. .. it?

i

 

w...
5’.
.. 3.):

“my:

 

, é...
9.4.9.4“.

 

u.

tun.”
. a. a

‘L 3|

. . . 59“!
r. i. c! I
1.4:.” $4. . . ..£;" ..
«z. . ‘ .\. s .

. «ft \lr. .
.6. | {fl
1: than}; 5
.15. £25.. a
an it )a‘

s . > y
s 33...:

 

m ﬁgmwng z. w. #3311

«AI\.1 .ll.(v“ :

 

 

. .. . . p .1! 1..
1,. 3... are. niniﬁ. Knit. 0‘ .313.

‘r:

 

  

 

 

 

J-Ooé

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

SEAMLESS TRANSITION IN THE 21ST CENTURY:
PARTNERING TO SURVIVE AND THRIVE

presented by

GAIL L. HOFFMAN-JOHNSON

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph.D. degree in Educational Administration

 

”Major Professor’s Signature

/ 2&3,é
/

/‘
Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity institution

A —_-_-_-—-—-4—--—.-.—-—-.—a.- v

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ale—5m

 

SEAMLESS TRANSITION IN THE 21ST CENTURY:
PARTNERING TO SURVIVE AND THRIVE

By

Gail L. Hoffman-Johnson

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Educational Administration

2005

ABSTRACT

SEAMLESS TRANSITION IN THE 21ST CENTURY:
PARTNERING TO SURVIVE AND THRIVE

By
Gail L. Hoffman-Johnson

This study examines the collaborative process by which a premier engineering
university sought to establish strategic partnerships with a select group of community
colleges. Speciﬁcally, it focuses on the development and implementation of one strategic
partnership in particular in which both the espoused and enacted common goal is to
improve transition of students from the two-year to the four-year institution. Another
important dimension involves ties not only between the institutions but also with business
and industry largely due to the unique nature of the co-operative education component of
the engineering university. Both institutions reside in the same economically ravaged
city. Yet another dimension of the strategic partnership involves heightened levels of
interaction with the surrounding community.

Although the literature speaks of the promise, as well as the challenges, of
collaborative undertakings, it is virtually silent on clear deﬁnitions of the various forms.
It is hoped that this study has provided at least the beginnings of a working deﬁnition of
“strategic partnership.”

The study relies on case study methodology to examine the collaborative process.
Interviews, direct observation, and document analysis yielded important insights into the
nuances and intricacies of working together. In addition, the study utilizes negotiated

order theory and Kanter’s model of innovation as theoretical frameworks for

understanding how the strategic partnership came about and how it might transfer to
other contexts.

The key ﬁndings suggest that several factors contributed to the success of the
collaborative effort: a signiﬁcant environmental motive, shared perception about a
common goal, the capacity to develop inﬁ'astructure through negotiation, the ability to
create interdependence among stakeholders, the transformation of faculty as they began
to develop a cosmopolitan attitude, and the centrality of a champion. Although the
development and implementation of the collaborative model presents challenges, it also
offers higher education faculty, administrators, and policymakers with the means by
which to improve institutional effectiveness. By working together, institutions can better
respond to the complex problems now facing higher education. The era of independence
and institutional autonomy has passed. The collaborative model described within is built
on interdependence and integration. It is hoped that lessons learned from one
collaborative undertaking would be applied to others, thus creating an increasingly
successful model for responding to the issues and challenges inherent in the current

environment of higher education.

Copyright by
Gail L. Hoffman-Johnson
2005

To my parents, Charles and Jaclyn Hoﬂinan,

for your constant support and encouragement down through the years.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am indebted to many for their help and guidance throughout my doctoral
program. Without their support and encouragement, it would have been a far more
difﬁcult journey these past three years.

I would especially like to thank my program and dissertation advisor, John Dirkx.
He epitomizes what a good advisor should be—a true mentor who provided guidance,
encouragement, and inspiration when and as needed. Through him I developed a deep
appreciation for qualitative research and its value in exploratory studies.

A special thanks also goes to the other members of my guidance committee—Ann
Austin, Marilyn Amey, and Vernon Miller. Whether it was nurturing my research topic
from inception to fruition, to challenging me to continue studying strategic partnerships,
or encouraging me to grapple with theoretical perspectives—all have truly “been there for
me.” Iarn most grateful.

I am also thankful for the time and thoughts the study participants shared with me.
Their insights and observations helped me more fully appreciate the collaborative process
and more deeply understand the intricacies of the evolving partnership.

In particular, I owe a huge debt of gratitude to James Varty for the many ways in
which he supported this project. Not only was he a willing reader and listener, he also
was instrumental in enabling me to have access to the key stakeholders. His constant
encouragement and inspiration will long be remembered.

My good friends——Bev, Bobbi, Karen, and Nancy—cannot go unrecognized.

They played a signiﬁcant and supportive role in encouraging me to “hang in there.”

vi

Also, my cohort mates—Lynne and Marietta—also deserve recognition. Yes, we made
it—working full time and in record time, no less.

Finally, I wish to thank my parents for instilling in me early on the value of an
education and an appreciation for academic pursuit in its own right. Last, but certainly
not least, my family—Jim and Christopher, Adam, and Alexandra—deserve special
mention: Jim, for the constant intellectual stimulation, and Chris, Adam, and Alex in

whomI hope to have inspired a deep-seated love for lifelong learning.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1
Establishing the Topic, Problem, and Study Questions ................................ . 1
Background of the Problem .................................................................... 1
Problem Statement .............................................................................. 5
Purpose of the Study .' ........................................................................... 7
Research Questions ........................................................................... 8
Conceptual Framework .......................................................................... 9
Signiﬁcance of the Study ....................................................................... 10
Research Paradigm and Assumptions ....................................................... 12
An Example of a Strategic Partnership between a Premier Engineering ................ 13
University and a Midwestern Community College
Chapter 2
Review of the Literature ...................................................................... 20
Challenges Presented by Transfer Students ................................................ 20
Signiﬁcance for This Study ................................................................. 23
Collaboration as a Strategy ................................................................... 24
Implications for This Study ................................................................ 27
Negotiated Order Theory as a Framework .................................................. 28
Implications for This Study ................................................................ 35
Chapter 3
Research Design and Methodology ......................................................... 37
Design of the Study ............................................................................ 37
Data Sources ................................................................................... 39
Interviews .................................................................................... 43
Direct Observation .......................................................................... 44
Document Analysis ......................................................................... 44
The Interview Instrument ................................................................... 46
Data Analysis ................................................................................. 47
Limitations .................................................................................. 47

viii

Chapter 4

The Strategic Partnership: Exemplifying University/Community College

Collaboration ................................................................................... 48
Introduction .................................................................................... 48
Section 1: The Origins, Development, and Implementation of the Strategic

Partnership .................................................................................. 49
Barone University .......................................................................... 52
The Origin of the Strategic Partnership .............................................. 52
Increased Competition ................................................................ 52
Recognition of an Untapped Market ............................................... 54
Changing Institutional Perspectives ................................................. 59
The Process Story ........................................................................ 63
Perceptions about Common Goals ................................................. 64
Need for a Champion ................................................................ 66
Developing Inﬁ‘astructure ........................................................... 7]
Outcomes as Seen by the Participants ................................................ 76
Expected Evolution ................................................................. 76
Outcomes Concerns ................................................................. 80
Vader Community College .............................................................. 83
The Origin of the Strategic Partnership ............................................ 84
Changing Technological Society ................................................ 84
Attention to the First Two Years of a Baccalaureate Program ............... 87
Issues of Student Development ................................................... 91
The Process Story ....................................................................... 94
Perceptions about Common Goals ................................................. 95
Need for a Champion ................................................................ 97
Developing Infrastructure ............................................................ 100
Outcomes as Seen by the Participants ............................................. 106
Expected Evolution .................................................................. 106
Perceptions ............................................................................ 109
Section 2: The Extent to Which the Research Questions Have Been
Answered by the Data ....................................................................... 111
How Do Stakeholders Perceive the Issues and Challenges Inherent in the Initial
Stages/Phases of Working Together? ............................................... 112
How Do Stakeholders Perceive the Issues and Challenges Inherent
in Deciding What to Do in Working Together? ..... ' ................................ 1 14
How Do Stakeholders Perceive the Issues and Challenges Inherent
in Implementing What They Decide to Do in Working Together? ............... 115
What Contributes to Stakeholders’ Willingness to Continue to Work
Together? ................................................................................. 116

ix

Chapter 5

Discussion and Conclusions ............................................................... 120
Distinction Between an Alliance and a Strategic Partnership ......................... 122
How the Strategic Partnership Came About ............................................. 126

Negotiated Order Theory ...................................... . ......................... 126
The Number of Negotiators, Their Relative Experience in
Negotiating, and Whom They Represent .......................................... 128
Whether the Negotiations Are One-Shot, Repeated, Sequential,
Serial, Multiple, or Linked ........................................................... 129
‘ The Relative Balance of Power Exhibited by the Respective Parties
in the Negotiation Itself .............................................................. 129
The Clarity of the Legitimacy Boundaries of the Issues Negotiated ............. 130
The Problem-Setting Phase ............................................................. 135
Common Deﬁnition of the Problem ................................................ 135
Commitment to Collaborate ......................................................... 135
Identiﬁcation of the Stakeholders ................................................... 135
Legitimacy of the Stakeholders ..................................................... 136
Convener Characteristics ............................................................ 136
Identiﬁcation of Resources ........................................................... 136
The Direction—Setting Phase ............................................................ 137
Establishing the Ground Rules ....................................................... 137
Agenda Setting ......................................................................... 138
Organizing Subgroups ................................................................. 138
Joint Information Search .............................................................. 139
Exploring Options ..................................................................... 139
Reaching Agreement and Closing the Deal ......................................... 139
Implementation ........................................................................... 140
Dealing with Constituencies .......................................................... 140
Building External Support ............................................................ 140
Structuring .......................................................................... 140
Monitoring the Agreement and Ensuring Compliance ........................... 141
Kanter’s Model of Innovation ............................................................ 142
What Is Not Accounted for by the Theoretical Perspectives ........................... 149
Implications ...................................................................................... 151
Recommendations .............................................................................. 155
Suggestions for Futm'e Research .............................................................. 160
Appendices

Appendix A: Data Som'ces (Pseudonyms Used for Interviewees) ..................... 165

Appendix B: Sample Interview Protocol ................................................. 167

Appendix C: Lines of Inquiry .............................................................. 171

Appendix D: Participant Consent Form - Individual Interviews
(U CRIHS Approval) ........................................................................ 173

Appendices (continued)

Appendix E: Interview Protocol Used with the Organizational
Consultant .................................................................................... 176

References .................................................................................... 180

xi

CHAPTER 1
ESTABLISHING THE TOPIC, PROBLEM, AND STUDY QUESTIONS
Background of the Problem

As we enter the 21S‘ century, the concept of seamless education or seamless
transition for students attending both two- and four-year colleges is becoming
increasingly important. Our current economic climate, exacerbated by state and federal
funding cuts for higher education, provides the impetus for identifying more efﬁcient
educational pathways for students seeking the baccalaureate degree. The result is
referred to as seamless education, or seamless transition, as students cycle through
various institutions of higher education. Ignash and Townsend refer to it as the “higher
education pipeline” (Ignash & Townsend, 2000).

Higher education is faced with an ever-changing, competitive environment that is
unprecedented. Enduring trends over the last century include proliferation of formal
degree requirements for entry to employment in particular and the expansion of access to
higher education in general (Brown, 2001). Competition for students, changing student
demographics, and the recent economic downturn all promulgate a reconceptualization of
the higher education system.

The trends of the last three decades underscore the necessity of new approaches to
higher education. During the 19705 universities and colleges struggled in isolation as

they attempted to meet growing demand by increasing access. In the 1980s the emphasis

on articulation encouraged them to explore issues of access and quality with each other.
The 19905 then ushered in the decade of collaboration with a focus on more
comprehensive partnerships. The trend shows no signs of abating in the early stages of
the 21St century (Schaier-Peleg & Donovan, 1998).

Stakeholders including students, parents, faculty, administrators, policy makers,
and the public at large are coming to realize that the concept of seamless transition,
exempliﬁed by transfer and articulation agreements as well as strategic partnerships, can
increase systemic effectiveness and efﬁciency in educating the citizenry. Such
collaborative agreements provide additional options for students and new opportunities
for institutions but not without considerable investment of time, effort, and funds. Given
this substantial investment of resources in an age of increased accountability and ﬁscal
constraint, it becomes increasingly important to ﬁnd ways to use higher education dollars
wisely. Collaborative efforts, as evidenced by strategic partnerships, may well represent
a wise use of those dollars, but we do not know for sure.

Developing these collaborative agreements is a time-intensive process involving
representatives from both the two- and the four-year institution. Typically, college
representatives include administrators involved in the transfer function, counselors well
versed in issues pertaining to student success, and faculty who are knowledgeable about
the curriculum at their respective institutions. Institutional requirements regarding basic
skills (i.e., reading, writing, and mathematics), general education, and program of study
must be considered at both the community college and the four-year college/university.

It is not unusual for such agreements to take a year or longer to develop. Oftentimes,

travel is involved during the planning stages followed by a signing ceremony for the
more unique arrangements.

While articulation and transfer agreements, one form of interinstitutional
collaboration, have been in existence for well over a decade, strategic alliances are
appearing on the higher education landscape in new and different forms. According to a
recent piece in the Changing Enterprise paper series (2003),

The idea of strategic alliances has become fashionable. The term

describes many collaborative projects, agreements, or relationships

covering many different kinds of arrangements, from the provision of
contract services to tight partnerships, and includes activities such as
consortia, interinsitutional partnerships around research or teaching, dual
degree programs, and exchange agreements, to name a few ("New times,

new strategies: Curricular joint ventures," 2003).

Martin and Samels (2002) write convincingly about the movement of
higher education toward strategic alliances. The salient advantage is that such
agreements and afﬁliations are dynamic, not static, in that they are a fluid,
temporary, focused set of understandings between two or more complementary
learning institutions. As such, they can preserve the distinct missions and
identities of the partnering institutions while at the same time combining their
respective strengths to capitalize on market opportunities. The alliance can be
formed only for the time period in which an educational program is in high
demand and effective. As employer demands and student preferences shift, the
alliance can be reshaped or dissolved.

A study of educational contributors to economic development identified

partnerships as an appropriate vehicle. Speciﬁcally, it discusses the role operational

partnerships, formed for speciﬁc projects, and strategic partnerships, designed to foster a

climate of collaboration, may play in economic development (Woolhouse & Cramphom,
1999). Historically, however, colleges and universities have been afforded institutional
autonomy and typically seek to preserve their independence. That fact notwithstanding,
public demands for quality and accountability are factors that must be addressed.
Presently, ﬁscal constraints, increased competition, and market pressures are
forcing administrators, institutional researchers, and faculty to operate in more
collaborative cross-institutional arrangements. A recent study conducted for the Project
on Managing Institutional Change and Transformation in Higher Education at the
University of Michigan describes the formation of a ten-institution collaborative. Using a
case study method involving interviews with institutional leaders and a review of
documents related to the Kellogg Forum on Higher Education, the report offers several
lessons: (1) The nature of academic work can keep institutions isolated and competing,
not collaborating. (2) Semantic problems can serve as barriers, and ambiguous project
and collaborative goals result in confusion. (3) Organizational structure and time
demands can have a direct effect on the collaborative. The general conclusion is that any
attempt to change institutions can be problematic. A reconceptualization of current
practice on the part of key institutional actors is essential (Peterson & Anderson, 2001).
As a new form of organizational arrangement in this age of limited
resources, strategic partnerships offer an attractive means for reducing
redundancy and eliminating inefﬁciency. Effective, efﬁcient higher education is
imperative in preparing the citizenry to meet the economic and social challenges
of the 21St century. According to Hearns and Holdsworth, “Meeting the needs of

both postsecondary students and their prospective employers is critical to a state’s

economic development and competitiveness, as well as its quality of life and its
political, cultural, and civic health” (2002, p. 35).
Problem Statement

In this era of unparalleled ﬁscal constraint, it is imperative to identify
ways in which to meet the needs of postsecondary students and their employers.
Interinstitutional collaboration represents a way to reduce redundancy and
duplication of courses and programs thus increasing effectiveness and efﬁciency.

Strategic partnerships, one form of interinstitutional collaboration, are
emerging as one solution. As a relatively new organizational arrangement, we do
not know much about them. In fact, as previously mentioned, they did not appear
on the higher education landscape until the 19903. Strategic partnerships offer
many beneﬁts, including new income streams as well as conserving resources and
cutting costs.

Two- and four-year colleges and universities are increasingly recognizing
the potential outcomes of strategic partnerships. Their dynamic and ﬂuid nature
offers an appealing way to address the needs of our complex, technology-driven
society. Indeed they provide higher education faculty, administrators, and policy
makers with attractive opportunities to increase organizational effectiveness and
to respond to the challenges that institutions, through collaboration, can address
with increased success.

However, the development of strategic partnerships among institutions is
not without its challenges. Faculty and administrators must recognize factors in

the external environment that could be addressed through collaborative efforts

among institutions. In addition, they must be willing to face the challenges that
will inevitably arise due to internal conditions. Organizational culture and
differences in mission, priorities, and perceptions contribute to the challenges
faced in the initial phase of the partnership and later as working relationships are
reevaluated and reconceptualized. Institutions experience a high demand on
already strained resources both in the development as well as in the
implementation of these strategic partnerships.

My interest was in studying the collaborative process as evidenced in a
strategic partnership voluntarily undertaken by two disparate institutions as a
means to reduce redundancy and increase effectiveness in higher education. To
more fully understand this collaborative process, it became important to
distinguish between alliances and partnerships in an attempt to situate the
strategic partnership among the various types of collaborative undertakings.
Since the literature does not provide a clear deﬁnition of a “strategic partnership”
among institutions of higher education, I resorted to dictionary deﬁnitions as a
starting point. The following provided a helpful framework for my study: (1)
“alliance”: a union by relationship in qualities associated to further the common
interests of members, (2) “partnershipz” a relationship resembling a legal
partnership and usually involving close cooperation between parties having
speciﬁed and joint rights and responsibilities, and (3) “strategic”: of great
importance within an integrated whole or to a planned effect (Webster’s

Collegiate Dictionary, 1996).

In combining the salient pieces of these deﬁnitions, I would offer the
following deﬁnition as relevant for my study: A strategic partnership is a legal
relationship among parties having speciﬁed, joint rights and responsibilities as
they work together to achieve common goals within an integrated whole. I would
suggest that the strategic piece, “of great importance within an integrated whole”
is what is pertinent for my study. Alliances are far looser than strategic
partnerships; strategic partnerships, on the other hand, are designed to develop an
integrated educational structure to serve the needs not only of students, but also
the institutions, area business and industry, and the surrounding communities.

Purpose of the Study

Institutions pursuing collaborative undertakings appear to be having
success “although no deﬁnitive study has been performed to validate this view”
(Fincher, 2002, p. 355). Similarly, Meehan-Merrill, Wiersma, Rifﬂe, and Joy in
writing about collaborative partnerships between educational organizations,
mention the need for measuring such collaboration (2002). Why do disparate
institutions voluntarily seek to work together? What issues and challenges do
stakeholders face in the various stages of working together? Why do they
continue to invest time and energy in the strategic partnership? What constitutes
success? The purpose of this study is to understand this emerging form of
interinstitutional collaboration to determine what fosters its development, what
facilitates its implementation, what are the appropriate outcomes, and what are its

measures of success.

Research Questions

Using documentary information, direct observation, and interviews, this study
examined the conditions that contribute to strategic partnerships, the issues and
challenges partnering institutions face, and why stakeholders continue to invest time and
energy in the strategic partnership. I was interested in exploring the ways in which the
stakeholders collaborate and negotiate to effectuate strategic partnerships. More
speciﬁcally, I wanted to understand how the stakeholders come to understand the
collaborative process involved in developing and implementing a strategic partnership.
Gray’s (1989) metaphor of dynamic wholeness as a new way of organizing suggests that
our current ways of interacting stress independence and need to be complemented with
models that “stress interdependence and complementarity” (p. 15). In essence, a new
whole is created which is not reduceable to the sum of its parts.

This study was designed to describe how stakeholders perceive the process of
developing and implementing a strategic partnership and subsequently determine whether
it is working or not. The following four questions provided a framework for exploration:

1. How do stakeholders perceive the issues and challenges inherent in the initial
stages/phases of working together?

2. How do stakeholders perceive the issues and challenges inherent in deciding what
to do in working together?

3. How do stakeholders perceive the issues and challenges inherent in implementing

what they decide to do in working together?

4. What contributes to stakeholders’ willingness to continue to work together? (This
assessment will be made to the extent possible given that the strategic partnership
included in this study will have been in existence for only two years.)

Conceptual Framework

Negotiated order theory provides a helpful framework for examining the process
by which two- and four-year institutions voluntarily came together to develop and
implement a strategic partnership that results in a seamless pathway for students in
pursuit of various baccalaureate degrees.

The perceived need, to form a strategic partnership to better meet the needs of
higher education and ultimately society, encourages collaboration between institutions.
Although collaboration can be viewed as the strategy to effectuate the partnership, a
framework, or theoretical perspective, for approaching the negotiation inherent in the
collaborative undertaking is necessary.

Strauss’s (1978) negotiated order theory is helpful in providing that theoretical
perspective. In his seminal work, Negotiations: Varieties, Contexts, Processes, and
Social Order, he discusses negotiation as “one of the possible means of ‘getting things
accomplished’” (1978, p. 234). He explains that negotiation is not just one human
process or activity but rather is of major importance in human affairs. Studying
negotiation is akin to studying social orders. In fact, Strauss deﬁnes social order as
negotiated order: “In the organizations studied, apparently there could be no
organizational relationships without accompanying negotiations” (1978, p. 5).

Negotiated order theory thus provides a valuable perspective from which to view

the process used in the development of strategic partnerships, as well ”as a helpful lens for

9

assessing how partnering institutions deal with the ongoing issues inherent in these
collaborative undertakings. As institutions come together to form strategic partnerships, it
would be helpful to know the significance of effective negotiations during the problem-
setting, direction-setting, and implementation phases. Especially given that strategic
partnerships are designed to be ﬂuid, not static, and capable of evolving as needed, an
approach such as that of negotiated order theory should be eminently informative.
Certainly, Strauss’s (1978) assertion that negotiation accompanies organizational
relationships offers a helpful framework from which to assess the development and
implementation of strategic partnerships among institutions of higher education.
Signiﬁcance of the Study

Higher education is facing unprecedented challenges. The recent economic
downturn, competition for students, and changing funding patterns are encouraging new
approaches not the least of which are various forms of interinstitutional collaboration.
Some collaborative efforts develop into a deeper relationship, i.e., a strategic partnership,
in which partnering institutions seek mutual satisfaction of self-interests (Wilbur, 1996).
Strategic partnerships extend far beyond traditional articulation agreements. Not only do
institutions collaborate in establishing course equivalencies and program pathways, they
also collaborate in student advising, facilities use, and promotion efforts. According to
Fincher, “The arrangement is such that the two institutions are partners and not
competitors” (2002, p. 356).

Another factor, in addition to those associated with our changing, turbulent
environment, is contributing to partnering of two- and four-year institutions.

Increasingly, students are attempting to transfer with nonliberal arts courses or programs.

The transfer function historically associated with community colleges included the
freshman and sophomore years, culminating in an associate of arts or an associate of
science degree. The successful student was then accorded full junior status at the four-
year institution.

Now, however, students in occupational programs are seeking efficient pathways
to the baccalaureate degree that did not formerly exist. These career programs typically
result in an associate in applied science, or nontransfer degree (Townsend, 2001). As
students experience success in attaining the associate degree, and because career
enhancement typically requires additional credentialing, students become motivated to
achieve additional education. Hence the need for ensuring seamless transition for this
new population of students arises.

Strategic partnerships offer the means by which institutions could collaborate to
provide appropriate pathways for educating students to meet emerging economic and
social needs. Institutions, though, have limited experience with collaborative efforts as
broad and all encompassing as strategic partnerships. Stein and Short (2001) mention the
barriers created by limited institutional experience with collaboration in degree-program
design and delivery. Speciﬁcally, they mention “the lack of precedents for effective
cross-campus collaboration” (p. 422) and that few role models have been able to
withstand the test of time.

As an emerging entity with the possibility of addressing many of the concerns
facing higher education today, strategic partnerships warrant in-depth review. However,
very little research has been conducted on collaborative efforts in higher education.

According to Stein and Short:

Relatively little empirical work exists on the delivery of collaborative

academic-degree programs. As a result, empirically based insights into

collaboration among institutions of higher education are sparse. Decision

makers and planners need a good understanding of what collaboration is,

when and why it works well, and reasons why it does not succeed (2001,

p.418)

This study will provide much needed information about the factors that
encourage the development and implementation of strategic partnerships, the
issues and challenges faced by key constituents, and the outcomes that may be
used as measures of success.

Research Paradigm and Assumptions

Since my study is exploratory, the qualitative paradigm is appropriate. Creswell
(2003), in establishing a framework for design, suggests that we consider four items in
designing a research proposal. I found it helpful to situate my study as follows: (1)
Epistemology (theory of knowledge embedded in the philosophical stance) —
Subjectivism, not objectivism, will inform my research. (2) Philosophical stance
(perspective lying behind the methodology in questions) — Socially constructed
knowledge claims are inherent in my study for the goal of the research will be to rely as
much as possible on the participants’ views of strategic partnerships. (3) Methodology
(strategy or plan of action that links methods to outcomes) — Case study design will
govern my choice and use of methods. Additionally, since a case study does not require
control of behavioral events but does focus on contemporary events (Yin, 2003), it is an
appropriate strategy for examining the research problem that I have studied. (4) Methods

(techniques and procedures) — Since qualitative research methods allow information to

emerge from participants, I used interviews, direct observation, and document data.

Strategic partnerships represent a new form of organizational arrangement about
which we know very little. To begin to understand what they are, how they work, and
why they might be worthwhile undertakings, a detailed discussion of a recently
developed strategic partnership between a premier engineering university and a state-
supported community college will be presented. Pseudonyms have been used to ensure
anonymity.

An Example of a Strategic Partnership between a Private Engineering University
and a State—Supported Community College

These two Midwestern institutions sought to develop and implement a strategic
partnership designed to customize education for students pursuing a baccalaureate
degree. Although an articulation agreement had been in place for over a decade, campus
leaders at Barone University and Misaba Community College sought to strengthen that
relationship. The goal was to improve mechanisms for student support and thereby
enhance access to careers in applied mathematics, applied physics, business, engineering,
and environmental chemistry.

Desirous of expanding the traditional articulation agreement into a more
encompassing strategic partnership, top-level administrators and an organizational
consultant representing Barone approached campus leaders at Misaba in January 2003.
Perceiving the advantages such an interorganizational arrangement could provide
students, and ultimately employers, the two institutions established an aggressive
timeline, resulting in a signing ceremony for the strategic partnership nine months later.

The institutions reside in a planning agency state. Thus no state-level mandate
provided the impetus for exploring the strategic partnership. Instead, university ofﬁcials

determined that the formation of strategic partnerships with carefully selected community

13

colleges could provide important beneﬁts to several stakeholders. Not only would these
beneﬁts accrue to the university, but also to the participating community college,
surrounding communities, employers, and, most important, to students themselves. The
fact that these two institutions voluntarily sought to partner is especially salient in light of
the fact that Barone is a four-year private institution, whereas Misaba is a two-year public
institution.

As mentioned above, the strategic partnership was memorialized with a formal
signing ceremony less than nine months after the problem-setting phase was initiated. At
that ceremony, both college presidents spoke about the unique opportunities such a
collaborative undertaking provided. Typically, articulation agreements alone can take
longer to complete; we can assume, therefore, that there was incentive on both sides to
bring the partnership to timely fruition. It thus becomes beneﬁcial to examine the nature
of the two institutions in an attempt to identify the factors that played a role in the
development and implementation of the strategic partnership.

In its 2002-2003 catalog, Barone University, located in an economically ravaged
city in the Midwest, offers the following mission statement:

Barone University is an independent degree-granting college specializing

in closely—coupled cooperative education at the baccalaureate level. The

University offers undergraduate programs in engineering, management,

applied sciences and mathematics—and it provides innovative and

responsive graduate level and continuing education programs for resident

students and working professionals. Barone’s mission is to serve society

by preparing technical and managerial leaders (Barone University:

Undergraduate baccalaureate programs 2002-2003, 2002).

First accredited in 1962 by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools,

Barone is considered one of the nation’s premier co-operative institutions and is ranked

as one of the country’s top engineering institutions by U. S. News and World Report.

Misaba College, one of ﬁve community colleges with which it sought to partner,
serves a tri-county area. It too has been in existence for over 40 years and is accredited
by The Higher Learning Commission, A Commission of the North Central Association of
Colleges and Schools. It offers the following mission statement:

Our mission is to be an innovative and responsive community college

dedicated to meeting the diverse educational and personal growth needs of

our students by providing excellent learning opportunities and support

services (Misaba College catalog, 2003-2004).

It is important to remember that these two institutions voluntarily decided to form
the strategic partnership. They exist in a state system that encourages, but does not
mandate, open communication and collaboration. Examination of the perceived
partnership beneﬁts from the perspective of all stakeholders should be informative.
These anticipated beneﬁts were outlined in a strategic partnership document that was a
product of the articulation committee of a design and manufacturing alliance. A
consortium of universities, community colleges, high school districts, and employers, the
members of the consortium were committed to developing an integrated educational
structure to meet the needs of the design and manufacturing industry of this Midwestern
state (Varty & Nichols, 2002).

Not unexpectedly, many beneﬁts accrue to Barone University. One beneﬁt is the
ability to refer interested, but academically underprepared or ﬁnancially unable, students
to Misaba College where they would receive special attention and support as they prepare
for eventual transfer to Barone. Another beneﬁt is that the partnership would introduce
Barone to new communities and to their employers, resulting in more diversiﬁcation of

students and employer sponsors.

Beneﬁts also accrue to Misaba College. Typical of community colleges, it is
interested in the successful transfer of its students to the university of their choice.
However, because clear information about transfer is typically not available, it is often
difﬁcult for the community college to facilitate that transition. Too often students lose
credits in transfer, a situation now exacerbated by the increasing trend of students to
attend multiple institutions in their pursuit of the baccalaureate degree (i.e., “swirling”).
Articulation agreements alone do not solve all of the problems community college
students often encounter when transferring. However, a strategic partnership between the
university and the community college that includes careful advising as well as other
forms of student support can address issues of academic as well as social integration in
ensuring student success.

Employers beneﬁt as well. Some will learn of the Barone co-operative education
program for the ﬁrst time. A particular strength of the Barone-Misaba strategic
partnership is that both institutions have exemplary co-op programs. Some employers,
especially those situated in areas with a shortage of engineers, may utilize this partnership
to recruit local, talented students who desire to remain in the community and ﬁll critical
positions in their companies upon graduation from Barone.

Most important, students beneﬁt as well. Rather than being denied admission to
Barone, they can be offered realistic alternatives to prepare them for eventual admission.
Through careful advising they can take the requisite science and math courses at Misaba
College. While attending Misaba, they can save money toward their Barone education.
Additionally, they may begin a co—op relationship in the tri-county area served by

Misaba. Since the two institutions are only 50 miles apart, that co-op position could very

likely serve as their Barone sponsor. Perhaps that company would even support them

ﬁnancially once admitted to Barone.

Beneﬁts to both institutions, the surrounding community including employers,

and students thus recognized, the characteristics of a strategic partnership should be

identiﬁed. These characteristics were listed in a concept paper from an organizational

consultant to a top-level administrator at Barone (Varty, 2002). The characteristics and

the way they were operationalized at Misaba follow:

I.

Support of academic leaders at both institutions. Both college presidents,
as well as other senior academic ofﬁcers, student and educational support
personnel, and co-op coordinators were involved in developing the
partnership.

Appointment of a Barone liaison who would work with a designated
Misaba staff person. Misaba College has identiﬁed persons in Admissions,
Articulation, and the Counseling & Advising Center to inform and support
students interested in transfer to Barone. They work in concert with the
Barone liaison.

Identiﬁcation of a Barone staff member and perhaps Barone alumni who
are available to talk with students interested in transfer to Barone.
Organized efforts are underway in which a Barone admissions person speaks
to Misaba students in co—op, pre-engineering, upper-level mathematics, and
physics classes. Barone regularly hosts open houses for interested students

and their parents.

4. Assistance in relevant co-op assignments. (As previously mentioned, a
unique strength of the Barone-Misaba partnership is that both institutions have
strong, well-established co-op programs.) Ideally, the same local employer
would function as the student’s sponsor at both Misaba and at Barone. Adonis
Automotive, located midway between the two institutions, presently functions
in this capacity.

5. Awarding of scholarships. Perhaps in conjunction with sponsoring
employers, Barone could award a scholarship to an outstanding community
college graduate each year. An employer-community relations team is being
formed to explore opportunities related to this initiative.

6. Signing a formal agreement outlining the strategic partnership. Misaba
College and Barone University signed “A Statement of Strategic Partnership
between Misaba College and Barone University” on September 9, 2003,
subject to review every two years. The previously existing articulation
agreement became an addendum.

To summarize, strategic partnerships began appearing on the higher education
landscape in the 19905. Designed to do more than just articulate programs, they involve
issues of social as well as academic integration to ensure student success. Institutions are
now embracing them in record numbers because of the many perceived advantages.
However, we do not know much about their ultimate potential for successfully meeting
the challenges that they are designed to address. An early exploratory study, such as this
one, could provide valuable information about the worthiness of these new entities. The

strategic partnership included in my case study will have been in place for two years

when I gather my data. Although two years does not represent an extended period of
time, it should be adequate to begin making informed observations about the value of
strategic partnerships as a means for improving effectiveness and efﬁciency in higher

education.

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

A review of the literature yields a plethora of articles, reports, and studies
addressing issues inherent in the concept of seamless education. Increasingly, in this age
of drastic budget shortfalls, the trend is toward interinstitutional collaborative efforts,
such as strategic partnerships, to increase the efﬁciency and effectiveness of the
undergraduate experience.

Several sources of literature inform the conceptualization of this study. The ﬁrst
body of literature is drawn from the research on transfer students. These studies include,
but are not limited to, discussion of transfer function, student transfer behavior, and new
patterns often referred to as “swirling.” A second body of literature is drawn from the
literature on collaboration as a strategy that institutions are using to meet the numerous
challenges currently facing higher education. Lastly, a third body of literature is drawn
from negotiated order theory, as “a model of collaborative organizational behavior”
(Wilbur, 1996). This theory provides a valuable perspective from which to view the
process used in the development of strategic partnerships as well as a helpful lens for
assessing how partnering institutions negotiate the ongoing issues inherent in these
collaborative undertakings.

Challenges Presented by Transfer Students

The literature on transfer students, historical in nature, traces the evolution of the

public junior colleges into the public comprehensive community colleges in existence

20

today. A common thread identiﬁable in the literature is the unexpected change in transfer
patterns of students pursuing the baccalaureate degree.

Seamless transition attempts to ease transfer among and between two- and four-
year colleges and universities. Kintzer and Wattenbarger, as quoted in Ignash and
Townsend (2000), deﬁne transfer as “the mechanics of credit, course, and curriculum
exchange.” Historically, the public junior colleges had transfer education as their central
mission. Students took the ﬁrst two years of their undergraduate education at the two-
year institution and then transferred to the four-year institution to complete their
baccalaureate degree. Typically, they attained the Associate of Arts (A.A.) Degree or the
more specialized Associate of Science (A.S.) Degree. The underlying assumption was
that students transferred in one direction only and that was upward (Townsend, 2001).

Public junior colleges have evolved into the comprehensive community colleges
in existence today. Transfer education, deﬁned by the National Center for Academic
Achievement and Transfer, 1990, as “the capacity of community. . .colleges to assist
students in the transition to a four-year college or university” is still the primary mission
(cited in Townsend, 2001). What has changed, though, are the current transfer patterns of
students in pursuit of the baccalaureate degree. No longer can it be assumed that they
will complete the associate’s degree and then transfer to the four-year institution. As
discussed by Townsend (2001), unanticipated transfer patterns can be categorized into
two groups: (1) Students who begin their post-secondary education at the community
college and (2) Students who begin their education at the four-year institution. Among
students who begin at the community college, some will transfer before completing the

AA. or A.S. degree; some will transfer with an Associate in Applied Science (i.e., an

21

A.A.S. in an occupational program) or with courses not considered general education;
and some move back and forth between various two- and four-year institutions. Several
researchers have documented this multiple-transfer phenomenon. The increase in the
percentage of students attending more than one two- and/or four-year public and/or
private college has been labeled as “swirling,” “drop downs” or reverse transfers, and
“double-reverse transfer” (cited in Townsend, 2001).

Changing demographics among the student population also presents challenges
for higher education. The number of students 25 and older has been increasing at
unprecedented rates with the result that early in the 21St century, the majority of
American college and university students will be over the age of 25. This represents a
challenge for higher education institutions because they are not accustomed to students
who are working adults with families pursuing education on a part-time basis.
Traditionally, these students were marginalized as “nontraditional,” “night school,” or
“continuing education” students; no longer can public institutions continue to ignore
them. Instead they will need to deliver high quality academic programs, designed to meet
their special needs (Langenberg, 1999).

Thus it can be said that the transfer function as originally conceived has evolved
from its original upward only direction into one that is more aptly described as swirling
among and between two— and four-year institutions. Effective and efﬁcient transfer, in
which students do not have to repeat courses in their quest for the baccalaureate degree,
becomes more complex. One solution, notably evident in the 19805, involved

articulation of various courses and programs between community colleges and feur-year

22

institutions. More comprehensive partnerships evolved during the 19905, the decade of
collaboration (Schaier—Peleg & Donovan, 1998).
Significance for This Study

Higher education is facing unprecedented challenges at the advent of the 21St
century. Technology, the economy, and globalization all contribute to the turbulent
environment in which institutions of higher education are situated. Since very few jobs
do not now require some level of training and education, the need for post-secondary
education has never been greater and is only expected to increase. Issues of access can
thus be added to the mix. The challenge for higher education is not only to provide
access to those that formerly did not pursue a baccalaureate degree, but also to provide
programs capable of meeting the constantly changing needs of society.

The issues facing transfer students deserve careful scrutiny. By focusing attention
on ways to ease their traverse of the higher education system, we can do much to reduce
redundancy and avoid duplication of courses and programs. Increasingly, programs are
combining a vocational orientation with general education as policy makers and higher
education leaders realize the importance of preparing well-rounded graduates capable of
meeting the challenges of contemporary society.

Institutions must work collectively in an effort to provide undergraduates with
excellent learning experiences if they are to be socially responsible, lifelong learners. As
ﬁscal conditions continue to tighten, policy makers are increasingly demanding that
institutions concentrate more on undergraduate education. Several aspects of academic
programming can inﬂuence undergraduate student learning, especially in light of the

transfer patterns referred to earlier. In this age of fiscal constraint, it is imperative that

23

institutions collaborate not only to ensure transferability of credits but also to go beyond
simple course and program articulation to ensure the smooth transition of students.
Collaboration, as a strategic response, offers a means for better integration of higher
education institutions to meet changing societal needs.

Collaboration as a Strategy

As we enter the 21“ century, institutions of higher education around the world
face the increasing problem of relevance. The international economy is evolving toward
a global network organized around the value of knowledge. As a result, the capacity of
organizations and people to use technology effectively, efﬁciently, and wisely has
emerged as a critical societal concern. Colleges and universities are being called upon to
take a proactive role in shaping a positive future. To do so they must transform their
structures, processes, and programs in an effort to be more ﬂexible and more responsive
to changing societal needs (Hanna, 2003).

Unquestionably, higher education must change to meet the demands of an
increasingly complex, dynamic environment. As a strategic response, higher education
institutions are being called upon to work in more collaborative cross-institutional
arrangements. A number of different organizational arrangements have appeared in the
literature during the last decade. Viewed along a continuum of informality to formality,
they include alliances, networks, cooperatives, consortia, joint-ventures, collaborations,
and partnerships. Differing on a number of dimensions, including purpose, goal-
consensus, perception of ownership, willingness to impact the other’s culture, and
longevity, they all represent strategies used by organizations to deal with a turbulent

environment (Wilbur, 1996).

24

All kinds of higher education institutions have built expanded alliances with one
another as well as with the corporate sector. These alliances are vital business strategies;
as such, colleges and universities will strive to expand their web of alliances with others
to ensure their survivability in the turbulent times ahead. Not only is demand for learning
increasing and access to higher education improving, but also competition is growing.
This competition will force institutions to concentrate on their unique programmatic
advantages. Cooperation to compete will increasingly be seen as a critical strategy for
higher education institutions in the foreseeable future (Hanna, 2003).

Woolhouse and Crampton, in a study of educational contributors to economic
development, identiﬁed strategic partnerships, designed to foster a climate of
collaboration, as one important contributor. Speciﬁcally, they discussed a three-stage
process to enable the creation of a culture of enterprise and learning: (1) identify priority
issues, (2) assess capabilities, and (3) analyze effectiveness (1999). Collaborations, as
evidenced by strategic partnerships, are the focus of this study. According to Wilbur,

Collaboration involves a fairly giant step beyond alliances, networks,

cooperatives, consortia, and joint ventures. In a collaborative relationship,

institutions work together, as equals, to achieve mutual goals. The
organizational features of collaborative projects are characterized by

shared decision-making, open and frequent communication, exchange of

resources, and consensus on goals (1996, p. 22).

Not only is collaboration about joint effort, but also it is about joint ownership of
results. Linden, in discussing collaboration as the focus of many organization change
efforts in the ﬁrst decade of the 21St century, offers a helpful context for understanding

collaboration:

Collaboration occurs when people from different organizations or units
within the same organization produce something through shared effort,

25

resources, and decision making and then take joint ownership of the final
product or service (2003, p. 8).

Martin and Samels, formerly proponents of educational mergers, now advocate
strategic alliances as a response to the recent economic downturn. They deﬁne strategic
alliances as a temporary, ﬂuid, focused set of covenants between two or more
complementary learning institutions or a learning institution and a business organization.
By their very nature, these agreements can preserve the distinct missions of each
institution as they take advantage of market opportunities by combining their respective
strengths. The agreement need only be in place as long as it is effective and in high
demand. As employer demand and student preferences change, the agreement can be
updated if appropriate or dissolved if no longer of value (2002).

As a relatively new organizational arrangement, the conceptualization of
collaborative efforts varies widely; and little consensus on core characteristics has
emerged. To some, collaboration means little more than cross listing courses among
institutions or joining two or more separate degrees. To others, collaboration entails new
thinking, new forms of communication, and new structures. Regardless of how it is
conceptualized, collaboration involves ambiguity and complexity (Stein & Short, 2001).

Ambiguity and complexity inevitably accompany systemic change. Additionally,
systemic change is slow and not without its challenges, especially in higher education.
Although collaboration on research across disciplines is fairly common, it is less so in
teaching. Teaching has traditionally been rather solitary and less responsive to
collaborative efforts. However, faculty input is essential for effective strategic

partnerships.

26

Stein and Short (2001) illuminate many of the challenges to collaborative
endeavors: (1) Negative faculty attitudes including criticism, suspicion, and
competition, (2) Personal barriers resulting from a lack of interpersonal skills and style,
and (3) Structural barriers such as inﬂexible policies and procedures governing faculty
workload, campus reward structures, and policies on residency requirements.

The challenges that institutions face as they attempt to make sustainable and
systemic changes notwithstanding, meaningful collaboration offers a multitude of
beneﬁts. Martin and Samels suggest that through effective afﬁliations institutions can:

1. Preserve educational missions

2. Strengthen and enrich fundamental objectives

3. Maintain academic-govemance systems

4. Create new income streams

5. Save resources and cut costs

6. Provide new opportunities for teaching and research (2002, pp. 2-3).

Implications for This Study

Unpredecented challenges have appeared on the higher education landscape. It is
clear from the literature that higher education institutions will need to foster new
organizational arrangements in an effort to prepare an educated citizenry positioned to
survive and thrive in the 21St century. Cooperation to compete is a critical strategy that
institutions would be wise to embrace as they attempt to meet these challenges. This
study explored the factors that encourage collaborative efforts, such as strategic
partnerships, as well as the issues and challenges institutions face in the development and

implementation of these partnerships.

27

Negotiated Order Theory as a Framework

Although our contemporary climate is one that increasingly promotes greater
collaboration among institutions of higher education, faculty and administrators typically
ﬁnd themselves in unfamiliar territory. Autonomy, the hallmark of academe, typically
encourages competition, not collaboration. It is one thing to promote collaboration and
quite another to implement it, to say nothing of a full partnership built on shared vision,
support, and commitment from all stakeholders (Stein & Short, 2001).

Collaborative efforts, as evidenced by strategic partnerships, make intuitive good
sense. It follows that a framework to encourage their development and implementation
would be inﬁnitely worthwhile. A comprehensive integration of higher education
institutions, designed to be highly responsive to the needs of contemporary society,
requires ongoing negotiation. This study explored critical interactions within and among
institutions desirous of collaborating as an attempt to meet the unprecedented challenges
facing higher education today.

Negotiated order theory (Gray, 1989; Strauss, 1978) provides an informative
framework for examining and analyzing the process by which institutions of higher
education may come together to form strategic partnerships. According to Strauss (1978)
social order is negotiated order. He proposes that “negotiation has generally stood for
one of the possible means of ‘getting things accomplished’ when parties need to deal
with each other to get those things done” (1978, p. 234). Certainly, institutions of higher
education need to work with each other, that is, collaborate, if they are to build strategic
partnerships. Interactions between faculty and administrators within and among

institutions create and recreate the social order. Social orders are formed through a

28

process of negotiation and must be continually reinstantiated if they are to be viewed as a
stable organizational structure (Medved & Heisler, 2002).

In addressing the issue of social orders as negotiated orders, Strauss maintains
that to conceptualize about organizations, groups, and institutions, one must also analyze
their implied negotiation processes. In analyzing several negotiation cases drawn from
various research publications, he utilized a paradigm that included both a structural
context as well as a negotiation context. The structural context refers to both the external
environment and the internal organization within which the negotiation takes place. The
negotiation context “refers specifically to the structural properties entering very directly
as conditions into the course of the negotiation itself” ( 1978, pp. 237-238).

According to Strauss, any negotiation context will exhibit some combination of
the following properties:

1. The number of negotiators, their relative experience in negotiating,
and whom they represent.

2. Whether the negotiations are one—shot, repeated, sequential, serial,
multiple, or linked.

3. The relative balance of power exhibited by the respective parties in the
negotiation itself.

4. The nature of their respective stakes in the negotiation.

5. The visibility of transactions to others; that is, their overt or covert
characters.

6. The number and complexity of the issues negotiated.
7. The clarity of legitimacy boundaries of the issues negotiated.

8. The options to avoiding or discontinuing negotiation; that is, the
alternative modes of action perceived as available (1978, p. 238).

29

He suggests that researchers choose from this list those properties that will be relevant for
their studies.

Strauss provided a helpful conceptualization of negotiated order as social order
and encouraged us to work toward development of a theory of negotiation. Gray (1989),
building on the work of Strauss and other theorists, does just that with her
conceptualization: negotiated order theory.

Gray describes a process-oriented approach for dealing with the complex
problems inherent in our turbulent environment. Observing that many of our problems
seem unsolvable because our conceptions of how to function in an increasingly
interconnected world are limited, she offers a different approach for achieving creative
solutions. She encourages us to view problems from perspectives outside of our own and
to redesign our problem-solving strategies to include the various stakeholders that have
an interest in the issue.

Gray offers collaboration as the viable strategy for dealing with the difﬁcult
problems faced by contemporary society. As she states,

It essentially provides a framework for approaching problems and

searching for solutions. However, collaboration itself is not the solution.

To put it simply, collaboration is a process in which those parties with a

stake in the problem actively seek a mutually determined solution. They

join forces, pool information, knock heads, construct alternative solutions,

and forge an agreement (1989, p. xviii).

Although her focus is on collaboration as a method for solving interorganizational
problems, the issues typically involve multiple parties and cut across many sectors of

society. Oftentimes, the solutions achieved are far ranging, beneﬁting not only the

organizations involved but also the larger society as well.

30

Building on the premise that in order to move the negotiation process forward we
must know where we are in that process, Gray outlines a three—phase model of
collaboration. It is predicated on the assumption that a fundamental set of issues must be
addressed during the course of any collaboration. Depending on the nature of the
particular collaboration, some phases may take on more signiﬁcance than others. Her
model of the collaborative process includes three major phases: ( 1) problem setting, (2)
direction setting, and (3) implementation.

The problem-setting phase, often the most difﬁcult, involves getting the key
players to the table so that face-to-face discussion may begin. Often referred to as pre-
negotiation, this phase includes the following salient issues: (1) Common deﬁnition of
the problem — This step is essential, for if it is not accomplished subsequent efforts to
collaborate are likely to fail. (2) Commitment to collaborate — The parties need to
recognize the potential for positive gain through joint exploration of the problem, once it
is agreed upon. (3) Identiﬁcation of the stakeholders — Multiple sources of information
are essential to promote as complete an understanding of the problem as possible. Thus
who is invited to the table holds serious implications for the outcome of the collaboration.
(4) Legitimacy of the stakeholders — Those with a perceived right as well as the needed
capacity to participate is an important part of the process. (5) Convener characteristics —
Since the role of the convener (an individual or an organization) is to identify and bring
all legitimate stakeholders to the table, persuasive powers are important. (6) Identi-
ﬁcation of resources — Typically, the parties involved in this pre-negotiation phase will
incur costs; these must be anticipated and secured so that stakeholders may participate

equally in the process.

3|

The tasks identiﬁed in the problem-setting phase above (i.e., pre-negotiation) are
essential preconditions for the next phase, direction setting. In this phase, the negotiation
phase, stakeholders identify the issues that brought them together, discuss similarities and
differences in these interests, and analyze the potential for eventual trade-offs. The
following components comprise the direction-setting phase: (1) Establishing the ground
rules — Vital to this phase, ground rules are important for removing uncertainty about
appropriate behavior for interaction and for lessening the likelihood of misunder-
standings. (2) Agenda setting — The substantive issues of the collaboration need to be
established in a way that makes the stakeholders feel their interests are adequately
reﬂected. (3) Organizing subgroups - Since the organization of the collaborative process
affects the promotion of consensus, it may be advantageous to form subgroups if the
number of agenda items or stakeholders is large. (4) Joint information search — This task
may be necessary if stakeholders realize that they do not have sufﬁcient data or are
working from very different sources of data. (5) Exploring options — Since it is unlikely
that a single option will be equally acceptableI to all parties, it is important to explore
multiple options before foreclosing on any one in particular. (6) Reaching agreement and
closing the deal — All of the stakeholders commit to a single option or to a package of
options. Typically, agreements are ﬁnalized in writing with which some may take
exception. Since this often reopens the deliberations, participants should be prepared for
a temporary setback.

Because carefully developed agreements can fall apart after the parties have
forged an agreement, careful attention must be devoted to the ﬁnal stage, that of

implementation. The issues important for successful implementation include the

following: (1) Dealing with constituencies — Parties to the agreement must carefully
explain to “back home” stakeholders the rationale for any tradeoffs and strive to garner
their support for the ﬁnal agreement. (2) Building external support — Because those who
forged the agreement are often not those charged with implementation, it is essential to
obtain the support of those who will actually be involved in implementing the agreement.
(3) Structuring — Stakeholders must pay careful attention to the extent of effort needed for
successful implementation; they would be wise to consider the initial impetus for the
collaboration as well as the degree of organizational change required. (4) Monitoring the
agreement and ensuring compliance - Stakeholders’ compliance with the agreement
needs to be periodically assessed; any issues of noncompliance should be addressed.
Changed circumstances may necessitate re-negotiation of certain aspects of the
agreement.

In conceptualizing collaboration as a negotiated order, Gray maintains that
“negotiated order refers to a social context in which relationships are negotiated and
renegotiated. The social order is shaped through the self-conscious interaction of
participants” (1989, p. 228). Organizations are viewed as ﬂuid and dynamic, comprised
of members with changing webs of interaction who must work constantly at some kind of
order. No longer are organizations viewed as ﬁxed, rigid entities constrained by rules,
regulations, and hierarchical chains of command.

Gray applies this conception of negotiated order theory to interorganizational
transactions. Collectively, a group of organizations can negotiate agreements to govern
their interactions. Collaboration then provides the mechanism by which information can

be shared to effectuate those agreements. However, collectively forging an agreement

33

that is satisfactory to multiple stakeholders involves considerable negotiation.
Stakeholders must appreciate the necessity of joint activity, agree on a common
deﬁnition of the problem, and decide how they will collaborate before they can begin to
address the substantive issues at hand. Further, they must agree on the scope and quality
of information to be shared and, once negotiations are underway, continually assess
whether the information they exchange is sufﬁcient.

When collaboration is conceptualized as negotiated interorganizational order,
several points are emphasized. ( 1) Stakeholders collaborate to collectively construct
strategies to deal with the turbulent environment. (2) These interorganizational
arrangements are emergent and exploratory in nature; as collaborations, these dynamic
negotiations may eventually lead to some type of institutionalized agreement. (3)
Collaborations, in serving as quasi-institutional mechanisms for coordinating
interorganizational relations, represent a new institutional form whose legitimacy is still
in the process of negotiation. (4) Collaborations can serve as vehicles for action learning
whereby management is reframed from the traditional function of control to one that
facilitates coleaming to more effectively cope with unpredictability and uncertainty.

Gray’s conceptualization of negotiated order theory seems to provide an ,
inherently valuable framework with practical application for a variety of problems facing
contemporary society. Eric Trist, Emeritus Professor of Social Systems Sciences at The
Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, offers the following words of praise:

Barbara Gray’s book offers by far the most comprehensive and systematic

treatment yet to be attempted of the whole set of issues in the ﬁeld of

collaboration. Her book will, in my view, fundamentally inﬂuence the

ﬁeld’s future in both theory and practice. This is high praise, but I believe

most readers who seriously study this book will agree with me, whatever
their criticisms or reservations (Foreword, Gray, 1989, p. xiii).

34

Implications for This Study

1 have drawn from Strauss’s list (p. 28) those properties that are informative for
my study. It is important to examine the negotiation context in light of how the strategic
partnership developed; how it evolved; and how it is working, or not. I have also utilized
Gray’s framework on collaborating to examine and analyze the process by which a
private, premier engineering university and a public two-year community college sought
to partner.

In summary, three bodies of literature inform this study. First, the literature on
transfer students is helpful in illuminating the issues and challenges faced by
undergraduates in their traverse of the higher education system. Recognition of the
plethora of challenges faced by transfer students provides a rationale for studying
strategic partnerships and other processes that may make the transfer process more
effective. These issues and challenges are further exacerbated by the changing economic
and political context in which higher education institutions ﬁnd themselves. Speciﬁcally,
a shrinking economy, rising college costs, and changing demographics promulgate
collaborative efforts among institutions as a strategic response.

The second body of literature examines collaboration as a strategy by which
institutions may effectively meet the challenges facing higher education. Strategic
partnerships, one form of collaboration, are increasingly appearing on the higher
education landscape. As a new organizational arrangement offering much promise for
increasing the effectiveness and efﬁciency of higher education, we do not know much

about them. Designed to provide greater integration of higher education institutions that

35

are more responsive to complex societal needs, strategic partnerships involve numerous
interactions within and among institutions.

Negotiated order theory, the third body of literature selected to inform this study,
provides a helpful framework from which to assess the negotiation process inherent in the
development, implementation, and initial assessment of strategic partnerships. The initial
perceived need to collaborate, as a means to survive in the competitive environment
facing higher education, to the actual signing of a strategic partnership takes an inordinate
amount of time, effort, and energy within and among institutions. To date, little is known
about the success of this new form of organizational arrangement. This exploratory study
was designed to help ﬁll that gap in the literature and extend the body of knowledge
about partnering as a strategic response to the challenges facing higher education at the

beginning of the 21Sl century.

36

CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
Design of the Study

A review of the literature reveals that students are attempting to traverse the
higher education system in unprecedented ways as they seek novel pathways to the
baccalaureate degree. This phenomenon, combined with the recent economic downturn
and the complexities inherent in our technological age, is forcing higher education to
transform in order to survive. As an adaptive response to these challenges, institutions
are cooperating to compete, a strategy Graves identiﬁes as “collabotition.” Additionally,
Hague has suggested that the key is permeability and that the question is not whether to
form alliances, but rather to choose between alliance or annihilation (Hanna, 2003).

As institutions seek to collaborate as a strategy to meet the above—mentioned
challenges, it becomes important to have a framework through which to view the
interactions within and among those institutions. Negotiated order theory provides such a
framework, or perspective, through which to examine the smaller-scale negotiations that
occur among individuals as well as the larger-scale negotiations that occur among
organizations (Fine, 1984).

Strategic partnerships, one form of interinstitutional collaboration, are a new form
of organizational arrangement about which we know very little. Although the beneﬁts
appear to be numerous, we do not know much the outcomes of strategic partnerships.

Collaboration between and among educational institutions is discussed extensively and

37

often required by funding agencies, but the literature is virtually silent on assessing such
collaboration (Meehan-Merrill et al., 2002). Similarly, Stein and Short comment as

6

follows: ‘. . .empirically based insights into collaboration among institutions of higher
education are sparse. Decision makers and planners need a good understanding of what
collaboration is, when and why it works well, and reasons why it does not succeed”
(2001, p. 418).

This research study sought to ﬁll that gap in the literature by answering the
following four research questions:

1. How do stakeholders perceive the issues and challenges inherent in the initial
stages/phases of working together?

2. How do stakeholders perceive the issues and challenges inherent in deciding what
to do in working together?

3. How do stakeholders perceive the issues and challenges inherent in implementing
what they decide to do in working together?

4. What contributes to stakeholders’ willingness to continue to work together? (This
assessment will be made to the extent possible given that the strategic partnership
included in this study will have been in existence for only two years.)

Since my study is exploratory in nature, the qualitative paradigm is appropriate.
As mentioned previously, I found it helpful to use Creswell’s (2003) framework for
design. Speciﬁcally, (1) subjectivism, not objectivism, informed my research. (2)
Socially constructed knowledge claims were inherent in my study for the goal of the

research was to rely as much as possible on the participants’ views of strategic

partnerships. (3) Case study design governed my choice and use of methods. (4) Since

38

qualitative research methods allow information to emerge from participants, I have used
document data, direct observation, and interviews.

Creswell (2003) suggests that qualitative researchers choose from among five
strategies of inquiry, including narrative, phenomenology, ethnography, grounded theory,
and case study. Because my research questions focus on the why and how rather than on
the what and the where, the case study approach represented an appropriate design.
Additionally, since a case study does not require control of behavioral events but does
focus on contemporary events, it was an appropriate strategy for examining the research
problem that I am studying. Speciﬁcally, a case study approach was used to illustrate
various topics in a descriptive mode while following a set of pre-speciﬁed procedures
(Yin, 2003).

Data Sources

As mentioned in Chapter 1, institutional identity is concealed through the use of
pseudonyms. An integral component of the Barone University approach to student
recruitment was the identiﬁcation and creation of strategic partnerships with a select
group of community colleges both within and outside this Midwestern state. Potential
partners were selected from already successful areas of student recruitment where Barone
conceivably could strengthen those recruitment efforts. Additionally, the academic
leaders of those potential partners needed to demonstrate a solid commitment to a
strategic partnership. The value of the strategic partnership is thought to lie in its ability
to provide an alternative for the student who presently is not prepared academically or is

not ﬁnancially able. In addition, it provides a pathway for the student who desires to

39

attend a community college before transferring to a four-year institution (Varty &
Nichols, 2002).

At the outset, Barone determined that it would be more productive to develop a
few strategic partnerships than to forge relationships with community colleges in general.
The institution prides itself on providing accurate information and transfer support to
many community college students. However, in an effort to build upon that level of
service, Barone envisioned going beyond the current level of service and thus the concept
of strategic partnering was born. It was important to identify the community colleges
currently recruiting from the high schools where Barone was successful as well as those
community colleges who routinely sent transfer students to the university. At the same
time, new opportunities with community colleges in as yet untapped geographical areas
represented other potential strategic partners. All of these institutions represented
attractive possibilities (Varty & Nichols, 2002).

As the ﬁrst phase of the partnering initiative, Barone University identiﬁed ﬁve
representative community colleges from within and two from outside the state.
Following an aggressive timeline, it signed with four of them—Vader Community
College, Allen Community College, Misaba College, and Wilson Community College—
within two years of the start of the initiative.

Those community colleges were selected because of their unique characteristics
that would be valuable in a partnership. An especially strong relationship with
surrounding high schools; a sound co-operative education program; or a university center
for undergraduate, graduate, and post-professional training represented attractive

attributes for strategic partnerships (Varty & Nichols, 2002). The unique features that

40

made these community colleges attractive to Barone can be identiﬁed as follows (Varty,

2004):

. Misaba, along with Barone, is closely involved with Adonis Automotive, a

major site for co-op placement for both institutions; in fact, Adonis has been
the catalyst for Misaba-Barone referrals. Additionally, Misaba had recently
become the second largest source of community college transfers to Barone.

. Westbook and Wilson community colleges both offered opportunity for

increased transfer rates. In addition, most of Barone’s entering freshmen
come from these two counties. They also have the largest number of co-op
positions; this, combined with the fact that many Barone students take classes
at these community colleges while on co-op assignment makes them even
more attractive.

. Vader, located in the same economically ravaged city as Barone, is important

because Barone felt it had a civic responsibility to the city; also Vader is the
largest single source of community college students to Barone.

. Allen, as a small, relatively isolated community college, offered the challenge

of developing an appropriate approach with a small college.

In addition to these community colleges all within the same Midwestern state, two

community colleges outside of the state were also selected for inclusion in the ﬁrst phase

of the strategic partnership initiative. Barone sought an agreement with Miami-Dade

Community College in Florida not only due to the community college’s interest but also

because some Florida companies are interested in a working relationship with Barone.

Lastly, Barone is seeking a relationship with Clairmont Community College in Toledo,

Ohio (Varty, 2004).

The strategic partnership proposal was presented in early fall 2002 to each of the

prospective partners with the goal that unique, strategic partnerships with at least four

community colleges would be in place by June of 2003. Although an agreement has not

been signed with Westbrook, agreements have been forged with the other four

community colleges almost within the identiﬁed timeline. Careful monitoring for actual

41

results and improvements in the process are to be made before additional strategic
partnerships will be initiated (Varty & Nichols, 2002). According to James Varty, one of
the originators of the partnership initiative, “Our next step is to take what we have
learned and develop a working relationship based on our experiences with all [this
Midwestern state’s] community colleges interested in working with Barone” (Varty,
2004). Thus the “web of alliance” identiﬁed by Hanna (2003) or the strategy of
“collabotition” coined by Graves (as cited in Hanna, 2003) may well be operationalized
by the Barone-initiated strategic partnerships.

My focus was on the collaborative process as evidenced in the Barone-Vader
strategic partnership for several reasons. As previously mentioned, Vader is important
because Barone felt it had a responsibility to the community. (Both institutions are
located in the same Midwestern city.) Also, Vader is the single largest source of
community college students to Barone. Lastly, since Barone has a very good working
relationship with Vader, access to information was enhanced.

The sampling strategy included the selection of key informants for the
interviews. To obtain a first-hand view of the development and implementation of the
strategic partnership, the sampling included participants from Barone University and
Vader Community College. Informants from both institutions included the president,
senior academic ofﬁcers, student and educational support personnel, and faculty. As a
way to triangulate the data, the organizational consultant was interviewed at the
conclusion of the interviewing. In addition to interviews with key informants, data
sources also consisted of direct observation of planning sessions, seminars, and

workshops as well as document analysis of concept papers, meeting notes, agreements,

42

announcements, and press releases associated with both the Barone-Misaba and Barone-
Vader partnerships.
Interviews

The case study interviews consisted of semi-structured, open-ended questions
designed to elicit facts and the informants’ opinions on the development and
implementation of the strategic partnership. During the interview, informants were asked
if there were other people who should be contacted for information regarding the
partnership. Interviews were taped; notes were kept for each separate interview.

The use of multiple interviews was intended to provide perceptions about the
strategic partnership from those with different associations with it. Although the study
did not presume that perception is reality, organizations are generally acknowledged to be
socially situated. Each participant’s perception of culture, problems, and solutions was
believed to be inﬂuential in the development, design, and implementation of the
partnership (Wilbur, 1996).

Direct Observation

Direct observation of activities hosted by Barone, for prospective students and
parents as well as for administrators and faculty involved in the partnership, provided
valuable insight into the evolving partnerships. For example, “Barone Days” are an
attempt to bring those interested in careers in engineering on campus to showcase the
facility and its labs. In addition, direct observation of meetings at the community college
involving administrators, faculty, and students provided additional information on the
dynamics of the collaborative endeavor. These meetings included events such as

strategic partners meetings, emerging technologies conferences, and annual planning

43

meetings as well as ongoing dialogue among admissions, counseling, and faculty about
issues inherent in student access and success.
Document Analysis

Documentary information pertaining to the problem-setting, direction-setting, and
implementation of the strategic partnership at both sites was also reviewed to gather
additional descriptive information. This information was used to gain insight into the
factors that encouraged the institutions to partner, to develop an understanding of issues
and challenges as the partnership evolved, and to begin to formulate assessment of
whether or not the partnership was working. Documents included written and electronic
communique’s; meeting announcements, agendas, notes, and other written reports of
events; administrative documents including concept papers, progress reports, and
conﬁrmation notes; program-related pieces; press releases; and news articles.

The lessons I learned and the conclusions I drew were based on triangulation of
data including interviews, direct observation, and document analysis. The use of these
multiple sources of evidence provided a broad range of developmental, attitudinal, and
observational views as well as facilitated the development of converging lines of inquiry.
Additionally, the use of multiple sources addressed the potential problem of construct
validity, since the multiple sources of evidence provided multiple measures of the same
phenomena (Denzin, 1979, as cited in Wilbur, 1996). An outline of the data sources
appears in Appendix A.

The Interview Instrument
Wilbur’s (1996) qualitative study examining the dynamics of community college-

university collaboration included an instrument that I found relevant and helpful for my

44

study. Similar to Wilbur’s, my interview protocol followed a semi-structured, open—
ended format to seek elaboration on the factors that encouraged Barone University to
partner with unique community colleges, including Vader Community College; the issues
and challenges faced by these institutions in developing and implementing the
partnership, and an initial consideration of the outcomes of the collaborative undertaking.
The questions were designed to obtain factual information as well as opinions and
perceptions about the development, implementation, and relative success of the strategic
partnership as a model for interinstitutional collaboration.

The interview was sequenced to begin with questions about the role of
environmental factors and institution-speciﬁc values related to the transfer function,
access to Barone, and student success. The aim of these questions was to obtain a full
understanding of the factors leading to the development of the strategic partnership as
well as to the issues and challenges associated with implementation. In the last phase of
the interview, the informant was asked to summarize, from an institutional perspective,
the lessons learned from the development and implementation of the strategic partnership
and to speculate on whether the partnership was working or not. The interview format
was sufﬁciently ﬂexible to afford the informant the opportunity to opine in areas deemed
important to the understanding of the partnership and the collaborative process. A copy
of the interview protocol appears in Appendix B.

Data Analysis

The unit of analysis was the strategic partnership between Barone University, a

private, premier engineering university, and Vader Community College, a public, state-

supported community college. This study was written in a descriptive style because its

45

purpose was to understand the factors that led to the strategic partnership, the issues and
challenges associated with implementation, and an initial assessment from the
participants’ perspective of whether the partnership was working or not. The voices of
multiple interviewees as they revealed their experience with the strategic partnership, as
well as direct observation and document analysis, were critical to building an
understanding of the complexities of the collaborative undertaking.

The analysis consisted of pattern coding (Miles & Huberman, 1984), using the
research questions as a guiding frame. See Appendix C for a depiction of the lines of
inquiry. It shows the data sources used to answer the research questions important for
this study.

As is standard practice in research involving human subjects, the informants were
assured of conﬁdentiality and anonymity through the “Participant Consent Form.” (See
Appendix D.) At the conclusion of the interviewing, the organizational consultant was
interviewed to triangulate the data, using a slightly different interview protocol. (See
Appendix E.)

Limitations

Traditional prejudices against case study research deﬁnitely exist. Although it is
a distinctive form of empirical inquiry, case study methodology is criticized for three
reasons: (1) its supposed lack of rigor and objectivity in data collection and
interpretation, (2) its presumed lack of scientiﬁc generalization, and (3) the inordinate
amount of time the case study requires and the unwieldy documents that result (Yin,
2003). While this study did not attempt to determine causation in the traditional sense,

maintaining methodological rigor was a concern because inferences were made based on

46

the evidence gathered. Appropriate tests for ensuring rigor and quality in case study
design were utilized.
In addition to the limitations associated with case study research, there are three
other limitations:
1. The possibility exists that some important data were overlooked.
2. The strategic partnership was only in existence for two years when the data
were collected.
3. The informants were suggested by the organizational consultant because of
the integral roles they played in the development and implementation of the
strategic partnership. Perhaps a different story would have emerged had

others been interviewed.

47

CHAPTER FOUR
THE STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP:
EXEMPLIFYING UNIVERSITY/COMMUNIT Y COLLEGE
COLLABORATION
Introduction

This chapter reports ﬁndings that illuminate the origin, development, and
implementation of the strategic partnership between a private, four-year university with
selected programs in engineering and management and a public, state-supported
community college. Both exist in an economically ravaged, Midwestern city still
struggling to overcome the extraordinary challenges precipitated by the shift from a
manufacturing society to the digital age.

The primary data sources were interviews with key informants from both
institutions—including faculty, administrators, and presidents—as well as the
organization consultant, observations of strategic partners meetings, “Emerging
Technologies” seminars, a reception at the university president’s home, and the Open
house known as “Discovery Day.” Data also came from documents including the
original position paper, written correspondence pertaining to the partnership,
announcements and the press release associated with a signing ceremony, and other
documents as suggested by the participants during the interviews. (See Appendix A.)

The chapter is organized into two case studies: one of the university and one of

the community college. The ﬁrst section presents background information on both

48

institutions and reveals how the new organizational arrangement evolved, paying
particular attention to the collaborative efforts evidenced by the two institutions. The
second section then looks at the research questions in an effort to determine to what
extent have they been answered by the study.

Section 1: The Origins, Development, and Implementation
of the Strategic Partnership

To begin, it is important to establish the context that has shaped this study. The
author’s prior experience as well as the information derived from this study are useful in
helping us understand the factors that shaped the collaborative undertaking.

In the ﬁrst case, Barone University, we see demonstrated the external and internal
factors that precipitated and inﬂuenced the development of the strategic partnership. The
environmental elements include increased competition combined with the demands of a
rapidly changing technological society. Recognizing the potential of a heretofore
untapped market —that of transfer students—Barone embarked on an aggressive plan to
partner with a few carefully selected community colleges. Because of its proximity,
Vader Community College represented the most logical starting place. Its external
challenges similarly included a rapidly changing technological society with the attendant
curricular implications for technological and pre-engineering programs. Thus issues
inherent in the ﬁrst two years of a bachelor’s program as well as those associated with
student development became salient.

Both institutions realized that each had something signiﬁcant to offer the other
and that by working together not only would each beneﬁt but so too would students and
the community. Such collaborative endeavors, though, exact a price: Both parties must

be willing to come together to identify their common goals and also be willing to commit

49

substantial resources to the endeavor. Collegial leadership, receptivity to innovation, and
a strong sense of commitment among those involved in the undertaking are needed from
inception to implementation and beyond.

Barone University, a private, premier engineering university, and Vader
Community College, a public, community college, sought to develop and implement a
strategic partnership designed to customize education for students pursuing a
baccalaureate degree in applied mathematics, applied physics, business, engineering, or
environmental chemistry. Both institutions are located in the same community, one that
has suffered the effects of a declining manufacturing age. It was home to many well-paid
General Motors employees, both blue- and white-collar. The city and surrounding
communities ﬂourished until General Motors, among others, fell upon difﬁcult economic
times. Forced to radically downsize and aggressively restructure, it closed many of the
city’s plants with dire economic consequences for the surrounding communities.

We gain a fuller understanding of the originating factors by listening to the voices
of the participants. The following case history information is derived from the semi-
structured interviews with the informants.

The initial impetus for the strategic partnership was conversation between the
presidents of the two institutions. The president of Barone had formerly been dean of
engineering at a major Eastern university. In that role, he had forged engineering
articulations with all of the community colleges in the state. Upon his arrival at Barone
in 1991, one of his major initiatives was to increase the number of transfer students, a
virtually untapped market. He approached the president of Vader who was very receptive

to exploring ways of increasing access for Vader students to Barone.

50

This was no small feat, however. Despite the fact that both institutions resided in
the same community, many Vader students were completely unaware of Barone. Those
who were familiar with the institution thought that their chances for admission were slim
to none and that even if they were admitted, they would be unable to afford it. These
impediments notwithstanding, the two presidents continued exploring the possibility of
working together. Part of the incentive was to ﬁnd ways in which the two institutions
might collaborate to enhance transition of students from Vader to Barone. They also
believed it important to show the community that the two institutions could work together
in an effort to rebuild the economically ravaged city in which they reside. Of course, the
incentives were not entirely altruistic.

Barone, although a nationally ranked engineering school, was increasingly facing
strong competition from other institutions. The president was on a mission to increase
the number of transfer students. Something innovative was called for—something
beyond the articulation agreements that had been forged in the past. Similarly concerned
with issues of academic and social integration, other sectors within the higher education
environment were at work. As we will see, a strategic partnership, designed to customize
education for students pursuing a baccalaureate degree, was envisioned and ultimately
presented to Barone’s president. The goal is to improve mechanisms for student support
and thereby enhance access to careers in management and engineering. Let us now turn
our attention to the process story as told by those individuals associated with Barone. It

will then be followed with the story as told by the Vader participants.

51

Barone University

In understanding the evolution of the strategic partnership from Barone’s
perspective, we will begin by looking at the factors inherent in its inception, move on to
those associated with its development and implementation, and conclude with its
outcomes as perceived by the participants.

The Origin of the Strategic Partnership

The nascent factors that encouraged Barone’s adoption of the strategic partnership
include increased competition, recognition of an untapped market, and changing
institutional perspectives.

Increased competition. It has been well documented that institutions of higher
education are facing extraordinary challenges at the advent of the 21St century. Their
very survival is at stake; reality demands close scrutiny of formerly unquestioned
practices. Certainly, Barone University was not alone in facing unparalleled competition
from other four-year institutions within the state and across the nation. A top-level
administrator in enrollment services, Bruce Roberts, explained it this way:

I think the university realizes our future is when you’re looking at the

demographics of what’s gonna be available out there for students, you’re

not gonna be able to pull just a traditional market and survive on the

numbers that we required.

Another factor that adds to the complexities of the competitive environment in
which Barone University ﬁnds itself is that of curricular offerings. Barone offers nine
baccalaureate programs in engineering and management, far fewer than those of the
comprehensive universities with which it competes. As Roberts observed:

[Our state] took the ACT last year that shows, that said their ﬁrst career

choice is engineering of some type—4,000. You know how many schools
are gonna be going after those 4,000 kids? That’s assuming they’re

52

serious. And that means our funnel just keeps getting narrower and

narrower and narrower. And this is, I guess, another reason, what I’m

trying to say, why we need to keep doing this [the strategic partnership]

because our pool is shrinking rapidly. Students are just not interested in

the science and engineering [programs].

It is one thing for an administrator responsible for enrollment management to
recognize the threats to the very survival of the institution but quite another for faculty to
similarly realize the dire consequences of continuing to ignore external threats.
Typically, in their concern for maintaining the academic integrity of their programs, they
focus internally and often seem mindless of the unpleasant ﬁnancial realities in the
external environment.

Such was not the case with a veteran faculty member at Barone. A chemistry
professor, Charles Powell, commented bluntly that “If Barone had students falling out of
the residence hall right now, I doubt if they’d have articulation or partnerships with
institutions. Okay. This is a need basis.” Nevertheless, he saw the wisdom in looking at
things differently. As he explained it:

Now, okay, because institutions of higher learning want to survive, they

see opportunity there now. For all the wrong reasons, we’re going there.

But nevertheless, we are there, and guess what? We have found out

there’s a lot of real reasons, good reasons why we should’ve been there

10, 15, years ago. So at the end of the day, it’s a great thing.

Powell was admittedly passionate not only about teaching chemistry but also
about doing what he could to ensure the viability of his program. He saw the partnership
as a means to help him accomplish both. When asked what he had hoped to get out of the
partnership, he responded as follows:

This is very selﬁsh of me, but it’s all about number of students in your

programs so that your program can continue and be strong. In addition to
the fact, I have a ﬁrm desire to teach chemistry to young people, and l

53

have to have them, if I wanta teach them. So that’s what I’m looking
forward to obtaining from transfer and these type of partnerships.

During the interview he frequently mentioned his concern with the extraordinary
challenges students now faced in persisting to the four-year degree. He referenced some
of the issues he had had to deal with in his own college attendance but observed that
“nowadays it’s worse than when I went to school.”

Powell viewed community college attendance as an important way of helping
students address some of these challenges. Mentioning his previous experience in
teaching chemistry to older students, he expressed his hope that Barone would
matriculate the non-traditional student: “I’m hoping that we’ll see a number of older
students coming to our campus. This is something that Barone University does not see a
lot of, and I have had the opportunity to teach older students at Eglinton College in
Eglinton, Ohio.” He spoke speciﬁcally of the older student in this way: “I do ﬁnd that
the older student has a different perspective. When you tell them that you’re gonna put
something on reserve at the library, you better it be there because they’re gonna be there.
They bring a certain perspective to the classroom, and they calm the others down.”

Increased competition and concern with survival encouraged top administrators at
Barone to essentially undergo a paradigm shift. Never before had they seriously
considered transfer students as a viable group to recruit for admission to Barone. That
mindset, though, was changing.

Recognition of an untapped market. Throughout its eight-decade history, Barone
University had been involved with the education of students desirous of careers in
engineering and management. Students were admitted as freshmen and spent ﬁve years

in pursuit of a baccalaureate degree. Barone offers a unique experience in that students

54

spend 11 weeks in an academic session and then 11 weeks in a cooperative education
experience. Oftentimes, they remain with the same corporate sponsor throughout their
program and are subsequently offered employment with that ﬁrm upon graduation. Thus
the all-too-frequently voiced concern about securing suitable employment upon
graduation was nonexistent for Barone graduates. Not only were they employed upon
graduation, but also typically earning very respectable salaries from the outset.

Transfer students were virtually non existent at the institution. According to
Barone’s president, Dr. Thomas Frank:

Traditionally, this has been a school where eighteen- and nineteen-year

olds come here directly from high school. I know when I ﬁrst got here,

there were very few non-traditional students. They were all that way.

None from community colleges. [The major corporate sponsor] did not

encourage that for whatever reason. And no older students.
External factors being what they were, Frank determined that the institution would be
wise to reexamine its position relative to transfer students. His experience as dean of
engineering at an East Coast university was invaluable. As he opined:

From my 33 previous years’ experience [at the] University, we brought

articulation into the hallway for the university and the state. . .We

guaranteed the ﬁrst two years, so they’d take the ﬁrst two years at [the]

community college and transfer in, and save the tuition money. [It] made

a lot easier transition in some sense for students who couldn’t leave home

to live on the university campus.
As the president of Barone, he was in a unique position to change the institution’s
perspective on transfer students. This new orientation toward a formerly untapped
market was not without its challenges. Let’s now turn our attention to what Barone
administrators and faculty thought of this new direction.

Roberts, the top-level administrator in enrollment services, was easy to convince.

He certainly recognized the threats to the institution’s survival and the wisdom of

recruiting in a large, new market. In answer to the question of what he hoped to get out of
the strategic partnership, he answered unequivocally:

Selﬁshly, more students. I mean, I think we came to the realization that

we were missing a huge part of the student market for a traditional

university. There’s no question about that. In the past, quite frankly, we

turned people away. We weren’t interested in transfer students. Those

were the days perhaps when [our major corporate sponsor] owned us and

they were very selective, tuition was very low, and so they could get lots

of applications for the positions they wanted. And so they didn’t need to

look at other markets. As a private school, that’s just not possible for

survival and the data is very clear that more and more students are going

to start their college careers at the community college level. If you’re

looking at diversity, and we must, that even percentages of those are

starting at that level, either for access or cost, or both.

Roberts also spoke about an unexpected goal associated with the partnership. In
reaching out to the community colleges that had been identiﬁed as potential strategic
partners, Barone soon came to realize that not only were they gaining access to the
community college but also to the co-op community. Speciﬁcally, he mentioned that
“the power of this partnership together versus us working [alone] is really big...That just
opened doors for me [in terms of potential corporate sponsors for co-op placement] that
had not, would not, be there.”

Not surprisingly, it was easy to convince his assistant, Lisa Lyons, of the
desirability of putting time and effort into recruiting transfer students. Articulation
agreements were not new to Barone. In fact, as the result of a grant tied originally to
cooperative education, her responsibilities had included the time-consuming development
of articulation agreements. Those agreements, however, from Lyon’s perspective were

underutilized; they were, in her opinion, little more than a piece of paper in a ﬁle or

verbiage on the web site. As she stated:

56

There’s an awful lot more that needs to go into setting up a program that is
meeting the needs of both institutions than just an articulation agreement.
And I was happy when they started putting together the strategic partner-
ship because there are more resources that have been put into what needs
to take place.

She was explicit in describing the advantages of the partnership over simple articulation:

You can’t just have a piece of paper out on our web site or in a ﬁle
somewhere and expect students to be able to know what they need to do.
There’s just a lot of exposure, a lot more exposure that needs to take place.
I mean, in the classrooms, you need presentations, you need to do
everything that the strategic partnership is setting up. Collaboration
between faculties involved, the administration of the schools, have support
from the top down, and really make it a partnership in order for this to
work.

Because of her 12 years’ experience in various facets of enrollment management and co-
operative education at Barone, Lyons was in a unique position to recognize the changing
perspective associated with transfer students. As the initiative to attract more transfer
students gained momentum, she observed:

The transfer student population is a wonderful student population to have

on campus for the diversity it brings. They’re more mature, they’re better

focused, they academically do at least as well if not better than our native

student population of students. They’re marketable to the companies

because of their experience, because they’re more mature, and they have

an academic background the companies can take a look at. By the time

they transfer here, they know this is where they want to be, whereas our

freshmen [are often] trying to ﬁgure out, is this really what I wanta be

when I grow up. [With] transfer students their retention rate and their

ability to complete the program is pretty high because of what they had to

go through to get here.

Not all, however, fully embraced the initiative to increase the number of transfer
students. Faculty had to be convinced that Barone’s reputation as a premier engineering
university would not be tarnished by the aggressive pursuit of the transfer student market.

As mentioned previously, they were the purveyors of the curriculum; additionally, they

were accustomed to teaching students who had been at the top of their high school class.

57

Community college students represented an unknown quantity in which they really had
no interest. Roberts explained it this way: “You know, right or wrong, people have
perceptions and they’re not always accurate.”

In addition to their resistance to teaching transfer students, Roberts also
mentioned faculty’s considerable reluctance to examining community college courses for
possible equivalency. It was no small feat to convince them that such effort was indeed
worthwhile. He spoke favorably of the admirable efforts of Susan Timmons, assistant
provost, in working productively with faculty on establishing course equivalencies:

Susan and I had several discussions about how poor our process was for

getting classes approved and the timeliness of this. And she’s made a

gigantic effort over there [academic services] to change that. And she’s

struggling with all the same problems I had when I tried to change it, but I

think she made a lot more headway than I ever did. I’ll give her that.

When questioned further about why he felt she was able to work so productively
with faculty, Roberts responded:

Well, maybe she was better at it. I think I have a certain fuse sometimes

or I don’t have a lot of patience and I think she’s a lot more professional in

how she approaches faculty. And I don’t mean that the wrong way, but I

think she was able to convince them that these are some of the right things

to do. But we, we still come up with some walls over there that we just

haven’t been able to get over. But she was integral at the beginning...

It was essential that faculty resistance to the university’s plan to substantially
increase the number of transfer students be overcome. Without their support the initiative
was doomed. Powell, the chemistry professor, also provided insight into how community
colleges in general and their students in particular were viewed:

...we used to look at you, that is two-year institutions and the students that

go there, and turn our nose up at them. We used to say the people who are

there are, well, you know, not ready. The students aren’t ready. All right.

Why do we need them? Oh, yeah, we don’t. Let’s just ignore them. Let
them do their thing and if one or two kids come through, well, okay, you

58

know. We aren’t going to stop them. But you know, there’s always

this—oh, my gosh, I don’t know whether you felt this or knew anything

about this.
Thus we see in Barone an institution, like so many others, struggling for its very survival.
Its president and administrators recognized the dire consequences of failing to adapt to
the extraordinary challenges presented by its changing environment. Faculty, though,
were far less inclined to adopt the global view necessary for fundamental change. It was
up to the president and key administrators to effectuate changing world views.

Changing institutional perspectives. An administrator in charge of college
transfer partnerships, James Morgan, had a good deal to say about the wisdom of a less
local, more cosmopolitan perspective. He had relocated from the East Coast to the
Midwest many years ago and was cognizant of the fact that he viewed things quite
differently from those who had spent most of their lives in the Midwest. As he observed:

And my impression just after I got here and I started to get to know more

[Midwestemers] is that if it isn’t conceived in the [Midwest], it doesn’t

exist. It’s like most [Midwestemers] know where Michigan is and where

Florida is and the rest of the world. Michigan is, you have to go to it.

You don’t go through it to go any place. Rather insular in our thinking,

sad to say. Which is ironic because they’re supposedly the world capital

for the auto industry; it’s got some cosmopolitan industries. But on the

other hand, a lot of major players in the auto industry won’t have anything

to do with Michigan.

Upon further reﬂection, however, he adopted a more optimistic stance, noting that
oftentimes conﬁdence in what one is about can have considerable impact:

I think sometimes we have misplaced conﬁdence in what we have been

doing to the point where we’re not willing to test it in the big world, get

real feedback. And at other times, we have, don’t have an appropriate

amount of conﬁdence in stuff that we do incredibly well. But because we

don’t test it against the outside world, we don’t realize just how good it
really is.

59

Having spent most of his career in admissions and thus “accustomed to living with one
foot in and one foot out” of the institution, Morgan was nicely positioned to notice the
signiﬁcant difference with which individuals approached issues, depending upon their
position within the institution. He commented on the challenges inherent in working with
faculty: “University faculty are very unique critters. You love them, but, boy, they can
frustrate the heck outa you sometimes. Uniquely pragmatic, uniquely chauvinistic,
uniquely dreamers, uniquely unique. God bless them.” In elaborating further on the
challenges faculty presented as a result their local orientation, Morgan was explicit:

One of the challenges sometimes is that. . .the faculty. . . get so entrenched

in their particular discipline, and they’re not willing to step beyond the

bounds of their discipline border, boundaries. There aren’t, in fact, many

people sadly who look beyond their speciﬁc role or their unique

institution. And I must admit, it’s part of my learning curve coming out

here to [the Midwest].

Powell, though, held an entirely different perspective from the faculty that
Morgan was describing. He echoed Morgan’s beliefs about the necessity of having an
external focus. During his interview, he spoke about the importance of giving back to the
community and then moving on. In so doing, he mentioned conversations with his son
who had “wanted to escape [the city in which he had grown up] and never return.” He
explained it this way:

He returned only because I told him that it’s important to come back and

give to the community that you come from. And then expand your

horizon. For one reason, there’s a lot more opportunities because you’re

known in that community. And because you’re known, you will have an

opportunity to obtain a job a lot easier than if you were to go to

Massachusetts where we do have family; but you’re not as well known.

Because here you participated in athletics, okay. You know a lot of

people who graduated with you, and they are all there as a support system.

So come spend two, three years, and then take off and go some place. So
you’re giving back plus you have your own built-in support mechanism. 1

60

felt it was important to do it that way. He has at least paid attention to
that; he’s working in a middle school [in the area].

Perhaps that mindset is what enabled Powell to have a more expansive view than
the faculty Morgan had mentioned. When asked what had helped to move the
partnership process along, Powell spoke about the desirability of encouraging faculty
from both institutions to work together. As he explained it, “As program director of
chemistry, I would deﬁnitely like to get more of our faculty identiﬁed with a community
college and respectively their faculty so that we are attuned to what’s going on and
hopefully attract more chemistry majors to our institution.” Later in the interview, when
asked how effective he felt the partnership had been in fulﬁlling its goals, he again
mentioned the importance of getting faculty to work together. He explained it this way:

It will ﬂourish once we get this transfer between faculty at our institution

and faculty at [the community college]. As soon as that involvement

blossoms, then okay, we will be able to squeeze out the maximum that

will come out of this relationship. That’s the next step. The adminis-

trators are on board; they’re committed. Now we gotta get the faculty into

it.

Certainly, the president held that more global, cosmopolitan view. As mentioned
previously, he was instrumental in writing articulation agreements for the community
colleges in an East Coast state in conjunction with a major Eastern university. Now at
Barone, he held the enlightened view that transfer students represented an untapped
market and that Barone would be wise to explore this considerable student population. It
then became his responsibility to convince others, most notably faculty, that such an
endeavor was indeed worthwhile. He explained it this way:

I would say that, there’s a concern on the part of some of the more senior

faculty about the quality of the student. And I’ve never had those

concerns myself because I’d had experience with other schools. But
nevertheless, it was a hard thing for some to overcome. Because [our

61

major corporate sponsor] had never done it. So the feeling [was] these
were somehow not as good of students as the other students.

Knowing that faculty support was essential if he were to advance his initiative of gaining
more transfer students, Frank set about changing the opposition to transfer students.
Although Barone had not aggressively recruited transfer students, a few had matriculated
over the years. Why not take a closer look at how they had performed? The performance
of those students was compared to native students, those who had started at Barone. The
results were eye opening: Transfer students did as well, if not better, than the native
Barone students!

Frank used this fact to encourage those with key roles and responsibilities at the
institution to view his efforts regarding transfer students in a positive light. It was no
simple task. Even students worried that the quality of the institution would be lowered if
transfer students were admitted. A group, thought to have been encouraged by faculty,
decided to confront the president. Frank met with them in his ofﬁce, explaining that
“some of the top students in the class were transfer students.” That information,
communicated by the president, was enough to change their negative perception. As he
mentioned, “It didn’t take much. I had a chance to talk to them and it was easy to
convince them this is the right thing to do.” In observing further about the change in
mindset regarding transfer students, he commented:

I think. . .people are much more satisﬁed with transfer students. At one

time there was probably a stigma associated with transfer students, as little

as ten years ago. That was ten years ago...That’s all changed now. So I
think we’re making a lot of progress in attitudes toward transfer students.

62

Although it took time, eventually the consistent message about the quality of transfer
students assuaged many of the concerns individuals had voiced about their attending
Barone.

As we have seen, the critical factors that comprised the origins of the strategic
partnership from Barone’s perspective include increased competition, recognition of an
untapped market, and changing institutional perspectives. The stage was now set for the
development of something novel, a new organizational arrangement that went beyond the
articulation agreements that had been forged in the past.

The Process Story

Establishing an arrangement as complex as the strategic partnership required
considerable collaboration. The critical factors involved in the deve10pment and
implementation of the strategic partnership include perceptions about common goals, the
need for a champion, and the developing infrastructure.

Perceptions about common goals. Since Barone University and Vader
Community College both exist in the same city, the presidents had an established
tradition of lunching together and sharing concerns of mutual interest. According to
Frank:

...since Vader Community College is in the [area] and we’re in the [same]

area, it seemed pretty logical to tie the two together. We’ve had a close

relationship, I mean, the president and I have been friends for a number of

years, and we both think it’s advantageous for both of us to do this. It’s a

good thing.

Thus the impetus for the partnership involved support of both institutions’ presidents.

Barone wanted more transfer students, as previously noted. The advantage for Vader was

a mechanism designed to enable more of its students to transfer to an institution of

63

Barone’s caliber. It soon became apparent that there were considerable beneﬁts not only
for students, but also for both institutions and the community as well.

Students stood to gain considerably. Although driven by Barone’s desire to
increase numbers, those involved with the partnership spoke without exception about the
strategies designed to ease transition for students from the community college to the
university. These strategies were designed to provide additional academic and career
development support for students. Frank mentioned the advisability of some students
attending the community college at the outset of their baccalaureate program. In doing
so, he pointed out the need for faculty involvement in ensuring successful transfer of
courses:

I think the transition for some students, from high school living at home,

to college where you’re living completely away from home, is difﬁcult.

And the freshmen year is always a very tough year for a lot of students.

As I see it, my own personal point of view is that in some cases, the

community colleges will do quite well in those freshman-year

courses. . .Classes tend to be somewhat small from what I’ve seen. They

tend to get pretty good attention from faculty members. And, therefore,

[they] tend to do quite well. And I don’t see any problem with that.

I think you have to maintain, as far as Vader and us, we have to maintain

good contact between the faculty so we know what we’re doing exactly,

so the students take the courses that can be transferred. And the courses at

the right level.

Action-level individuals voiced similar sentiments about working together with
the common goal of beneﬁting students. The associate director of admissions, Timothy
Rich, explained it this way: “We’re all working at the same goal together. I mean,
ultimately, ultimately, we’re servicing students well.” Morgan, in charge of college

transfer partnerships, expressed a similar sentiment as he asked, “How do we work

together to help make sure the student gets what they need to get?”

Another beneﬁt of working together to better serve students is the positive effects
on the institution. When factors of student success are considered in the broader context
of the institution, the beneﬁts to the institution become apparent. As Rich observed:

I’m working for the students ﬁrst and second for my institution. And

because of that, you know, you probably act a little different than some

people might at other institutions where maybe they’re working for

themselves. [I’m] very focused on student success. . .I’m gonna do what’s

in the students’ best interest and just go from there. Everything else

basically takes care of itself when you do that.

Morgan similarly commented on the beneﬁts to Barone as a result of the partnership
activities: “It’s a Barone investment and trying to inﬂuence the tide. . .All things are
gonna rise a little bit. By the way, Barone’s probably gonna reap some beneﬁt from that
investment but I truly believe that the investment is a much bigger thing than just a few
additional transfer students.” Lyons, from her perspective from within enrollment
services, observed the advantages of going out into the community to secure cooperative
education positions: “I think that’s an added advantage for both schools. There are
opportunities that we can each provide both ways. You can draw on each other’s
resources to enhance the opportunities for students at the community college and
ultimately when they transfer here.”

Perceptions about common goals include the community as well. As might be
expected, Frank spoke about the desirability of working with Vader’s president in an
effort to rebuild the city in which both institutions resided. As he stated, “We discuss a
lot of things that are going on here right now. Things that we can work together
on...what we can do to try to improve the city’s image and what we can do to bring in

other businesses.” Roberts added another perspective, one gained from his top-level

position in enrollment services:

65

. . .we need to work together to develop the appropriate engineers and
scientists for this local community. . .We need to do that. That is one of
the reasons why we need to do this [partnership]. And that’s a reason for
the community college to be involved in this, and it’s a good reason for us
to be involved. . .and also for the employer.

Roberts also had thoughts on the role Barone could play in view of changing
technological needs, speciﬁcally in relation to the life sciences. Recognizing the
implications of future employment trends, he observed:

...we need to transfer this automotive technology knowledge into the life
sciences and medical area. . .That could help the regrowth of our city and
our county. . .We partner with Vader because we do want to do that, and
then we can do some partnering research opportunities, we can have
students working on both campuses and those kinds of things. And I think
there’s some real potential for us to grow jobs.

Perceptions about common goals is certainly an important critical factor in the
development of the strategic partnership. As we have seen, key informants have
variously identiﬁed common goals that enabled them to work together. By working
together, students beneﬁt, the institutions both beneﬁt, and so does the community at
large. Roberts offers the following observation about who ultimately stands to gain:

Where are most of our employers? They’re not here local. This is a real

disadvantage to this university. And so we’ve got to go outside of our

home to try to get jobs and do research and well, we’ve got to make that a

priority. And this board has decided we are staying here. We aren’t going

anywhere. That was discussed. And it should’ve been discussed. But

we’re not moving and we’re gonna try to help with the redevelopment of

this area. So, and we can do that. We play a very key role. So we can say

selﬁshly, yeah, we want more students, but I really believe in the long run

that it really will enhance the reputation of this university and the

community college if we're working in concert with the companies.

Need for a champion. A second critical factor was the appearance of a champion,

an individual uniquely positioned to provide the necessary impetus, as well as sustenance.

66

According to my research, an initiator, or champion, was considered absolutely essential
for the inception, development, and implementation of the strategic partnership.

Variously described as “real key,” a “lynch pin,” and the “driver,” John Bardy had
been dean of students at another Midwestern community college. His involvement in the
partnership began because of his role as co-chair of a design and manufacturing alliance,
a consortium of high schools, community colleges, universities, and companies. The
group decided that it would be worthwhile to develop collaborative relationships among
high schools, community colleges, and universities in an effort to create an integrated
curriculum that would effectively serve the area’s design and manufacturing industry.

They formed several committees including one on articulation. Although it was
generally believed that procedures were in place to ensure the transfer of credits of core
curriculum, it also was apparent that little attention was given to the smooth transition of
students from the community college to the university. Bardy and others perceived
value, from a design and manufacturing standpoint, in exploring that issue. He and
Roberts subsequently wrote a position paper that outlined the facets of a strategic
partnership that added a dimension to transfer relationships not addressed by simple
articulation. Full support of top administration was crucial. Even though the top
administrators might not be actively involved, they would delegate responsibilities
associated with the partnership to a key person who would represent the institution.

The position paper was then shared with Frank who became very interested in it.
With his strong desire to increase the number of transfer students, he welcomed a
mechanism by which that might be facilitated. The partnership document included a

comprehensive series of action strategies designed “to provide greater opportunity and

67

exceptional academic and career development support.” Although articulation was
viewed as the foundation, the partnership was designed to go far beyond simple
articulation. The goal was to develop and implement a series of strategic partnerships
with select community colleges, both within the state and across the nation. The focus
was to be within the state ﬁrst. 3

Frank was quite impressed with the concept. At this time, he was working closely
with the president of Vader Community College on various projects. As mentioned
previously, both presidents felt that it was important for the two institutions to work
together for the betterment of the community. In recognizing the potential inherent in the
partnership, Bardy observed: “I guess you might say a strategic partnership of this nature
was something that would naturally ﬂow or would be a natural instrument. What it is, for
the broader objective, the playing out of bringing two schools together in the best interest
of the community.”

A champion was needed to advance the initiatives of the strategic partnership.
Morgan, when asked what had enabled Barone and Vader to work together in the early
stages, mentioned the consultant. As he stated, “You have to recognize we had John
Bardy, consultant; and John came in from a different angel and had some other
connections.” He elaborated further, referring speciﬁcally to Bardy’s involvement with
“workforce development connections” resulting from his association with the design and
manufacturing alliance (mentioned earlier) and his position as dean of students with
oversight for co-op at his community college. Much of this was salient due to the
Barone’s programs and the nature of the partnership. As Morgan observed: “Community

colleges are engaged in your community, with industry. John has fully appreciated the

68

opportunities that that presented.” Morgan also, chacteristically, added the notion of a
new perspective: “One of the things that has really helped us a great deal on this, in
many respects, is having John Bardy because he can provide a continuity and a focus, as
well as just a fresh look. Any time you come from ten feet away, you’re an expert. And
that’s extremely valuable and powerful.”

Perhaps Lyons summarized the importance of a champion, and the difference one
could make, best. In so doing she not only described Bardy and his role, but also alluded
to the important distinction between simple articulation and the strategic partnership:

John has really been able to move this forward and garner the support
from both Barone and the partnership schools, more so than anything that
I have seen in all the years working with this. One of my biggest
frustrations with the transfer program—they keep coming at me and
saying, “Okay, we’re gonna set up an [articulation] agreement with this
school and this school.” And I’m like “Why are we doing this? If we’re
not gonna market successfully the programs that we have, why are we
continuing to set up [just articulations]. To me, it didn’t make sense—it
was a lot of work, getting the [articulation agreements] set up and
maintaining all of them. So I’ve been thrilled to see what they’re doing
with these partnerships because to me, this will work. This is what has
been needed.

As an outsider with an extensive network of contacts, Bardy was the logical
choice. Support from the top was essential, and he had that. In explaining how he was
retained as anorganizational consultant rather than interim director of cooperative
education, Bardy explained:

The president was much more interested in the implementation of strategic
partnerships so this is something that clearly was initiated at the direction
of the chief executive of this university. Dr. Frank said I want you to
work on the development of strategic partnerships. We want to increase
the number of students and do what’s necessary. And so there was a lot of
negotiation involved in my coming to Barone for this purpose. And I
guess the reason I bring it up is that clearly this was something that was
initiated by the president, which I think is the important principle.

69

With support from the president ﬁrmly established, Bardy began the process of
operationalizing the action strategies outlined in the partnership document. The ﬁrst step
was to involve key Barone administrators. Roberts, of course, was intimately involved,
having co-authored the original position paper. Lyons, Morgan, and Rich were soon
brought into the fold. Lyons explained it this way:

Well, I believe Bruce Roberts and John Bardy are really the brainstorm

behind all of this. John has had a lot of very, very creative ideas; and he’s

really been the impetus behind all of this. Coming from the community

college arena, he had all the contacts.

Once he had established contact with key administrators and action-level people,
Bardy set up brainstorming sessions and informational meetings. They were held
frequently and lasted for a couple of hours. Bardy was diligent in providing meeting
summaries and visibly maintaining a presence on Barone’s campus. He established and
reinforced contacts through phone, email, fax, and campus visits. As Lyons noted, “John
Bardy has been a real key for getting all the right players in the right room at the right
time...and making sure it all happens. He had a very unique ability to bring people at
high levels together and to accomplish a lot in a very short amount of time.”

Due to its proximity, Vader Community College was the logical choice with
which to begin. Because of his work as dean of students at a community college and as
co—chair of the design and manufacturing alliance, Bardy had a unique ability “to get on
people’s doorsteps.” He soon identiﬁed key contacts at Vader and familiarized them with
the various aspects of the strategic partnership. Support from top administration was

crucial, and he was able to obtain it. As Morgan observed:

Pete (President Bosco of Vader) had looked around to see, okay, who are
the people who could be key players in this? And that’s somebody else

70

who helped facilitate the start and that’s. . .You have to recognize we had

John Bardy, consultant, and John came in from a different angle and had

some other connections. . .I think one of the things that has really helped us

a great deal on this is, in many respects, is having John Bardy. Because he

can provide a continuity and a focus, as well as just a fresh look.

Rich was perhaps in the best position to comment on the importance of Bardy’s
inﬂuence in the development of the partnership. In his role of associate director of
admissions, he frequently had contact with colleges and universities in the quest for new
students. He was a known ﬁgure on campuses where he gave classroom presentations,
set up information tables, and met with counselors all in an effort to provide accurate
communication about Barone’s programs. In responding to a question about what
facilitated the process of developing and implementing the partnership, he commented as
follows:

I think we’re on track. I think we’re on track with our plans. I think that

the real good part of this whole process is that the consultant, John Bardy,

when he laid it out, it has been very logical, very measurable in terms of

these are the things we need to do, when we need to do them. . .I think it’s

been a great beneﬁt that we have an outsider that was able to help guide us

through this process. I think if it would’ve been left internally, to an

internal person only, it may or may not have been successful. . .I would

tend to think probably [it] would not have been as successful, and I’m

very, personally I’m very glad that he’s the person we’re working with,

[to] help guide us through this process.

Developing infrastructure. With a champion in place to advance the common
goals held by the various stakeholders, we can start to see the emergence of a developing
infrastructure. Full support of top administration was deemed essential. As mentioned
earlier, both presidents enthusiastically embraced the concept of a strategic partnership.
Referring to Vader’s president, Frank commented, “. . .we both thought this was a

different route for students to pursue, and traditionally this has been a school

where. . .eighteen—, nineteen-year olds come here directly from high school.” Frank was

71

intimately involved, so much so that he spoke of routine lunches with transfer students
where concerns about scholarship money and transfer credits were discussed.
Administrators and faculty were equally cognizant of his involvement and support.
Morgan, for example, expressed his opinion as follows: “. . .when the president says
‘let’s do it’, that empowers people to get on and do some things.” Representing the
faculty perspective, Powell noted:

...the point I’m trying to make is that the administration is committed to

making this a success. And you should feel blessed because once they

have ﬁnally decided that that’s what they wanta do and they’re gonna do

it, and they’re gonna make sure that faculty like, Chuck, okay, is gonna

come along, whether he wants to or not, it’s going to get done.

Although the president had the vision, it was not he who was actively involved in
the actual development and implementation of the partnership. That was delegated to
upper- and middle-level administrators who were ultimately responsible for effectuating
the action strategies constituted by the partnership. Key contacts were to be identiﬁed at
both the university and the community college; each was to be fully acquainted with the
partner institution. In recognizing the comprehensive degree of involvement, Bardy
commented, “So that really began this [partnership] at a different level.”

To foster the level of involvement that was needed, collaboration among both
administrators and faculty within the university was essential. Common goals, collegial
leadership, and encouragement to take risks created a climate conducive to working
together. Good working relationships within the institution are inchoative; only when
they are in place can we hope to ﬁnd positive outcomes to our external reaches. Rich

commented as follows on the value of personal relationships and their evolving nature at

Barone:

72

I’m a very ﬁrm believer in that success is built on personal relationships.
The more personal relationships you can enhance, I ﬁrmly believe the
more success[ful] you’re gonna be, and I think this is an area that inside
Barone we’re developing this--these interpersonal communications, these
interpersonal relationships outside of the partner agreements.

When asked speciﬁcally how faculty had reacted to the initiative, Rich responded, “I
don’t have a lot of contact with a lot of the faculty on this particular issue but those
faculty that have always been involved, have bought into this [partnership] quite

‘

wholeheartedly.” Powell did provide the faculty perspective: ‘. . .we have administrators
who are assigned, like John Bardy, okay. James Morgan. Okay, who are assigned to
make sure that the programs are successful. So when you put time, money, and people
into an effort, then it’s going to become successful.”

Many of the informants mentioned the commitment of additional resources. The
decision to retain an organizational consultant who could focus his time and energies on
the strategic partnership was salient. Two other administrators were hired whose primary
responsibility was to develop and implement partnerships with select community colleges
within the state and across the nation. Others already associated with the university
experienced changed assignments to enable them to devote more time and energy to the
partnership initiatives. Upon reﬂection two years after implementation, Lyons noted:

...it came from the top down and with that, the ability to hire the resources

that we need to get that going. John Bardy—bring him on as a consultant.

Gene Woods was hired. Having him here allowed Bruce [Roberts]

to. . .Bruce was the key person before and it gave him an extra person that

could really focus on putting together plans and all of that for this

program. Then they took James Morgan, about a year ago or maybe two

years ago, [and] this became his focus as well. Just being able to have

adequate resources to do what we needed to do with this, to get this thing

going has been key to getting us to this stage as well...Really having those
resources added has been key.

73

As we have seen, the support of the president is vitally important to the
developing infrastructure as is delegation of responsibilities to key upper- and mid-level
administrators. With adequate resources in place, it is now helpful to turn our attention to
ways of encouraging teamwork among stakeholders. In analogizing the partnership to a
marriage, Rich captured the importance of deepening relationships:

I think [the partnership] enhances the relationship. Bruce Roberts, the

vice president, used a really good analogy one time in that these are like

marriages. Anybody can get married. It’s like an articulation agreement.

You sign a legal document. It’s what you do beyond the signing of that

document that really determines the strength of your partnership. So, if

like in a marriage, if you’re real committed to it, there’s evidence of that

and how it shows. And a partnership, it’s the same thing but it’s a deeper

relationship than just signing a piece of paper. What we’ve noticed in the

past, for most places, that people are quick to sign the articulation agree-

ments and it’s just not real helpful in developing the deeper relationship.

The partnership that we address with Vader, I think addresses that

relationship issue, and I’m a big believer in that. So for me personally, it

opens the doors for me to have better contact with the key players on both

campuses, but particularly at Vader. So it helps me in that way.

The infrastructure was now in place and recognizable. Energy was needed to put
it in motion. Several individuals spoke about momentum, synergy, and a win-win
mindset during their interviews. Lyons, with her experience of over a decade in
enrollment management, was in a unique position to note the strategic changes. She
observed, “There’s a tremendous amount of momentum and a lot more energy, and I
think it’s a win-win for both schools and ultimately the students. For the ﬁrst time in 12
years, [it] seems like it’s really the right way to go about setting up a transfer program.”
Similarly, Roberts in commenting on the logic of approaching the local community
college, spoke about synergy and the benefits derived from working together:

It just seemed like there were so many synergies that we could [take

advantage of by working] together. [It] just didn’t make sense that if
we’re going to do this, why wouldn’t you start with a local community

74

college? And I don’t think we even realized at that time perhaps some of

the strengths they bring. Nor do they understand perhaps some of the

strengths we bring to them.

Frank, in providing the president’s perspective also expressed similar sentiments: “For
this thing to work, both organizations have to be behind it, not just us, not just them. It’s
a win-win for both schools and both schools have to appreciate that, to see it wor .”

The story of how the strategic partnership was envisioned, developed, and
implemented would not be complete without taking a look at the outcomes as seen
through the eyes of the Barone players. Where did they see the partnership going? What
particular concerns might they have?

An important aspect of the partnership document included language about review
and its frequency. Speciﬁcally, the following wording was included in the agreement:
“As a living document, this Statement is subject to review by the partners every two
years.” If the partnership with a particular community college was not fulﬁlling the
stated goals of the agreement, it would not be renewed; and other strategic partners would
be sought. All of the participants were aware of the transient nature of any individual
partnership, and this realization shaped their views as they anticipated the future.
Outcomes as Seen by the Participants

The Barone-Vader partnership had been in existence for precisely two years at the
time of the interviews for this study. The informants provided valuable insight into its
expected evolution and expressed concerns about its sustainability.

Expected evolution. As might be expected, the president as well as the

administrators spoke about maintaining the partnership if deemed worthwhile and

discontinuing it if it were not meeting mutual interests of both institutions. In speaking

75

about the absolute necessity of increasing the number of transfer students, and partnering
strategically toward that end, Frank was explicit:

We’ll have to look at ways we can make sure [the numbers do] increase.
Maybe there are some things we aren’t doing now that should be done.
No reason why the numbers shouldn’t increase. There’s a lot more
community colleges we can work with. I would be pushing that very hard.
Vader’s gonna, I’m sure that’s gonna work out ﬁne, but Miarrri Dade is
working out ﬁne, too. And Misaba will work out ﬁne. I would look at,
for example Maracopa Community College in Phoenix to get Hispanic
folks. El Paso Community College is one we’re dealing with. To get
Hispanic students, to get minority students. Northern Virginia
Community College is another one. There are several down in Florida
besides Miami Dade. We just have to make sure the jobs are around
there. . .So I would be willing to extend it to other community colleges.
I’m certain we’ll get the numbers up by using that vehicle. This is sort of
a, I wouldn’t say a test run, but it’s a, we’re gonna iron out problems here
with the Vader system and some others here, and then we’ll expand it to
other community colleges.

As a top administrator charged with getting the numbers, Roberts frequently
mentioned his concerns about obtaining them throughout his interview. He also
expressed concern about the time and effort required:

I worry about these things because of the labor intensiveness of this. It’s a
great idea, but I am worried whether they’re gonna work or not. What
I’ve already kind of decided in my mind is some of them will and some of
them won’t. And as a university, we’re gonna have to make a decision
how much time we put in some of these; and some we don’t. Because if
I’m only gonna get six students a year out of the community college, I’m
not gonna be able to put much time in that. Maybe six is a good number if
you’re not getting anybody, but that’s not really a partnership. We can
call it that, but that’s not what I’m working for because we can’t live on
those kinds of numbers.

In anticipating future directions, he mentioned his plans for accountability and how he
planned to carry them out:
I think it’s very, very important that we have these performance measure-
ment meetings on a regular basis with the community colleges. And what

I’ve charged Gene Woods with is that he’s in charge of these partner-
ships, and he is to hold meetings on occasion, internally, everybody’s

76

involved, let’s say with the Misaba commitment. And there’s [an annual

plan] being put in place, what we expect to accomplish in the next 12

months. That’s why we’re trying to build these timelines with these

community colleges.

Roberts also mentioned a recent meeting with one of the strategic partners and the ideas
that had been generated. The next step would be to work with the organizational
consultant in developing a calendar of events related to that particular community
college.

Morgan, in his role as director of college transfer partnerships, voiced sirrrilar
sentiments about the evolutionary process associated with the strategic partnerships in
general. He spoke of the lessons learned in this way: “We have learned as we’ve built
relations with other colleges that’s it really is not a one-size-ﬁts-all. Each one really is
unique. I think we’ve got a sound model, and I think we’re building several small
models.”

The individual with the most direct involvement with the community colleges was
Rich. In his frequent trips to campuses as part of his recruiting efforts, he was adequately
situated to assess the potentiality of partnering. His contacts with students, faculty, and
staff enabled him to provide valuable, relevant input about selected community colleges
as potential partners. As he stated, “Because I’m the person on the front lines, obviously,
I get involved pretty much every place.” When asked how effective he felt the
partnership with Vader had been in fulﬁlling its goals, he commented:

It’s hard to measure the full goals because most of the goals are probably

longer term. Short-term goals, mid—term goals, I’d say we’ve been fairly

successful. That the initial indications are that this is being beneﬁcial to

both institutions. I think the jury’s still out on the long-term goals...

Personally, with Vader, I think what we’re doing is really a good thing,

and I would like to see us continue it on an ongoing basis. Some of the
other institutions, I’m not sure about, but Vader, I think, because of the

77

proximity to our school, that there’s advantages for us to maintain that
relationship.

Another aspect the participants commented on in connection with the
evolutionary process associated with the partnership involved the cooperative education
component. As mentioned earlier, cooperative education was the hallmark of a Barone
education in that it provided graduates in engineering and management with invaluable
work experience throughout their baccalaureate program. To maintain a sufﬁcient
number of corporate sponsors so that students could be apprOpriately placed, however,
presented its own set of ongoing challenges.

An adequately functioning partnership held great promise for strengthening the
cooperative education component. Roberts expressed his thoughts about the next step
being the need to develop relationships with area businesses:

The next part of that is the co-op piece. That’s the piece that’s probably

the weakest development part on all of the partnerships together because

we talked at the [partnership] announcement of having maybe even the

community college students already working somewhere, and we just

kinda carry that into a co-op job at Barone. We have not developed that

process yet, nor have we developed that relationship with the employers to

pull it off. But I hope to do that together. That could come in a number of

ways. Students maybe working during the summer with the expectation

that they’re already a student here. The company will already realize,

that’s why I did this because you’re going to go to Barone, and then you’ll

stay here.

Lyons also referred to strengthening the cooperative education component through
partnering. In speaking about outcomes, she referred speciﬁcally to the partnership with
Misaba College which has had a strong co-op program in place: “One of the key things
that I have seen is the partnering with the corporations, the sharing of information, taking

some of the companies that Misaba’s working with and turning those into opportunities

for Misaba-Barone students.”

78

One last aspect associated with the evolutionary process was the possibility of
ofﬂoading, to some extent, the freshmen and sophomore years to the community college.
Perhaps they are better suited to providing the ﬁrst two years of the baccalaureate
program. Smaller classes, taught by faculty well versed in issues of pedagogy, could
provide a sound foundation from which students could advance to upper-level courses.
Those advanced courses would be offered by senior faculty heavily involved in research.
These faculty would be in a position to involve juniors and seniors with their research in
areas such as fuel cells, wireless technology, and the life sciences. Frank put it this way:

As far as institutional planning, we ought to give thought to really

increasing these numbers to the level where you would really change

certain aspects of the whole program. So the freshmen/sophomore years

might be done at a community college. We haven’t gotten to that point

yet, but you got a couple hundred transfer students coming every year, you

can ofﬂoad a lot of the freshmen and sophomore courses. And that’s the

kind of thing I would have in mind. It’s done in a lot of systems right

now. California, that’s one, so where a place like Berkeley only has upper

class courses. I know in Arizona they’re moving to that too.

The participants not only commented upon the expected evolution of the strategic
partnership but also shared their perceptions about outcomes two years after inception. In
doing so, they expressed concern about sustainability and alluded to the dynamic nature
of the partnership.

Outcomes concerns. The participants unequivocally mentioned concern about
sustainability. It was expressed variously in regard to the time and effort required, the
need to demonstrate a substantial increase in the number of transfer students
matriculated, and the continuing need for a champion. Morgan, in speaking about the

partnership as a strategy for increasing the number of transfer students, commented

frankly as follows:

79

In many respects I think the jury is still out. The idea behind it is great but
the amount of time and energy as far as dollars, if you will, that’s being
invested, heck, we could create full tuition scholarships for a whole bunch
of transfer students and increase our enrollment of transfers in a heart beat
and not have to spend the time and energy on it.

Roberts also commented that “it is very labor intensive right now” and expressed
concern about being able to deliver on all that had been promised thus far. He ﬁrmly
believes that the number of strategic partners needs to be limited because “it’s too easy to
commit to all these colleges; we’re gonna do all this stuff, and so far, we’re not even sure
we can do all the stuff we started with the ﬁrst one. And until I can see what’s gonna
happen. . .we’re really spreading ourselves thin.”

Lyons, at the action level of the partnership, was in an ideal position to offer
credible observations. She too had cemented frequently throughout her interview on
concern about time and effort as well as concern about the numbers. Additionally, she
expressed her concern about the continued need for a champion in this way:

We need to make sure that we maintain all of that activity and that we

have somebody like John Bardy. If he’s not the person, [then we] have to

have somebody that’s in that role that can keep this going. Because that to

me was the most difﬁcult part. You’ve got Tim who’s a transfer recruiter,

but it take a tremendous amount of time to set all these activities

[associated with the partnership] up. He really doesn’t have the time.

He’s on the road, recruiting, so to me, if this is gonna work, we need to be

able to maintain that. From my perspective and from what I have seen

over the years of the transfer program, [that] would be my greatest

concern.

Lyons saw the need for a maintenance plan in ensuring the viability of the partnership:

I think coming up with a maintenance plan to ensure these are the

minimum number of things that we’re gonna do each year and these are

the meetings that we’re going to have, [this is what we will do to

encourage] faculty collaboration. . .Coming up with a plan and making
sure that the resources are there to ensure that the plan takes place.

80

Even though those intimately involved with various aspects of the partnership
unanimously voiced concerns about sustainability, they nevertheless expressed optimism
in speaking about the dynamic nature of the partnership and what that held for the future.
Lyons, in reﬂecting on changes in various student services since embarking on the
partnership, commented as follows:

Just an awareness and increased focus has forced us to really take a look at

everything we do and try to make it the best that it can be. And we’re still

not completely there yet. But to be there, it’s always gonna be out there,

and something always probably to keep moving toward because things

keep changing.

Rich drew an analogy to farming, speaking about all that is required at the outset and how
all that will be for naught if care is not taken to nurture what has been put in place. As he
observed, “You have to follow it through all the way ‘til the time you harvest. And then
you have to make plans to do it all over again. And if so, if you wanta have a successful
venture like we’re doing with this partnership, I view it as a never-ending process.”

Even though he had been especially vocal in expressing concern about the time
and effort required by the partnerships in general, Morgan expressed optimism as he
thought about the effectiveness of the Barone-Vader partnership in fulﬁlling its goals:

Just looking at the Barone-Vader relationship, I’d say it’s been effective. I

think it could be more effective. I think we’re getting it. It’s a journey.

We’re all learning. We go to school every day. And you know, as long as

we keep growing and all of that, yeah, it’s gonna grow. And I think good

things are gonna happen.

In expressing his opinion about outcomes, Roberts also expressed a degree of optimism,
noting that the commitment by the partnering community colleges “has been really a

really pleasant surprise.” He explained further as he commented upon how Barone had

changed as a result of the joint undertaking:

81

Barone has changed dramatically. I think there’s far more respect for the

community college education system here. Far more respect for our

partnership schools that we’re working with. Way, way more. A lot of

those misconceptions have gone away. When you’ve got faculty members

at Vader talking to faculty members here, or even about potential. . .that

just makes my heart warm because those things would never have

happened. . .I think it has raised the level of awareness of these community

colleges and what they’re trying to accomplish.

Frank too was optimistic although somewhat guardedly so. As he observed, “1 think it is
going the way I would’ve anticipated it to go. A lot more interest, and Vader students
seem a lot more interested in coming over to Barone which is what we want. Now, [if]
the numbers don’t show in year two—I assume they will.”

Thus we see that Barone, faced with competition for students, decided to do
things differently. In recognizing that it was no longer possible to simply recruit 18- and
19-year-old students in the ways in which they were accustomed, they turned their
attention to a heretofore untapped student population—transfer students. The strategic
partnership represented the vehicle by which community college students could be
adequately prepared for successful transition to Barone. Examining the story of its
development and implementation deepens our understanding of the importance of
creating interdependencies and overcoming resistance to enhance collaborative
undertakings.

The next section examines the original community college with which Barone
sought to partner. It will be noted that the Vader story, much like the Barone story,
consists of the internal workings of administrators and faculty. In addition, though, is the

story of Vader’s receptivity to Barone’s partnership initiatives. As a result, the Vader

story is intertwined with the Barone story in a way that is not evidenced in the Barone

82

story. Examining the story of the partnership in this way will yield a deeper
understanding of the dynamics of collaborative efforts.
Vader Community College

Located just a few miles from Barone University, Vader Community College is
the largest post-secondary education institution in the area. It has a solid reputation for
academic excellence in both its general education and its vocational programs. In
addition to its programs, the college also takes pride in its faculty, small class sizes,
convenient locations, and personalized attention, all of which are designed to ensure
student success to the greatest extent possible (Vader Community College Course
Catalog, 2003-2004)..

The Vader Community College story includes many of the same themes related to
collaborative efforts that were apparent at Barone, but from the community college
perspective. In particular, we will note the originating factors to be a changing
technological society, attention to the ﬁrst two years of a baccalaureate program, and
concern with issues related to student development. As the process story unfolds, we will
again see the common themes to be perceptions about common goals, the need for a
champion, and the developing infrastructure. And, as with Barone, we will note how the
participants perceived outcomes two years after inception. Speciﬁcally, Vader
administrators and faculty spoke about the expected evolution of the partnership and
offered their perceptions about sustainability and the dynamic nature of the partnership.
The Origin of the Strategic Partnership

The nascent factors that encouraged Vader’s adoption of the strategic partnership

were different from those of Barone. They include a changing technological society,

83

attention to the ﬁrst two years of a baccalaureate program, and concern with issues
related to student development.

Changing technological society. Community colleges are increasingly feeling
the pressure to ensure that their occupational programs prepare graduates for employment
in the communities they serve. Given the rapid rate of technological change, this is no
small feat. Program review is an important aspect of ensuring efﬁciency. As
employment needs change, so too must the curricular offerings. Faculty must work
constantly to keep abreast of technology. Administrators are faced not only with the
challenges of ensuring that adequate resources are in place for the various program
offerings but also with the unpleasant task of discontinuing programs when warranted.

Dr. Peter Bosco, president of Vader Community College, spoke openly about
these challenges throughout his interview. In referring to the external environment, he
stated:

Employment taxes are down because our employment picture is worse

than any other state. And that’s borne itself [out] through the revenue

committee saying that this year we’re gonna experience a $340 million,

$370 million deﬁcit out of this year’s budget. That is based really on the

loss of revenue from. . .all employment sectors. . .We’re being hit harder

than most other states.

He spoke also about the difﬁculties in forecasting employment needs and the attendant
curricular implications:

What should we be training for? What should we have our faculty look

into? What new programs should we be looking at for the people next?

So, in the meantime, we continue on with the programs we have. We

never give up a program. And I have to really commend our faculty

because they’re looking at their own programs to see how they can bring
them up to date.

84

According to Bosco it was becoming more and more difﬁcult to forecast future
employment needs. Ten or ﬁfteen years ago it was possible to do studies to predict the
high demand areas. He gave the example of the community clearly saying to the
community college that there was a need in information technology, that that is where the
jobs were going to be in the future. He mentioned his recent attendance at an American
Association of Community Colleges seminar where a report listing the top ten
occupations was released. Nine of those ten occupations were in the service industry and
required little in the way of academic preparation. Bosco expressed his frustration this
way: “So when we sit here and we try to identify and drive our content, curriculum, [for]
the next ﬁve, seven years, what we can’t answer is what jobs are gonna be out there?
What should we be teaching?”

Bosco then mentioned Barone and its advantage of being “a very specialized
area” with “a very broad market area.” He explained that Vader looked to Barone for
help in deciding “what should we be training our workforce who typically stays in our
community [to do]?” When asked speciﬁcally about the role meeting state employment
needs rrright have played in the development of the strategic partnership, Bosco spoke
about the value of the co-operative education component. He explained the beneﬁts as
follows:

There is an economic advantage for an individual who graduates from

Barone University. A couple reasons. One, because they’re a co-op

institution and part of your enrollment as a student is that you will spend

approximately a year in a co-op experience. So you have an advantage in

one, more experience by the time you graduate and two, you have con-

tacts. And you have those employers who will provide recommendation
letters for you if they don’t hire you.

85

Jaclyn Russell, in her role as the transfer counselor, was adequately situated to
comment on the advantages of partnering with Barone. She spoke of the efforts Barone
made to involve Vader at various levels. Barone staff routinely visited Vader’s campus,
addressing counselors in staff meetings. They also invited Vader to participate in various
events occurring on Barone’s campus. It had gotten to the point where both institutions
sought to involve the other with various happenings on their respective campuses.
According to Russell, "We have gotten so that we always inform each other, each school,
when we’re inviting a guest speaker or we’re having a workshop that we think the faculty
or the staff would be interested in at the other school.”

She also explained how this situation was different from those arrangements that
simply involved articulation agreements: “I think we’ve done more of that than other
schools that perhaps we have signed articulation agreements with. Very often, it’s ‘okay,
let’s all get together and sign this agreement, and everybody has dinner together or
whatever, and that’s probably it.”’ Lastly, Russell also talked about Barone’s unique
ability to prepare students in those areas involving technology. In speaking about the
well-equipped labs designed to meeting changing technologies, she observed, “1 think
one of the advantages of going to Barone is to see how many wonderful toys, if you will,
that they have for students to [get] the hands—on [experience].” Russell also spoke
positively about Barone’s outreach in this way: “The Barone people are willing to come
and make sure that our students and our faculty know where the future is going. What

they see for the technical ﬁeld as well as the computer ﬁeld.”

86

As we have seen, a changing technological society provided impetus for the two
institutions to partner. Another originating factor from the Vader perspective involved
attention to the ﬁrst two years of a baccalaureate program.

Attention to the ﬁrst two years of a baccalaureate program. In reﬂecting upon an
early conversation with Frank about partnering, Bosco spoke of his own receptivity. In
fact, the idea so appealed to him that he suggested they set up a “test pilot.” If it proved
successful, it could then be taken around to other community colleges. As Bosco
explained:

What you hope to accomplish when you look at the mission of the

community college is that we’re a two-year college, associate degree

granting, and we have an open door policy. So we accept people in, we

provide developmental education to make sure that they’re [prepared] to

go on to a college course. And one of our missions is to be a pipeline and

a feeder system to four-year colleges and universities. And the more

partnerships that we have garnered, that provide that avenue for our

students, the better off we are, the community is, our students are.

He speciﬁcally mentioned Barone, observing that heretofore few Vader students had
attended there even though both institutions resided in the same community. In thinking
about the advantages of partnering with Barone, Bosco said:

The other advantage is the fact that, one of the things that Dr. Frank said,

[is that] very few of the students in [our city] and [our county] were

attending Barone. And we saw that we had a global institution that [is]

top in the world and what a better opportunity for our students [than] to be

able to go on and enter.

Beyond addressing the role Barone could play in providing baccalaureate options
for Vader students in a general way, Bosco also spoke of a more specific function.
According to Bosco, Frank envisioned Barone’s accepting students who were not quite

ready for the Barone curriculum. Those students, matriculated at Barone, would enroll in

appropriate Vader courses. Bosco referred speciﬁcally to calculus, observing that since

87

calculus was not offered at Barone, Frank wanted to send those students to Vader because
it was “remedial for Barone.”

Not surprisingly, the other Vader participants had much to say about the issue of
the freshmen/sophomore years and how the partnership might impact them. Stanley
Small, an administrator in the academic ofﬁce, talked about his concerns for students’
ability to transfer seamlessly from Vader to the institution of their choice. In explaining
his perception of the role transfer students played in the development of the strategic
partnership, he referred to transfer students as the “fundamental ingredient.” He also
compared the strategic partnership with the articulation agreements that had been in place
for years:

Before I took this ofﬁce, we had lots of articulation agreements that

covered a quantity of different subject matter, different institutions. And

many of them were, and I mean this literally, it’s a cliché, but literally

were not worth the paper they were written on. They were worth nothing.

Because any agreement that spells out that we have this arrangement,

students can transfer, and concludes with the receiving institution “can

change at any time without notice” is useless. That does nothing for my

students. 80 we have a group here called the articulation transfer task

force that I am the leader of, and I set out as a goal [that] we would not

have any articulation agreements in the future that did not have a two-year

warranty. So that any student starting here is on the same footing as a

student starting at the transfer institution. . .With the partnership that

Barone proposed, that was really going even a step further. That was

really emphasizing this agreement and protection.

An administrator in student services, Mark Miller, was also well positioned to
comment on the role the community college could serve. As he remembered,
conversation had taken place with the “Barone folks” about the wisdom of discussing the
partnership with high schools as part of their recruiting efforts. If high school counselors

and students were aware of the beneﬁts of a Barone education, they could use this

information in their academic planning, ensuring that their high school curriculum was

88

adequately preparing them for attendance at Vader followed by successful transfer to
Barone. He spoke not only of the obvious cost savings of attending Vader but also of one
of the advantages of the partnership: Students who might not be ready for enrollment at
Barone would be referred to speciﬁc courses at Vader that would provide the necessary
skills and abilities.

Russell provided further clariﬁcation about the concept of referral to the
community college rather than denial to the university. She explained it this way: “Part
of the goal was to show students, regardless of where they were with the math skills or
their writing skills or whatever, that they could take classes at the community college
level that would prepare them to transfer and be right on track for the Barone classes.”
Russell also explained that “one of the reasons for the partnership was to make it a viable
option for students to know that they could start here at Vader, and they could transfer to
Barone and be ready to take all of their engineering courses or their management courses
or whatever they were gonna go into.” She too mentioned the economics of attending the
community college, observing that “our tuition is just a fraction of what a private
university tuition is. All of these background classes that they can get at Vader are
classes they don’t have to pay four-year private school tuition for.”

Barbara Mason, associate dean of science and math, provided yet another
perspective. It was important that Barone view Vader and its curriculum in a favorable
light. As she stated, “It is really important that Barone believes the quality of our courses
is at the level that they need.” She explained the involvement of key faculty from
physics, chemistry, and math in the early meetings, observing that they held “a pretty

high-end requirement level for the upper-level students.” According to Mason, these

89

faculty “try to be ubiquitous for people that are developmental, they’re thinking of all
learning styles, and all previous math damage. But I think when you’re competing in the
big leagues and going to Baron, you do need academic challenge.”

Adam VanHouten, a physical sciences instructor, provided the faculty voice.
Relatively new to the Vader faculty, he was hired full time during the fall of 2002, at the
time when the partnership was being implemented. Mason had brought him in as one of
the key faculty mentioned above. He soon became involved in reviewing and
restructuring the engineering curriculum as well as in advising students. According to
VanHouten, one of the incentives for Vader to partner with Baron was to increase
enrollment in the college’s science and math courses and to familiarize Vader students
with the advantages of a Barone education. As he stated, “It really kinda ﬁred people up
about science and math, especially when they see Barone is ranked in the top ten in some
of the different ﬁelds.”

We have seen how both a changing technological society and attention to the ﬁrst
two years of a baccalaureate program played a part in the inception of the strategic
partnership. The ﬁnal originating factor that we will consider concerns issues of student
development and how concern with them was addressed by the partnership.

Issues of student development. Miller spoke at length about the necessity of
understanding the issues inherent in student development. Describing it as “a big part of
the student services literature” that indicates students are going through a developmental
process unique to educational institutions, he explained its importance in counseling and
advising. Miller perceives “student development as all of student services”;

consequently, he suggests that advisors, in counseling students about transfer, need to

90

discuss more than just instructional issues and courses to be taken. Specifically, the
student’s development should be addressed including “long-term career aspirations and
challenges they’ll face at Barone.”

When asked to describe what he believed student development should be about,
Miller mentioned the difficulties community colleges face as a result of the student
populations they are designed to serve. According to Miller, “We [not just Vader] run an
operation that runs against student development. It slices education up into little chunks,
get it on the run, park their car quick, run into each class, and run to whatever else you’re
doing.” By comparison, though, an institution such as Barone was better suited to meet
student needs. As Miller explained, “Whereas a place like Barone will focus much more
on student development. They will be much more aware [of] taking responsibility for the
lives of their students.”

From her perspective as the transfer counselor, Russell also alluded to issues of
student development. In particular, she mentioned the idea of enhancing students’
chances for success as a salient reason for developing the strategic partnership. The goal
was not simply to increase the number of transfer students. As she explained it, “The
idea was to try to improve a student’s chances of being successful. Taking the right
classes here at Vader, getting a good foundation, so that when they transfer to Barone
they will do well.”

Russell, in describing Vader’s three goals, mentioned workforce training, occupa-
tional education resulting in the associate of applied science degree, and transfer

education leading to a baccalaureate degree. In further elaborating upon the transfer

91

student population, she spoke about the valuable role the community college could play
for some students. As she explained it:

I think another reason is because some students. . .may end up wanting to

go to a school like Barone; they may not have been serious students when

they were in high school. They may not have been very successful when

they were in high school. So the community college is a good place for

them to ﬁnd out that they do have the ability, they just need to take some

classes to kind of catch up, if you will, and prepare themselves for a four-

year college experience.

Mason also spoke about the various reasons for which students attended Vader.
Frequently, students attended the community college in order to make up some
deﬁciency before applying to a four-year institution. She also described another group of
students “that probably could make it at Barone but don’t know that yet. They don’t set a
high enough goal for themselves.” She expressed concern for both groups—those that
were trying to overcome a deﬁciency and those that were without a goal—in terms of
academic persistence. According to Mason, the question of whether there was even a
pool of students “really capable of doing this” was addressed during one of the initial
meetings. Obviously, it was decided that there were.

When asked if there was anything else that contributed to the inception of the
partnership, Mason mentioned the importance of empowering students to view
themselves as capable of fulﬁlling their academic dreams. She explained it this way:

There are students with no capacity to envision themselves as anything

ever higher than a family from which they came, and sometimes they

think they have no right. So my request to Barone was to allow those

students to have an opportunity to go to Barone. 1 can’t see myself at

some place that I’ve never been. So if I’m reaching for more students than

just the already college intending, I have to allow them to see themselves

as a student, making something different out of their lives. And that’s if I

were to say what I thought was wrong with a lot of students, it’s that they

haven’t set that goal, and then they don’t have a way to envision them-
selves when they’ve achieved that goal.

Mason views support as the key ingredient for helping students transition successfully.
She stated unequivocally, “The support makes all the difference in the world.” Providing
students with an identity was one important way of establishing the necessary support.
Mason sees it this way:

I think it’s really good for them to have an identity. And when you get to
Barone, you have a huge support. You have college graduates [that] have
done great things, and they’re all coming back. That’s why it’s Barone
now instead of IMG because Barone went there and did something great.
All these people that did are willing to put their name on the line. I’m
willing to have this person work in my business as well as I know they
have this excellent education. So there’s a whole different support group.
It’s a little bit like a fraternity.

VanHouten provided the faculty perspective. As a newly hired physical sciences
instructor, he was interested in “energizing the engineering program.” When asked about
the role transfer students had played in the development of the partnership, VanHouten
explained the curricular implications related to the engineering program as follows:

The transition, that’s kind of the main thing about the whole partnership.
Going to Barone anyway. . .The key here is that because we are such a
small, inner community school, that we don’t have that many students. So
the whole key is physics is only offered in the fall; statics is only offered
in the fall. So you wanta make sure that they’re there with their math
skills to get in sequence. So that was the main thing that the partnership,
for me as an instructor, is getting these students to the class when they
need to be so they’re not here three extra years or two extra years because
“oh, I didn’t get physics in the fall so now I have to wait a whole nother
year.” And that could be the only class they need or it could be based on a
sequence of classes that they would have to ﬁnish up. So that was the key
thing right there, just sequencing of classes.

Because of the absolute necessity of adequate preparation and careful sequencing,
VanHouten emphasized the importance of careful advising, a responsibility that he now
had as a result of the partnership. He opined that faculty were better suited to do the

academic advising than were the advisors because it was “not their area of training.” In

93

further explicating his involvement with the partnership, VanHouten stated, “You want
things to work out for yourself and for the student. I mean, my main goal is to make sure
that the students [are] at the level where they can go to a four-year university.”

As we have seen, the originating factors that led to the development of the
strategic partnership were much different for the two institutions. Once the decision was
made to move ahead, however, there was nothing unique in the themes that emerged.
Thus we will see that there are common threads throughout both the process story and the
participants’ perceptions of outcomes two years after implementation of the partnership.
The Process Story

As we saw with Barone, establishing an arrangement as complex as the strategic
partnership required considerable collaboration. The critical factors involved in the
development and implementation of the strategic partnership include perceptions about
common goals, the need for a champion, and the developing infrastructure.

Perceptions about common goals. The informants frequently mentioned the
necessity of ensuring a seamless pathway for students in pursuit of a baccalaureate degree
at Barone. Bosco, in recognizing the importance of going beyond articulation to ensure
student success, talked about ways to do that. Speciﬁcally, he mentioned faculty
interaction in which Barone faculty had a presence on Vader’s campus and whereby they
became actively involved in the advising of students. To help them further identify with
Barone, Vader students were invited to various activities on Barone’s campus. Thus in
addition to having the beneﬁt of advising, they also developed familiarity with Barone’s
facilities and curricula. Familiarizing students with Barone and its offerings, though, was

not enough. Bosco also spoke about the need to align curriculum:

94

It’s always the fact of having to ﬁnd out what changes have been made to
that university’s curriculum. And then changing ours to match. . .We want
to make sure we’re following the ﬁrst two years of what they’re wanting,
but more importantly, it’s really for that identity that the student has. And
strengthen it. So however we can do that.

Small was also very clear about the importance of seamless transition, stating that
he wanted to ensure that “students are well protected, that there can be a smooth
transition from our institution to the transfer institution, and that students will not have
the rug pulled out from under them academically.” When asked speciﬁcally about what
he had hoped to get out of the strategic partnership, he drew a comparison between
simple articulation and the comprehensive partnership. He explained it this way:

What I hope to accomplish from and what I saw as a great promise is that
this went beyond simply being an articulation, and what I saw as a great
promise is that this went beyond simply being an articulation agreement.
It wasn’t just a 2 + 2. Indeed, depending on the major, there’s not two
years here. But it wasn’t the typical 2 + 3 which would’ve been the case
with Barone’s ﬁve-year program. But it involved a real working together,
thus not an agreement that was hammered out and that exists until we
pitch it or revise it. But that it’s hammered out, and then we continue to
work in partnership. And I think the differences between the strategic
partnership and simply the transfer or articulation agreement are relatively
profound.

Russell too was in an important position to comment on the importance of
working toward the same goal. As the transfer counselor, she was intimately concerned
with issues of student success in the transfer process. In commenting on Barone’s
involvement, she said:

They really do want it to succeed, and they wanta know what’s going on

and how we can do things more effectively to result in the students’

making a decision and being successful at the four-year institution. I think

that’s the key component. You’ve gotta have people that care and that
wanta ﬁnd out how to help students be successful.

95

She also spoke about the importance of faculty having similar goals and their efforts in
helping students prepare for successful transition:

How many times do you see one of those Barone professors that are
willing to come over to Vader and have dinner and break bread and talk to
community college students, and tell them about the chemistry depart-
ment? Or tell them about the math classes. It’s really refreshing to have
them do that. And, of course, some of them, we’ve found out, are quite
humorous. And you know, some of them probably would’ve scared
students to death. I mean, this is Barone. They’re all so serious. But it
has really made them approachable people. . .I think it’s really important.

Russell also mentioned another common goal as an important incentive for the
two institutions to partner. Because of the serious economic challenges inherent in their
environment, Barone and Vader both deemed it important to show the community that
they could work together. Doing so could result in tremendous beneﬁts not only for
students and the two institutions but also for their city and the surrounding communities.
As she explained:

There was a real desire between the president of Barone and Dr. Bosco,

our president. I think this was something they really wanted to do. They

wanted to show [the city] that we work together, that Vader and Barone

are both interested in the residents of this community being able to

succeed by attending both schools and getting what they need from Vader

to be able to go on to Barone. I think that was one of the factors. There

was a real goal of wanting to see that work.

VanHouten provided the faculty voice. In discussing his perception about
common goals and the role they played in the early stages, he mentioned both the student
issue and the community aspect. According to VanHouten:

Everybody in education, pretty much, is somewhat easy going. ..lt’s easy

to work together with people that want the same goal or have the same

goals. . .We kind of all had the same goals, wanted to build enrollment

here, wanted to build enrollment there. At least in my perspective, that’s

what [we were working for]...I know there’s a lot of community good will
that they wanted to get for Vader and for Barone.

96

As with Barone, we have seen how the Vader participants held common goals,
which was an important factor for the development of the strategic partnership. The
appearance of an individual who could provide the impetus to move forward represents
the second critical factor. "a-

Need for a champion. Small spoke at length about the role Bardy, the
organizational consultant hired by Barone, played in the development of the partnership.
It was Bardy who made the initial contact, wanting to meet with him in his capacity as an
administrator in the academic ofﬁce. Others were soon brought into the conversation
including the associate dean for science and math; faculty from math, chemistry, and
physics; and the administrator from student services. With Bardy’s direction and
guidance, they began operationalizing various aspects of the partnership. Both presidents
had approved it in concept; now it was time to do what was necessary to, as Small put it,
“make this happen.”

Small explained Bardy’s involvement in carrying out the action strategies. He
played a key role in setting up the early exploratory meetings. These were held on
Vader’s campus and involved both administrators and faculty. He was also instrumental
in organizing other activities on both campuses to encourage faculty interaction as well as
continued dialogue among key administrators. As Small stated:

We have had faculty-to-faculty contact. We have had mutual events held

together. Some of them involving state-wide or at least region-wide

groups, manufacturing design, so forth; and we’ve also hosted on this

campus—Barone people talking to Vader students. This is an avenue that

Vader students frequently did not consider possible.

He also mentioned how the partnership was quite different from the other agreements that

had been in place. He commented, “I think the cooperation and collaboration that goes

97

on all the time sets this aside from what are our usual, typical agreements. In the
beginning, this is what I hoped for. That we could have that kind of relationship.” In
speaking about the presidents’ involvement and the media coverage, he was emphatic
about Bardy’s role: “Eventually the presidents came over [for a signing ceremony] and
[we] had TV stations and whatever, and they signed the agreements. But it’s the nuts and
bolts of the daily operation, and I cannot emphasize too much the important role Dr.
Bardy played in all this.”

When asked what had fostered the ability of the two institutions to work together
in the early stages, Small mentioned the leadership of both presidents, their willingness to
work “in concert with each other,” and the importance of others also working together.
He also gave credit where he felt it was due: “John Bardy is a very capable guy, and I
think he was the lynchpin and took action with all of us.” Later in the interview, he
spoke about the absence of competition and the presence of collaboration. Again, be
credited Bardy and his ability to foster a collaborative environment:

I think I can say this without any exception. At no point in the discussions

with Barone, was it ever competition. That we can work together. I hope

that in planning the future, that kind of relationship can be developed with

some other institutions and further developed with Barone. But that we

sat down together and talked, and they certainly brought ideas that hadn’t

occurred to me. But we talked and worked collaboratively. Again, I

would credit John Bardy. He’s been very important to this. Worked

collaboratively together. I think that can be done, and I think it’s very

healthy. I think it really works. But I think it’s relatively rare.

Miller was similarly complimentary about Bardy but from another perspective. In
speaking about his involvement in the early meetings, Miller mentioned Barone’s

reputation as an incentive for working with them. He explained it this way: “Barone is

very prestigious, and it would be nice for some of our students to go to a school like that.

98

Again, partnerships are a good thing, and Barone was really courting from what I could
see.” In speaking speciﬁcally about Bardy, Miller mentioned his background in student
affairs as reason for his credibility: “John Bardy seemed really knowledgeable. I guess
he’s had a lot of community college experience. And I like to relate to him in particular
because he seemed to understand a lot of the dynamics from the student affairs per-
spective. I think he’s got a background in student affairs.”

Mason, when asked what she believed had contributed to the institutions’ ability
to work together, mentioned both Morgan and Bardy. As Barone’s director of college
transfer programs and the consultant respectively, both were in a unique position to spend
considerable time and energy on the partnership. This did not go unnoticed by Mason.
As she observed: “They were able to focus completely on this so they were able to
trouble shoot early on, nurture, get it up high enough that, [if] the balloon started coming
down a little bit, they could blow a little hot air in there. It didn’t just have it be an
agreement quickly done. They did come back to nurture it.”

Developing infrastructure. With a champion in place to advance the common
goals held by the Vader participants, we can start to see the emergence of a developing
infrastructure. As we saw with Barone, conditions now were conducive for moving
forward.

The support of top administration was deemed essential. As has been previously
noted, Frank had the vision of increasing the number of transfer students, a heretofore
untapped market for Barone. He found Bosco enthusiastically receptive and thus the
process of developing the partnership started to unfold. When asked speciﬁcally what

factors fostered the ability of the two institutions to work together, Bosco answered as

99

follows: “I think the key thing is the two presidents really have a desire to wanta make it
happen and not just pay lip service to it.” Throughout his interview he sometimes
compared the nature of the relationship with Barone to those with other institutions,
which were typically fraught with challenges. He credited Frank with the positive nature
of the Barone-Vader relationship, observing as follows:

Excuse me for saying it, but a traditional university approach, they’re

above. But he’s not. And with all the degrees he has, all the experience

he has, he’s a very common sense thinker, [a] very down-to-earth person.

And so if any other things happen, it’s because he’s making it happen.

And he’s reaching out and paying more than just lip service.

Small offered a different perspective when he was asked about the presidents’
involvement in the early stages. Although Barone was considered “a very ﬁne
institution,” it had pretty much existed in isolation, remaining separate from the
community. Small believed that to be the result of its being a one-corporation
“phenomenon,” serving only that individual corporation’s needs. As it evolved and
eventually became Barone University, that philosophy changed; and the institution began
reaching out into the community. It was as a part of those efforts that the presidents
embraced the concept of the partnership. Small explained it this way: “I think that it was
positive that those two personalities had similar interests. Dr. Bosco is a good listener, is
very active in community liaison. . .so I think that helped things to go, and the fact that the
presidents had talked—that then ﬁltered down to Bruce Roberts at Barone and others.”

Other players also recognized the importance of top-level support for the
developing infrastructure. When she was asked who had been involved in the early

stages, Mason answered as follows: “I am sure this was done at the president’s level.

President Frank and President Bosco, wanting to make this happen because otherwise it’s

1 00

not going to happen.” Similarly, Russell also acknowledged the importance of
presidential support. As she explained it, “Initially, our president and their president
were really the ones that wanted to see this work. By the time it gets down to my level,
it’s more working with the students and making sure that they have the opportunity to be
successful.”

Although support at the top was crucial, it was not the president who was actively
involved with the development and implementation of the partnership. With Vader, as
with Barone, it was typical for the president to delegate responsibilities associated with
the partnership. Bosco explained it this way: “I may not know all the details, but that’s
where if we didn’t have that detail, if somebody didn’t take on that role, if the vice
president didn’t assign that and follow through, it’d be lost.” He spoke speciﬁcally about
the process he used at Vader: “What I do is I give it back, and I take it to our academic
vice president, and he takes it from there. And he’ll involve Stan Small, in the academic
ofﬁce, [and others]. Then they drive it to other faculty and the associate deans. . .I can’t
make anything happen without other people getting excited.” Thus, as with Barone, we
see that that it is important to identify key contacts at each institution. As Bosco
observed: “You make sure you have a contact person. I asked Tom Frank, ‘Who should
we have our people work with [at Barone]?’ . . .So really basically you have people
understand who they coordinate with back and forth and talk to and make things happen.”

Small also spoke about the importance of bringing the right people together. In
discussing the very early stages of development where “we would meet and explore and
[feel] out what direction we could go in,” he speciﬁcally mentioned the involvement of

Mason, the associate dean of science and math; Miller, the associate dean of counseling

101

and student development; a math faculty member, the director of admissions, and
Russell, the transfer counselor. VanHouten came on board later. According to Small:

Adam [VanHouten] was sort of tapped by Barbara [Mason] as being, he

was a new faculty member here, as being one who could move this.

Maybe he would be the person cuz engineering was his area, and I think

he has done an outstanding job. He was very proactive; he’s been very

cooperative. He has been a good face for Vader students, and working

with Vader students and working with Barone as well.

When asked if he had concerns about the partnership once Bardy was no longer involved,
Small answered this way, underscoring the importance of involving the right people:

Sure. I think people have been important in how this has evolved. Just as

I think that if Barbara Mason were not here, I think if I were not here, this

could provide a challenge I would hope would be momentary, but yeah, I

think it would be a challenge [if Bardy were no longer involved]. But I

think that both institutions have bought into it now, that it would not belly

up. Both institutions know more about the other than they used to.

Miller, when asked who had the responsibility of moving the partnership forward,
corroborated what Small had said. As he explained it: “My perspective, he picked up the
responsibility, Stan Small. He was, as I recall, involved right from the start. My
impression was that John Bardy was on his doorstep all the time, and Stan Small was on
everybody else’s doorstep here at the college.”

As we saw with Barone, collaboration among both administrators and faculty
within the college was essential in order to foster the necessary level of involvement.
Again we see that common goals, encouragement to take risks, and collegial leadership
provided the appropriate climate for the partnership to develop.

As mentioned previously, support was generated at the presidential level and

delegated as appropriate to top— and mid-level managers. Without faculty buy-in,

however, the partnership was doomed to failure. As Bosco bluntly put it, “If the faculty

102

does not want it to happen, it ain’t gonna happen.” Miller also spoke about the challenges
faculty could present. He alluded to their lack of an external focus, when compared to
administrators: “Knowing faculty as I do, faculty don’t care. They’re tenured; and
unless the university declares a state of ﬁnancial emergency, they don’t worry about their
jobs.” When asked about the extent to which collaboration might result in increased risk
taking, he again talked about faculty: “1 think risk taking would’ve been what if the
Barone faculty had dug in their heels on the transfer arrangements? Course recognition
arrangements?” As mentioned earlier, faculty tend to be more inwardly focused in that
their time is devoted to the issues inherent in teaching, learning, and curriculum.

Small similarly mentioned the quashing effect faculty could have because of their
different perspectives. In describing some recent efforts to collaborate with another four-
year university, he talked about administrators being in concert but not faculty. As he
stated, “We can make arrangements with [the other university], administratively, for
things that we think are really good and then have them torpedoed by faculty. This has
happened repeatedly. And so that has been problematic.”

All of these observations notwithstanding, Russell was able to offer a varied
perspective. Something was different in the Vader-Barone partnership. Alluding to the
common goals, she observed as follows:

I think one of the things that the partnership has done, it has made it easier

for Jim Morgan to come over here and to set up times in classrooms and

get faculty to take away from their classroom agendas to let students know

what opportunities are available at Barone. The Barone people are willing

to come and make sure that our students and our faculty know where the

future is going. What they see for the technical ﬁeld as well as the

computer ﬁeld.

She also inferred the benefits of collegial leadership in collaborative endeavors, noting:

103

I think it’s really been refreshing for Vader to see what a good partnership

and working relationship we have had with the faculty and the staff and

the administrators, because that doesn’t always happen with four-year

institutions. Some that you might think would by dying to work with the

community college more. It hasn’t happened.

Mason spoke about the importance of understanding each other’s institution as a
condition for working out the issues and challenges once the decision was made to
partner. When asked what facilitated the ability of the two institutions to work together
at this point, she answered, “You have people that have known each other and worked
together over time, in the two institutions, so there’s a personal knowledge and awareness
of how things go. And then there has to be long-term respect between the institutions
themselves.”

Small also commented on differences he had observed as the partnership evolved.
Surprisingly, they had to do with faculty and how they now approached things
differently. According to Small:

There wasn’t any [dialoguing] going on before. One of the things that has

come of this is that Barone is keeping us informed. They’re now inviting

us to their professional development activities for faculty. I think we have

done that reciprocally. One of our faculty conducted a session for them in

the past several months. Psychologist here. So there is more exchange.

When asked what he felt should be the next step for the partnership (two years after
implementation), he answered as follows:

I think the next step for me is to explore other ways that we can work

together. The foreign language [possibility], what can be done with the

community. What we can do for Barone students. Furthering the faculty

interconnections and sharing our resources. By that I don’t mean ﬁscal
resources. I mean human resources and whatever kinds of other resources.

To understand the developing infrastructure, we have looked at top-level support,

key contacts, and collaboration among administrators and faculty. It is also informative,

1 O4

as we did with the Barone participants, to brieﬂy consider the energizing forces that were
at work. VanHouten provided the important faculty perspective in answering a question
about creativity coming from the partnership. His comments allude to the beneﬁt of
looking externally as well as to the effects of synergy:

Creativity? It just kinda gets you to think. I’ve been doing a physics

discipline review at the same time [that I’ve been associated with the

partnership], so I just think of what other schools are doing, look at that

sort of thing. It makes you think, ‘Oh, maybe I could do this or do that.’

So it does stimulate some thought.

Bosco, as president, naturally exempliﬁed that external focus. In reﬂecting upon
the development and implementation of the partnership, he had much to say about
energizing factors. Speciﬁcally, he mentioned weekly cabinet meetings “where we sit
around the table and throw out ideas.” If there was consensus that a particular project,
such as the partnership, was worth pursuing, several elements were critical for its success.
According to Bosco, “You have to have the right people who take an interest in it, who
have a passion in it.” Recognizing the critical importance of faculty buy-in, he also said,
“In any higher education institution, you’re not gonna have anything like this happen
unless you have your academic department, instructional unit, give its blessing.” He also
spoke convincingly about the need to motivate and the importance of collegial leadership,
offering both the vice president of academic services and the vice president of student
services as exemplars. He explained it this way:

That’s part of leadership. You have to have that passion. Dream. We’ve

always dreamed of having things like this happen. It’s not gonna happen

to the fullest extent unless there is that passion and excitement about what

will happen.

When asked to comment on his leadership style, he said:

105

One of the things I value is I want everybody to speak their mind. . .They

understand that I make the ﬁnal decision, but that I respect their

thoughts.. .Trust that everybody wants to do a good job. . .Support is not

always in dollar amounts. It can be just being there and supporting them,

with your attendance or the fact that you listen to them. Get excited about

their ideas. . .It’s a lot of common sense. I’m not an expert. But just listen

and trust, and it doesn’t mean that don’t oversee or verify or ask a lot of

questions. But if you ﬁnd things are happening, then you jump in. But I

know that that’s the kind of leadership that I like and I’ve always had from

CEOs. I’ve had the autocratic ones, the micro—manager ones. I thought

‘what a waste.’ That’s what I envision I am.

The story of how the strategic partnership was envisioned, developed, and
implemented would not be complete without taking a look at the outcomes as seen
through the eyes of the Vader players. Where did they see the partnership going? What
particular concerns might they have?

As mentioned earlier, the partnership document included language about the
frequency of review—“every two years.” At the time of the semi-structured interviews,
the partnership had been in place for almost exactly two years. Thus it was time for
“review by the partners.”

Outcomes as Seen by the Participants

The Vader players did not have the same concerns with increasing the number of
transfer students or with issues of accountability as had the Barone informants. They did,
nevertheless, provide valuable insight into its expected evolution and expressed optimism
about its sustainability.

Expected evolution. According to Bosco, community colleges were frequently
involved in collaborative endeavors; partnerships were certainly nothing new. He

intimated that some partnerships could actually be detrimental. However, most

institutions had had enough experience with the undesirable ones so that they now “know

106

what to stay away from.” In elaborating further, he stated, “More important, I think, it’s
an entrepreneurial spirit that we’re not afraid of getting into something new. The more
experience you have, the more able you are to say, ‘Yeah, we’d do that.’ But you
understand what your limits are and what constitutes the elements of going into a
collaboration or a partnership.”

He spoke speciﬁcally about the beneﬁts of partnering with an institution of
Barone’s caliber: greater ability to obtain grants as well as additional articulations and
partnerships. It boded well for the future. As he stated, “It’s a status symbol now. . .The
whole thing is centered around giving the best advantage to our students. . .I’m just so
pleased with the trust level that we have. We’re doing it for all the right reasons.”

In reference to its being time for review, Small said that the partnership was “not
old enough that I could talk much about evolution. I would instead talk about nurturing.”
He clariﬁed, though, that “certainly [there were] no negative outcomes” and that it had
evolved as he thought it would. He opined as follows: “I hope that it continues to grow
stronger, and I’m excited about this potential for expanding into our doing something that
has a community impact.”

Mason also mentioned the need to nurture, drawing an analogy between the
current status of the partnership with that of a garden. She explained its fragility in this
way: “So right now, it’s positive. It could just as easily be negative if we don’t nurture
it.” She also spoke about the need for accountability as the partnership evolved.
According to Mason, “You have to hold yourself open for some sort of public evaluation.

You really do have to get the data, and you really do have to look at it.”

107

VanHouten was similarly cognizant of the desirability of increasing the number of
students associated with the partnership. In viewing the situation macroscopically, he
was able to identify a way to take some of the pressure off the community college. He
explained it this way:

We are getting some students, and we’ve really learned that we should

probably be hitting the high schools a little bit harder. [We should be]

taking our show on the road a little bit. . .If we really want to build this

program up, it really doesn’t start here at the community college. The

community college is the middle step. We really need to get high school

students involved.

In addition to commenting on the expected evolution of the strategic partnership,
the informants also shared their perceptions about outcomes two years after inception. In
so doing, they addressed the issue of sustainability and alluded to the dynamic nature of
the partnership in ways similar to those of the Barone participants.

Perceptions. Although the participants voiced concern about sustainability, it was
not to the same degree as with the Barone informants. It was variously expressed as the
necessity of a plan and the continuing need for a champion. When asked what he felt the
next step for the partnership should be, Miller answered this way: “Probably two steps.
One is developing [a] plan for the longer term, sustaining the partnership. If John Bardy
disappears. . .who’s gonna be carrying that? Maybe Barbara [Mason].” He had earlier

99 ‘6

described Bardy as “an energy ﬂow, on the doorstep all the time, but he doesn’t offend
you when he’s on the doorstep.”
Mason provided a somewhat different perspective about what might sustain the

partnership. When asked what she thought would be of value to future institutional

planners, she explicated as follows:

108

You have to talk with the person you’re partnering with on a regular basis,

and there has to be meetings, even if they’re just the linen table cloth

meetings. Those are very important. You have to know people as people,

and you have to know the project and its professional sense as well. So

you feel an obligation to the program both because of its highly profes-

sional, going-to-make-something-happen-for-the-kids things as well as ‘I

really like these people for who they are.’ And it’s okay if we just get

together and have cookies and talk about how things are, even though

nothing more important than becoming acquainted with each other

happened. You have to value that too.

Miller, when asked that question, answered this way: “You need a person at each
institution, below the higher executive level, committed to driving it, to operationalize it.
And so what I learned is not to underestimate the potential of the students to go to other
prestigious schools.” It is interesting to note that in anticipating the future, his answer
reﬂects the process that was actually used for development and implementation at both
institutions.

Bosco viewed the future with optimism. He opined as follows: “It’s gonna grow.
All the elements for success are there. But again, it needs to be watched over by all of us.
On both sides. And particularly [since] there’s gonna be a change in CEO. We’ve gotta
be just mindful.”

As might be expected, those at the community college mentioned beneﬁts to the
community resulting from the partnership. VanHouten expressed his opinion about the
positive aspects in this way: “I think our success for both our schools is in the
community. People see, okay, hey, these guys are working together. They have the same
goals. It looks really good to the community. I think that’s what our success really is, is
in the eyes of the community itself.”

The beneﬁts to students certainly did not go unnoticed. In fact, it was a common

thread throughout the interviews. Russell observed as follows:

1 ()9

I think that there are more students that have been made aware that Barone
is a very viable option for them as far as a transfer institution. They are
right here in our fair city and that it’s a doable option that they should
consider. I would say that’s probably one Of the things that ...all this
information and exchange Of ideas and a chance tO meet instructors at
Barone has meant for our students.

Interestingly, Miller mentioned that the partnership had been better than he thought it
would be. Initially, though, he was “not tOO Optimistic.” In fact, he unabashedly
admitted that he had been quite pessimistic, not only in regard tO students but also tO
faculty. As he explained:

I had a more pessimistic view Of the ability Of the students. I had a more

pessimistic view Of the willingness Of the faculty tO get involved. I still

think it’s probably pretty modest, but it’s signiﬁcantly better than I

thought it would ever be. I thought it might topple on its face after a year

or two just for lack of students, lack Of interest. But that hasn’t happened.

Now, as we concluded the Barone story with words from Frank, its president, so
tOO will we end the Vader story with an Observation from Bosco:

I don’t know if Vader has changed [as a result Of this joint undertaking].

Because we’ve always—just like most community colleges, one Of the

things we do so well is partner. We have hundreds Of partners throughout

the whole community. That’s what really makes the strength Of the

community college. SO I don’t know if we’ve changed per se. Have we

felt better about ourselves? Sure. We’ve grown a little bit taller in stature

because Of the respect that we may have gained from it. Sure we have.

Internally and externally.

In summary, the story Of the development and implementation Of the strategic
partnership suggests that the presence Of certain conditions facilitates collaborative
efforts within and between institutions. Speciﬁcally, we can identify those as a shared

environment fraught with challenges, common goals held by both institutions, an

interdependency that encourages institutions to work together, the presence Of leaders

110

with vision who are willing tO take risks, the “right” people who are willing tO commit tO
the undertaking, and the existence Of a collaborative attitude.

In further considering the collaborative undertaking, we will remember that
emerging themes naturally fell into three categories: originating factors, the process
story, and outcomes two years after inception. It is interesting tO note that although the
originating factors were different for the two institutions, the themes that emerged during
the process story and outcomes assessment were remarkably similar.

We have seen that the originating factors for Barone included increased
competition, a heretofore untapped market, and changing institutional perspectives. In
contrast, for Vader they were a changing technological society, attention to the ﬁrst two
years Of a baccalaureate program, and issues related to student development. The
common themes that emerged in the process story included perceptions about common
goals, the need for a champion, and the developing infrastructure. Those that emerged,
for both institutions, during the outcomes assessment included the expected evolution and
participants’ perceptions.

Thus we have seen that developing and implementing a collaborative endeavor,
while deemed worthwhile, is not without its challenges. Before we turn our attention to
the conclusions discussed in Chapter 5, let’s consider tO what extent the research
questions have been answered.

Section 2: The Extent to Which the Research Questions
Have Been Answered by the Data

This study was designed to examine the conditions that contribute tO strategic
partnerships, the issues and challenges partnering institutions face, and why stakeholders

continue to invest time and energy in the strategic partnership. Its purpose was then to

111

understand interinstitutional collaboration as a new organizational arrangement to
determine what fosters its development, what facilitates its implementation, what are the
appropriate outcomes, and what are its measures Of success.

Using data drawn from a private, four-year university and a public, state-
supported community college, I posed the following four questions:

1. How do stakeholders perceive the issues and challenges inherent in the initial
stages/phases Of working together?

2. How do stakeholders perceive the issues and challenges inherent in deciding what
to do in working together?

3. How do stakeholders perceive the issues and challenges inherent in implementing
what they decide to do in working together?

4. What contributes tO stakeholders’ willingness to continue to work together? (This
assessment will be made to the extent possible given that the strategic partnership
included in this study will have been in existence for only two years.)

Let us now consider each one individually as we seek tO determine tO what extent they
have been answered.

1. How do stakeholders perceive the issues and challenges inherent
in the initial stages/phases of working together?

Inforrnants at both institutions were asked about the role Of environmental factors
in the early stages Of the partnership; i.e., pre-negotiation or problem-setting. In
particular, they responded tO questions about what they hoped to get out Of it; what role
concern about transfer students, articulation agreements, state employment needs, or
anything else might have played; institutional incentives for partnering; and the factors

that facilitated their ability to work together in the early stages.

112

Barone participants were given a clear mandate by their president: tO increase the
number Of transfer students. Frank had been at Barone for more than a decade when talk
Of the partnership ﬁrst arose. As a former dean Of engineering at an East Coast
university, he had been intimately involved in issues related tO transfer students. He had,
in fact, forged articulation agreements in engineering with the community colleges in the
state. But it was only after he was presented with a position paper outlining the
advantages Of a strategic partnership did he embrace the concept for Barone. He began
an aggressive plan Of action that involved the commitment of considerable time, effort,
and resources. He was so committed tO the concept that he hired an organizational
consultant, a director Of college transfer partnerships, and an executive director Of
enrollment services.

Transfer students represented a virtually unknown population. Although
administrators bought into the concept early on, faculty presented more Of a challenge.
They were used to the traditional student population: 18- and 19-year Olds who had
graduated at the tOp Of their high school classes. Not only did they have concerns about a
non-traditional group Of students, they also were reluctant to review their courses for
equivalency, an essential component to smooth transition.

The Vader players were less divided. In fact, consensus was that the partnership
represented a wonderful Opportunity for their students. Another important driver was the
difﬁculties they had routinely experienced in trying to work with another four-year
university. The fact that Barone came “wooing” with plans designed not only to beneﬁt
students, but also both institutions and the community as well, was especially attractive.

Although the administrator in the academic ofﬁce initially believed that “students

113

couldn’t get in, and even if they did, they couldn’t afford it,” he was willing to do what
was necessary tO get the partnership started.

The participants generally mentioned the frequency Of meetings and the role Of
the organizational consultant as salient features at the inception Of the partnership. They
also mentioned their changing perspectives as they worked with others to move the
partnership forward.

2. How do stakeholders perceive the issues and challenges inherent in
deciding what to do in working together?

The informants were asked a series Of questions designed to elicit their beliefs
about what had been important at the next phase Of working together, i.e., negotiation or
direction-setting. Speciﬁcally, they were asked questions about who was involved in the
development of the partnership, the institution’s involvement as the partnership got
underway, who was responsible for moving it forward as well as giving ﬁnal approval,
and what factors facilitated their ability to work together at this stage.

As mentioned above, Barone’s president retained the services Of an organizational
consultant. As the former dean Of students at a Midwestern community college and co—
chair Of a design and manufacturing association, he was uniquely qualiﬁed tO advance the
strategies Of the partnership. Also of great signiﬁcance was the fact that he had been the
primary writer Of the position paper outlining the strategic partnership; thus he was well
versed in the issues. Coming out Of retirement to accept Frank’s Offer tO develop and
implement the partnership, he also had the necessary time to devote tO the undertaking.
Add to that the fact that he had a wealth Of contacts on which to call and you will

understand what a credible source be truly was.

114

The Barone informants all mentioned how inﬂuential Bardy had been in bringing
them together. He seemed to have a knack for getting the right people to the table and
setting the stage for getting things accomplished. He set up numerous meetings, ran them
in a congenial way, and followed up with meeting notes and suggested next steps. All
spoke very favorably Of him as an individual and of his ability to move the process along.
Thus they had a clear understanding of what had to happen through the various stages of
development.

Similarly, the Vader players also spoke highly Of Bardy. Once he had mobilized
the Barone people, he turned his attention to Vader. Accompanied by key adrrrinistrators,
he went to Vader’s campus tO explore the opportunities for partnering. This was a
different scenario indeed, for they were used to a more elitist attitude in dealing with
another four-year institution in the area. The Vader informants mentioned the interactive
nature Of their dialogues with those from Barone. It was not a situation where one
institution was trying to tell the other what to do. Instead, they approached the various
issues and challenges jointly.

3. How do stakeholders perceive the issues and challenges inherent in implementing
what they decide to do in working together?

The informants were asked for their perceptions about what had happened since
the formal decision was made to partner; i.e., implementation. In particular, they were
questioned about possible changes to the partnership; the extent to which the partnership
had evolved as they had thought it would; and their perceptions about outcomes,
anticipated or not.

The Barone administrators all expressed concern with the considerable time and

effort required by the partnership. Although responsibilities had been reassigned and

115

new people had been brought on board, it remained a frequently voiced concern
throughout their interviews. The participants also wondered about what would happen
when and if the consultant were no longer involved. They did mention, however, that
there were now fewer meetings and that it was important to maintain the momentum that
had been established. They remained concerned with the need to generate an increase in
the number of transfer students. All spoke positively about the many reasons, diversity
among them, to have more transfer students at Barone. Faculty also seemed to be far less
resistant, some even enthusiastic, about working with transfer students. They now
understood that those students did as well as, if not better, than native students in
persisting through their various programs.

The Vader informants were quite enthusiastic in their assessment of the
partnership two years after inception. They spoke about the many positive aspects Of
working together—players had become familiar with each Others’ campuses, programs,
and students. They perceived the beneﬁts to be substantial, not only for students but also
for both institutions and the surrounding communities. They held high hopes for the
continuance of this partnership and foretold of applying lessons learned about working
together to other contexts.

4. What contributes to stakeholders’ willingness to continue to work together? (This
assessment will be made to the extent possible given that the strategic partnership
included in this study will have been in existence for only'two years.)

The participants were asked to speculate about where they saw the partnership
going, what lessons had been learned, and what the next steps should be; i.e.,

renegotiation. Speciﬁcally, they were asked how effective the partnership had been in

fulﬁlling its goals; how the institution had changed; the ways in which collaborative

116

efforts might contribute to institutional effectiveness and success; how collaboration
might result in increased risk taking, creativity, and/or satisfaction; next steps; and
lessons learned.

The Barone informants were guardedly Optimistic. As mentioned previously, they
were concerned with substantially increasing the number Of transfer students. The
president spoke clearly about this; many Of his staff echoed his concerns. The point was
made, though, that the partnership had only been in existence for two years. Students at
Vader had to prepare for transfer to Barone. That, of course, took time. Perhaps indirect
measures could be used as success indicators. Many of the informants did speak of
increased awareness of Barone in the community. Now there was name recognition
where before there had not been. Students and their parents now routinely visited Barone
to ﬁnd out more about the opportunities that might exist for them. The thought was that
the partnership was working and that the Barone-Vader partnership could indeed serve as
a model for establishing partnerships with other community colleges.

Those at Vader were without exception optimistic. They appreciated the efforts
Barone had made in approaching them for the obvious advantages it afforded their
students. They were pleased to realize that Barone viewed their students as capable and
"worthy.” In working together, the Vader players also seemed to develop a greater
understanding of their various roles and responsibilities on behalf of serving students and
a deeper appreciation of personal relationships.

We have seen how environmental factors set the stage for the two institutions to
work together. Clearly encouraged by top-level administrators at both institutions and

empowered by the organizational consultant, the players set about working together to

117

develop and implement the strategic partnership. In so doing, they collaborated to
achieve a clearly articulated common goal—to ease transition for students in pursuit of a
baccalaureate degree in rigorous curricula. As the collaborative process unfolded,
interdependencies were formed, resistance was overcome, and players unequivocally
voiced Optimism for the future of the partnership.

Two years after inception Of the partnership, the issue Of numbers is, of course,
salient. We might wonder about the institutions’ willingness to continue to invest time
and energy in the strategic partnership. What if the numbers do not substantially
increase?

While the partnership is in large part designed to “provide greater opportunity and
exceptional academic and career development support for their current and potential
students,” another important piece is to “jointly involve Vader Community College and
Barone University with the community” (A Statement of Strategic Partnership between
Vader Community College and Barone University, 2003). Now that the student
development piece is in place, time and energy can be devoted to community outreach.
Many of the players spoke about the importance of working together not only to beneﬁt
students but also the community.

Barone now has a new president who has pledged to strengthen the engineering
school’s role in the community. In fact, as part of his introduction, he emphasized
Barone’s role “in civic life and as an asset to the local business community” (Blank
Journal Editorial, 2005). Barone’s highly acclaimed applied engineering expertise could
well foster business-sponsored research on or near campus, potentially encouraging

inventors and entrepreneurs to work with faculty and students. In an effort to facilitate

118

such collaboration, Frank is concentrating his last few months on securing support for
biotechnology as well as Barone’s new fuel-cell research lab. Rare for an engineering
school, the lab is designed to study uses for this new power source; additionally, it is
organizing to act as an incubator for businesses hoping to utilize fuel cells for commercial
purposes (Blank Journal Editorial, 2005). Such developments should ensure the two
institutions’ willingness to continue to work together in the interest of their students and

the community, not to mention for their own viability.

119

CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Higher education is faced with unprecedented challenges at the advent of the 21S”
century. Our current economic climate, exacerbated by state and federal funding cuts,
competition for students, demands for accountability, and changing student demographics
promulgate a reconceptualization Of the higher education system. The trends of the last
three decades unquestionably underscore the necessity of new approaches to educating
our citizenry. Only 30 years ago colleges and universities struggled in isolation to
increase access to meet growing demand. Twenty years ago articulation provided the
impetus for institutions to explore issues of access and quality with one another. Then,
slightly over a decade ago, collaboration appeared on the higher education landscape.
Operationalized in comprehensive partnerships, the trend shows no sign of abating in the
early stages Of the 21St century (Schaier-Peleg & Donovan, 1998).

Collaborative efforts, as evidenced by strategic partnerships, appear to have great
potential for increasing effectiveness and efﬁciency in the ﬁscally constrained
environment of higher education. However, they represent a new organizational
arrangement about which we know very little. It thus becomes helpful to consider the
conditions that encourage collaboration within and between institutions.

The purpose of this study was to understand this emerging form of
interinstitutional collaboration to determine what fosters its development, what

facilitates its implementation, what are the appropriate outcomes, and what are its

120

measures of success. Using a database consisting Of a private four-year university
and a public community college, I asked the following questions:

1. How do stakeholders perceive the issues and challenges inherent in the initial
stages/phases of working together?

2. How do stakeholders perceive the issues and challenges inherent in deciding what
to do in working together?

3. How do stakeholders perceive the issues and challenges inherent in implementing
what they decide to do in working together?

4. What contributes to stakeholders’ willingness to continue to work together? (This
assessment will be made to the extent possible given that the strategic partnership
included in this study will have been in existence for only two years.)

The ﬁndings suggest that several factors led to the perceived success of this
collaborative undertaking: a strong impetus for collaboration, the ability to create
interdependence between the participating institutions, and an appreciation of the
dynamic nature of these collaborative undertakings. Although these ﬁndings are
congruent with prior research (Wilbur, 1996), they do add important new dimensions—
including the need for a champion and fostering a more collaborative attitude among
faculty—that have implications for educational practice and policy as well as future
research.

In discussing my ﬁndings, I will present what I have come to understand as a
multi-layered story. This story consists of three parts. In the ﬁrst part, we will return to
the distinction, introduced in Chapter 1, between an alliance and a strategic partnership.

We will next turn our attention to the story of how the strategic partnership developed,

121

drawing on the salient theories for help in understanding how the process unfolded. Last,
we will consider the important implications for both faculty and the institutions involved.
Distinction Between an Alliance and a Strategic Partnership

Collaboration represents a relatively new response to the extraordinary
challenges now facing higher education in our resource-constrained environment.
As mentioned in the review of the literature, the conceptualization of
collaborative efforts varies widely; little consensus on core characteristics has
emerged. Some view collaboration as very focused, involving little more than
cross listing courses among institutions or joining two or more degree programs.
To others, it entails new thinking, new forms Of communication, and new
structures. Certainly it is the latter perspective that is salient for my study.

Alliances are far looser than strategic partnerships. In fact, Martin and
Samels (2002), in advocating strategic alliances as a response to the recent
economic downturn, deﬁned them as a temporary, focused set of covenants
between two or more complementary learning institutions or a learning institution
and a business organization.

Strategic partnerships, on the other hand, are designed to develop an
integrated educational structure to serve the needs not only Of students, but also
the institutions, area business and industry, and the surrounding communities.
They are far more all-encompassing than are alliances for they are designed to
foster healthy integration among several major sectors of society. As with any
innovation, they are ambiguous and complex; it is hoped that this study can begin

to frame an adequate, working deﬁnition. As a form of organizational change, we

122

must recognize that the process is slow and fraught with challenges, especially in
higher education.

Strategic partnerships, as a new organizational arrangement, represent
only one type of collaborative effort. Since the literature does not Offer a clear

” 6‘

deﬁnition, I resorted to dictionary deﬁnitions of “alliance, partnership,” and
“strategic,” drawing on the relevant pieces from each one. The deﬁnition that
emerged, mentioned in Chapter 1, is as follows: A strategic partnership is a legal
relationship among parties having speciﬁed, joint rights and responsibilities as
they work together to achieve common goals within an integrated whole. I would
suggest that this deﬁnition is reﬂected in my ﬁndings in that the informants spoke
of their joint efforts in working together to guarantee the smooth transition of
students. The strategic partnership does not end there, however. Now that the
student development piece is in place, attention is being directed at other ways to
strengthen ties with business and industry to support the surrounding
communities.

The organizational consultant, John Bardy, provided invaluable insight
into the nature of the strategic partnership as a unique form Of collaboration. Not
only was his conceptualization informed by practical experience but also by
theoretical understanding. Having served as both dean of students, with roles in
CO-Op and corporate services at a Midwestern community college, as well as co-
Chair of a design and manufacturing alliance, he was instrumental in identifying

student development issues and forging relationships among key stakeholders.

Additionally, he held a Ph.D. from a major research university, focusing on

123

organizational change for his dissertation. He certainly seemed to exemplify much
of what Kanter identiﬁed as important in the innovation process. I found it
interesting to return to his transcripted interview for support Of my working
deﬁnition. Let’s take a closer look.

He clearly established that in his role Of co—chair of the design and
manufacturing alliance, and in conversation with key stakeholders, it was felt that:

The group Of people who were involved in [the] articulation com-

mittee. . .were doing a relatively good job with the business Of transfer Of
credits of core curriculum, Of curriculum, creating curriculum transfer
models. . .But we didn’t see much conversation about the smooth transition
Of students from the community college to the university. . .One Of the
important things. . .for any strategic partnership, which would add a
dimension to transfer relationships, would be to have the full support of
top administration. SO that even though the top administrators might not
be actively involved, they would have to delegate it to a person who would
represent the community college, would represent the university. So that
really began this at a different level.

In addressing the difference between simple articulation and the strategic
partnership, we can see reference to elements of my working deﬁnition of the
strategic partnership mentioned above. Both are tightly structured and contractual
in nature with prescribed roles and responsibilities, making them different from
the more loosely structured alliances.

The strategic partnership, however, is designed to accomplish far more
than simple articulation. According to Bardy:

What we were trying to do was go beyond that to talk in terms of strategic

partnering rather than just to talk about articulation agreements. . .We were

building on that foundation; we were assuming that that was already fairly

decent. At least from my perspective as a community college adminis-

trator, Barone was one of the easier schools to work with in terms Of what

was being accepted although there were some problems with what Barone
accepted...Strategic partnering is a new dimension.

124

Although improving the transition Of students from the two- to the four-year institution is
a worthy goal in and of itself, the strategic partnership is designed to address far more in
the way of complex problems facing contemporary society. In speaking of the
comprehensive nature of the strategic partnership and its potential for addressing the
needs of business and industry and ultimately the state, Bardy explained it this way:

We had the responsibility to our students to see if they got where they
wanted to be, whether that was being employed or whether it was moving
onto the university. . .I knew that wasn’t enough, that we had to also
provide for that transition. . .That’s a part of the reason I thought this was
important that we do this. From an industry perspective, I kept hearing in
the design and manufacturing alliance. . .that you have to create a rational
infrastructure to support the needs of design and manufacturing. And if
you don’t, and if there aren’t good people to do this, these jobs will go
elsewhere. Well, it sounds like what [the Governor] is saying. . .What was
new about it was to get a university that was interested in accepting the
challenge. From a community college perspective, it was always my
feeling that if I can get the university to support the students that want to
go there, I didn’t have to worry about it.

He also spoke of the importance of team building in establishing a climate for working
together:

The team pretty much was one Barone team and then what we en-
couraged community colleges to identify a similar group. The group was
not the same at every community college. In some cases it went more
through the academic side, and in some cases it went more through the
student services side. . .And in each case, we asked someone to identify
key contact people. ..It wasn’t my role to represent the university. What I
tried to do was make sure enough people at the university believed in this,
to be able to make this a working relationship over time.

Lastly, Bardy speciﬁcally mentioned the integrative nature of the strategic partnership and
its potential value:

This is much broader than just the smooth transition of students. It’s the

issue of faculty collaboration. Among other things—going back to the

design and manufacturing alliance [and the expressed need] to create a

rational educational infrastructure to support design and manufacturing.
Then it has to involve a collaborative working relationship of schools.

125

What we’re talking about here is—we’re primarily about community

college/university working relationships, but the strategy is a rational

education infrastructure to support design and manufacturing.

1 think that resources are too limited for institutions not to work together.

And again, our philosophy with the design and manufacturing alliance is

that if institutions do not work together, then the industry will not be

properly supported; and if the industry is not properly supported, they’ll

go elsewhere. SO that we’re ultimately talking about economics and

competitiveness, world competitiveness. SO it’s very important. And

from a community perspective, typically in a community like this one,

where you really do need to develop some new industries.
Thus we can see that the strategic partnership involved a commitment to a vision,
not just for the institutions involved, but more broadly for society as well. Let us
now turn our attention to a discussion Of how it came about.

How the Strategic Partnership Came About

I will provide an overview of the theories that are relevant and important to my
study. Negotiated order theory and Kanter’s theory Of innovation are especially salient
given the results of the case study. I will then follow the theoretical overview with an
application to the results.

Negotiated Order Theory

Negotiated order theory can be viewed as a metaphorical approach to social
organization (Fine, 1984). It is concerned with examining how social structures are
processed and how social processes become structured by means of human negotiation
(Basu, Dirsmith, & Gupta, 1999). Because I was interested in the “actors, tactics, and
subprocesses of negotiation and its consequences” (Strauss, 1978, p. 239), negotiated

order theory is presented as the overarching framework for understanding the

development and implementation of the strategic partnership inherent in my case study.

126

Fine (1984) gives special attention to Strauss’s work in describing the central
elements Of negotiated order. First, organization is impossible without some form of
negotiation. Second, speciﬁc negotiations are contingent upon the structural conditions
Of the organization. Negotiations are patterned, not random, in that they follow lines of
communication. Third, negotiations have time limits; they are revised, renewed, and
reconstituted as time passes. Fourth, structural changes in the organization require a
revision of the negotiated order. That is, the structure of the organization and the
micropolitics of the organization are intertwined.

TO more fully understand the negotiation context Of my study, it is helpful to
return to Strauss’s explanation. As discussed as part Of the literature review (page 28), he
suggests that any negotiation context will exhibit some combination of eight properties.
In examining the interactions within and between two organizations in the development
and implementation of a strategic partnership, Strauss’s list is informative in identifying
the elements that inﬂuenced the negotiation context of my study. The following four
properties are especially salient:

1. The number of negotiators, their relative experience in negotiating, and whom

they represent.

2. Whether the negotiations are one-shot, repeated, sequential, serial, multiple, or

hnked.

3. The relative balance Of power exhibited by the respective parties in the

negotiation itself.

4. The clarity of the legitimacy boundaries of the issues negotiated (1978,

p.238)

127

Let us take a closer look at how these properties are exhibited in the development and
implementation of the strategic partnership.

The Number of Negotiators, Their Relative Experience in
Negotiating, and Whom They Represent

The organizational consultant, variously described as a driver or lynchpin, was a
key force in the development and implementation of the partnership. Retained by Barone
University’s president, he had signiﬁcant connections not only in education but also in
business and industry. Recently retired, he had been dean Of students at a community
college. As part of that position, he was responsible for cooperative education and
involved in working with corporate sponsors for student placements. Thus he was
uniquely positioned to approach Vader Community College in the exploratory stages Of
the partnership. In addition to having the solid backing of Barone’s president, he also
was good friends with the senior administrator in enrollment services. Backed by
considerable resources, these two individuals, well-versed in the intricacies of
negotiation, set about advancing Barone’s plan to partner with select community
colleges.

Interestingly, Vader’s administrator in the academic Ofﬁce who played an integral
role in deciding whom to “invite to the table” was initially resistant, believing that Vader
students could not get into Barone, and if they were admitted, they would not be able to
afford it. A broad thinker, though, he soon saw the advantages for students. As he
Observed, “It involved a real working together, thus not an agreement that was hammered
out and that exists until we pitch it or revise it. But that it’s hammered out and then we
continue to work in partnership. I think the differences between strategic partnerships

and simply the transfer or articulation agreements are relatively profound.”

 

Whether the Negotiations Are One-Shot, Repeated,
Sequential, Serial, Multiple, or Linked

The negotiations can be seen to be repeated, sequential, multiple, and linked.
Once the organizational consultant was afﬁliated with Barone, he continued his work
with the top-level administrator in enrollment services to operationalize the action
strategies of the strategic partnership. Two new administrators were hired and others
were reassigned. Seemingly tireless, the consultant mobilized the Barone players. After

a good deal of brainstorming throughout frequently held meetings, they were ready to

 

approach the ﬁrst potential strategic partner. The organizational consultant, accompanied
by the senior administrator of enrollment services, established contact with the
administrator in the academic ofﬁce at Vader Community College. In a key position to
draw Vader players in, the administrator began setting up meetings on Vader’s campus
that were attended by both Barone and Vader stakeholders. Thus we see the importance
of relationships and linkages in the negotiation context.

The Relative Balance of Power Exhibited by the Respective
Parties in the Negotiation Itself

It is interesting to note how Vader viewed Barone’s approach in introducing the
concept Of the partnership. Accustomed to an elitist attitude exhibited by another four-
year institution with whom they had tried to work, the Vader players were pleasantly
surprised with the way that Barone came “wooing.” Barone, in realizing that Vader
offered a viable student population from which to recruit, was desirous Of establishing a
relationship that went far beyond the articulation agreements Of the past.

Not surprisingly, Vader was receptive. After all, it was inﬁnitely reassuring to

have a premier engineering institution like Barone demonstrate confidence in Vader’s

129

ability to prepare students for the rigorous curricula Barone Offered. Mutually identiﬁed
avenues Of student support never before Offered became a common goal. It certainly
seemed to be a case of a relatively equal balance of power between the two institutions.
In fact, Vader’s academic administrator explained it this way:

As the partnership evolved, I don’t think Vader took a leadership [role],

maybe Barone did a little bit, but it really was collaborative. They had

experience. They’d been to Miami Dade, and I was aware that they

weren’t just talking to us. They were talking to MiSaba and Westbrook

and so forth, Allen. But I think we worked collaboratively all along.

They did not come here and impose a project that we could take or leave.

That was not the approach.

The Clarity of the Legitimacy Boundaries of the Issues Negotiated

The boundaries of the issues negotiated can be seen to be permeable. Barone had
not previously considered transfer students to be a viable population from which to
recruit. In noting trends Of community college attendance in light of increasing
competition in a ﬁscally constrained environment, it changed its perception. Although
administrators, with “one foot outside the institution and one foot in,” embraced this
changed perception with relative ease, faculty did not. Internally focused and used to
dealing with a well-prepared, traditional student population, they primarily concerned
themselves with issues of curriculum and pedagogy. Some faculty, though, were less
autonomous and did see the wisdom of looking externally to ensure the viability of both
their programs and their institution. The faculty informants at both Barone and Vader
spoke at length not only about the need to review courses and curricula but also of the
importance Of growing their respective programs. To do so, they indicated the need to

look externally, whether it was to ensure successful transition to the four-year university

or to the world of work.

1 30

In further using negotiated order theory as a general framework for understanding
the ﬁndings of this study, it is also helpful to consider the micro-macro dichotomy. For
my study the negotiated limits of interest are the dyadic-level negotiations as they
inﬂuence and are inﬂuenced by both organizational and societal elements. Further
elucidation is possible through considering the micro-macro dichotomy; that is, the
bifurcation between negotiations that occur among individuals (smaller-scale
negotiations) and those that occur among larger social units such as organizations (larger-
scale negotiations).

In writing about negotiated orders and organizational cultures, Fine (1984) asserts
that both organizational approaches focus on the actor’s perspective on life in an
organization. Speciﬁcally, these approaches emphasize worker satisfaction and
commitment and the non-economic, non—rational working of organizations. Additionally,
members, as well as organizations, must pay attention to the constraints of their social
and physical environments. They cannot effectuate change without being affected by
those very changes; individuals operate within structures—Of organizations and social
worlds.

To continue, Fine explains that smaller-scale negotiations (those among
individuals as a result Of their individual strategies for adjustment) are primarily
interpersonal. That is, “individuals shape their own actions in conformance with the
structure, policies, and traditions Of the social world around them—a real world, not one
that is self-deﬁned” (1983, p. 242). In larger—scale negotiations (those in which agents or
representatives of collectivities are involved), individuals negotiate not only for

themselves, but also for the organizational unit that they represent. Thus “although

131

individuals are ultimately doing the interacting, the negotiated order metaphor can be
useful in understanding interorganizational relationships” (1983, p. 242).

To understand the interorganizational relationships between the private, four-year
university and the public, two—year community college included in my case study, I
sought relevant, pertinent information from the participants themselves. Interested in
both the interpersonal aspects associated with smaller-scale negotiations as well as the
dynamics associated with negotiating for one’s organizational unit; i.e., larger-scale
negotiations, I interviewed six participants from each institution. Interviews lasted
between one and two hours. My goal was to understand their individual perspectives on
the development and implementation of a strategic partnership designed to go well
beyond the standard articulation agreements that had been in place for years.

The organizational consultant, as both the originator and initiator of the strategic
partnership, was instrumental in suggesting the appropriate people to interview on both
campuses. Interviewees included faculty, administrators, and the presidents of both
institutions. Without exception, all spoke positively of the development and
implementation of the partnership and viewed its prospects for ultimate success in
optimistic terms.

It is informative to replay the evolution of the partnership in light of Fine’s
conception Of smaller— and larger-scale negotiations. Doing so provides insights into how
things get done and why things evolve. If the new organizational arrangement
represented by the strategic partnership is determined to be worthwhile, lessons learned

can then be applied in other contexts.

132

 

The innovative concept began with conversation between the two presidents who
were desirous Of advancing their institutions’ respective standing among their
stakeholders. Cognizant Of both societal and organizational issues promulgating change
in higher education, they sought potential remedies. Concurrently, the vice president of
corporate relations and enrollment management at the university and the organizational
consultant began working closely together. The idea of the strategic partnership was
conceived and presented to the university’s president. Embracing it fully, he shared it
with the community college’s president. Both college presidents then took steps to
operationalize it by presenting it to their staffs who in turn shared it with appropriate
personnel. The dyadic-level negotiations among the presidents, Barone’s top-level
administrator in enrollment services, the organizational consultant, and appropriate
faculty and staff at both institutions can be seen to inﬂuence, and in turn be inﬂuenced
by, both organizational and societal elements. Of no small signiﬁcance, beneﬁts accrue
to both institutions; the surrounding community including employers; and, most
important, to students. In further explaining why Vader was receptive to Barone’s
overtures, the academic administrator at Vader compared the developing relationship
with Barone to the lack of relationship with another four-year institution in the area. He
explained it this way: “They didn’t grow and prosper as they had hoped so they simply
started the freshman and sophomore year which did us great damage and fulﬁlled no
beneﬁt to the community. I think that. . .violated what [our well-known philanthropist]
wanted when he gave the money, the mindset that. . .looks out for the welfare Of others.”

Let us now return to Gray (1989) and her conceptualization of negotiated order as

a theory of negotiation to more fully understand the ﬁndings Of this study. As discussed

133

in detail in the literature review, Gray describes a process-oriented approach for dealing
with the complex problems inherent in our turbulent environment. Observing that many
of our problems seem unsolvable because our perceptions of how to function in an
increasingly interconnected world are limited, she suggests we adopt a different approach
to achieve creative solutions. Speciﬁcally, she encourages us to view problems from
perspectives outside of our own and to redesign our problem-solving strategies to include
the various stakeholders who have an interest in the issue.

Building on the premise that in order to move the negotiation process forward we
must know where we are in that process, Gray outlines a three-phase model of
collaboration. It is predicated on the assumption that a fundamental set Of issues must be
addressed during the course of any collaboration. Depending on the nature Of the
particular collaboration, some phases may take on more signiﬁcance than Others. Her
model of the collaborative process includes three major phases: (1) problem setting,

(2) direction setting, and (3) implementation. Let us return to my case study, using
Gray’s framework as an informative lens for understanding the collaborative process
inherent in the development and implementation of the strategic partnership.

The Problem-Setting Phase

The problem-setting phase, often the most difﬁcult, is often referred to as pre-
negotiation. It involves getting the key players to the table so that face-to-face discussion
may begin. We can see Gray’s steps are eminently informative in understanding this ﬁrst
phase Of the collaborative process as demonstrated in the case study.

Common definition of the problem. This essential ﬁrst step must be accomplished

if subsequent efforts to collaborate are to be successful. Barone and Vader, although

134

approaching the problem from different perspectives, were able to deﬁne the problem in
common terms. Barone, in recognizing that a virtually untapped student population was
within a few miles of its campus, approached Vader, who recognized the advantages for
its students Of what Barone was offering. If more students could be adequately prepared
for successful transition to and persistence through Barone’s rigorous engineering and
management programs, many stood to reap considerable beneﬁt.

Commitment to collaborate. Having agreed on the problem, the Barone and
Vader players recognized the potential for positive gain through joint exploration of the
problem. Commitment from the top was deemed essential; of no small signiﬁcance was
the widely known fact that both presidents were in total support of the concept. Many
brainstorming sessions were held, ﬁrst internally at Barone followed by joint meetings at
Vader.

Identiﬁcation of the stakeholders. Since multiple sources Of information are
necessary for promoting as complete an understanding of the problem as possible, it is
important to invite the right people to the table. The senior administrator responsible for
enrollment services at Barone and the organizational consultant had a long-standing
relationship. Faced with many of the same issues and concerns associated with technical
and engineering curricula, they came together in an effort to address those issues.
Supported by Barone’s president, they were instrumental in inviting others to the table for
exploration. As Vader’s academic administrator explained, the organizational consultant
ﬁrst approached him; they soon “expanded the meeting to include the associate dean for

science and math, a math faculty member, a chemistry faculty member, and importantly,

135

a physics faculty member. We also included our [student services administrator] and a
few other people to be part of the conversation.”

Legitimacy of the stakeholders. Another important part of the process is
involving those with a perceived right as well as the needed capacity to participate.
Certainly, the organizational consultant was viewed in a favorable light. After all, he had
been intimately involved in areas relevant to the proposed partnership throughout his long
career in higher education. As the associate director Of admissions at Barone observed, it
was important that an outsider had come in to advance the partnership. Also, the
academic administrator at Vader was forthright in asserting, “I cannot emphasize too
much the important role Dr. Bardy played in all this.”

Convener characteristics. Since the role of the convener is to identify and bring
all legitimate stakeholders to the table, persuasive powers are important. In this case, the
organizational consultant can be seen as the convener. His persuasive powers were
evident; all of the interviewees spoke positively about his ability to bring people together
and move things along. He was a constant presence, both at Barone and at Vader. This
fact notwithstanding, even though he was perceived by Vader’s academic administrator
as “always on the doorstep,” he was viewed as the “the kind Of person you don’t mind
having on the doorstep.”

Identiﬁcation of resources. Since the parties involved in this prenegotiation phase
will incur costs, these must be anticipated and secured so that stakeholders may
participate equally in the process. As previously mentioned, support of both presidents
was a given. Barone not only retained the organizational consultant but also hired two

additional administrators and reassigned others as needed. Similarly, Vader’s president

I36

was clear in describing how he authorized his staff to do what was necessary in
advancing the partnership. Also Of great signiﬁcance was the fact that the physical
sciences faculty member was given released time to advise students included in the
partnership. He was an active proponent of the strategic partnership, advocating its
advantages where and as appropriate in his advising role with students not currently
included in the partnership but academically qualiﬁed.

The Direction-Setting Phase

The tasks identiﬁed in the problem-setting phase, i.e., prenegotiation, are essential
pre-conditions for the direction-setting phase. In this phase, the negotiation phase itself,
stakeholders identify the issues that brought them together, discuss similarities and
differences in those interests, and analyze the potential for eventual trade-Offs. Let us
take a closer look at how Gray’s steps inform the collaborative process at this stage of the
partnership’s development.

Establishing the ground rules. Ground rules are essential for establishing
appropriate behavior for interaction and for lessening the likelihood Of mis-
understandings. Here again we see that the top-level support provided by both
institutions’ presidents was instrumental in setting the stage for working together. A
clear message had been sent about the desirability of developing and implementing a
strategic partnership that would inure to the beneﬁt of students, both institutions, and the
greater community. The intricacies, though, of how that was to be accomplished was left
to the creative devices of the players. Both the Barone and Vader informants spoke Often

about working together to meet the commonly identiﬁed goal of helping students. That

137

seemed to be the rallying point. They also mentioned the necessity of building and
strengthening relationships to enable them to continue to work together.

Agenda setting. The substantive issues of the collaboration were established in a
way that made the stakeholders feel as though their interests were adequately reﬂected.
Courses and programs at both institutions required careful analysis. Changes were made
in the curriculum at the community college so that students would be better prepared for
successful transition to the university. A greater number of Barone courses were
evaluated for possible equivalency with those at Vader. The agenda, though, did not end
with attention to the typical academic issues addressed by articulation. Issues of student
development surfaced and were appropriately addressed by the stakeholders, notably
those in admissions and counseling.

Organizing subgroups. The organization of the collaborative process has an
effect on the promotion of consensus. Since the number of agenda items was relatively
large and broad sweeping, subgroups were formed. Supported in full by the president,
the senior administrator in enrollment services, accompanied by the organizational
consultant, made the initial contact at the community college. They worked in concert to
introduce the concept and remained visible and active. Similarly, supported fully by his
president, the academic administrator at Vader was in a key position to decide whom to
bring into the conversation. Various responsibilities were assigned at the action level.
Because the stakeholders shared a perception about common goals, they were able to
address the important issues associated with academic as well as social integration in

ensuring the smooth transition of students.

138

 

Joint information search. This task is necessary because stakeholders at both
institutions realized that they did not have sufﬁcient data. Because of the perceived
beneﬁts of the collaborative endeavor, the stakeholders at both institutions set about
acquiring more information about each other’s programs and campuses. Working
together, they sought ways to increase awareness among Vader students Of the feasibility
of a Barone education. Toward that end, Vader’s academic administrator spoke about
faculty-tO-faculty contact and mutual events involving state-wide or at regional groups, as
well as hosting events on the community college’s campus.

Exploring options. It is important to explore multiple options before deciding on
one in particular. To fully appreciate the avenue taken to address this step in the process,
it is helpful to consider the nature of the many meetings that took place. The initial ones
involved only the Barone players. Once a plan had been developed, contact was made
with Vader. Several meetings were held including players from both campuses; these
meetings, though, routinely took place on Vader’s campus. As the process unfolded, the
Vader players met to work on various aspects associated with the partnership. As time
went on, internal meetings involving only Barone or only Vader, as well as joint
meetings, took place as needed. The varied nature Of these meetings provided important
opportunities for exploration.

Reaching agreement and closing the deal. The stakeholders were able to commit
to a single Option that was ﬁnalized in writing. After several months of working together,
the players at both institutions were able to agree on the elements to include in the

partnership document and how to begin to operationalize its various action strategies.

139

Implementation

Because carefully developed agreements can fall apart after the parties have
forged an agreement, careful attention must be devoted to the ﬁnal stage, that of
implementation. Once more, let us return to Gray’s identiﬁcation of the issues important
at this stage in an effort to understand the implementation of the strategic partnership.

Dealing with constituencies. Parties to the agreement must carefully explain
aspects of the ﬁnal agreement to the “back home” stakeholders. In this way, they can
garner the support needed for implementation. Many Of the participants repeatedly
alluded to a perception Of common goals and stressed the importance of good
relationships. Although administrators appeared to have been in concert throughout
development and implementation, it was evident that Barone faculty were initially
resistant. As we will see later, though, this resistance was in large part overcome.

Building external support. Generally, those who forge the agreement are not
those charged with implementation. It is paramount to have the support Of those who will
be actually involved in implementation. As has been previously mentioned, the players
from both institutions were without exception supportive of the partnership and its
associated goals. Some participants even acknowledged that although they had been
skeptical initially, they had come to see the many signiﬁcant advantages inherent in the
partnership.

Structuring. Stakeholders must be cognizant of the effort required for successful
implementation. Doing so requires consideration of the initial impetus for collaboration
as well as the degree of organizational change required. The players certainly seemed to

understand the initial impetus for the partnership. Although viewed from various

140

 

perspectives depending on the individual’s institution and position, all voiced
appreciation for an Opportunity to work together in preparing students for meaningful
careers. They recognized that in so doing, not only did students beneﬁt but so did the
institutions and community. They differed, though, in their perceptions about the degree
of organizational change required. Those at Barone faced and ultimately embraced
change; the Vader players really did not feel much change had taken place at their
institution. We will return to this issue later.

Monitoring the agreement and ensuring compliance. Because the players could
be seen as working together toward a common goal, issues of compliance were non-
existent. However, as circumstances changed, renegotiation of certain aspects of the
agreement were inevitable. In fact, as a living document, the agreement was subject to
review every two years by the partners. Since the agreement had been in place for two
years at the time Of this study, plans were being made for an honest assessment of how
well the partnership was doing what it had been designed to do.

In essence, Gray encourages us to reexamine how we organize to solve problems
in contemporary society. Fundamental interdependencies now form the foundation of
modern existence; traditional models that stress independence are no longer suitable for
managing in a turbulent world. We need a new metaphor to help us understand what
interdependence means. Speciﬁcally, she suggests that we replace the pioneering
metaphor (i.e., rugged individualism in pursuit of one’s own wants and desires) with a
new metaphor emphasizing dynamic wholeness in which the parts of a whole are not
distinct elements. Rather, individual parts derive their meaning in relation to other parts;

change occurs as a reconﬁguration of the entire set of relationships. Further, our present

141

 

values and styles of interacting, which emphasize independence, should be
complemented with models that stress interdependence and complementarity. New, more
collaborative interorganizational designs based on the principle Of dynamic wholeness are
far better suited for solving the complex problems now surfacing in our turbulent world.

TO more fully understand these new, more collaborative interorganizational
designs, exempliﬁed by the strategic partnership, let us now turn our attention to Kanter’s
(1990) model of innovation as a framework for understanding what facilitates the
innovative process.

Kanter ’s Model of Innovation

Kanter suggests that a dynamic model of innovation, which connects the major
tasks in the innovation process—idea generation; coalition building; idea realization; and
transfer, or diffusion—to the structural arrangements and social patterns which foster
each, is necessary. It is important to note that these structural and social conditions vary
throughout the innovation. Alluding the to micro-macro dichotomy, she provides the
following helpful conceptualization:

Innovation consists of a set of tasks carried out at the micro-level by

individuals and groups of individuals within an organization. These

rrricro-processes are in turn stimulated, facilitated, and enhanced—or the

opposite—by a set Of macro-level conditions. Some of these structural

and social factors are more important at certain stages than at Others

(1990,p.277)
Her depiction of innovation as the “creation and exploitation Of new ideas” (p. 278) is
similarly informative. Organizational conditions, including structure and social

arrangements, can produce and encourage innovation if they can accommodate the

organic, often chaotic, nature of innovation and change.

142

 

 

I am particularly interested in her model as it pertains to administrative innovation
in processes and systems that can be applied to my case study. Specifically,
administrative innovation is more frequent when resources are scarce; process
innovations are more common in established organizations. My case study involves
established institutions attempting to do more than simply survive in the resource-
constrained environment in which higher education now ﬁnds itself. Let’s return to the
case study and apply Kanter’s model of innovation to more fully understand the
development and implementation of the strategic partnership.

As previously discussed, the strategic partnership between Barone University and
Vader Community College represents a new organizational arrangement about which we
know very little. Although the presidents of the two institutions met regularly to discuss
issues of mutual interest, it was not they who envisioned the interinstitutional
collaboration exempliﬁed by the partnership. Actually, the perceived partnership beneﬁts
were outlined in a strategic partnership document that was a product Of the articulation
committee of the design and manufacturing alliance. A consortium of universities,
community colleges, high school districts, and employers, the members of the consortium
were committed to developing an integrated educational structure to meet the needs of
the design and manufacturing industry of [their region] (Varty & Nichols, 2002).

The co-chair Of the alliance and the senior administrator responsible for
enrollment services at Barone began discussing Opportunities for working together via a
strategic partnership. The innovative concept was introduced to Baron’s president. Not
surprisingly, be embraced it fully and committed substantial resources to the undertaking.

The alliance co-chair was hired as an organizational consultant. Recently retired, he had

143

been a former dean of student affairs at a Midwestern community college and was also a
long-standing friend Of the Barone senior administrator in enrollment services. He had a
wealth of contacts on which to call and valuable insights on which to draw for developing
the partnership.

Interestingly, many Of the properties Kanter identiﬁes as important for the success
of innovation in the idea generation stage are apparent in the early phase of the
partnership. In particular, the social contacts that foster contact across boundaries,
“kaleidoscopic thinking” that was instrumental in envisioning the partnership, increased
interpersonal connectedness that the consultant could encourage through his many
contacts, and organizational support for the innovation are salient.

Supported by Barone’s president, the top administrator for enrollment services
and the organizational consultant set about garnering the necessary support within the
university. The perceived beneﬁts for Barone were substantial: increased transfer
student access and success. Virtually an untapped and expanding market, the president’s
goal was to increase the number Of transfer students from the current 60+ to 100 within
two years. Working together, the organizational consultant (an outsider) and the senior
administrator (an insider) shared the Visioning with Barone faculty and staff. The
president’s support of the initiative was Often mentioned. All did not go smoothly,
however. Some, most notably faculty, were less than enthusiastic about the initiative. As
members Of a premier engineering university, they were reluctant to associate with the
less prestigious community college. They voiced concern about the effect that transfer
students might ultimately have on the institution’s reputation. Some faculty even

encouraged students to protest to the president. After meeting with them in his Office, the

144

president managed to assuage their concerns. Through frequent and Open dialogue about
transfer students’ ability to do well academically and also for the diversity they Offer,
faculty eventually became for less resistant. The expressed reluctance about working
with transfer students has since subsided.

Many of the properties that Kanter identiﬁes as important in coalition building are
equally evident at this point in the development. Speciﬁcally, in garnering support Of
faculty and staff, several power tools were utilized. Information was readily shared via
planning meetings and addresses to the faculty senate; resources were committed as
evidenced by hiring the consultant; and support was given in name and action from the
outset. Interdependent relationships were fostered among faculty and staff, and Open
communication patterns were encouraged, as evidenced by the president’s meeting with
students concerned about the effects on their institution’s reputation.

During this phase of the partnership, steps were taken to assemble a working
team. Staff assignments were changed as necessary to accommodate the new emphasis
on transfer students. New personnel were hired, including a director of college transfer
partnerships and an executive director of enrollment services. The internal team now
intact, it was time to reach externally.

Barone had determined that the formation of a few strategic partnerships with
carefully selected community colleges could provide important beneﬁts to several
stakeholders. Not only would these benefits accrue to Barone, but also to the partnering
community college, surrounding communities, employers, and, most important, to
students themselves. Because of Vader’s proximity, it seemed to be the most logical

place to start. Equipped now with something tangible, Barone’s president approached

Vader’s, who was naturally receptive. Peter Bosco spoke with certainly about the
incentives, from Vader’s perspective, in working together:
The primary reason is for the student. The secondary reason is that it does
elevate the status Of Vader that we’re in partnership with [an institution
like Barone]. You have an extremely profuse global institution of higher
education and we are aligned with them. SO when we advertise the
partnership that we have, in effect from a public relations point Of view, it
does help to elevate our image as well.
He elaborated further, when asked about the factors that had fostered the ability of
the two institutions to work together:
The key thing is the two presidents really have a desire to want to make it
happen and just not pay lip service to it. Second of all, you have that
translate into having your administrators and faculty accepting that. And
three, wanting to se it happen as well. At any point in time, you could

have somebody stop it , and that’s been done at lots of institutions. Even
though the president may want to have something happen, it doesn’t

happen.

Now that the strategic partnership had been fully embraced by both presidents,
key people at each institution began working together in earnest to develop the
partnership. This initiative, begun in the year 2000, was brought to timely fruition with a
formal signing ceremony less than two years later.

As with idea generation and coalition building, several of Kanter’s properties can
be identiﬁed in the idea realization stage. This stage involves several critical
organizational issues in turning the idea into a tangible object. A key aspect is
assembling a work team to complete the idea by turning it into a concrete Object that can
be transferred to others. Both structural and social conditions within the innovation team
have an effect on success. “Continuity of personnel, up to some limits, is an innovation-
supporting condition” (Kanter, 1990, p. 302). In particular, the organizational consultant

played a dominant role in facilitating the necessary work to bring the partnership to

146

fruition. A major goal with the Barone-Vader partnership was to develop a model for use
in developing strategic partnerships with other key community colleges. A review
process was deemed necessary; before new partnerships were added, existing ones would
be examined for viability. Timelines were established, accountability measures were
identiﬁed, and celebrations were held. Let’s take a closer look.

The driving force behind the entire collaborative undertaking was undeniably the
organizational consultant. Highly respected by key Barone administrators and retained
solely for the purpose of developing the partnership, he has been able to focus
exclusively on the project. Described as “always on the door step, but the kind you don’t
mind having on the door step,” he set about establishing an organizational link between
Barone and Vader. As mentioned above, the two presidents had previously agreed in
concept; thus the necessary bridge from Barone to Vader was already in place. They
continued to provide the necessary resources, primarily by empowering appropriate
organizational members. A working group Of key people from both campuses, including
high- and mid-level administrators and faculty, began to meet frequently under the
direction and encouragement of the consultant. Striving toward a common goal enabled
them to forge sound interpersonal relations. Turnover was kept to a minimum, ensuring
continuity of personnel. In fact, nearly all of the same people are still involved today.

Another key aspect of this stage of innovation was procedural autonomy
combined with multiple milestones. Although the presidents sanctioned the undertaking,
they stepped back to allow those with joint roles and responsibilities to work in creative
isolation. A deﬁnite timeline had been established for activities such as planning

meetings, Open houses, and “emerging technologies” seminars. A celebration, covered

147

‘~_‘

extensively by the local media, was held to commemorate the signing of the partnership.
Additionally, the president of Barone hosted a reception at his home in November of
2003 to formally recognize all of the strategic partners involved at that time.

Not unexpectedly, many Of Kanter’s properties inherent in the last phase of
innovation, that of transfer and diffusion, can be seen in the case study. Here we would
want to see signs that the new concept is becoming embedded in ongoing organizational
practice as well as indication of minimal change within the organizations, inter-
organizational ties, and a receptive environment.

Although in the very early stages, aspects of the partnership are becoming
embedded in organizational practice. In interviewing the presidents, it became Obvious
that it is a frequent topic of conversation during their regular luncheons. In the beginning
organizational members’ roles and responsibilities were changed to ensure the success of
the partnership. As the process evolved, fewer changes were needed. Barone was
deﬁnitely perceived as reaching out to Vader; most meetings took place on Vader’s
campus. Thus an important bridging structure was, and still is, in place. The
environment has also been receptive as evidenced by the fact that at a recent Barone open
house (“Discovery Day”) the number of interested transfer students and their parents was
far more than had been anticipated. Although extra chairs were brought in, several
people still ended up standing throughout the hour-long session!

We have now seen how the environment created the need for a private, four-year
engineering university to reconceptualize its perception of transfer students, primarily
those at community colleges. This perceived need called for a new relationship between

the university and the community college, a relationship characterized by shared goals

148

and interdependencies. In the process of working together, an innovative organizational
arrangement, the strategic partnership, emerged. The ﬁndings have been examined in
light of existing theoretical frameworks and discussed in ways in which they are
consistent with Gray ( 1989), Kanter (1990), and Wilbur (1996). However, certain
aspects of the planning process can be seen to be inconsistent with these theories. None
of these frameworks accounts for the presence, indeed the centrality, Of a champion.
What Is Not Accounted for by the Theoretical Perspectives

Although Gray’s (1989) negotiated order theory, Kanter’s (1990) model of
innovation, and Wilbur’s (1996) study of collaboration between two- and four-year
institutions Offer explanatory mechanisms by which we may come to understand the
planning process of this case study more fully, they do not explain the importance Of the
champion. In fact, the ﬁndings are inconsistent with Kanter’s (1990) second task, that Of
coalition building, in her depiction of the innovation process. She suggests that a study
of the history of innovations reveals the importance of a whole coalition, not a single
sponsor. Additionally, she references other studies that suggest the importance of
transactions and managing them over time, rather than a single sponsor, as essential for
the innovation to unfold. Because the ﬁndings Of this study strongly speak to the
centrality of the champion, they can be seen to be inconsistent with some of Kanter’s
(1990) model of innovation and lacking in the conceptual frameworks Offered by either
Gray (1989) or Wilbur (1996). In essence, then, this study ﬁlls a gap in the literature by
extending our understanding Of the collaborative process used by two- and four-year

institutions who adopt an innovative organizational arrangement designed to enable them

149

to thrive in the 21St century. Let’s more fully consider the role Of a champion as
evidenced in this case study.

Certainly, the organizational consultant can be identiﬁed as a champion who was

eminently inﬂuential in the development and implementation of the strategic partnership.

Strauss’s (1978) property that characterizes the negotiator is relevant here. Representing
Barone University, he can be seen as an experienced negotiator who knew how to
approach the right peOple to get things accomplished. As an outsider to Barone, but with
a multitude Of contacts within education as well as business and industry, he was
uniquely positioned to advance the partnership. Players at both Barone and Vader spoke
very highly of him as an individual and his ability to plan, organize, and move the
process along.

TO return to Fine (1984) and his discussion of smaller- and larger—scale
negotiations, we gain additional insight into how the organizational consultant, i.e., the
champion, was able to accomplish so much. The success Of his smaller-scale
negotiations, interpersonal in nature, enabled the consultant to begin discussion of the
partnership. Building on these relationships, he was then able to extend his area Of
inﬂuence, successfully negotiating not only for himself but also for the organizational
unit—i.e., Barone—that he represented. This too helped to move the partnership
forward.

As mentioned previously, Gray (1989) asserts that the problem-setting phase is
Often the most difﬁcult one in her process—oriented approach to negotiation. The
organizational consultant has been shown to have played a signiﬁcant role in the

important steps in this ﬁrst phase, including common definition of the problem,

150

‘ twin-1

commitment to collaborate, identiﬁcation of key stakeholders, and legitimacy of the
stakeholders. He had a keen sense for deciding how to get things done and who should
be included.

Implications

The initial question that ﬁrst stimulated my interest in looking at collaborative
undertakings was “How does collaboration take place?” In seeking a theoretical
explanation, I came across negotiated order theory and found the work of Strauss (1978),
Fine (1984), and Gray (1989) to be particularly informative; namely, Strauss’s properties
inﬂuencing the negotiation context, Fine’s conception of smaller- and larger-scale
negotiations for understanding interorganizational relationships, and Gray’s process-
oriented approach to negotiation. We have seen where the ﬁndings are consistent with
these theoretical frameworks and also where the ﬁndings are inconsistent with the
theories; i.e., the presence and centrality of the champion. In building on the work of the
negotiated order theorists as well as Kanter (1990) and Wilbur (1996), we can also see
the emergence Of another signiﬁcant dimension: overcoming faculty resistance.

Because my study seeks to understand collaboration between two- and four-year
collegiate institutions—operationalized as a strategic partnership—as a new
organizational arrangement, Ibecame interested in Kanter’s (1990) model of innovation.
Particularly informative is her depiction of the four tasks in the innovation process as
being facilitated by structural conditions and social arrangements. She suggests that “the
common organizational threads behind innovation are breadth of reach, ﬂexibility of

action, and above all, integration between those with pieces to contribute, whether inside

151

 

or outside a single organization” ( 1990, p. 313). Let us now see how this depiction may
be informative for understanding and overcoming faculty resistance.

Faculty represent the core of an educational institution. In essence, we can see
characteristics of Mintzberg’s (1979) professional bureaucracy in that the professionals at
the Operating core—that is, the faculty—control their own work. Thus power resides in
their expertise; they have inﬂuence because of their knowledge and skills. Accustomed
to autonomy and academic freedom, they are generally internally focused. For these
reasons, they often have a local rather than a cosmopolitan view. Such a local orientation
does not serve an institution faced with today’s competitive environment very well.

Several of the Vader administrators—in thinking about university—community
college relationships—mentioned the difﬁculties in attempting to collaborate with
another four-year university in the same community. Although the administrators from
both institutions were able to forge various agreements, these agreements were typically
torpedoed by the faculty. It was partly because Of those poor experiences that Barone’s
advances were so welcomed. Although there were resistant faculty at Barone, it was not
apparent to those at Vader.

That resistance was effectively handled internally at Barone. From his
perspective as the organizational consultant, Bardy Observed:

There was some question initially on the Openness of Barone faculty to

community college students. But it was very clear from the beginning,

there was a real openness and receptivity and willingness to collaborate

and participate in this [strategic partnership] on the part of Barone faculty.

I think that there may have been some reservation or some fear on the part

of the Barone administration—are the faculty going to collaborate? Are
they going to be interested in supporting this?

152

 

In light of these concerns among administrators, the Barone chemistry professor, Charles
Powell, provided an interesting perspective:

The point I am trying to make is that the administration is committed to

making this a success. And you should feel blessed because once they

have ﬁnally decided that that’s what they want to do, and they’re going to

do it, and they’re going to make sure that faculty like Chuck is going to

come along, whether he wants to or not, it’s going to get done.
When asked speciﬁcally about working together in the development Of the strategic
partnership, Powell provided additional insight that appears to reﬂect the subsiding of
faculty resistance: “I honestly believe [the strategic partnership] is going to help my
program, and other programs on campus because the students that go to community
college will see a variety of options.” His ability to look externally is also reﬂected in
this comment: “The other most important factor here is that eventually our institution
will develop relationships with faculty from other institutions, mainly the two-year
community colleges, that will hopefully ﬂourish and be beneﬁcial to both.” Finally,
when Barone’s president, Dr. Thomas Frank, was asked how the institution had changed
as a result Of the joint undertaking, he was clear in his assertion:

The whole attitude toward transfer students has changed starting before

that agreement so that having the agreement and having other agreements

has certainly accelerated the process. I don’t think there’s any opposition

right now at all, from the faculty or anybody to bring in transfer students

to Barone. In fact, I think now everyone’s encouraging. Didn’t used to be

that way at all.

We will now turn to Kanter’s (1990) model of innovation to more fully
understand the implications of this dimension. She suggests although innovation derives
from individual talent and creativity, whether the innovation is realized is a function of

the organizational and interorganizational context. Integration is key—within the

organization, between organizations, and within the environment. With Barone we have

153

seen how faculty resistance surfaced and how those challenges were met. Let us not
forget, either, how top-level administrative support at both institutions was clearly
evident. This is consistent with Kanter’s assertion that “higher management, one or two
levels removed from the innovation, was directly involved in making major decisions
about the project and often ran interference for it as well as securing necessary resources”
(1990,p.293)

Again we return to negotiated order theory for help in understanding this new
dimension suggested by the ﬁndings. Because of the carefully orchestrated relationship
building initiated by the organizational consultant and encouraged by the Barone
administrators, faculty became apprised of the harsh realities now facing their institution.
Provided with information attesting to the fact that transfer students could indeed perform
as well as native students, they became less resistant. Given Opportunities to showcase
their programs and labs, they gradually became more involved. It, of course, helped that
the president maintained a consistent message about his desire to increase the number of
transfer students “for all the right reasons,” according to the chemistry professor. It is of
no small signiﬁcance that this professor, who spoke frequently of his desire “to help
young people,” was instrumental in breaking down barriers. In fact, he can be viewed as
an innovator in his own right.

We are also reminded of Gray’s suggestion that we replace the pioneering
metaphor stressing independence with one stressing dynamic wholeness. We need to
complement our present values and styles of interacting, which emphasize independence,
with models that stress interdependence and complementarity. Such new collaborative

interorganizational designs, based on the principle of dynamic wholeness, are far better

154

suited for solving the complex problems now apparent not only in the ﬁscally constrained
context of higher education but also in our turbulent 21St century environment.
Recommendations

Collaboration offers a viable strategy for solving problems in contemporary
society. While collaborative undertakings hold much promise, they are time-consuming
and labor intensive. To enhance the likelihood of their success, it is essential that we
understand the nature of collaboration as a strategic response to our present-day
challenges.

Faced with multi-year budget reductions that show no sign of abating and calls for
increased efﬁciency and effectiveness in higher education, collaboration offers a viable
strategy for improving educational Opportunities for Michigan’s students. The case study
Of a private, four-year university and a public, two-year community college highlights
some of the issues, as well as the promise, of working together. Since we reside in an
autonomous state, with no coordinating or governing board, there are implications for
both policy and educational practice. State policies should provide incentives for two-
and four-year institutions to work together more efﬁciently and more effectively.
Policymakers interested in strengthening transfer education should evaluate the potential
of collaborative undertakings, such as the strategic partnership, for improving transfer

success. Based on the ﬁndings of this study, the following recommendations are made:

155

Recommendation One: Offer Policy Incentives to Encourage Two- and F our- Year
Institutions to Work Together to Create a Supportive Educational Environment
to Foster Best Practices in Undergraduate Education

Since we exist in an autonomous state system, it is incumbent upon policymakers
to ensure that we have an environment conducive for working together. Policy incentives
can encourage four-year institutions to reach out to two-year institutions, especially in
light of state employment needs.

Recall how Barone, with its rigorous programs in engineering and management,
sought to partner with select community colleges—those thought to have the ability to
prepare students for successful transition to Barone. Vader, surprised but of course
pleased that Barone was interested in its students, began a concerted effort to ensure that
it was providing an adequate ﬁrst two years of the baccalaureate program. Its offerings in
math and physics were reviewed for proper sequencing. Barone, for its part, expanded its
efforts to establish course equivalencies. Both institutions made a concerted effort to
become more familiar with each other’s programs and campuses. In so doing,
educational dialogue was stimulated on their respective campuses. It would seem that
similar beneﬁts could be realized through increased interinstitutional collaboration
between and among two- and four-year institutions.

Recommendation Two: Provide Students with Personalized Advising and
Counseling to Help Them Transition from the
Two-Year to the F our-Year Institution

As has been noted, the strategic partnership goes far beyond the

articulation agreements that had been in place for years. One important difference

was the personal transfer plan that was written and maintained for each student.

A joint product Of both institutions, it was designed to make sure students were

appropriately placed in the community college courses that would ultimately
prepare them for successful transition to Barone.

Recall how the newly hired physical sciences instructor at Vader played
an integral role in the curricular changes as well as in the advising Of students.
Desirous of building his program, he restructured and realigned math and physics
offerings so that students could more efﬁciently complete the prerequisite
requirements for successful attendance at Barone. Also, he was given released
time to advise students in the partnership. He performed this function working
collaboratively with the director of college transfer partnerships at Barone.

Students were the beneﬁciaries of such joint advising.

157

Recommendation Three: Offer Policy Incentives to Encourage Institutional
Leaders at Two- and F our-Institutions to Form Strategic Partnerships to
Eliminate Duplication and Redundancy of Courses and Programs

Collaboration among institutional leaders of various two- and four-year
institutions is needed if we are to reduce resource-depleting redundancy among courses
and programs. Through careful examination Of the higher education pipeline, viable
program Offerings can be streamlined to increase efﬁciency and effectiveness thus saving
dwindling higher education dollars.

We are reminded of how Barone’s president spoke about off loading some of the
lower-level courses to the community college. Doing so would enable more students to
take advantage of the many services community colleges already have in place to build
levels of preparedness. Additionally, class sizes are typically smaller, enabling students
to receive valuable individualized instruction. Thus more students would beneﬁt by
acquiring a solid foundation from which to advance to the upper-level courses. The
university, with its senior faculty and well—equipped labs, would then be used for
furthering the specialized knowledge that students need in their various programs of
study. With increased opportunity for working with senior faculty as they approach
graduation, they may well be able to secure employment before degree completion. At
the very least, they would be well positioned to begin their employment search.

Recommendation Four: Provide Faculty with Ongoing Education and Training to
Enable Them to Work Collaboratively with Those
at Their Own Institutions and at Others
Perhaps the greatest challenge to collaborative efforts, i.e, the strategic

partnership, is overcoming faculty resistance, especially at the four-year institution. As

discussed in the review of the literature, Stein and Short (2001) identiﬁed negative

158

faculty attitudes, including criticism, suspicion, and competition, as well as personal
barriers resulting from a lack of interpersonal skills and style, as formidable challenges.

Recall Gray’s insistence on increasing interdependence and complementarity to
creatively seek solutions in our contemporary, turbulent environment. If we accept her
premise that that is what is needed to survive in the 21St century, it becomes clear that
faculty members will have to work differently. If indeed we are to guarantee the long-
term success of our respective institutions, we need to envision ways of working together
more effectively not only with those from our own institutions, but also with those at
other institutions. Such a paradigm shift will not come without organized efforts to
prepare faculty for these changing roles.

Recommendation Five: Formulate Institutional Policies and Educational Practices
That Encourage Faculty to Invest More of Their Time and Effort in Working
with Colleagues at other Two- and F our- Year Institutions

Encouraging faculty from two- and four-year institutions tO work together could
do a great deal to strengthen transfer education programs. To encourage this form of
collaboration, the development of appropriate faculty reward structures should be made a
priority.

It is interesting to note that faculty resistance was more evident at the four-year
university than at the two-year community college. This may well be because faculty at
the four-year institutions have a more local perspective than do community college
faculty. They have authority for their courses and curricula; as purveyors of such they

tend to be inwardly focused. Two-year faculty, on the other hand, tend to have a more

outward focus. They must be cognizant not only of the needs of business and industry in

159

their service area but also of curricular implications for their programs in meeting area
employment needs.

As Wilbur (1996) notes in her study, one of the most important ingredients in any
academic change effort is the increased cosmopolitan perspective of faculty (Lindquist,
1978, as cited in Wilbur, 1996). In addition, once faculty have made these external
connections, they tend to be more receptive to new ideas, as well as more knowledgeable
about how to implement them (Bergquist, 1992, as cited in Wilbur, 1996). Although
Barone faculty were initially resistant, as time went on and the partnership took shape,
resistance dissipated.

Suggestions for Future Research

Recalling Gray’s (1989) metaphor of dynamic wholeness stressing
interdependence, we can see that collaboration indeed offers much promise for
addressing the complex challenges facing contemporary society. The continued study of
the collaborative process can increase our understanding of the issues and challenges
stakeholders encounter in working together to accomplish a common goal. Speciﬁcally,
the lessons learned through careful assessment of the prenegotiation, i.e., problem-
setting; negotiation, i.e., direction-setting; implementation; and renegotiation phases can
be applied in other settings. Thus the following suggestions are recommended to further
enhance our understanding of the dynamics of collaborative endeavors.

Suggestion One: Identify Outcomes that Indicate Success

At the time of this study, the strategic partnership had been in existence for only
two years. It was thus too early to see an increased number of transfer students from
Barone to Vader. However, other indicators could be identiﬁed and used to suggest

success. These might include evidence, gathered via a survey, of increased awareness

160

among Vader students of the advantages of a Barone education; documenting the number
of inquiries about the partnership received in Admissions from potential students and
their parents; and documenting the increased attendance of students and their parents at
the transfer sessions during the semi-annual open houses (“Discovery Days”).
Suggestion Two: Use the Lessons Learned from Developing and Implementing
the Strategic Partnership in Deciding Whether to Renew or Discontinue
with Selected Community Colleges
A two-year review was built into the strategic partnership document. Part
of the early thinking was that those partnerships that were not working well would
not be renewed. Five community colleges, including Vader, were included in the
ﬁrst tier. At the time of this study, some Barone administrators mentioned that a
couple were not working well and might not be renewed. (Vader Community
College was not one of them.) The lessons learned from those that were deemed

successful could now be used in reaching out to other potential partners.

Suggestion Three: Survey Students to Determine Their Perceptions of the
Beneﬁts Associated with the Strategic Partnership

Although the voices of adrrrinistrators and faculty resonate throughout my
ﬁndings chapter, the student voice is not represented. It would be interesting to
document their perceptions of the various aspects of the partnership that are
designed to ensure their successful transition from the community college to the
university.

Suggestion Four: Continue to Study Other Collaborative Eﬂorts
Between Two- and F our- Year Institutions

Although care was taken to enhance the generalizability of the ﬁndings, a

study of one collaborative endeavor, the strategic partnership, within a speciﬁc

161

setting has its limitations. Studies of other collaborations between community
colleges and universities are necessary to replicate or expand upon these ﬁndings.
Such research could do much to enhance our understanding of the nuances and
intricacies of successful collaboration between two- and four-year institutions.

Suggestion Five: Expand Upon the Findings of This Study Since
the Data and the Theory Are Not Fully Consistent

Further research on the presence and centrality of a champion in
collaborative undertakings is warranted. As discussed in the ﬁndings chapter, the
organizational consultant was the driving force behind the development and the
implementation of the strategic partnership. Because the theoretical frameworks
used in this study are silent on the importance of a champion, empirically based
insights, not only about collaboration among collegiate institutions in general but
also about the role of a champion in particular, is needed.

Suggestion Six: Do a Quantitative Study at a Point at which Sufficient Time
Has Passed to Determine if There Has Been an Increase in the
Number of Transfer Students

The Barone administrators were clear about the need to show an increase
in the number of transfer students. Students at the community college need
adequate time to work their way through the carefully sequenced math and
physics courses. It must be remembered that community college students have a
multitude Of demands on their time and energy and often are unable to attend
college full time. Given these factors, at an appropriate time, a quantitative study

should be done to determine if there has in fact been an increase in the number of

transfer students.

162

Recall that Barone’s administrators expressed concern about the time and
effort required by the partnership. Remember, in particular, that the director of
college transfer partnerships stated:

The idea behind it is great but the amount Of time and energy as far as

dollars, if you will, that’s being invested, heck, we could create full tuition

scholarships for a whole bunch of transfer students and increase our

enrollment of transfers in a heart beat and not have to spend the time and

energy on it.

While such resistance and ambivalence are understandable, it must be remembered that
they surfaced during the early stages of the strategic partnership. As Kanter (1990)
reminds us, the innovative process is fragile and uncertain. “New experiences are
accumulated at a fast pace; the learning curve is steep. The knowledge that resides in the
participants in the innovation effort is not yet codiﬁed or codiﬁable for transfer to others”
(p. 279). It is thus important that sufﬁcient time be allowed for the partnership to truly
take hold. The lessons learned from the development and implementation Of this
strategic partnership can then be codiﬁed in a way that can be informative for other
collaborative undertakings.

Simply awarding full tuition scholarships to entice more transfer students to
attend Barone does nothing to address the challenges now facing higher education. It
exempliﬁes Gray’s pioneering metaphor, i.e., rugged individualism in pursuitof one’s
wants and desires; as such it represents the traditional model of independence that is no
longer suitable for managing in a turbulent world. On the other hand, creating an
environment that encourages the interdependence and complementarity of Gray’s (1989)

metaphor of dynamic wholeness provides the means for collaborative efforts, such as the

strategic partnership, to take hold and, ultimately, transfer to others. If we accept the

163

premise that collaboration holds great promise to not just survive—but to actually
thrive—in the 21” century, we must do nothing less.

In summary, we have a remarkable story about a collaborative undertaking
between a two-year, state-supported community college and a four-year, private
engineering university. It is remarkable in that, by all accounts, it is a success story about
the extraordinary efforts of a champion who brought both institutions’ presidents,
administrators, and faculty together to meet the common goal of helping students.
Students have beneﬁted; both institutions as well as the surrounding communities are
positioned to reap rewards as well. However, there were those involved in, or aware of,
the strategic partnership that we did not hear from; there is, in essence, an untold story.
Although I would suggest that the body of knowledge has been advanced by my study,
new directions have been suggested. Where do we go from here to more fully understand
something as promising as a strategic partnership for addressing the complex problems of

our contemporary society?

164

APPENDIX A

165

I.

II.

111.

APPENDIX A

Data Sources

Pseudonyms have been used in order to protect individual identification.

Interviews:

A.

Barone University

1. Thomas Frank, president

S"

Bruce Roberts, senior-level administrator responsible for enrollment
services

3. Lisa Lyons, enrollment services (assistant to Bruce Roberts)

4. James Morgan, college transfer partnerships

5. Timothy Rich, admissions

6. Charles Powell, chemistry professor
B. Vader Community College

1. Peter Bosco, president

2. Stanley Small, academic administrator

3. Mark Miller, student services administrator

4. Jaclyn Russell, counseling

5. Barbara Mason, academics

6. Adam VanHouten, physical sciences instructor
Observations:

A. Strategic partners meeting

B. “Emerging Technologies” conference
C. Annual planning meeting

D. Barone “Discovery Day”

Documents:

A
B
C
D
E.
F.
G
H
l .

. Concept paper
. Meeting notes
. E-mail

. Press release

Announcement
Data sharing proposal

. “Activities Associated with Partnership”
. Annual Plan

Other documents as suggested by participants during the interviews

166

APPENDIX B

 

167

 

APPENDIX B
Sample Interview Protocol

The purpose of this study is to Obtain information on the development and
implementation of the strategic partnership between Barone and Vader.
Speciﬁcally, I am interested in why the two institutions sought to partner, how the
partnership evolved, and how it is working or not. As someone who has been
associated with the undertaking from its initial phase, you are in a unique position
to describe the partnership’s inception, as well as its present form, and to provide
information on the complex dynamics of creating collaborative, or joint, efforts. I
am similarly interested in your views on the lessons you have learned in
participating in the strategic partnership.

I will combine all of the responses for all of the informants for my case
study. If you have any questions about why I am asking something as we go
through the interview, please feel free to inquire. By assessing this strategic
partnership, I hope to acquire additional insight into how these strategic
partnerships are developed and implemented, and what are the impacts of this
effort on the institutions involved. DO you have any questions before we begin?

I. The Form and Process of Collaboration in the Development and
Implementation of the Strategic Partnership

A. The Role of Environmental Factors (Pre-negotiation or Problem-
Setting):

Institutions collaborate to address speciﬁc needs. I am interested in
the thinking that went into the development Of the strategic

partnership.

1. In entering the strategic partnership, what did you hope to get out
of it?

2. What role did concern about transfer students play in the
development of the strategic partnership?

3. What role did articulation agreements play in the development of
the strategic partnership?

4. What role did state employment needs play in the development of
the strategic partnership?

5. Were there other reasons that contributed to the development of the
strategic partnership? If yes, please explain.

168

What were the incentives for your institution to participate in this
undertaking?

What factors fostered or facilitated your ability to work together at
this stage?

Do you have anything else to add about the initial stages of working
together to develop the strategic partnership? If not, then I would like
to ask some questions about the next phase of working together.

B. The Process of Collaboration (Negotiation or Direction-Setting):

I am interested in the process through which the decision was made to develop
the strategic partnership.

1.

Who was involved in the early phases of the partnership at your
institution?

Describe the involvement of your institution as the development of the
strategic partnership got underway.

Who was responsible for the decision to move forward with the strategic
partnership at your institution?

Who was responsible in giving ﬁnal approval for the partnership at your
institution?

What factors fostered or facilitated the your ability to work together at this
stage?

Do you have anything else to add about deciding to work together in
developing the strategic partnership? If not, then I would like to ask some
questions about the process of moving forward.

C. Outcomes of Collaboration (Implementation):

I am interested in your perceptions of what has happened since the formal
decision was made to partner.

1.

2.

What changes have you made to the partnership since its inception? What
are the reasons for those changes?

To what extent has the partnership evolved as you thought it would? How
different is it from what you had envisioned?

169

II.

3. What were some of the outcomes your institution realized from this
endeavor?

4. Were there any unanticipated outcomes? If yes, please explain.
Do you have anything to else to add about the process of moving forward with

the strategic partnership? If not, then I would like to ask some questions
about your institution’s willingness to continue work together.

Factors that Contribute to the Institutions’ Willingness to Continue to Invest Time
and Energy in the Strategic Partnership (Renegotiation):

A.

How effective do you think this strategic partnership has been in fulﬁlling its
goals?

How has your institution changed as a result Of this collaborative undertaking?

In what ways, if any, do collaborative efforts contribute to institutional
effectiveness and success?

. To what extent, if any, does collaboration result in increased risk-taking and

creativity, as well as increased satisfaction?

From an institutional perspective, what do you think the next steps should be
for this strategic partnership?

What have you learned from the implementation of this partnership that may
be of value to future institutional planners?

170

APPENDIX C

171

APPENDIX C

Lines of Inquiry

 

Research Questions

Sources of Data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Barone “Discovery Day”

 

Interviews Direct Observation Document
Analysis

1. How do stakeholders perceive Interview Concept paper,
the issues and challenges Protocol I. A. Meeting notes,
inherent in the initial Nos. 1, 2, 3, E-mail
stages/phases of working 4, 5, 6, 7
together?

2. How do stakeholders perceive Interview Meeting notes,
the issues and challenges Protocol 1. B. E-mail
inherent in deciding what to Nos. 1, 2, 3,
do in working together? 4, 5,

3. How do stakeholders perceive Interview Strategic partners meeting Meeting notes
the issues and challenges Protocol I.C. Annual planning meeting E-mail
inherent in implementing what Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 Barone “Emerging Announcements,
they decide to do in working Technologies” seminar Press release,
together? Newspaper

articles,
Other
communique

4. What contributes to Interview Strategic partners meeting E-mail
stakeholders’ willingness to Protocol II. Annual planning meeting Other
continue to work together? A, B, C, D, E, Barone “Emerging communique

F Technologies” seminar

 

172

 

APPENDIX D

173

APPENDIX D
PARTICIPANT- CONSENT FORM
Individual Interviews

“Seamless Transition in the 21” Century:
Partnering to Survive and Thrive”

The purpose of this study is to obtain information on the development and
implementation of the strategic partnership between Kettering University and Mott
Community College. Speciﬁcally, I am interested in why the two institutions sought to
partner, how the partnership evolved, and how it is working or not.

Your signature on this form indicates that you have agreed to be interviewed for 60 to 90
minutes. This form outlines your rights as an interview participant. Your privacy will
be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. .

 

Participation includes the following:

You will be voluntarily participating in a doctoral dissertation research project
that will describe the collaborative process utilized by a private, four-year
university and a public, two-year community college.

You can withdraw participation from this interview at any time. You can also
refuse to answer a question. If you withdraw your participation during the
interview, the audiotape will be immediately destroyed.

You can ask questions of the interviewer at any time during the interview
process. ' ~

Your identity will be conﬁdential. Pseudonyms will be used in all written
papers, both published and unpublished, in order to protect individual
identiﬁcation.

This interview will be audiotaped and transcribed. After the transcription is
complete, all tapes will be destroyed. The researcher will retain the transcript
of the audiotape and will delete any reference which may identify you as an
individual. If you would prefer not to be audiotaped, the interviewer will take
extensive notes during the interview.

You consent to the publication of parts of the transcript and accept that any
information will be anonymous in order to prevent any identiﬁcation.

174

o If you have any questions about this study, please contact the investigator,
Dr. John Dirkx, College of Education, 419 Erickson Hall, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1034, 517.353.8927, dirkx@msu.edu. You
may also contact the researcher, Gail Hoffman-Johnson, 2327 Bay Woods
Court, Bay City, MI 48706, 989.686.5965, gliohns2@de1ta.edu. If you have
questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or‘ are

' dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact-
anonymously, if you wish—Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University
Committee on Research’lnvolving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone at
517.355.2180, fax at 517.432.4503, email at ucrilrs@msu.edu, or by regular mail
at 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study.

You agree to have the interview audiotaped.

 

Name of Participant (please print)

 

 

Signature of Participant Date

 

 

Signature of Interviewer Date

UCRIHS APPROVAL FOR
THIS project EXPIRES:

OCT 1 1 2005

U8 IT RENEWAL APPUCATION
8 IONS MONTH PRIOR TO
ABOVE DATE TO CONTINUE

175

APPENDIX E

176

APPENDIX E
Interview Protocol Used with the Organizational Consultant

The purpose of this study is to obtain information on the development and
implementation of the strategic partnership between Barone University and
Vader Community College. Speciﬁcally, I am interested in why the two
institutions sought to partner, how the partnership evolved, and how it is working
or not. As someone who has been intimately associated with the undertaking
from its inception, you are in a unique position to verify my preliminary
ﬁndings as well as elaborate on some of the things I am looking at. I am
similarly interested in your views on the lessons to be learned when institutions
attempt to work together.

I will combine all of the responses for all of the informants for my case
study. If you have any questions about why I am asking something as we go
through the interview, please feel free to inquire. By assessing this strategic
partnership, I hope to acquire additional insight into how these strategic
partnerships are developed and implemented, and what are the impacts of this
effort on the institutions involved. Do you have any questions before we begin?

I. The Form and Process of Collaboration in the Development and
Implementation of the Strategic Partnership

A. The Role of Environmental Factors (Pm-negotiation or Problem-
Setting):

Institutions collaborate to address speciﬁc needs. I am interested in
the thinking that went into the development of the strategic
partnership.

1. How did you initially become involved?

2. What role did concern about transfer students play in the
development of the strategic partnership?

3. What role did articulation agreements play in the development of
the strategic partnership?

4. What role did state employment needs play in the development of
the strategic partnership?

5. Were there other reasons that contributed to the development of the
strategic partnership? If yes, please explain.

6. What were your incentives for participating in this undertaking?

177

7.

From your perspective, what factors fostered or facilitated the
ability of the institutions to work together at this stage?

Do you have anything else to add about the initial stages of working
together to develop the strategic partnership? If not, then I would like
to ask some questions about the next phase Of working together.

B. The Process of Collaboration (Negotiation or Direction-Setting):

I am interested in the process through which the decision was made to develop
the strategic partnership.

1.

As the decision was made to partner, what, if anything, stands out for
you at this point in time?

What was your role at this time? Please describe your level of
involvement.

From your perspective, what factors fostered or facilitated the ability of
the institutions to work together at this stage?

DO you have anything else to add about the institutions’ deciding to work
together in developing the strategic partnership? If not, then I would like to
ask some questions about the process of moving forward.

C. Outcomes of Collaboration (Implementation):

I am interested in your perceptions of what has happened since the formal
decision was made to partner.

1.

Are you aware of any changes that have been made to the partnership
since its inception? What are the reasons for those changes?

In your opinion, are changes needed at this point in time? If yes,
please elaborate. '

To what extent has the partnership evolved as you thought it would? How
different is it from what you had envisioned?

What are some of the outcomes that have been realized from this
endeavor?

Were there any unanticipated outcomes? If yes, please explain.

178

111.

Do you have anything to else to add about the process of moving forward with
the strategic partnership? If not, then I would like to ask some questions
about the institutions’ willingness to continue to work together.

Factors that Contribute to the Institutions’ Willingness to Continue to Invest Time
and Energy in the Strategic Partnership (Renegotiation):

A.

How effective do you think this strategic partnership has been in fulﬁlling its
goals?

In what ways, if any, do collaborative efforts contribute to institutional
effectiveness and success?

To what extent, if any, does collaboration result in increased risk-taking and
creativity, as well as increased satisfaction?

From your perspective, what do you think the next steps should be for this
strategic partnership?

What have you learned from the implementation of this partnership that may
be of value to future institutional planners?

179

References

Barone University: 2002-2003 Undergraduate baccalaureate programs, 2. (2002). City:
Barone University (pseudonym).

Barone University 2004-2005 Undergraduate baccalaureate programs, 5. (2004). City:
Barone University (pseudonym).

Basu, O. N., Dirsmith, M. W., & Gupta, P. P. (1999). The coupling of the symbolic and
the technical in an institutionalized context: The negotiated order Of the GAO’s
audit reporting process. American sociological review, 64(4), 406-526.

Brown, D. K. (2001). The social sources of educational credentialism: Status cultures,
labor markets, and organizations. Sociology of education (spring issue), 19-34.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2d ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Fincher, M. (2002). Private university and community college strategic alliances: The
case for cooperation. Community college journal of research and practice, 26(4),
349-361.

Fine, G. A. (1984). Negotiated orders and organizational cultures. Annual review of
sociology, 10, 239—262.

Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Hanna, D. E. (2003). Building a leadership vision: Eleven strategic challenges for higher
education. Educause, 25-34.

Heam, J. C., & Holdsworth, J. M. (2002). Inﬂuences of state-level policies and practices
on college students’ learning, 77(3). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Kanter, R. M. (1990). When a thousand ﬂowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social
cognitions for innovation in organizations. In L. L. Cummings & B. B. Staw

(Eds), The evolution and adaptation of organizations, (pp. 277-319). Greenwich:
J AI Press.

Ignash, J. M., & Townsend, B. K. (2000). Evaluating state-level articulation agreements
according to good practice. Retrieved September 3, 2002, 2002, from
http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org.

180

Langenberg, D. N. (1999). On the horizon: The learning system. In G. H. Gaither (Ed.),
The multicampus system: Perspectives on practice and prospects (pp. 215-241).
Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Linden, R. (2003). Learning to manage horizontally: The promise and challenge of
collaboration. Public management, 85(7), 8-11.

Martin, J ., & Samels, J. E. (2002). We were wrong; try partnerships, not mergers. The
chronicle of higher education, 48( 36), B 10+.

Medved, C. E., & Heisler, J. (2002). A negotiated order exploration of critical student-

faculty interactions: Student-parents manage multiple roles. Communication
education, 51(2), 105-120.

Meehan-Merrill, L., Wiersma, W., Rifﬂe, M., & Joy, S. (2002). Collaborative
partnerships between educational organizations: Extent of independence-
interdependence and satisfaction with collaboration. Charleston, WV: AEL, Inc.

Mintzberg, H. (2000). The professional bureaucracy. In M. Christopher Brown 11 (Ed.),
Organization & governance in higher education (pp. 50-70). Boston: Pearson
Custom Publishing.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis--A sourcebook of new
methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Misaba College catalog. (2003-2004). College Center: Misaba College (pseudonym).

Mish, F. C. (Ed.) et a1. (1996). Merriam- Webster's collegiate dictionary (10th ed.).
Springﬁeld, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc.

New Barone CEO. (2005, March 22). The City Journal Editorial, p. NA (pseudonym).

New times, new strategies: Curricular joint ventures. (2003). Changing enterprise, 9-10,
l4, 16, 19-22, 25-26.

Peterson, M. W., & Anderson, A. D. (June 3-6, 2001). The civic engagement cluster: The
design and creation of an interorganizational collaboration. Paper presented at

the Annual Meeting of the Association for Institutional Research, Long Beach,
CA.

Schaier-Peleg, B., & Donovan, R. A. (1998). Building local partnerships: Contributions
Of a national center. New directions for community colleges, 103, 57-63.

Statement of Strategic Partnership between Misaba College and Barone University.
(2003) (pseudonym).

181

Stein, R. B., & Short, P. M. (2001). Collaboration in delivering higher education
programs: Barriers and challenges. The review of higher education, 24(4), 417-
435.

Strauss, A. (1978). Negotiations: Varieties, contexts, processes, and social order. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Townsend, B. (2001). Redeﬁning the community college transfer mission. Community
college review, 29(2), 29—42.

Townsend, B. K. (2001). Redeﬁning the community college mission. Retrieved October 6,
2002, 2002, from http://www.ncsu.edu

Vader Community College course catalog 2003-2004. (2003). City: Vader Community
College

Varty, J., & Nichols, R. (2002). Strategic community college partnerships: Articulation
Committee of the Design and Manufacturing Alliance.

Wilbur, S. (1996). Understanding the dynamics of community college - university
collaboration: A qualitative study of a transfer admissions program.
Unpublished dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.

Woolhouse, J., & Cramphom, J. (1999). The role of education in economic development.
Industry and higher education, 13(3), 169-175.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods, 3(5). Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.

   

i"giijjjijjiiiiijijii