiative in a more
stable situation post funding. Some institutions did not plan for the transitions at the
beginning of the grant period, as was the case at Bowling Lawn College. Instead,
institutions like Castlegate and Hilltop Colleges developed their plans as the grant
initiative unfolded after the institutions determined what components of the initiative
worked best for their institutions.

Apply what has been learned as soon as possible. The institutions that were able
to apply what they learned along the way as the Mellon initiative was implemented were
better positioned to sustain at least some components of the initiative beyond the initial
grant period. Specifically, the application of learning through ongoing program
assessment and evaluation in the form of both single-loop and double-loop learning

seemed to greatly benefit those institutions engaged in organizational learning. Program

233

evaluation has been frequently cited as an important step in program implementation and
sustainability (Lueddeke, 1999). However, program evaluation without the application of
the lessons learned from program evaluation render the evaluation stage of the process as
useless. Therefore, institutional leaders would be better equipped to apply lessons learned
if they can take time to understand how their institutions learn from experiences, and how
the lessons can be incorporated into the initiative to reflect the learning process and
outcomes.

Do not become dependent upon the initiating funding source. A quick search of
current colleges and universities’ campus strategic plans on the Internet reveals a
thematic pattern with regard to money: “secure funding.” The implications from this
study suggest that the action of securing funding should be ongoing for the purposes of
sustaining projects or initiatives whose initial funding source is terminal. Funds to sustain
a terminally funded initiative can be secured externally or internally. In this study, Hilltop
College was able to sustain its Venture Fund by utilizing two existing internal funding
sources. Not all institutions will have the existing internal funding sources to apply
Hilltop’s strategy. However, the act of utilizing existing and reallocating funding sources
were key actions in Hilltop’s ability to sustain the Venture Fund. The lesson that
institutions should apply is simple: searching for funding should be ongoing, whether the
funds are found within the institution or from an external source. In other words, reliance
upon the initial external fund without a plan to either absorb the initiative or switch
funding sources will lead to the termination of the project.

Implications for foundations or other external grantors. The findings from

this study also provide some suggestions for practice that apply to foundations or other

234

external grantors that work with colleges and universities. Foundations and other external
grantors may utilize the following suggestions to help provide practical advice to
institutions during proposal development and implementation. For example, grantors may
utilize the information to create institutional guidelines for developing successful
proposals and programs, and drafting annual reports that will more succinctly provide
foundations with the pertinent information regarding the progress of the grant. Therefore,
the following are questions for foundations or other external grantors to consider when
evaluating funding proposals and annual reports from colleges and universities. This is
not intended to be a checklist; instead, the following are points or questions for program
officers to consider when reviewing funding proposals and annual progress reports. In
addition, the following questions should be considered within the context of each
institution because institutions vary in culture and context.

Does the institution have an identified program champion or committed leader?
As previously mentioned, the findings from this study suggest that the sustainability of a
grant initiative is highly influenced by the presence of a committed leader or program
champion. Foundations and external grantors can assist institutions in ensuring that a
program champion is present by requiring institutions to routinely identify in proposals
and annual reports the individual or individuals acting as the leaders of the initiative and
the roles they will play in guiding or administering the initiative. Moreover, foundations
and external grantors can push institutions to think about the leadership needs of the
initiative during and beyond the grant period by requiring institutions to indicate the
individual or individuals who will help to carry the initiative forward beyond the grant

period.

235

 

Will the program or initiative meet a broad institutional need? An institution is
more likely to sustain a grant-funded initiative beyond the initial grant period if the
initiative is meeting a broad, rather than a narrow, need on campus. Therefore, if the
grant-funded program is going to meet a broad need, it is likely the institution will
continue to benefit from it and thus be more willing to sustain the initiative beyond the
funding period.

Is the institution able to identify existing or other resources that could absorb
the financial cost beyond the initial funding period? An institution is more likely to
sustain its grant-funded initiative post funding if the institution can identify existing
resources, either internally or externally, to absorb the financial cost of the initiative.

Does the institution have a concrete plan or planning process to sustain the
initiative? Institutions that espouse the intent to sustain an initiative should demonstrate
institutional commitment through intentional planning that is developed either at the
beginning of the grant period or as the grant period unfolds. An institution should
articulate its plan well before the end of the grant period to allow time for the institution
to transition and enact the plan. As an alternative, institutions could agree to assess the
progress of their program and initiate a plan to sustain at some point during the life of the
grant.

Does the institution demonstrate lessons learned and concrete ways to
implement what has been learned? Institutions that apply the lessons learned through
program evaluation and assessment are more likely to adapt their initiatives in ways that
will make the initiatives valuable to the institutions. This will increase the likelihood that

the initiative will be sustained beyond the grant period.

236

Suggestions for Future Research

Although this study addressed how liberal arts colleges sustain foundation-funded
programs beyond the initial grant period, it also raises further questions. Rather than
developing an exhaustive list, the following are suggested lines of inquiry that should be
given high priority for investigation to contribute to a greater understanding of this topic.

First, the findings from this study revealed that environment had the lowest
influence on the sustainability process. Public universities or less well-endowed private
colleges, unlike the liberal arts colleges in this study, might be more strongly influenced
by environmental factors. Future research should continue to explore the extent to which
environmental conditions affect the ways in which institutions sustain grant-funded
programs and how influential environmental conditions affect the process in comparison
with other factors.

Second, the period in which the institutions in this study received the foundation
grant was a time in which the national economy was relatively strong. The extent to
which the findings from this study hold during a time of severe economic hardship at
both public and private institutions warrants further investigation.

Third, future research should consider the broader notion of environment and its
impact on the sustainability process. Other considerations such as social and political
movements, educational trends, and other environmental issues beyond economic matters
may also have a large effect on the sustainability process.

Fourth, this study was limited to small institutions where lines of communication
are more centralized. Large universities are more decentralized than small colleges,

which is a factor that the literature suggests can affect the sustainability of programs

237

(Ward, 1996). As such, research should examine the process of program sustainability at
large universities to determine the extent to which the findings in this study accurately
describe the process in other institutional contexts.

Fifth, the conceptual framework that guided this study (Shediac-Rizkallah &
Bone, 1998) proposed interactive influences among the factors. These interactive
influences were not examined in this study. Future studies might consider if and how the
factors in the sustainability process influence each other.

Finally, because sustainability is not static, researchers should continue to follow
up on currently sustained initiatives to determine their greater life cycles, the deeper
impact of the initiative’s sustainability on the campus, and thematic patterns that may
explain how some initiatives have longer life cycles than other initiatives.

Conclusion

In times of budget crises and fiscal belt tightening, sustaining a foundation-funded
initiative beyond the initial grant period can be challenging. This study provided an
empirically based investigation of the experiences at four institutions that received a
foundation grant to create faculty career enhancement programs for their campuses. The
study, highlighted the ways in which some institutions sustained the initiative in various
forms, as well as described the factors contributing to the inability of one institution to
sustain its initiative. Although not every initiative implemented with external funds can
or should be sustained beyond the initial grant period, this study intended to reveal how
three institutions sustained their grant-funded initiatives and the varying Ways in which
this was accomplished. In addition, this study revealed factors that contributed to a fourth

institution’s inability to sustain its grant-funded initiative and the lessons learned at that

238

 

particular institution. This study shows that an institution can continue to benefit from a
grant-funded initiative beyond the grant period in various ways and forms through factors

such as committed leadership, administrative support, applied institutional learning, and

transitional planning.

239

 

APPENDIX A

E-Mail To Provost/Deans Of Faculty

Dear [Provost/Dean of Faculty]:

My name is Debbie Chang, a doctoral student in Higher, Adult and Lifelong Education at
Michigan State University. I am undertaking a study to learn the ways in which liberal
arts colleges have managed to sustain valuable elements of their Faculty Career
Enhancement programs beyond the life of the Andrew W. Mellon grant.

Because your campus was one of the participants in the original FCE program, I am
hoping to speak with you and some of the key administrators or faculty members who
have had a role in sustaining some of the components of the F CE program. I would like
to have a phone conversation with you to share more details of my proposed study and
answer any questions you may have. Therefore, I will call your office within the next
week and work with your administrative so that a time can be arranged to discuss the
details of my study.

I look forward to speaking with you in the near future.

Sincerely,

Debbie Chang

Doctoral Student

Higher, Adult and Lifelong Education
Michigan State University
c_h_angdeb@msu.edu

cell: 714-313-5771

240

APPENDIX B

E-Mail To Participants

Dear [Faculty Member/Administrator/Program Staff Member]:

My name is Debbie Chang. I am a doctoral student in the Higher, Adult and Lifelong
Education Program in Michigan State University’s College of Education. As part of my
dissertation on program sustainability at liberal arts colleges, I am interested in learning
about particular elements of the Faculty Career Enhancement Programs on your campus
that have been sustained since the end of the Mellon grant.

I am hoping you might consider being a participant in my study, as a Faculty
Member/Administrator/Program Staff Member who was involved in managing and
sustaining some of the FCE programs on your campus. The interview would last
approximately 45 to 60 minutes.

Please let me know if you might be interested in being a participant. I can be reached by
email at changdeb@msu.edu or by cell phone at 714-313-5771 if you have any questions
regarding the study.

Thank you in advance for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.
Most sincerely,

Debbie Chang

Graduate Student

Higher, Adult and Lifelong Education
College of Education

changdeb@msu.edu

241

 

APPENDIX C

Research Participant 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: Program Sustainability at Liberal Arts Colleges
Researcher and Title: Debbie Chang, Graduate Student
Roger Baldwin, Professor
Department and Institution: Education Administration, Michigan State University
Address and Contact Information: 401F Erickson Hall, Qangdeb@msu.edu. 714-313-5771
427 Erickson Hall, @ldwin@msu.edu. 517-355-6452

PURPOSE OF RESEARCH

You are being asked to participate in a research study of program sustainability at Liberal Arts
Colleges. You have been selected as a possible participant in this study because you are a faculty
member, administrator or staff member who has had an influence on the sustainability of at least
one of the Faculty Career Enhancement Programs on your campus. From this study, the
researcher hopes to learn the strategies that Liberal Arts Colleges use to sustain foundation
funded programs beyond the initial grant period. Your participation in this study will take
approximately 45 to 60 minutes.

WHAT YOU WILL DO

You will be participating in a 45 to 60 minute interview about your understandings, perceptions
and experiences as a faculty member, administrator, or staff member who helped sustain at least
one of the Faculty Career Enhancement Programs. Findings of the project will be available for
review upon request.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

You will not directly benefit from your participation in this study. However, your participation in
this study may contribute to the understanding of the strategies Liberal Arts Colleges sustain
foundation funded programs beyond the initial funding period.

POTENTIAL RISKS

There are no foreseeable risks associated with participation in this study.

PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY

The data for this project will be kept confidential. The collected data will be coded; a key will be
maintained separately in a locked office and password protected computer. Only the researchers
will have access to the data. Any identifiable information connected to you will be kept
confidential to the maximum extent allowable by law. The results of this study may be published
or presented at professional meetings, but the identities of all research participants will remain
anonymous. All participants will be referred to as “participants” in any written reports.

242

As part of the research project, the interview will be audio-recorded. If you agree to be audio-
recorded, all audio-recordings will be stored, protected in a password protected computer and will
erased/destroyed upon completion of the project.
0 I agree to allow audio-recording of the interview.
1:] Yes El No Initials

 

YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, 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. You may 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 concerns or questions about this study, please contact the researchers:

 

Debbie Chang Roger Baldwin

401F Erickson Hall 427 Erickson Hall

East Lansing, MI 48842 East Lansing, MI 48824
email: Qangdeb@msu.edu email: rbaldwin@msu.edu
cell phone: 714-313-5771 office phone: 517-355-6452

If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like
to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you
may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research
Protection Program 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.

 

 

Signature Date

You will be given a copy of this form to keep.

243

APPENDIX D

Interview Protocol

Using a semi-structured approach, the following interview protocol was intended to

prompt the participants to discuss or explain their understanding of the sustainability

process and their role in the process.

Tell me about how the Mellon initiative was developed and implemented.

Who were people involved in the Mellon initiative?

What were the results and/or effects of the Mellon initiative as it was
implemented?

What were the challenges or barriers to the development or implementation of the
Mellon initiative?

What has been sustained from the Mellon initiative on campus? Why? How do
you know?

How has the Mellon initiative been sustained on campus?

What contributed to the Mellon initiative’s ability to be sustained beyond the
grant period? Or what contributed to the Mellon initiative’s inability to be
sustained?

What individuals/groups contributed to the sustainability of the Mellon initiative?
What was your role in developing/implementing/sustaining the Mellon initiative?
What has happened since your involvement with the Mellon initiative?

What do you see as the future of the Mellon initiative at your campus?

244

APPENDIX E
Data Collection Chronology

The following is a general timeline of my data collection for this study. The
chronology begins with the period where I began to develop my categories for selecting
my cases; the chronology ends with my period of data analysis. Data collection ceased
when I felt I had reached the point of saturation (Merriman, 1998) and that no new
information was emerging from the participant interviews, documents, or observations.

F ebruary-April 2009. Reports on each of the 23 institutions were reviewed to

develop categories for selecting cases. Four program administration categories

were developed. Approval was received from the Michigan State University

Institutional Review Board to begin data collection.

May-June 2009. Eight institutions were selected for study; four institutions were

selected to represent each category and four were identified as “back-up”

institutions in the event that some of the institutions would decide not to

participate. I sent invitation email letters to the chief academic officers of each of

the initial four institutions to introduce myself and my study, and ask for

permission to utilize the institution. I then followed up with a telephone call. Two

of the four institutions agreed to participate. I then used two of the four back up

institutions and repeated the procedure with an invitation email letter and a follow

up telephone conversation.

June-A ugust 2009. I had telephone conversations and email correspondence with

the appropriate administrators (two chief academic officers, one associate dean,

245

and one director) from the participating institutions to brainstorm possible
individuals to participate in the study.

August-November 2009. I began the collection of interview data. This part of the
project was highly iterative. Initial interviews were via telephone and email to
screen participants prior to site visitations. In person interviews occurred during
site visits. Follow up interviews occurred via telephone. Confirmation and
clarification of information occurred by email and over the telephone.
October-December 2009. Although I was still collecting site visit data, I started
the process of analyzing my data to help fill in gaps that revealed themselves
during initial analysis. The process also allowed me to follow up on leads that

developed during the site visits, and interview new individuals.

246

 

REFERENCES

Albertine, 8., Alfred Persily, N., Reigelman, R. (2007). Back to the pmnp handle: Public
health and the future of undergraduate education. Liberal Education, 93(4), 32-39.

Altman, HE. (2004). A baker’s dozen: Dirty lessons I have learned in an academic
career. Change, 36(4), 50-53.

Amey, M. J. (2005). Assumptions of the culture fi'ame. Class lecture for EAD 970.
Michigan State University, College of Education, East Lansing, MI.

Anheier, H. K., & Romo, F. P. (1999). Foundations in Germany and the United States: A
comparative analysis. In H. K. Anheier, & S. Toepler (Eds.), Private flmds, public
purpose: Philanthropic foundations in international perspective (pp. 79-120).
New York: Kluwer Academic.

Anheier, H. K., & Toepler, S. (1999). Philanthropic foundations: An international
perspective. In H. K. Anheier, & S. Toepler (Eds.), Private funds, public purpose:
Philanthropic foundations in international perspective (pp. 3-26). New York:
Kluwer Academic.

Argyris, C. (1999). On organizational learning (2"d ed). Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishers Ltd.

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning 11: T heory, method and
practice. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

Astin, A. (2000). How the liberal arts college affects students. In S. Koblik & S.R.
Graubard (Eds.), Distinctly American: The residential liberal arts colleges (pp.
77-100). New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.

Baldwin, R. G., & Blackburn, R. T. (1981). The academic career as a developmental
process: Implications for higher education. The Journal of Higher Education,
52(6), 598-614.

Bauld, L., Judge, K., Barnes, M., Benzeval, M., MacKenzie, M., & Sullivan, H. (2005).
Promoting social change: The experience of health action zones in England.
Journal of Social Policy, 34(3), 427-445.

Bean, J. P. (1998). Alternative models of professorial roles: New languages to reimagine
faculty work. The Journal of Higher Education, 69(5), 496-512.

Beery, W., Sentr, S., Cheadle, A., Greenwald, H., Pearson, D., Brousseau, R., & Nelson,
G. (2005). Evaluating the legacy of community health initiatives: A conceptual
framework and example for the California Wellness Foundation’s health
improvement initiative. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(2), 150-165.

247

 

Bensirnon, E. M., & Neumann, A. (1993). Redesigning collegiate leadership: Teams and
teamwork in higher education. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University
Press.

Bergman, S. H. (2000). Service as systemic reform. School Administrator, 5 7(7), 20-24.

Berdahl, R. O., Altbach, P. G., & Gumport, P. J. (2005). The contexts of American higher
‘ education. In P G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & P J. Gumport (Eds.), American
higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political and economic
challenges (2"d ed.) (pp. 1-11). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Berquist, W. H., & Pawlak, K. (2008). Engaging the six cultures of the academy: Revised
and expanded edition of the Four Cultures of the Academy. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Billig, S. (2000). Research on K-12 school-based service learning: The evidence builds.
Phi Delta Kappan, 81(9), 653-658.

Bimbaum, R. (1989) The latent organizational functions of the academic senate: Why
senates do not work but will not go away. The Journal of Higher Education,
60(4), 423-443.

Bimbaum, R. (1991 ). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Blackburn, R. T., & Lawrence, J. H. (1995). Faculty at work: Motivation, expectation,
satisfaction. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boyce, M. E. (2003). Organizational learning is essential to achieving and sustaining
change in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 28(2), 119-136.

Breneman, D. W. (1994). Liberal arts colleges: Thriving, surviving, or endangered?
Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Brownson, R. C., Kreuter, M. W., Arrington, B. A., & True, W. R. (2006). Translating
scientific discoveries into public health action: How can schools of public health
move us forward? Public Health Reports, 121(1), 97-103.

Bulmer, M. (1999). The history of foundations in the United Kingdom and the United
States: Philanthropic foundations. In H. K. Anheier, & S. Toepler (Eds.), Private

funds, public purpose: Philanthropic foundations in international perspective (pp.
27-54). New York: Kluwer Academic.

248

Chaffee, E. E. (1998). Listening to the people we serve. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), The
responsive university: Restructuring for high performance (pp. 13-3 7). Baltimore,
MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Clark, B. R. (1972). The organizational saga in higher education. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 1 7, 178-184.

Clark, B. R. (2004). Sustaining change in universities: Continuities in case studies and
concepts. New York: Open University Press.

Clark, T. N. (1968). Institutionalization of innovations in higher education: Four models.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 13(1), 1-25.

Clotfelter, C. T. (2007). Patron or bully? The role of foundations in higher education. In
R. Bacchetti & T. Ehrlich (Eds.), Reconnecting education and foundations:
Turning good intentions into educational capital (pp. 21 1-248). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (2"d edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dickeson, R. C. (1999). Prioritizing academic programs and services: Reallocating
resources to achieve strategic balance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Donofi'io, K. (1990). Compensation survey. Washington, DC: College and University
Personnel Association.

Duderstadt, J. J. (2000). A university for the 21“" century. Ann Arbor, MI: The University
of Michigan Press.

Ehrenberg, R. (2003). Financing higher education in the 21" century. Invited address for
the annual meeting of the American Educational Finance Association, Orlando,
FL.

Ewell, P. T. (2008). Assessment and accountability in America today: Background and
context. In V. M. H. Borden, & G. R. Pike (Eds). Assessing and Accounting for
Student Learning: Beyond the Spellings Commission: New Directions for
Institutional Research, Assessment Supplement 200 7. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fairweather, J. S. (1997). The mythologies of faculty productivity: Implications for
institutional policy and decision making. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1),
26-48.

Finkelstein, J ., Seal, M., & Schuster, J. (1999). New entrants to the full-time faculty of
higher education institutions. Education Statistics Quarterly, 1(4), 78-80.

249

Fleishman, J. L. (2007). The foundation, a great American secret: How private wealth is
changing the work New York: Public Affairs.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2005). The interview: From neutral stance to political
involvement. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of
qualitative research (3rd ed.) (pp. 695-727). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fountain, E. A. (2006). Institutional commitment to learning-centered education.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(6), 130. (UMl No. 3223876)

Gaff, J. G. (1975). Toward faculty renewal. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gappa, J. M., Austin, A. E., & Trice, A. G. (Eds.) (2007). Rethinking faculty work:
Higher education ’s strategic imperative. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gilbert, S. W. (1996/2000). Making the most of a slow revolution. In D. DeZure (Ed.),
Learning fiom change: Landmarks in teaching and learning in higher education
from Change Magazine 1969-1999 (pp. 412-413). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Gladieux, L. E., King, J. E., & Corrigan, M. E. (2005). The federal government and
higher education. In P. G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & P. J. Gumport (Eds.),
American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and
economic challenges (2nd ed.) (pp. 163-197). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins
University Press.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago:
Aldine.

Green, L. W. (1989). Comment: Is institutionalization the proper goal of grantrnaking?
American Journal of Health Promotion, 3, 44.

Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (3rd ed.). Boston:
Pearson Education.

Harman, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organization. American
Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 929-964.

Harcleroad, F. F., & Eaton, J. S. (2005). The hidden hand: External constituencies and
their impact. In P. G. Albach, R. O. Berdahl, & P. J. Gumport (Eds.), American
higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political and economic
challenges (2"d edition). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hearn, J. C. (1996). Transforming U.S. higher education: An organizational perspective.
Innovative Higher Education, 18(1), 7-36.

250

Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership:
Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Business Press.

Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1984). Innovation up close: How school improvement
works. New York: Plenum.

Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In N.
K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 428-
444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Johnson, K., Hays, C., Center, H., & Daley, C. (2004). Building capacity and sustainable

prevention innovations: A sustainability planning model. Evaluation and
Program Planning, 27, 135-149.

June, A. W. (2010). Colleges look for new ways to help women in science. The Chronicle
of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.corn/article/Colleges-Look;
for-New-Ways-to/ 63 69 1/

Keeling, R. P., Underhile, R., Wall, A. F. (2007). Horizontal and vertical structures: The
dynamics of organization in higher education. Liberal Education, 93(4), 22-31.

Kezar, A. J. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21”
century: Recent research and conceptualizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kezar, A. J. (2007). Tools for a time and place: Phased leadership strategies to
institutionalize a diversity agenda. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 413-
439.

Kezar, A. J. (2008). Understanding leadership strategies for addressing the politics of
diversity. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(4), 406-441 .

Kezar, A. J ., & Eckel, P. (2002a). Examining the institutional transformation process:
The importance of sensemaking, interrelated strategies, and balance. Research in
Higher Education, 43(3), 295-328.

Kezar, A. J ., & Eckel, P. (2002b). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies
in higher education. 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.

LaPelle, N. R., Zapka, J., Ockene, J. K. (2006). Sustainability of public health programs:
The example of tobacco treatment services in Massachusetts. American Journal of
Public Health, 96(8), 1363-1369.

251

 

Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1986). Organization and environment: Managing
differentiation and integration. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Leveille, D. E. (2000). Accountability in higher education: A public agenda for trust and
cultural change.

Levine, A. (1980). Why innovation fails. Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press.

Levison, L. M. (1994). Community service programs in independent schools: The
processes of implementation and institutionalization of peripheral educational
innovation. New York: Garland.

Lueddeke, G. R. (1999). Toward a constructivist framework for guiding change and
innovation in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(3), 23 5-260.

Maier, R. H., & Weidner, E. W. (1975). Creating and encouraging an innovative
academic environment in higher education. Higher Education, 4, 69-76.

McDaniels, M. (2008). Intergenerational research collaborations at research-oriented

liberal arts colleges: An ecological approach to faculty development. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 69(4), 222. (U M1 No. 3312718)

, McGuiness, A. C. (2005). The states and higher education. In P. G. Altbach, R. O.
Berdahl, & P. J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first
century: Social, political, and economic challenges (2“d ed.) (pp. 198-225).
Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

McPherson, M. S., & Schapiro, M. O. (2000). The future economic challenges for the
liberal arts colleges. In S. Koblik & S. R. Graubard (Eds.), Distinctly American:

The residential liberal arts colleges (pp. 47-76). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.

Merriman, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education:
Revised an expanded fiom case study research in education. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning: Reconceiving roles for
planning, plans, planners. New York: The Free Press.

Morrill, R. L. (2007). Strategic leadership: Integrating strategy and leadership in college
and universities. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Newman, F., Couturier, L., & Scurry, J. (2004). T he future of higher education: Rhetoric,
reality, and the risks of the market. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

252

 

O’Loughlin, J ., Renaud, L., Richard, L., Sanchez-Gomez, L., & Paradis, G. (1998).
Correlates of the sustainability of community health initiatives: An empirical case
study. Health Promotion Practice, 1, 249-258.

Palomba, C. A., & Banta, T. W. (1999). Assessment essentials: Planning, implementing,
and improving assessment in higher education. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Peterson, M. W. (1997). Using contextual planning to transform institutions. In M. W.
Peterson, D. D. Dill, L. A. Mets and Associates (Eds.), Planning and management
for a changing environment: A handbook on redesigning postsecondary
institutions (pp. 127-157). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Peterson, M. W. (1999). The role of institutional research: From improvement to
redesign. New Directions for Institutional Research, Issue 104 (pp. 83-103). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pettigrew, A. M. (1995). Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. In
G. P. Huber, & A. H. Van de Van (Eds.), Longitudinal field research methods:
Studying processes of organizational change (pp. 91-125). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Pfeffer, J ., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource
dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.

Pluye, P., Potvin, L., Denis, J. L., Pelletier, J., & Mannoni, C. (2005). Program
sustainability begins with the first events. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28,
123-127.

Pontbriand, B. J. (2002). The sustaining factors of service-learning at a National Leader
School: A case study. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(12), 166. (UMI
No. 3038924)

Powers, J. (2000). The use of institutional incentive grants for strategic change in higher
education. The Review of Higher Education, 23(3), 281-298.

Proietto, R. (1999). The Ford Foundation and women’s studies in American higher
education: Seeds or change? In E. C. Lagemann (Ed.), Philanthropicfoundations:
New scholarship, new possibilities (pp. 271-286). Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press.

Renn, K. A. (2004). Mixed race students in college: The ecology of race, identity, and
community on campus. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

253

 

Richards, L., O’Shea, J ., & Connolly, M. (2004). Managing the concept of strategic
change within a higher education institution: The role of strategic and scenario
planning techniques. Strategic Change, 13(7), 345-359.

Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2003). Learning in the field: An introduction to
qualitative research (2"d ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rothschild, M. (1999). Philanthropy and American higher education. In C. T. Clotfelter
& T. Ehrlich (Eds.), Philanthropy and the nonprofit sector in a changing America
(pp. 413-427). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Rubin, H. J ., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Scheirer, M. A. (2005). Is sustainability possible? A review and commentary on

empirical studies of program sustainability. American Journal of Evaluation,
26(3), 320-347.

Senge, P. M. (2006). T he fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York: Doubleday.

Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G., & Smith, B. (1999). The dance
of change: The challenges of sustaining momentum in learning organizations.
New York: Doubleday.

Shediac-Rizkallah, M. C., & Bone, L. R. (1998). Planning for the sustainability of
community-based health programs: Conceptual frameworks and future directions
for research, practice and policy. Health Education Research, 13(1), 87-108.

Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., Eddy, P. L., & Beach, A. L. (2007). Creating the future
of faculty development: Learning fiom the past, understanding the present.
Bolton, MA: Anker.

Spom, B. (1999). Adaptive university structures: An analysis of adaptation to
socioeconomic environments of US and European Universities. Philadelphia, PA:
Jessica Kingsley.

Stahler, G. J ., & Tash, W. R. (1994). Centers and institutes in the research university:
Issues, problems, and prospects. The Journal of Higher Education, 65(5), 540-
554.

Staudenmayer, N., Tyre, M., Perlow, L. (2002). Time to change: Temporal shifts as
enablers of organizational change. Organization Science, 13(5), 583-597.

Steckler, A., & Goodman, R. M. (1989). How to institutionalize health promotion
programs. American Journal of Health Promotion, 3, 34-44.

254

 

Teraguchi, D. H. (2002). An examination of the ways in which contextual conditions
influence the sustainability of an Asian American studies program at an urban
public university in the northeast of the United States. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 63(12), 467. (UMI No. 3073570)

Tierney, W. G. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the
essentials. The Journal of Higher Education, 59(1), 2-21.

Tierney, W. G., & Bensirnon, E. M. (1996). Promotion and tenure: Community and
socialization in academe. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Van Maanen, J. (1979). The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 24, 539-550.

Ward, D. (2001). Sustainable funding: What to do before the money runs out. School
Planning and Management. Retrieved from
http://www.peterli.com/spm/resources/articles/archive.php?article_id=241

Ward, K. (1996). Service-learning and student volunteerism: Reflections on institutional
commitment. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 3(1), 55-65.

Weick, K. E. (1979). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1-19.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wharf Higgins, J ., Naylor, P, & Day, M. (2008). Seed fimding for health promotion:
Sowing sustainability or skepticism? Community Development Journal, 43(2),
210-221.

Wilson, K. D., & Kurz, K. S. (2008). Bridging implementation and institutionalization
within organizations: Proposed employment of continuous quality improvement
to further dissemination. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice,

14(2), 109-116.
Yin, R. K. (1979). Changing urban bureaucracies. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. (2"d ed.) Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. (4"1 ed.) Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Zusman, A. (2005). Challenges facing higher education in the twenty-first century. In P.
G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & P. J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in

255

 

the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (2nd ed.) (pp.
115-162). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

256

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

1|||HillUlll'llllllllllllllll

3 1293 0306