Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The operationalization of excellence in teaching and scholarship: the role of the academic dean in the school of education
(USC Thesis Other)
The operationalization of excellence in teaching and scholarship: the role of the academic dean in the school of education
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE OPERATIONALIZATION OF EXCELLENCE IN TEACHING AND
SCHOLARSHIP: THE ROLE OF THE ACADEMIC DEAN
IN THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
by
Steven L. Boyd
____________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2008
Copyright 2008 Steven L. Boyd
ii
DEDICATION
To the memory of my parents, Samuel L. and Lureatha Boyd, who tirelessly
worked and sacrificed so that their children would be afforded the privilege
of an education
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to acknowledge and thank my wife, Sharon Delpit Boyd, who
remained by my side throughout this endeavor and faithfully shared this experience
with me every step of the way. Additionally, completing the doctoral program
would not have been possible without the unwavering commitment, support and help
of my sister, Elizabeth Boyd, who time and time again would redirect my path when
I faced challenges; nor without my sister, Karen Boyd, my APA expert. I also wish
to thank my friends and mentors, Gordon Ogdon and Edward Brooks for their
wisdom and spiritual encouragement.
I am likewise grateful for and wish to thank the members of my dissertation
committee: Dr. Karen Gallagher, for her guidance and for being my chairperson;
Dr. Dennis Hocevar, for his clarity and dedication to educational research; and
Dr. Gabriela Mafi, for her encouragement and belief in my ability. Finally, I must
acknowledge the enlightened contributions of Dr. Ilda Jemenez Y West, whose
support, comments and insights served to refine and perfect this dissertation.
In keeping with the life-long goals of my parents, it is hoped that the lessons
honed and presented in this case study serve to help all those who seek to attain and
those who seek to provide a higher standard of education.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication
Acknowledgements
Abstract
ii
iii
vii
Chapter 1: The Role of the University 1
Introduction 1
Background of the Problem: Organizational Context
and Backdrop 7
Knowledge Is Its Own Reward and Universities Exist
Outside of Its Surroundings 8
Knowledge Can Also Have Utility and the University
Can Be Part of the Social Fabric
10
Knowledge As a Commodity 12
The Problem 16
Research Question 21
Chapter 2: The Academic Dean: Promoter of Scholarship
And Teaching Excellence 24
Introduction 24
Academic Dean As Leader/Manager of the School 25
Building a Community of Scholars 37
Setting Direction 41
Empowerment 42
The Role of the Academic Dean 43
Contemporary Roles of Academic Deans in American
Universities
45
Resource Management
Academic Personnel Management
46
47
Internal Productivity Management 47
Personal Scholarship 48
School Leadership 48
External and Political Relations 49
Planning and Preparation 49
Scholarship Within the Professoriate 52
v
Chapter 3: Research Perspective and Methodology 59
Problem and Purpose 59
Research Question 60
Delimitations 61
Limitations 62
Case Study Subject 63
Characteristics of Qualitative Research 64
Theoretical Perspective 66
Role of the Researcher 68
Inquiry Strategy and Justifications 69
Data Collection and Analysis Procedures 73
Strategies for Validating Findings 75
Significance of the Study 77
Chapter 4: Activities of the Dean, School of Education and
Jesuit Pacific University
79
Strategic Activities of the School of Education to
Promote Excellence in Teaching
Strategic Activities of the Academic Dean of
The School of Education
107
112
Transactional and Transformative Leadership Applications
In the Promotion of Scholarship Excellence
Applications for Future Practice
Aligning the Change Initiative
Faculty Selection and the Change Process
Create Inventory of Faculty Traits
123
130
130
132
133
Chapter 5: Findings and Analysis
Introduction
135
135
Activity One: Rearrange Organizational Structure From
Director/Manager to Deanship/Leader
135
Activity Two: Influence Decision-Making Processes 137
Activity Three: Practice Transactional and Transformative
Leadership Strategy
139
Activity Four: Meld Perceptions to Set Directions and
To Create a Supportive Culture
140
Activity Five: Build a Community of Scholars 146
Activity Six: Utilize Diversity to Promote Multi-Cultural
Understanding
147
Activity Seven: Create a Supportive External Perception 148
Activity Eight: Appeal to Internal Locus of Motivation 149
Activity Nine: Repair Only That Which is Broken 150
Activity Ten: Develop a Team Leadership Approach 150
vi
Bibliography
Appendices
Appendix A: School of Education Strategic Plan 2000-2005
Appendix B: School of Education Strategic Plan 2006-2011
Appendix C: Scholarly Activities in the School of Education
155
163
163
175
181
vii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this case study was to discover the significance of and the
relationship between actions taken by the Dean of the School of Education at a
Catholic Comprehensive University as he interprets and implements a strategic
directive to promote excellence in teaching and scholarship. Drawn from a research
foundation that includes leadership, organizational change, higher education
administration and college effects on students, this qualitative study seeks to
discover how change occurs and how specific aspects of change are promoted by the
academic dean. This study employed a partially structured interview protocol of key
informants and an institutional document review process. The data obtained through
this method were manually screened for themes, which resulted in 10 thematic
conclusions about the activities of this School of Education Dean in his efforts to
promote excellence in teaching and scholarship. Each theme represents a collection
of actions, processes, and policies that were formulated and that were placed into
motion by the Academic Dean. These themes include: improving the School of
Education’s organizational structure to enhance the Dean’s authority and leadership
potential; influencing decision-making processes that may effect the School’s ability
to promote excellence in teaching and scholarship; utilizing a combination of
transactional and transformative leadership strategies; melding role perceptions
within the School of Education to create a supportive culture; screening new
perspective employees to build a community of scholars; utilizing diversity within
the professoriate to promote multicultural understanding; working outside of the
viii
School of Education to create a supportive external perception; appealing to an
internal locus of motivation to sustain and invigorate the change process; targeting
interventions to areas that would benefit most from improvement; and developing a
team leadership approach.
1
Chapter 1
THE ROLE OF THE UNIVERSITY
Introduction
In recent history, American university administrators have always sought to
meet the demands of a variety of stakeholders. Being a key player in the
development of a working, intellectual and knowledgeable populace, the purpose and
functions of academic deans are many, varied and malleable according to consensus
and the perceived best interest of their stakeholders. The university has come to
depend on them and the schools and colleges they lead for a variety of services.
These leaders and their institutions are significant vehicles for social and economic
upward migration; providers of opportunities to enhance our individual and
collective human potential; and creators of innovative techniques, products and
processes that maintain our quality of life and international competitive edge.
Unfortunately, as additional capacities and functions are expected and required of the
American university, seldom are previously accepted functions and responsibilities
ever removed. Consequently, academic administrators, particularly those in public
institutions seeking to be all things to all people, have fallen under criticism for not
attending sufficiently to what many consider to be their preeminent responsibility,
maintaining excellence in teaching and scholarship (Rosovsky, 1990, p. 243).
Academic deans play roles which are broad in scope and intricate in
complexity. Like the institutions in which they exist, they are part of the social
fabric of their era. They exist within the bounded reality of that society. Hence,
2
they are subject to the implicit and elicit expectations and limitations imposed upon
them by that larger society within a particular time and place.
In such an environment, the concepts of tradeoffs and indirect consequences
become inevitable and significant in the decisions academic deans make and the
leadership they provide. For example, the budgetary process is one wherein such
tradeoffs are highly visible. The societal expectation of smaller class size may set
into motion a plan to increase the number of sections available in high-demand
courses. Recognizing that the academic budget for a school of education is finite, if
a decision is made to increase the number of sections available in a high demand
course, the financial resources necessary to implement this decision may negatively
impact the availability of funds needed to perform other duties. These duties left
unfunded, such as facility management/repair, or facility improvements, may lead to
more costly reparations and budgetary short falls in the future. Thus, decisions
which involve doing a little more of “one thing”, made at all levels of the
university’s administration often invariably and eventually also mean doing a little
less of “something else”. Another example of a tradeoff is, in a society with external
stakeholders who expect more accessible forms of instruction, deans in educational
schools may seek to leverage technology supporting distance learning. A decision to
enhance the web based instructional capacity of the school of education may have
the indirect consequence of reducing the ranks of instructional faculty. The acute
lack of instructional personnel may then lead to the indirect consequence of
increased teaching loads for the school’s professors. Therefore, in the final analysis,
3
a decision to create more accessible forms of instruction could possibly result in the
tradeoff of increased teaching loads for professors.
As universities realign their mission and processes to better address
contemporary needs and expectations, their limitations necessitate the redirection of
their cognitive and fiscal resources away from some functions in order to leverage
others. The ability at the school and departmental levels to operationalize these
adjustments in emphasis and course is an integral part of meeting the dynamic needs
of internal and external stakeholders. These examples are figurative and have been
presented in order to demonstrate to the reader the concepts and nuances of tradeoffs
and indirect consequences as they impact and pertain to the decisions made by
academic deans. As one course of action is set into motion by the academic dean’s
decision, it obligates resources which are then not available for later, alternative
applications.
Another arena wherein tradeoffs may be found involves teaching versus
research efforts. Contemporary critics of higher education argue that tradeoffs in the
paths taken by university administrators have indirectly undermined the importance
of teaching. Massy (2003) wrote about the tradeoff that potentially occurs between
research and teaching. He noted that small increases in research activity serve to
invigorate and better utilize unallocated faculty time. However, the tradeoff between
research and teaching, as more time is consumed in the performance of research, is
inevitable. Therefore, research essentially drains energy and time from the
professor’s ability to teach and meet related instructional requirements (Massey,
4
2003). This point of view has garnered a broad audience and some degree of
acceptance. Researchers Hood and Arceneaux have noted that student service
departments have been developed at least in part as a result of faculty directing more
of their time toward the activities of performing research. Additionally, Washburn
(2005) wrote that often teaching responsibility became subordinate to other activities
of professors.
The validity of these claims has never been totally established, as Bok
commented, “Overall there is no convincing evidence that faculty members
frequently neglect their students” (2006, p. 32). These claims have nonetheless set
into motion a series of postsecondary accreditation standards that seek to ensure the
significance of teaching within the professoriate.
Evidence also exists which contradicts these assertions that the quality of
teaching and student instructional interactions with faculty are being neglected by
academic deans and the professorate. According to the Department of Education,
faculty members on average spend more than half of their time on matters related to
teaching and less than 20% on research (Mooney, 1990). Additionally, those who
describe themselves as teachers and claim to care more about teaching than research
greatly outnumber those who regard themselves primarily as researchers (Boyer,
1990). Contrary to the argument presented by Washburn (2005), time directed
toward other activities by the professorate also has not been proven to negatively
affect the time devoted to teaching. For example, those who consult extensively
5
usually teach as much as their less enterprising colleagues and receive better student
evaluations (Sax, Astin, Korn, & Gilmartin, cited in Bok, 2006).
As significant external stakeholders, alumni perceptions are also important to
academic deans and administrators. The quality of undergraduate instruction at least
in the opinion of the college alumni has not been negatively influenced by tradeoffs
resulting from administrative decisions. More than 75% of college alumni report
being either satisfied or very satisfied with their undergraduate experience (Smith,
1990, p. 43). Two thirds would choose the same institution if they had to make the
choice again (Astin, 1993, p. 272). Among the most selective colleges and
universities of which the critics (Kerr, 2001; Massy, 2003; Washburn, 2005) have
been most critical, the percentages of contented graduates is even higher, and the
alumni support their alma maters with exceptional generosity (Jacob, 1957, p. 4).
Finally, undergraduates do not consider their professors inaccessible; more than 75%
claim to be satisfied with the opportunity to discuss questions about their courses
with their professors (Astin, 1993, p. 275).
In spite of this contradicting evidence, measures have been taken in order to
ensure that teaching and scholarship remain a key focus of school administrators
within the university. In fact, legislatures in 37 states have initiated programs to
assess the outcomes being produced by public universities in their states (Hunt,
1990). These outcome programs attempt to assess the quality of the educational
programs in the university. At the heart of these mandates is the implied assumption
6
that public education is producing graduates who are not able to meet stakeholder
expectations (Hunt, 1993, p. 3).
Additionally, accrediting bodies, especially the Southern Association of
Schools and Colleges (SASC), have developed elaborate criteria to judge the
effectiveness of teaching programs in their member institutions. These criteria
require universities to assess the students’ progress toward learning and to provide
public reports about how well their students are doing. In theory, regional
accreditation can depend on the degree to which these assessment measures have
been institutionalized (Hunt, 1993).
Furthermore, several states have now begun workload studies to determine
how many hours faculty members work each week. Beyond providing simple
reports on hours worked, states are asking faculty to report how they spend their
time, especially how much time each week they devote to meeting with students.
Another strand of state sponsored legislation seeks to enhance university
accountability by boldly suggesting that university administrators redefine their
missions to include more emphasis on undergraduate education and less on scholarly
research.
Finally, initiatives are being forwarded nationally to incorporate such tools as
teaching portfolios, standardized testing on discipline content, and senior capstone
experiences (Hunt, 1993). These measures directly relate to the curriculum and its
instructional content. If enacted, they will greatly affect the teaching, learning, and
scholarly processes within the university and their schools. Therefore, the
7
contemplation of such initiatives represents at best, an attempt to focus the attention
of college deans and administrators toward the process of teaching; and at worst,
collectively they represent an attempt to direct the teaching process in higher
education.
Background of the Problem: Organizational Context and Backdrop
Looking back, teaching and scholarship in American universities has moved
through three distinct phases (Boyer, 1990; Kerr, 2001). These three
conceptualizations spring from a fundamental schism that developed in the earliest
days of the university, as scholars from different eras, in their contrasting opinions,
postulated the purpose of the university. Remnants of this discourse are still evident
today. In order to understand these divergent concepts of the role of the university
and its administrators as it pertains to teaching and scholarship, it is important to
understand the historical foundation which gives these roles form and credence.
This historical foundation is important in understanding the role of academic
deans because as noted earlier, deans like the universities in which they function,
seek to meet the demands of a variety of stakeholders. These stakeholder demands
and resulting processes orchestrated by the dean stem from these three fundamental
societal beliefs of how a university should serve the populace. These societal beliefs
likewise influence the role played by the academic dean as he attempts to promote
excellence in teaching and scholarship. Qualitatively, they affect the standards by
which excellence in teaching and scholarship is judged. Therefore, these distinctive
schools of thought are presented below in order to give the reader the contextual
8
information about stakeholder expectations and the consequential decisions made by
academic deans.
Knowledge Is Its Own Reward and Universities Exist Outside of Its
Surroundings
One point of view, eloquently constructed by Cardinal Newman, contends
that a university and its academic administrators are
the high protecting power of all knowledge and science, of fact and
principal, of inquiry and discovery, of experiment and speculation;
it maps out the territory of the intellect, and sees that … there is
neither encroachment nor surrender on any side (1947, p. 129).
Hence, the concept of universities as the stewards of knowledge developed.
Newman felt that "Knowledge is capable of being its own end. Such is the
constitution of the human mind, but any kind of knowledge, if it really be such, is its
own reward" (p. 91). A university training, said Newman,
aims at raising the intellectual tone of society, at cultivating the
public mind, at purifying the national tastes, at supplying true
principles to popular enthusiasm and fixed aims to popular aspirations,
at giving enlargement and sobriety to the ideas of the age, at
facilitating the exercise of political powers, and refining the
intercourse of private life (p. 157).
The university of Newman is not only alive in this case study, but it also thrives at
Jesuit Pacific University – the institution where this case study is situated.
Jesuit Pacific University is noted for and acknowledged by others as an
institution that values the art of teaching. Additionally, within the school of
education discipline fidelity is a highly regarded and expected behavior of all
instructional faculty members. As external and internal stakeholders subscribe to
9
this school of thought, the academic dean is obligated to develop and implement
policies which are consistent with the perceived function of a school of education.
From this point of view, the school of education should be detached from the
contemporary needs of its era, and engaged only with the intricacies of its discipline.
This intellectual, introspective and self absorbed proclivity of the early university
placed high value on the students and student interactions occurring within them.
The first colleges were student focused, and teaching was considered to be
the sacred calling of their faculty and the college’s most important responsibility.
“Scholarly achievement was not a high priority, for either professors or students”
(Benditt, 1990, p. 94). “Students were entrusted to tutors (who were) responsible for
their intellectual, moral, and spiritual development” (Boyer, 1990, p. 4).
The only domain in which one could pursue excellence in this university was
within the context of a specific, academic discipline. That is, the professoriate would
see no need to make their academic discipline relevant or applicable to the larger
world, current trends, specific needs of society, nor provide value in a contemporary
world. Their only obligation and yardstick to which the principle of excellence
would be measured is the degree to which professors are loyal to the accepted
tenants of their subject and their students.
The centrality of teaching persisted well into the 19th century. “Young
scholars continue to be the central focus of collegiate life, and faculty was employed
with the understanding that they would be educational mentors, both in the
classroom and beyond” (Boyer, 1990, p. 4).
10
This conceptual picture of the role of the university has filtered down to the
practices of the academic dean. The dean, seeking to meet the expectations of
stakeholders who agree with Newman perceptually, expects that excellence in
teaching and scholarship conform to the tenants of Newman’s beliefs. Academic
deans accordingly should therefore develop policies which insure the importance of
teaching and the intellectual maturation of the students within their discipline.
Relevance of that instruction to current trends and needs of the contemporary society
would not be required nor valued. These tenants are at odds with the second
historical perception of the role and functions of universities and university
administrators as postulated by Flexner. Flexner’s conception of the university is
presented below.
Knowledge Can Also Have Utility and the University Can Be Part of the Social
Fabric
Another perspective of the role of the university as it pertains to teaching and
scholarship is represented in the works of Francis Bacon and Abraham Flexner.
Bacon considered the liberal knowledge of Newman to be "a kind of adoration of the
mind … by means whereof men have withdrawn themselves too much from the
contemplation of nature, and the observations of experience, and tumbled up and
down in their own reason and conceits" (Bacon, 1937, pp. 214-215). Bacon favored
knowledge that had utilitarian value (Kerr, 2001, p. 2), less ethereal, more practical
knowledge, which had the ability to be employed in order to benefit man. According
to this perception of a school, academic deans in the promotion of teaching and
11
scholarship, must not only acknowledge but also seek to address the societal needs of
their era. Research and teaching within this paradigm should seek to develop
practical knowledge which has utilitarian value.
Flexner contended,
a University is not outside, but inside the general social fabric of a given
era... It is not something apart, something historic, something that yields
as little as possible to forces and influences that are more or less new. It
is on the contrary … an expression of the age, as well as an influence
operating upon both present and future" (Flexner, 1930, p. 4).
There is an analogous relationship implied by Flexner in the quotation above
between a strand of yarn in a fabric and the university in the larger context of
society. It implies a relation between the university and society in which it conforms
and is part of the intricacies of that society. As a string of yarn is a part of a tapestry,
a university is part of the larger world in which it finds itself. As a single tread is
tethered by and intricately woven into the larger cloth, so is the University of Flexner
tethered by and intricately woven into the cloth of its larger society. This university
must conform to and meet the needs of its stakeholders and the larger society just as
each single strand of yarn bends, twists and conforms to the larger garment of which
it is a part. Accordingly, Flexner believed that a university’s roles and contributions
are not static but rather dynamically defined and formulated by the age and social
fabric in which it exists. Administrators within these institutions are likewise
tethered by and to the expectations of societal stakeholders to function in ways which
are congruent to the tapestry in which they exist. In this context, the academic dean
is encouraged to formulate policies and practices which link his activities to the
12
larger tapestry and develops relationships between his school and external
stakeholders. In this case study, there are aspects of Flexner’s conceptualization
operating in this Dean’s efforts to promote excellence in scholarship and teaching.
Flexner, in his work “The Idea of A Modern University”, wrote of the teacher
scholar model of the professoriate (cited in Boyer, 1990). Excellence within this
paradigm involves not only activities of the faculty and administration that pertain to
the specific academic domain, but also to the degree to which these academic
endeavors teach and create knowledge that supports the larger needs of its world.
Incorporating the conceptualizations of Flexner into the role and activities of the
academic dean, excellence in teaching and scholarship would not only include
constructs of discipline fidelity, teaching, and student learning as Cardinal Newman
would insist, but also intellectual content and activity would be measured against the
additional yardsticks of relevance, value, applicability and utility as compared to real
world problems.
Knowledge as a Commodity
Currently, the university of today is distinctly different from the one
described by Flexner and Cardinal Newman (Pusey, cited in Kerr, 2001). President
Nathan Pusey, in the early 1960s, wrote in an annual report to the Harvard Board of
Overseers,
One can find almost anywhere one looks similar examples of the
effect wrought in the curriculum and the nature of the contemporary
university by widening international awareness, advancing
knowledge, and increasingly sophisticated methods of research …
13
Asia and Africa, radio telescopes, masers and lasers and devices of
interplanetary exploration unimagined in 1924 – these and other
developments have effected such enormous changes in the
intellectual orientation and aspirations of the contemporary
university as to have made a university we knew as students now
seem a strangely undeveloped, indeed a very simple and an almost
unconcerned kind of institution. And the pace of change continues
(cited in Kerr, 2001, p. 3).
The university as Pusey described has been changed fundamentally, in part by the
larger society in which it finds itself and that society’s overarching demands. While
Pusey’s intent in this passage was to note the magnitude of change which has
occurred conceptually between the modern university and its predecessor, Kerr
(2001) takes this discussion one step further and more clearly describes this
contemporary university in the paragraph which follows. It is interesting to note that
both Kerr and Pusey’s conceptualizations are congruent, especially in reference to
the divergent, intricate and autonomous nature of this contemporary university’s
components and contributions to its stakeholders.
University of California President and author Clark Kerr, in his work, The
Uses of the University, contrasted the university of Flexner to the university of today,
which he refers to as a “multiversity” by noting,
Flexner thought of a university as an “organism”. In an organism
The parts of the whole are inextricably bound together. Not so [with]
the multiversity –many parts can be added and subtracted with little
effect on the whole or even little notice taken or any blood spilled.
It is more a mechanism–a series of processes producing a series of
results – a mechanism held together by administrative rules and
powered by money (2001, p. 15).
The “powered by money” reference and the ease with which different components of
the university can be added and removed have facilitated comparisons and analogies
14
of the current university to large corporations that have similar structures. Within
this analogy and metaphor, knowledge is the commodity which is produced and sold
for profit rather than goods and services.
The current university is seen more like a large multinational business, each
division subject to economic principles of survival. James Duderstadt, the 11
th
president of the University of Michigan, described the modern research university as
a type of corporate organization.
“We have all become conglomerates because of the interests and
efforts of our faculty. We are prime examples of loosely coupled,
adaptive systems that have grown in complexity as their various
components have responded to environmental changes – each
component pursuing its own particular goals. We are (learning
organizations) to use the business term. Beyond that, we are also a
holding company for thousands of faculty entrepreneurs” (Meyerson
and Massy, 1995, p. 7).
The “loosely coupled” impersonalized attributes of the modern university have also
been described humorously in the words of Robert Hutchins as he noted, “The
modern university (is) a series of separate schools and departments held together by
a central heating system”(cited in Kerr, 2001, p. 15).
Schools within the university became more like divisions within the
corporation, each subject to laws of supply and demand. Vice Provost and Dean of
Research at Stanford University, William Massy, submitted “Some universities are
larger and more complex than most businesses, and most are vulnerable to market
forces. They must obey the laws of economics and deal with price, costs, efficiency,
and finance (2003, p. 29). They produce goods and services that must be
marketable, cost efficient, and in order to remain viable, they must meet the
15
utilitarian and other expectations of their consumers (Massy, 2003). Additionally,
this university must compete with other institutions in the market place where
internal and external customers have options (Massy, 2003). Against this figurative
backdrop, the decisions made by the academic dean must be weighed against the
financial best interest of the school of education, students and the university. Not
surprisingly, there are components of Kerr’s conceptualization of the university’s
role operating in this case study’s setting. The School of Education’s Dean at Jesuit
Pacific University promotes excellence in teaching and scholarship with a strategy
which is cognizant of the faculty’s entrepreneurial potential and the ever present
competition both within and outside of the university to acquire fiscal resources.
As universities have adapted and conformed over time to the additional
expectations of their era, so also have the teaching and scholarship roles of schools
within the university. Each additional function is added to those functions that
already existed. Teaching and the complete intellectual development of students are
still expected to be the primary purpose of the university (Bok, 2006, p. 8). Single-
minded, devoted faculty/mentors are still expected to deliver content knowledge that
raises the intellectual tone of society without the corrupting influence of social
context, just as in the day of Cardinal Newman. The imparted knowledge must not
only have a high degree of discipline fidelity, but also, as Flexner would insist, be
relevant to the world and the daily course of events. Training and scholarship should
likewise have the virtues of contemporary relevance and focused application.
Finally, the research conducted in universities must not only have utility but also
16
allow the university and its respective schools the ability to better compete in the
global market and on the world stage with economic as well as academic rewards
and consequences. It is the academic dean along with other administrative leaders
who are still expected to see that all these activities are performed by a university of
the modern era.
The Problem
Throughout this paper it has been noted that the decisions of academic deans
are affected by societal expectations. The historical underpinnings of stakeholder
and societal expectations were presented. In this section, the contemporary stage
upon which academic deans perform is given form and context. In the promotion of
excellence in teaching and scholarship, the academic dean must not only balance his
strategy to include meeting historical expectations of stakeholders but also
addressing novel demands and performance standards which are presented in this
section. The university’s research responsibilities are at the center of these new
societal requests. While promoting excellence in scholarship, academic deans and
university administrators are expected to create processes and develop infrastructure
to transfer, produce and manipulate knowledge which provide innovative, financially
lucrative solutions to societal problems and in so doing, kindle economic
revitalization. Streaming from a merger of the thoughts of Flexner and Kerr as to the
role of the academic deans and administrators, these new pressures and standards by
which excellence in scholarship is judged are presented so that the reader will have
17
an understanding of the contemporary influences, pressures and connotations
excellence in scholarship has within university theaters.
In the September 3, 1978 edition of the Washington Post there was a headline
which read, “Something’s Happened to Yankee Ingenuity”. Later in October of that
year, Time magazine ran an article entitled “The Innovation Recession”. On June 4,
1979, the cover of Newsweek pondered, “Has America Lost Its Edge?” The articles
were of a common theme, namely that American innovative competitiveness on the
international stage in leading new-age technologies was in decline. This message
took hold and reverberated throughout the national conscience, which was becoming
increasingly cognizant of, and eager to, reverse the economic recession and
expanding federal trade deficit with Japan. Answers were sought by journalists,
analysts, and legislators in a variety of settings, first business and then the
educational arena.
Technologically significant discoveries made at universities have the
potential to revolutionize an industry, render another obsolete, and overnight create
opportunities for local prosperity. Four University of Florida physician/researchers
in 1965, at the request of an assistant coach at the University of Florida, attempted to
discover why their football players were suffering from so many heat-related
illnesses. Their inquiry led to the formulation of a balanced carbohydrate and
electrolyte drink, which later became known as Gatorade. With this invention, the
University of Florida became the first entrant into what is now referred to as the
sports drink beverage market. Presently, Gatorade is the world’s leading sports
18
drink; it is sold in over 50 countries, surpassing $3 billion in the United States alone
in the 2005 calendar year. Others observers have acknowledged the importance and
monetary significance of information. In fact, phrases such as knowledge worker
and intellectual capital have worked their way into the collegial vernacular.
Clark Kerr (2001) noted in the 1960s that knowledge production was growing
at a fast pace and that it represented a significant portion of America’s gross national
product. He believed that the knowledge industry would dramatically affect the
world.
Faced with the lingering recession, and a prevailing sense of decreased
competitiveness, universities were encouraged through legislation and monetary
incentives to leverage their intellectual capital through applied research. The
legislative piece of the puzzle came in 1979, in the form of the Bayh-Dole Act. The
bill was crafted in order to promote university/industry collaborations, with the
implied understanding that such collaborations and their corresponding research
would stimulate the economy (Washburn, 2005, p. 61).
Notwithstanding the fact that “merely two dozen universities make
significant profits from technology licensing (and) many others barely break even or
lose money,” critics assert that as a result of these legislative and monetary
incentives, subtle changes began to occur within the Academy (Washburn, 2005, p.
xii). They contend that the balance between teaching and scholarship shifted in
favor of scholarship (Smith, 1990; Sykes, 1988).
19
Historically, the administrative responsibilities of academic deans postulated
in the university construct of Newman were forced to share the stage with the
responsibilities postulated in the university construct of Flexner and Kerr. Smith
wrote of this shift in her work titled Killing the Spirit. “The faculties at the elite
universities and increasingly, at those lesser institutions bent on aping them are in
full flight from teaching…It is students who threaten to take up precious time that
might otherwise be devoted to research” (1990, p. 6). “Authors such as Charles
Sykes in Profscam have assailed tenured professors for caring only about their
research and appointing new colleagues almost entirely for their scholarly
reputations, with little heed to the quality of their teaching”(Bok, 2006, p. 3). As
mentioned previously, the professoriate had traditionally been expected to serve as
both scholars and teachers; time devoted to research was obviously time lost from
teaching.
Higher education critics accuse the professoriate of favoring academic
discipline over institutional mission and neglecting their obligations to their students.
In an influential work titled Integrity in the College Curriculum, published by the
Association of American Colleges, it was declared that "America’s colleges and
universities no longer have a ‘firm grasp of their goals and missions,’ partially
because the faculty's ‘allegiance to academic disciplines [is] stronger than their
commitment to teaching or the life of the institution where they are employed’”
(Massy, 2003, p. 9).
20
Additionally, the nature of what was taught also changed. Some observers
noted "the lack of any overarching purpose in the undergraduate curriculum" (Bok,
2006, p. 2). The strength of Newman’s academy, the intellectual and spiritual
cultivation of the student has seemingly become the liability of the modern
university. A contentious point delineated at length by author Allen Bloom
contended that “There is no vision, nor is there a set of competing visions, of what an
educated human being is" (1987, p. 337). “Knowledge itself has splintered into a
kaleidoscope of separate academic specialties with far too little effort to integrate the
fragments, let alone show students how they might connect” (Bok, 2006, p. 2).
Accordingly, a point elaborated by Bruce Wilshire in his Moral Collapse of the
University, the education offered at many of American universities has become not
only incoherent but also is ill prepared to answer the larger question "of what we are
and what we ought to be" (Wilshire, 1990, p. xxiv).
The dean and all levels of college administration, as presented in this section,
increasingly find themselves in a contemporary environment that is critical of their
decisions in the promotion of excellence in teaching and scholarship. As noted
previously at the beginning of this section titled “The Problem”, it is important for
the reader to be aware of the current influences and pressures faced by academic
deans as they seek to define and orchestrate efforts to promote excellence in teaching
and scholarship. Among the chorus of criticisms are accusations that academic
deans and administrators promote research activities at the expense of teaching
(Smith, 1990, p. 6), have allowed academic discipline allegiance to trump the
21
importance of institutional missions (Massy, 2003, p. 9) and have failed to create an
overarching purpose ( Bok, 2006, p. 2) and coherent vision of an educated human
being (Wilshire, 1990, p. xxiv). The academic dean finds himself within this
backdrop of policies, imperatives, critiques, social needs and stakeholder
expectations both within and outside of the university and the school of education.
This challenging contemporary environment is the one in which this research is set.
As a pivotal administrative figure in the school of education, this academic dean at
Jesuit Pacific University is primarily entrusted with the responsibility of reconciling
these critiques and requests in ways which support and advance the mission and
purpose of the school of education and the university as he promotes excellence in
teaching and scholarship.
Research Question
This dissertation’s research question addresses Wilshire’s (1990) larger
question, simply stated, “How does the academic dean of the school of education
operationalize excellence in teaching and scholarship?” More specifically for this
researcher’s discussion, “How does the academic dean of the school of education at
Jesuit Pacific University manage, sustain and direct the change process in order to
promote excellence in teaching and scholarship?” Excellence, as discussed
previously in this chapter, involves meeting a collage of expectations, some of which
are potentially conflicting, from a variety of stakeholders. Specifically of interest is
how the academic dean defines excellence in such a way that it is congruent with the
conceptualizations of Newman, Kerr, and Flexner. Additionally, how has the
22
academic dean incorporated university and school missions into this strategic
initiative as he creates procedures, practices, and processes to succeed? How does
the academic dean acquire the resources and wherewithal to sustain the pursuit of
excellence and develop and maintain a consensus among faculty?
The dissertation question presented is limited in scope to a single dean in the
School of Education within Jesuit Pacific University. In the preceding pages of this
chapter, the many and varied expectations of academic deans have been presented
along with a discussion of their historic underpinnings and numerous critical
assessments. Although academic deans and administrators are noted generally in
this discussion, it should be understood that the factors, expectations, forces,
stakeholders, influences, objectives and goals that are in play at the macroscopic,
general level of institutional administration are also equally relevant and active at the
microscopic, specific frame of Jesuit Pacific University School of Education
Deanship. They are equally relevant and influential in shaping this School of
Education’s conceptualizations and actions.
It is important in this query to distinguish between deciding what constitutes
excellence in teaching and scholarship from the process of implementing it. This
study begins at the point in this process after the mission statement and strategic plan
have been crafted, and before they have been transcribed into actions and policies.
To the degree that the academic dean is allowed to determine how best to interpret
the mission and meet the needs of the school’s internal and external stakeholders,
23
this dissertation describes and evaluates that process and the nature of that
interpretation.
24
Chapter 2
THE ACADEMIC DEAN: PROMOTER OF SCHOLARSHIP
AND TEACHING EXCELLENCE
Introduction
The primary purpose of this study and its single research question is to
understand how the academic dean of the school of education operationalizes
excellence in teaching and scholarship. To this researcher it appears that if we
accept the premise that teaching and scholarship excellence is a relative valuation
rather than an absolute one, then two logical assumptions of excellence are plausible.
First, this allows the possibility of interval scaling between total and partial
excellence attainment. Second, the attainment of excellence in teaching and
scholarship becomes more like a process rather than a single event or end result, with
stages and dimensions that can be assessed and systematically improved.
Assessment, as it is used in the sentence above, implies the ability to direct
and to perform focused evaluations of various aspects of performance against
previously accepted criteria for success. These focused evaluations will invariably
yield feedback, which can then be analyzed and employed to inform and direct
corrective responses. The ability to make corrections enhances the ability of the
dean and the school to achieve their goals. Therefore, the operationalization of
excellence in teaching and scholarship is seen in this study as a process orchestrated
and steered by the academic dean in order to accomplish his or her school's specific,
strategic initiatives and the larger general mission of the institution.
25
What this study does not attempt to do is question what excellence is in
teaching and scholarship. The clarification and contextualization of excellence is a
complex process involving an assessment and balancing of stakeholder needs,
organizational limitations, and community expectations, to name a few. As
limitations, expectations, and stakeholders are different from one university setting
to another, similar schools of education in different institutions will construct
excellence differently. The qualities that constitute excellence are environmentally
cued by the interplay of a number of variables.
Instead, this study begins at the point at which the initiatives, derived from
Jesuit Pacific University’s mission statement and represented in the strategic plan,
are delivered to the academic dean. This study centers on the actions of the
academic dean, even though others frequently participate in this process of
operationalizing strategic initiatives. The deanship, unlike faculty members below
and administrators above this position in the organizational hierarchy, is primarily
entrusted with the responsibility of implementing the strategic plan at the school
level. This is accomplished as the dean and others work together to create processes,
rules, climate, practices, curricula, and procedures necessary to accomplish the
strategic goals of the institution.
Academic Dean as Leader/Manager of the School
Deans exist in the tenuous and often hypothetical realm in between faculty
and administration. Rosovsky noted in reference to the deanship “governance is a
form of class treason, a leap from “we” to “they,” and a betrayal of our primary
26
mission – teaching and research (Rosovsky, 1990, p. 243). At these crossroads,
deans perform vital tasks that not only ensure scholastic rigor and vitality within
their schools and departments (Wolverton and Gmelch, 2002), but also align these
vital tasks to the central functions, mission and strategic plan of the larger
organization. Academic deans are seen simultaneously as extensions of the faculty
by the administrative hierarchy of the university and as emissaries of the
administration by the faculty. Therefore, a case can be made for describing the
academic deanship as a managerial title as well as a leadership position.
Many authors have sought to distinguish and delineate what management and
leadership encompass in the academic setting. Bennis and Nanus (1985), who
distinguished managers from leaders by the tasks they perform, are credited with the
frequently repeated quote “managers do things right and leaders do the right things”
(p. 21). This distinction hints that academic leadership is more globally focused and
further removed than management from the tribulations of daily operations. Kotter
(1988) likewise considered management to primarily involve manipulations of the
structural nuts and bolts of planning, organizing and controlling. As deans perform
these functions they are serving in a managerial capacity. Conversely, Kotter has
observed that leaders orchestrate change through building relationships, networking
and developing visions. Although these actions are more difficult to quantify and
distinguish, as deans employ these behaviors, Kotter contends that they are
functioning in the capacity of a leader. Gardner (1989), however, argues against this
tendency of differentiating too meticulously between leaders and managers. He fears
27
that leaders may “end up looking like a cross between Napoleon and the Pied Piper,
and managers like unimaginative clods” (p. 3).
This is, indeed, the case as it pertains to the academic dean. The dean’s
scope of practice is varied and dependant in large part on what is needed at the
moment, in a particular setting. The academic dean does wear many hats. Some of
these involve tasks that are routinely considered managerial in nature, while other
tasks are clearly within the domain of leadership. The complexity of role overlap
can be inappropriately simplified in the case of a dichotic discussion of the academic
dean as a leader or manager singularly. Even though the distinctions between what
constitutes leadership and management are distinct and stark in comparison, it is very
easy and plausible to envision leaders serving in managerial capacities which are
cued by situations. Conversely, managers, as organizational structure permits and
situational variables dictate, function also as leaders. This dissertation works from
the premise that academic deans are primarily leaders who sometimes serve in
managerial capacities. A good distinction and clarification of an academic dean as a
leader comes from the work of Gardner (1989). He suggested that academic deans
are leaders if they “think long term, look outside as well as inside, and influence
constituents beyond their immediate jurisdiction” (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 337).
Additionally, Gardner suggested that leaders “emphasize vision and renewal and
have the political skills to cope with the challenging requirements of multiple
constituencies” (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 338).
28
Conversely, leadership in academic settings has been described as a variety
of traits and behaviors possessed and expressed by leaders.
Perhaps the two most widely accepted propositions about leadership in
academic settings are that all good leaders must have the right stuff –
such qualities as vision, strength and commitment that are essential to
leadership – and that good leadership is situational; what works in one
setting will not work in another (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 339).
Effective school literature supports the former construct of leadership, contending
that good schools are headed by strong, visionary, instructional leaders (Bolman and
Deal, 2003). Unfortunately, as a result of the right stuff proposition of academic
leadership, myths abound regarding the character and traits of effective academic
leaders.
In spite of the strong, visionary, instructional leader personification of
academic leadership (Bolman and Deal, 2003), research suggests that the academic
deans are not necessarily free, independent nor innovative in their leadership
approaches. In fact, academic leaders seldom act independently. Instead, deans both
shape and are shaped by their constituents (Gardner, 1989; Simmel & Wolff, 1964).
This is not only reasonable but also vital to the continued success of the organization.
One sided, top down dialogue can have severe consequences on the ability of the
organization to adapt to changes and prosper. Just as leaders can be powerful, they
can also be powerfully wrong. When faculty blindly commit, group think and accept
without scrutiny the leader’s perceptions, poor outcomes are more than likely to
result. Surprisingly, academic deans are not necessarily independent and innovative
in their problem solving strategy.
29
Academic leaders may appreciate the value of thinking freely (Sample, 2002);
however, they don’t always promote new ideas first. Often they follow the crowd
and promote ideas that already have broad-based favor among their stakeholders
(Cleveland, 1985). As Briand (1993) injected, an academic dean “who makes a
decision and then attempts to ‘sell’ it to the public is not a wise leader and will likely
not prove an affective one” (p. 39). The “public” referenced in the preceding
sentence refers to the internal stakeholders with whom the dean must interact. The
internal stakeholders include the faculty, alumni, students and support staff who
work within the school of education. Although each of these groups of constituents
represents a different focus and interest, they are all valuable resources which can be
important in ensuring the success of the school and the academic dean’s decisions.
Belasco and Stayer (1993) contended that a leadership strategy which
develops the capacity of the organization to determine its proper course and corrects
its activities in ways that allow it to procure its new initiatives is better than a
leadership strategy that seeks to sell these insights to the organization.
Finally, the myth about academic deans being free to act is also false. The
academic dean does not always exercise broad, longitudinal freedom of action. The
actions of the academic dean, like the institution in which he or she functions, exist
within a larger bounded reality, such that the dean’s decisions generate direct and
indirect consequences that in turn affect his or her capacity for initiating further
actions (Murphy, 1985).
30
In contrast to the right stuff school of leadership theory, another popular
construct of academic leadership is that it is situational. It is situational, in that the
optimal strategy an academic dean takes in one setting may change as situation
variables change. Inherent in this theoretical prospective is the assumption that
multiple leadership strategies can be affective depending on environmental
constraints. As a consequence of the situational leadership frame, two specific
approaches to leadership in academic settings have gained prominence. These two
broad schools of leadership strategies include transactional and transformative
leadership (Burns, 1978). “Transformational leaders are viewed as directing and
having personal impact on their colleagues (followers) and are sought after as a
resource of motivation and inspiration. In contrast, transactional theory defines
leadership as a reciprocal process of social change between leaders and followers”
(Wolverton & Gmelch, 2002, p. 32).
Bensimon, Neumann, and Birnbaum (1989) believed that even though the
transformational perspective on leadership in higher education “enjoys rhetorical
support, it is an approach that in many ways may not be compatible with the ethos,
values, and organizational features of colleges and universities” (p. 78). The authors
postulated that while transformational theory is seductive, transactional theory may
be more characteristic of leadership on most campuses. Others contended that deans,
as leaders, may fall into either one of these camps or possibly both; and
comparatively speaking, it is more a matter of degree rather than an “either/or”
31
situation (Wolverton, Gmelch, Montez and Nies, 2001; Wolverton and Gmelch,
2002, p. 32).
According to Blanchard (1984), there are a number of situational variables
that influence the efficacy of leadership style. “These variables include such
elements as deadlines; organizational structure, climate and/or culture; role
expectations of superiors, peers, and/or subordinates; changing job responsibilities
and personal attitudes, professional capabilities, health, etc.” (Bowman, 1994, pp.
37-38). As situations dictate, academic deans employ a variety of leadership styles.
Therefore, to characterize a dean’s leadership approach as a dichotomy of either
transactional or transformational misrepresents the complexity of factors that
influence the leadership tact that deans choose to employ.
If deans employ transactional and/or transformational strategies, depending
on the situational variables, as they perform their leadership duties, then the next
question by this researcher would be, “What are the institutional consequences of
situationally prescribed applications of transactional and transformative schools of
leadership theory in university settings?” The short answer to this question is that
transformative leadership practices bode better for positive, sustainable, long-term
organizational outcomes in educational institutions. Support for this statement is
presented below in a discussion of research involving employee commitment to
institutional goals.
Argyris (2000), in research regarding employee commitment to institutional
goals and objectives, noted that two forms of institutional commitments exist. When
32
deans act from a transactional point of reference, they provide incentives, which then
elicit responses, which accomplish the desired goal, activity or task. The dean
stipulates the objective and related tasks and hence directs the activities of goal
attainment. Incentives can take a variety of forms; however, they all share a single
trait. That is, they are all perceived as desired rewards by the group to which they
are being offered. As rewards, their attainment becomes a motivation for the
performance of stipulated tasks or duties. Examples of incentives provided in part
by the dean may include released-time, recognition or favorable performance
appraisals. Publications, community service, instruction, committee participation
and department representation are traditional examples of tasks a dean may assign to
faculty. Just as in a business transaction, performance of the desired task garners the
prescribed reward. Obtaining the reward becomes the motivation for task
performance.
For example, the dean of education would like to increase the amount of
research performed by his or her faculty. The dean forms a committee that will
identify grant opportunities aligned with the academic interests of the faculty. The
committee requires a chairperson, and two faculty members would be ideal
candidates for the position. One professor is tenured, nationally renowned, and the
most productive scholar in the school of education. As the dean seeks to obtain his
commitment to voluntarily serve as chairman, the dean appeals to his sense of
loyalty to his profession, loyalty to his long-time colleagues and loyalty to their
shared vision of what the school could achieve with his additional contribution. The
33
second chairperson candidate has just been hired but has a strong reputation as a new
researcher. As the dean seeks to obtain his commitment to voluntarily serve as
chairman, the dean informs him of the school’s expectation of new faculty to serve
on committees and that such activities are recognized in annual evaluations and
tenure considerations. In convincing the tenured professor whose participation was
more or less elective, themes of loyalty, shared vision, mission, and well established
relationships were leveraged in order to achieve the desired behaviors. These are
transformative tools of leadership in that they appeal to an internal sense of
obligation as a source of motivation to volunterarily commit and contribute (Argyris,
2000, p. 40). On the contrary, authoritative directed appeals, which leverage
subordinate self interest, are transactional incentives to achieving the desired
behaviors. The type of commitment gained from the faculty when transactional
forms of leadership are employed would be referred to as external commitment in the
nomenclature of Argyris (2000). External commitment is an acceptance of
responsibility which is derived from job title, job description and institutionally
granted authority. In this form of commitment, the individual’s willingness to
contribute is garnered from the institutional setting and other motivations external to
himself (Argyris).
When deans employ the transformative theory of leadership they seek to
develop an internal locus of motivation that drives and compels faculty to willingly
contribute in ways that support the goals and objectives of the school. There is in
this internal locus a sense of ownership, connectedness, and a consensus in belief,
34
and commitment to a shared altruistic purpose, vision and mission of the school or
university. When the academic dean garners faculty commitment through applying
transformative leadership theory, the type of commitment obtained is referred to as
internal commitment. More precisely, Argyris commented,
These differ [internal and external commitment] in how they are
activated and in the source of energy they utilize. External
commitment is triggered by management policies and practices that
enable employees to accomplish their tasks. Internal commitment
derives from energies internal to human beings that are activated
because getting a job done is intrinsically rewarding” (Argyris, 2000,
p. 40).
Therefore, according to Argyris (2000) in the preceding passage, the key
distinction between transformative and transactional styles of leadership is the
internal versus external locus of motivation and commitment respectively. When
internal rewards and personal value systems are leveraged by administrators,
transformative leadership tactics are being employed. Conversely, when external
rewards are being offered by academic deans, then transactional leadership styles are
being utilized. Garnering an internal commitment from faculty and support
personnel is important in this case study, because faculty and staff who are internally
committed are more likely to sustain the change process initiated by the academic
dean (Fullan, 2000, p. 28).
Jesuit Pacific University is presently in the 6
th
year of a 10-year strategic plan
to improve and promote excellence in teaching and scholarship. When initiatives
span such a long period of time, it is reasonable to assume that their ultimate success
is at least partially dependent on the School of Education’s ability to remain
35
enthusiastic, motivated and committed to the goals and change process. Therefore,
the discussion of transformative leadership, internal locus of motivation and altruistic
purpose becomes increasingly relevant to academic deans involved with multi-year
change processes.
If an internal commitment is important, then, “How does an academic dean
develop an internal commitment within faculty to attain excellence in teaching and
scholarship?” The present body of research contends that the most salient feature in
the development of an internal locus of commitment and motivation is the presence
of an overarching “moral purpose” associated with the required faculty actions or
behaviors (Fullan, 2001, p. 28). That is, the faculty must feel good about what they
are being asked to do and why these tasks and behaviors are necessary before they
become internally motivated and committed to perform. Moral purpose is important
in developing an internal sense of commitment, and the development of internal
commitment is in turn important to the sustainability of excellence.
In the words of Fullan, “moral purpose and [the] sustained performance of
organizations are mutually dependent” (Fullan, 2001, p. 28). Moral purpose is an
important ingredient in the formula for sustainable innovation. Pascal, Millmann,
and Gioja (2000) found evidence in seven companies that each company’s ability to
sustain improvement in its performance was predicated on the presence of three
factors.
The theory of sustainability is constituted by the trinity of
environmental soundness, social justice, and economic viability. If
any of those factors are weak or missing, the theory of sustainability
36
says that the practice [what the organization is doing] will not prove
sustainable over time” (p. 92).
Bolman and Deal (2003) also noted the significance of purpose when they concluded
that in the future, “culture and core values will be increasingly recognized as the vital
social glue that infuses an organization with passion and purpose” (p. 185).
Again, the discussion of factors related to sustaining change is relevant to this
study because the change process here at Jesuit Pacific University is a multi-year,
ongoing endeavor. The presence or absence of these factors noted by Pascal,
Millmann, and Gioja (2000) will weigh heavily in Jesuit Pacific University’s
institutional goal attainment. Environmental soundness means that the change effort
to promote excellence in teaching and scholarship must be for the School of
Education in tandem with the mission and function of the university. Social justice
is the second essential ingredient of the academic dean’s attempt to promote
excellence in teaching and scholarship. It relates well to and corroborates research
previously presented. As discussed previously, (Bowman and Deal, 2003) the
presence of an altruistic, overarching purpose is important in grounding change
processes. Additionally, these social justice constructs and altruistic benefits
enhance long-term commitment (Fullan, 2001, p. 28). Furthermore, the presence of
social good as a pillar of institutional purpose promotes constituent buy-in and the
effectiveness of transformational leadership approaches (Blasco and Stayer, 1993).
The third standard which must be met by the academic dean in his effort to sustain
the change process and promote excellence in teaching and scholarship at Jesuit
Pacific University is economic viability. This caveat acknowledges that change, at
37
least in the long-term perspective, can be a monetarily costly proposition. Supported
by the conceptualizations of Kerr (2001), who sees the university as a large
collection of business units, this stipulation requires that the academic dean not only
promote policies and practices which are cost effective but also incorporate in this
leadership strategy the means to secure and sustain funding.
Accepting thus far that academic deans are indeed leaders who also have
managerial responsibilities, and that internal commitment and moral purpose are
essential for success, as academic deans seek to create and sustain change in their
schools, it is appropriate now to define academic leadership. Building upon Burn’s
(1978) characterizations of academic leadership styles, authors Wolverton and
Gmelch (2002) posited that academic leadership is “the art of building a community
of scholars to set direction and achieve common purposes through the empowerment
of faculty and staff” (p. 33). Within this definition, there exist three components, or
activities in which academic deans must engage in order to succeed. The three
activities identified by Wolverton and Gmelch (2002) include building a community
of scholars, setting direction and empowerment. Each of these components is
discussed below.
Building a Community of Scholars
Building a community of scholars through academic leadership requires
developing a difference in leadership locus of control (Fullan, 2001). The different
locus of control referred to by Fullan is one which does not leverage hierarchical
authority primarily, but rather one which is built upon developing a consensus and
38
motivating others to work toward a common goal. To facilitate the development of
this community, the academic dean should employ an independent, democratic and
collaborative form of leadership (Wolverton, Gmelch and Sorenson, 1998).
Community in this application implies a collective of individuals with shared
interests who choose to work toward mutually accepted and shared objectives.
The shared interest of this community is a distinguishing criterion used to
identify this community of scholars. This means that one community of scholars
differs from another in the interest it possesses and expresses through scholarship.
Placing this into the context of this case study, this means that one of the roles of
Jesuit Pacific University’s School of Education’s Dean is to create a mutually
accepted, shared scholarship focus within the discipline of education and among his
faculty. Another characteristic which identifies a community of scholars is that it is
a collective, a group of different people with different identities who are linked
through their common scholarship focus. Finally, the third component of this
community is that they support and pursue the scholarship focus of the group. When
we understand that the community of scholars postulated by Wolverton and Gmelch,
(2002) is a group of individuals who selectively accept and pursue a specific focus in
educational scholarship because of their shared interest, we are then able to begin the
discussion of which leadership strategy best supports the formation of this
community.
Comparatively speaking between transactional and transformative leadership
strategies, transformational leadership is better suited to the development of
39
scholarship communities because it allows employees to be more connected to the
mission and goals of the institution and school (Dupont, 1991). Transformational
leadership as compared to transactional leadership is better suited to support
independent and autonomous performance of employees (Dupont, 1991).
Independence and autonomy are implied and evoked in the connotation of
community employed by Wolverton and Gmelch in that their community is
composed of individual autonomous faculty members who collectively accept and
pursue a central scholarship focus within the discipline of education.
Organizations historically have been product and task-oriented. This
orientation is less conducive to the development of employee potential to work
autonomously and independently as a collective to support a single unifying
scholarship focus (Dupont, 1991; Elmore, 1996). The introduction of the science of
human relations, pioneered by Taylor in the 1930s, brought with it a call for
leadership to begin dealing more with human factors than was ever before thought
necessary (Beniger, 1986). The new orientation toward developing common
interests and harnessing internal commitment and willingness to contribute are
human factors which are essential components of transformational leadership
strategy. The leadership’s focus on developing relationships has made the workers,
and in this case the professoriate, more valuable members of the university
(Bowman, 1994, pp. 30-40).
Another strand of related and corroborating research also identifies
relationships as being pivotal in the creation of a sense of community within an
40
organizational context. Specifically, an academic environment in which change is
occurring or in which change occurs frequently attaches meaning to events and items
based upon relationships that exist between those agents and events within the
organization (Lewin and Regine 2000). “In a nonlinear, dynamic world [changing
organization], everything exists only in relationship to everything else, and the
interactions among agents in the system lead to complex, unpredictable outcomes.
In this world, interactions, or relationships, among its agents are the organizing
principle” (Lewin and Regine, 2000, pp. 18-19). Lewin and Regine concluded that it
is time to change our leadership construct and learn “to pay as much attention to how
we treat people – coworkers, subordinates, customers – as we now typically pay
attention to structures, strategies, and statistics” (p. 27).
Additional support for the importance of relationships in establishing a
community of scholars is provided in the work of authors Kouzes and Posner (1998).
Community, in Kouzes and Posner’s application, is the same as in this discussion.
Essentially, community implies a collective of individuals within the professoriate
with shared interests who choose to work towards mutually accepted and shared
objectives. Kouzes and Posner contend that what separates effective leaders from
ineffective leaders includes how much they “really care about the people [they] lead”
(p. 149). They identified several key elements necessary for developing
relationships in organizational settings: setting clear standards, expecting the best,
paying attention, personalizing recognition, telling the story, celebrating together,
and setting the example (p. 18). After the academic dean has developed a
41
community of scholars that practice key elements aforementioned, he must also
establish a course and sense of direction upon and through which to promote
excellence in teaching and scholarship. The second component, according to
Wolverton and Gmelch (2002), is setting direction and this topic is discussed in the
following paragraph.
Setting Direction
The process of establishing a course requires as a prerequisite the
identification, at least figuratively, of a destination. As the academic dean seeks to
identify collective goals and objectives to pursue, there is evidence which stipulates
that the best way to accomplish this is in a fashion that is open and which invites all
involved to contribute (Belasco and Stayner, 1993). Establishing a course and
directing the school towards that destination is perhaps the most important
responsibility of academic deans (Sample, 2002). With the assumption that there are
multiple paths to a single destination then, the leadership responsibility of the
academic dean in this component of his role centers about his responsibility to
develop and maintain a consensus and then select from alternative paths one path
which enhances his potential for success. It is ultimately the dean’s responsibility to
steer the school towards a strategic goal. However, tenets of successful leadership
suggest that it is better to develop a consensus, will and ability within the
organization to select and direct its course rather than move the organization along
and through lines of hierarchical authority (Belasco, 1993).
42
As the professoriate accepts the responsibility to pursue the goals related to
excellence in teaching and scholarship, the dean’s leadership responsibility becomes
more supportive. In the empowered context, autonomous and independent faculty
members pursue objectives while the academic dean sees that the appropriate key
resources are available to support their efforts. In fact, the dean promotes goal
attainment through facilitating the school of education’s faculty. In this capacity the
dean identifies strategic perils and assets and works with the larger institution,
external stakeholders and the school of education faculty to navigate a path to goal
attainment. Empowerment is the final leadership responsibility of the academic dean
(Wolverton and Gmelch, 2002). A brief discussion of empowerment is presented
below.
Empowerment
The means employed to enable faculty and support staff to achieve the
desired result requires empowering them (Bennis 1999), once a common purpose has
been established. Empowerment is the final necessity which distinguishes academic
leadership. One of the vital resources of knowledge organizations is its collective
know-how. This intellectual capital that exists within the faculty and support staff
must be developed and invested just as monetary capital is invested in a business
setting. In this educational/learning environment, providing the knowledge and
resources to develop the intellectual capital is important to the further development
of new knowledge, new capabilities and new applications of old knowledge. These
nuances in the dean’s leadership and activity are situationally derived and they all
43
grow from Wolverton and Gmelch’s postulation of what academic leadership entails:
building a community of scholars, setting direction and empowerment (Wolverton
and Gmelch, 2002). Other researchers have also postulated the role of the academic
dean as an academic leader. A discussion of their work is appropriately presented in
the next section.
The Role of the Academic Dean
Historically speaking, the role of the academic deanship has evolved slowly.
As mentioned in Chapter 1, the early college in this country was very student
centered as compared to the university of today. Not surprisingly, the academic
deanship in the 1800s was little more than a student confidant and source of student
emotional support (McGrath, 1999). From these meager origins, the deanship was
given responsibilities in matters of student discipline, admissions, supervision of
faculty, and oversight of instruction (Dibden, 1968; DuPont, 1968). As the
significance of these responsibilities and functions increased in importance in the
higher education arena, so also did the significance of the position of academic dean.
The college dean became a key adviser to the president of the university (Dibden,
1968).
As enrollment increased, the focus of the academic deanship shifted away
from being student centered and more toward administrative concerns. In the late
1970s, deans were widely accepted as intellectual leaders. The academic deans
considered their primary title responsibilities to include staff development, public
relations, program development, or budgetary activities (Cyphert & Zimpher, 1980).
44
By the 1990s the transformation to administrative leadership within the academy was
complete. Most deans described themselves as personnel managers, cultural
representatives, communicators, financial planners, and advocates (Creswell &
England, 1994; Martin, 1993; Twombly, 1992).
Building upon how deans see themselves as leaders, managers and stewards
of intellectual activity, it is important for the reader to develop a conceptualization of
the contemporary role played by the academic deanship in the typical university
administration setting. As the reader is able to understand the normal responsibilities
and duties of an academic dean in a typical university, he is better able to
differentially consider and analyze the actions taken by this School of Education
Dean at Jesuit Pacific University in the promotion of excellence in teaching and
scholarship. That is, the reader will have sufficient context to contrast the special
efforts taken by this specific dean in the promotion of excellence in teaching and
scholarship from the routine activities of similar deans at similar institutions across
America.
Fortunately, we have a very large study, conducted by the Center for
Academic Leadership at Washington State University, where more than 1,300
academic deans at 360 universities in the United States were surveyed about the
scope and depth of their administrative responsibilities. The Washington University
study sample was composed of 60 public and 60 private institutions, selected at
random from each of the Carnegie classifications (Wolverton & Gmelch, 2002, p.
vii). Research institutions, comprehensive institutions, and baccalaureate institutions
45
were the only institutions represented (Boyer, 1990, pp. 129, 130). Deans of schools
of education, business, liberal arts, and allied health professions were surveyed at
each of the sample institutions selected. Sixty percent of these deans responded
(Gmelch, Wolverton, Wolverton & Hermanson, 1996).
The responses received represented a relatively well balanced sample
(Wolverton & Gmelch, 2002, p. vii). Women represented 41% of the responding
deans. Minorities represented roughly 12%, with African-Americans constituting
more than half of this segment. Fifty-eight percent were from public institutions.
Research universities represented one third of the responding deans, of whom 44%
were female; comprehensive universities represented 46% of the respondents, of
whom 38% were female; and finally, baccalaureate institutions accounted for 21% of
the responding deans, of whom 42% were female. The distribution of deans with
minority status across all institution types mirrored that of the overall sample
(Wolverton & Gmelch, 2002, p. ix).
More than 40% of the respondents worked at universities located in
urban areas; about 30% of the respondents were in rural institutions;
the remainder classified their universities as suburban. Of the total
responses, 29% of the deans were housed in colleges or schools of
education, 29% in liberal arts, 23% in nursing or public health, and
18% in business. College size varied. On average, 85% full-time
faculty and 46% adjunct faculty served 1,700 undergraduate and
400 graduate-level students (Wolverton & Gmelch, 2002, p. ix).
The results of this study are presented in the sections below.
Contemporary Roles of Academic Deans in American Universities
Presently, in today’s colleges and universities the dean performs six distinct
sets of roles (Wolverton & Gmelch, 2002). These include resource management,
46
academic personnel management, internal productivity, personal scholarship,
leadership, and external/political relations. Within each of these categorical
responsibilities are several related duties (Wolverton & Gmelch, 2002). The
remainder of this section delineates these duties and categories (Wolverton &
Gmelch, 2002), so that the reader will understand the contemporary scope of practice
employed by the academic dean. Additionally, as the specific activities taken by the
School of Education Dean at Jesuit Pacific University to promote excellence in
teaching and scholarship are presented, the reader will have a backdrop and a norm
from which he will be able to evaluate this dean’s efforts in a contemporary frame.
Resource Management
Resource management refers to the aspects of a dean’s job which require him
or her to secure and keep current records of academic and non-academic staff. This
category also includes the responsibility of the dean to manage grants, facilities and
equipment within their schools, departments and divisions. As technological
innovations necessitate adjustments in the functioning of personnel and school
operations, it is the dean’s responsibility to see that these adjustments are conducted
in the least obtrusive, most efficient fashion. Finally, within the resource
management category of the dean’s responsibility is the obligation to ensure that the
school remains in compliance with all federal, state and accreditation board
requirements.
47
Academic Personnel Management
Another responsibility of the academic dean within the broad category of
resource management includes managing academic personnel. The academic
personnel management component includes three critical activities essential to
effectively managing and sustaining the academic and scholarly vitality of the
faculty. Within this category of obligations, the dean is expected to recruit potential
faculty members and participate in the selection of faculty and department chairs.
Second, but equally important, the dean is expected to perform faculty performance
appraisals. Finally, daily supervision of chairs and directors is also included in this
category of the dean’s obligations.
Internal Productivity Management
The third category of roles of the contemporary academic dean is known as
internal productivity. Internal productivity includes the dean’s responsibility to
maintain effective communication with all departments. Communication is vital, so
that all faculty and support staff can be aware of the goals, missions and direction of
the school and larger institution. This communication is also an important ingredient
to everyone feeling a part of the change process rather than simply subservient to it.
The dean is also expected to maintain an appropriate climate which is conducive to
excellence in teaching and scholarship. This may include making available to
faculty opportunities to learn and perfect their grant writing skills or bringing in
speakers who have expertise in the art of teaching. Further, the dean is also expected
to encourage strategic goal attainment and internal productivity through faculty
48
participation on committees both within the university and within the school of
education. Finally, providing professional growth opportunities and activities for
faculty which are aligned with strategic goals is the last component identified within
the category of productivity management by this Washington State University
survey.
Personal Scholarship
Personal scholarship is the fourth category of expected duties noted in this
survey of the academic dean’s activities (Gmelch, Wolverton, et al., 1996). As the
deanship has developed to encompass administrative responsibilities, the dean’s
initial role and obligations to his or her institution as a scholar has not been
relinquished. Within this category, participants in the survey sponsored by
Washington State University’s Center for Academic Leadership acknowledged
scholarly academic performance expectations, which include remaining current in
their academic discipline, publishing, presenting papers and fostering their own
professional growth.
School Leadership
The leadership component of the dean’s duties requires the dean to
communicate to faculty the expectations of the university’s external stakeholders.
From those external community stakeholders the dean is also expected to solicit
ideas for the improvement of his or her school and department. Developing a team
approach to leadership has been identified as a characteristic of effective
organizations and is a fundamental principle of effective leadership within larger
49
organizational structures (Briand, 1993). In doing so, deans also have the task and
responsibility of developing the leadership potential in their subordinates. This is
accomplished through assigning duties to directors and chairpersons, as well as
planning and conducting team leadership meetings. Finally, though equally
important, the dean is expected to coordinate college activities with constituents and
represent the college at professional meetings.
External and Political Relations
The last of the six responsibility categories of the contemporary deanship
identified in this survey (Gmelch, Wolverton, Wolverton, et al., 1996) was referred
to as the external and political relations category. Within this category of duties are
all of the behaviors and activities the dean must perform in order to maintain and
further develop high quality, positive and rewarding relationships with a variety of
community representatives and university affiliates. Specifically, the dean is
expected to build relationships with external community stakeholders, such as
influential alumni, advisory board members and school board superintendents.
Additionally, the dean is entrusted with the responsibility of obtaining and managing
external funding sources, such as grants, contracts and donations. Finally,
maintaining vibrant alumni relations are also important functions of the deanship in
this category.
Planning and Preparation
Another set of responsibilities associated with the role of the academic dean
is planning and preparation. The dean is expected to develop and initiate long-range
50
goals for his or her respective schools and departments. As noted previously, the
deanship is strategically placed between the faculty, upper university administration,
and the external community. By virtue of this central positioning, the deanship is
perhaps the most capable and logically positioned to balance the complexities of
faculty needs, organizational limitations and community expectations. Finding the
overlapping middle ground between these expectations, untapped abilities and
potential, and the overarching fiscal realities is essential in long-range planning.
Therefore, understandably the dean is entrusted primarily with the planning
responsibility for long-range goal attainment in his school. Representing his or her
constituents and school needs to the upper levels of administration is also an
important obligation of the academic dean.
As long-range goals are set and plans are put into motion to attain them,
financial planning, budgetary management, and preparation become critically
relevant. As the deanship is the single position most responsible for long-range
planning in his or her school and department, then logically the dean is most
responsible for developing the financial wherewithal to accomplish long-range tasks
in his or her school. Linking the two, budgetary preparation and long-range
planning, provides the best organizational assurance that plans will not be
implemented without the financial ability to accomplish them (M. Diamond,
personal communication, June 10, 2006).
Finally, as a component of the planning and preparation responsibility of the
deanship, deans are expected to celebrate diversity. Specifically, survey respondents
51
acknowledged an obligation on their campuses to foster gender and ethnic diversity
in their colleges (Wolverton and Gmelch, 2002).
Thus far in this chapter, we have discussed the distinction between academic
management and academic leadership. Also presented in this chapter was a
discussion of the implications and applications of transformative and transactional
leadership strategies in the academic leadership and change process theaters. The
tenets of academic leadership, as well as the theoretical and historical role of the
academic dean were presented. In this section, self-reported information was
presented regarding the typical academic dean’s responsibility in a contemporary
setting.
In the section which follows, the discussion turns back to the guiding
research question of this dissertation and seeks to clarify exactly what is meant by
scholarship. Essentially, a discussion is presented which provides form and
substance to the conceptualization of scholarship managed by academic deans in
universities today. This discussion is relevant and important to this dissertation
because it defines scholarship. Excellence in scholarship can take many forms. Just
as the goals of an initiative will vary depending on interpretations of its purpose and
its intent, so also will the goals of the academic dean in this case study vary in
accordance to his operative connotation of scholarship. The reader will find that
scholarship can take multiple paths. In an effort to link the Dean’s actions to the
School of Education’s scholarship accomplishments, it is important to know exactly
what the dean was seeking to accomplish and what the dean believed scholarship to
52
be. In short, it is difficult to weigh the significance of the dean’s specific actions and
activities without knowing his specific intent or purpose. Therefore, four forms of
scholarship are delineated and developed in the following section.
Scholarship Within the Professoriate
A clarification of the forms and presentations of scholarship is generally
important because these distinctions have gained widespread acknowledgement,
acceptance, and support both within and outside the professoriate (Bok, 2006).
Additionally, they are frequently cited and are essential in the process of
organizational renewal, institutional change and strategic planning (Blassick, Huber
and Maeroff, 1997). These events have become routine in most colleges and
universities. As American colleges and universities seek to redefine, realign and
refine their focus in an increasingly diverse postsecondary educational market, the
clarity provided by the delineation of specific types of scholarship facilitates the
ability of the academic dean to communicate more clearly and succinctly to internal
and external stakeholders, where a precise institutional perception of excellence in
scholarship is most valued (Boyer, 1990). These distinctions, the scholarship of
discovery, integration, teaching and application, help the dean and the administration
define and communicate to the faculty and all internal stakeholders the related
scholarly behaviors, activities, attributes and professional interventions that best
support the mission and strategic initiatives of the university (Boyer, 1990).
Scholarship means different things to different people. Traditionally,
scholarship in the academy has meant research, and “publication is the primary
53
yardstick by which scholarly productivity is measured” (Boyer, 1990, p. 2).
Recently many within the professoriate have questioned this limited interpretation
and sought to expand the meaning of scholarship so that it becomes more inclusive
of the full breath of activities, contributions and talents of those within the academy.
Boyer contended that there are four forms of scholarship currently practiced in
American colleges and universities. These dimensions of scholarship include the
scholarship of discovery, the scholarship of integration, the scholarship of
application and the scholarship of teaching.
The scholarship of discovery “comes closest to what is meant when
academics speak of research” in the traditional sense (Boyer, 1990, p. 17). This form
of scholarship contributes not only to the inventory of human knowledge, but it also
helps to create a vibrant intellectual climate on the university campus (Massy, 2003).
Scholarship of discovery represents the scholarly investigation and probing which
culminates in the creation of new knowledge. This creation of new knowledge is the
heart of academic life, particularly at research universities, and as noted previously,
frequently a societal expectation of the university.
The scholarship of integration is defined as the scholarly act of bridging
isolated facts, within a single discipline or across multiple disciplines, into a
cohesive larger intellectual pattern which provides a new and unique perspective
which previously did not exist (Boyer, 1990). It includes all synthesizing scholarly
work that is interdisciplinary, integrative, or interpretive in nature. Integration
scholarship starts with research at the junctions and boundaries where disciplines
54
converge, and it presents itself as, “overlapping [academic] neighborhoods”
(Polanyi, 1987, p. 19). The relevance of this integration scholarship has garnered
widespread recognition and approval within the professoriate. In a survey conducted
by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in 1989 , faculty was
asked to respond to the statement, “Multidisciplinary work is soft and should not be
considered scholarship” (Boyer, 1990, p. 19). Results from this survey revealed that
only 8% of the respondents agreed, 17% were neutral, while a striking 75% of
respondents disagreed. Therefore, we have the second form of scholarship which
has wide spread acceptance within the professoriate as a valid and respected type of
scholarship.
The third widely acknowledged form of scholarship is known as the
scholarship of application. The phrase scholarship of application is misleading in
that it connotes a sequence of events in which knowledge is first discovered from
research and then later applied. Although this may frequently be the case, where
theory informs and directs practice, it is also possible for the act of application to
provide new intellectual understandings and modify theory. That is, the applications
of research findings and theory can also constitute research in its own right and thus
generate new knowledge. What is meant by the scholarship of application is the
scholarly effort to apply theories and knowledge to practical environments, as well as
the discovery of new knowledge which directly flows from these applications
(Boyer, 1990). It carries with it all of the seriousness, rigor and accountability that is
traditionally associated with traditional research activities.
55
The roots of this form of scholarship can be traced to the university construct
envisioned and described earlier in this dissertation in the writings of Flexner (1930).
It has been given legitimacy by many authors including Handlin (1990) as he wrote
that our troubled planet “can no longer afford the luxury of pursuits confined to an
ivory tower…[S]cholarship must prove its worth not on its own terms but by service
to the nation and the world” (cited in Boyer, 1990, p. 23).
Finally, there is the scholarship of teaching (Boyer, 1990). As the name
implies, this scholarship involves the activities within the professoriate that include
teaching and teaching-related activities. In this context, teaching is viewed as “a
dynamic process involving all the analogies, metaphors and images that build
bridges between the teacher’s understanding and the student’s learning” (p. 23). It is
the study and search in the academic setting for means and abilities to “stimulate
active, not passive, learning, and encourage students to be critical, creative thinkers,
with the capacity to go on learning after their college days are over” (Boyer, 1990,
p. 24).
In summary, of the key points presented in this chapter, the purpose of this
dissertation is to understand how the academic dean “sequentially” operationalizes
excellence in teaching and scholarship. Sequentially is an importation clarification
because it acknowledges that excellence is a process rather than a single
phenomenon, event or status. As a process, the Academic Dean’s efforts can be
separated into distinct stages and dimensions which can then be viewed through
multiple lenses in order to form a detailed mosaic of the excellence creation process
56
in teaching and scholarship in this School of Education. Unfortunately, excellence in
teaching and scholarship as a directive is conceptually dubious. Its meaning is
contextually cued by institutional factors such as mission statements and strategic
initiatives, external stakeholder expectations such as addressing the achievement gap
in urban educational settings and organizational limitations such as fiscal resources
and faculty buy-in. Each of these factors influences the nature and dimension of the
excellence construct operating at Jesuit Pacific University. Each of these factors is
also developed as themes in chapter four of this dissertation. Chapter two discussed
the deanship, scholarship within the professoriate and empirical support for the
teaching pedagogy practiced at Jesuit Pacific University. Additionally, chapter two
serves the reader by grounding and empirically informing the later discussion in
chapter four of scholarship and teaching excellence at Jesuit Pacific University.
The deanship has been discussed in this chapter from a variety of
perspectives. First, the distinction between leadership and management was
presented. An expanded discussion of academic leadership was presented and
concluded with the position that the deanship is largely a leadership position which
at times performs managerial assignments which are situationally necessitated. The
academic dean’s leadership strategy was then discussed. Academic transactional and
transformation leadership strategies were described and developed. Both approaches
are empirically supported situationally in academic leadership settings. However,
transformational strategies bode better in garnering internal commitment (Argyris,
2000). Consequently, internal commitment is very important in sustaining the
57
change process (Fullan, 2000). Other leadership factors identified as important in
garnering an internal commitment are the presence of overarching “moral purpose”
in the change process (Fullan, 2000) and the trio of environmental soundness, social
justice and economic viability (Pascal, Millmann and Gioja, 2000). Sustaining the
change process and accomplishments acquired through it are particularly important
in this case study because this Dean is in approximately the 6
th
year of a 10-year
strategic initiative.
The discussion then turned to include a single precise definition of what
academic leadership is, “the art of building a community of scholars, setting
direction and achieving common purposes through the empowerment of faculty and
staff” (Wolverton and Gmelch, 2002). Each component, building a community of
scholars, setting directions and empowerment, was empirically supported.
Additionally, the roles of academic deans historically and in the contemporary
setting were discussed. A chronology of the academic deanship was presented
starting in the 1800’s through the 1990’s. A large survey of more than 1300
participants from 360 universities conducted by the Center for Academic Leadership
at Washington State University was used to present the reader with a contemporary
picture of the role of the academic dean in American universities. These categorical
roles include: resource management, internal productivity management, personal
scholarship, school leadership, external and political relations and planning and
preparation.
58
Scholarship within the professoriate was an additional component discussed
in this chapter. The various forms that scholarship takes in the university settings
were presented. These include the scholarship of integration, discovery, application
and teaching (Boyer, 1990). These forms of scholarship were discussed in order to
provide the reader with a backdrop of the dimensions of scholarship operating in
contemporary universities and schools of education.
59
Chapter 3
RESEARCH PERSPECTIVE AND METHODOLOGY
Problem and Purpose
As a key administrative figure, the dean of the school of education serves in a
capacity which is influenced by a variety of environmental factors. These include
institutional factors such as mission statements and strategic initiatives; external
stakeholder expectations such as reducing the achievement gap in urban educational
school settings; and organizational limitations such as fiscal resources, faculty buy-in
and unpredictable decision trade-off effects. As the dean seeks to meet the various
expectations of his stakeholders, this shifting emphasis has garnered critiques from
observers and stakeholders who feel that their concerns have been neglected in the
process (Smith, 1990, p. 6; Massy, 2003, p. 9; Bok, 2006, p. 2; Wilshire, 1990). The
academic dean thus finds himself in an environment which has become increasingly
critical of his leadership. Among the chorus of criticisms are accusations that
academic deans promote research activities at the expense of teaching (Washburn,
2005), have allowed academic discipline allegiance to take precedence over
institutional mission (Massy, 2003, p. 9) and have failed to create an overarching
purpose (Bok, 2006, p. 2) and coherent vision of an educated person (Bloom, 1987,
p. 337). In this case study, the degree to which the School of Education Dean
succeeds depends in part on how skillfully he balances these varied expectations
against these limitations and critiques in an effort to promote excellence in teaching
and scholarship. His leadership skills and strategies are expected to harmoniously
60
advance the mission of the larger university while simultaneously addressing the
concerns of his unique external stakeholders.
Academic leadership has previously been defined as “the art of building a
community of scholars, to set direction and achieve common purposes through the
empowerment of faculty and staff” (Wolverton and Gmelch, 2002). How the dean of
the school of education leads in this environment is a daunting yet vital task. In an
attempt to inform this multi-faceted process and dilemma, the purpose of this case
study was to understand the activities of the academic dean to promote excellence in
teaching and scholarship for the School of Education at Jesuit Pacific University.
The activities of the academic dean are generally, for the purpose of this study,
defined as the processes, rules, climate, practices, curricula and procedures necessary
to accomplish the goal of excellence in teaching and scholarship.
Research Question
Specifically, this study was performed in order to discover the significance of
and the relationship between actions taken by the Dean of the School of Education at
Jesuit Pacific University as he implements a strategic directive to promote excellence
in teaching and scholarship. This study centered on the actions of the Academic
Dean of the School of Education at Jesuit Pacific University, his efforts to develop a
community of scholars, set direction and empower faculty and staff (Wolverton and
Glmelch, 2000) to create processes, rules, practices, curricula and procedures
necessary to accomplish these strategic goals.
61
Delimitations
One of the delimitations in this study was that it confined itself to
interviewing four subjects who included: the Director of the Center for Teaching
Excellence, the Academic Dean of the School of Education, Vice President of
Academic Affairs, and the past Director of the School of Education at Jesuit Pacific
University. The Vice President of Academic Affairs was interviewed in order to
learn how the University promotes excellence in teaching and scholarship. The
Director of the Center for Teaching Excellence was interviewed because she is
responsible for the University’s promotion of excellence in teaching specifically.
The past Director of the School of Education was interviewed because, prior to being
replaced by the current Dean, he was responsible initially for approximately the first
three years of the School of Education’s efforts to promote excellence in teaching
and scholarship. Finally, the current Dean of the School of Education was
interviewed to learn what efforts are currently underway to operationalize excellence
in teaching and scholarship.
So as not to confuse the reader, an explanation of the administrative titles
“Director of the School of Education” and “Dean of the School of Education” is
appropriate at this time. The administrative position of deanship was previous called
Director of the School of Education. Subsequently, the title was changed to Dean of
the School of Education and is still currently used today. Therefore, the reader
should understand that although both titles are used, each title refers to a different
62
participant serving in what is now recognized as two different administrative
capacities as leader/manager of the School of Education.
Another delimitation of this study is that it concerns only the activities of the
School of Education at Jesuit Pacific University and activities of the larger institution
that impact the School of Education’s efforts to promote excellence in teaching and
scholarship. Providing a detailed view of interactions within a particular context is a
key component and strength of the case study methodology (Stake, 1995, p. xi).
Therefore, focusing on the School of Education and its Dean’s actions in the
promotion of excellence in teaching and scholarship provided a sufficiently limited
scope and topic to ensure the appropriate level of detail and analysis of interactions
in this setting.
A final delimitation of this case study is that it was conducted in
approximately four months and involved the actions taken by the School of
Education Dean over approximately five years as he sought to promote excellence in
teaching and scholarship at Jesuit Pacific University. The findings of this case study
can only be applied specifically to the School of Education at Jesuit Pacific
University.
Limitations
As is customary of qualitative research, this case study employed a
purposeful sampling procedure. This limits its ability to be generalized to other
levels of American university administrations and other academic disciplines of
university administration. In purposeful sampling,
63
cases for study (e.g., people, organizations, communities, cultures,
events, critical incidences) are selected because they are “information
rich” and illuminative, that is, they offer useful manifestations of the
phenomenon of interest; sampling, then, is aimed at insight about the
phenomenon, not empirical generalization from a sample to a
population (Patton, 2002, p. 40).
Finally, any inference to causation implied or perceived in this study as a result of
actions, practices and policies is limited to the confines of this institution and case
study situation.
Case Study Subject
Jesuit Pacific University is a comprehensive university under the Carnegie
classification system of postsecondary educational institutions (Boyer, 1990, pp. 129,
130; J. Bauer, personal communication, March 30, 2007). It has a proud and long
history that can be traced back to the year 1548. Jesuit Pacific University is
composed of two campuses. The main campus and a satellite campus, which houses
Jesuit Pacific University Law School, are both located in the heart of Los Angeles,
California. This institution has been at these locations since 1918 and has deep roots
as an urban university in a diverse, vibrant and dynamic city. As the name implies,
Jesuit Pacific University is a religiously affiliated university founded by the Society
of Jesus (Jesuits), the religious of the Sacred Heart of Mary and the Sisters of St.
Joseph of Orange.
Academically, Jesuit Pacific University offers more than 80 majors and
programs which require 4 years to complete. Structurally, it is composed of four
colleges, which include the College of Liberal Arts, the College of Business
Administration, the College of Communication and Arts and the Colleges of Science
64
and Engineering. Additionally, it is composed of two schools that include the School
of Education and the School of Film and Television. Finally, Jesuit Pacific
University has a Division of Graduate Studies, an individual Continuing Education
Program, and as mentioned previously, the School of Law.
Currently there are 5,508 undergraduate students; 1,465 graduate students;
and 1,288 law school students enrolled at Jesuit Pacific University. Class size on
average for undergraduates is approximately 19 students per class. Class size for
graduate students is slightly lower than this, currently 15 students per class. Jesuit
Pacific University is pleased with its low student/teacher ratio and considers it a key
feature in its students’ academic success and its ability to compete in a competitive
market of private colleges and universities (J. Woods, personal communication,
January 29, 2007).
Characteristics of Qualitative Research
Steinar Kvale (1996, pp. 3-6) employed a metaphor to help illustrate the
theoretical perspective and process of obtaining data through an interview. This
metaphor of a miner digging up ore is used in this section in order to describe the
methodology employed as this researcher sought to unearth data. These data, like
ore, are potentially valuable, but in their unrefined, scattered and muddled forms, it is
difficult to utilize and to make sense of it. The researcher, in this analogy, is the
miner who seeks to unearth data; and in so doing, he hopes to make sense of “a
program, an event, an activity, [or] a process,” and then finally through analysis, to
understand that occurrence (Creswell, 2003, p. 15).
65
Kvale (1996) wrote of this analogy as he noted:
in the miner metaphor, knowledge is understood as buried metal and
the interviewer is a miner who unearths the valuable metal. Some
miners seek objective facts to be quantified; others seek nuggets of
essential meaning. In both conceptions the knowledge is waiting in
the subject’s interior to be uncovered, uncontaminated by the miner.
The interviewer digs nuggets of data or meanings out of a subject’s
pure experiences, unpolluted by any leading questions …The precious
facts and meanings are purified by transcribing them from the oral to
the written mode. The knowledge remains consistent through the
transformations of appearances on the conveyor belt from the oral
stage to the written storage. By analysis, the objective facts and the
essential meanings are drawn out by various techniques and modeled
into their definitive form. Finally, the value of the end product, its
degree of purity, is determined by correlating it with an objective,
external, real world or to a realm of subjective, inner authentic
experiences (Kvale, 1996, pp. 3-4).
The passage above was penned in an introductory view of the theoretical
understandings of the interview process by Kvale (1996). These words and thoughts,
however, are equally relevant as introductory perceptions of theoretical
understandings employed in this case study. In this study, the interviews were
approached with the understanding that data/metal was buried and could be
unearthed by posing questions and analyzing responses. This study, being
qualitative rather than quantitative, directed this researcher to search for nuggets of
meaning rather than factual, quantifiable truth. The purity of meanings/metals
unearthed in this process was not contaminated by this researcher’s
conceptualization or frame of reference but rather was left in its raw and natural
state, embedded in the social construct, paradigm and the beliefs of his subject. As
data was collected and processed/presented, special effort was made to transcribe
lengthy and complete quotations so that the reader was able to discern the context in
66
which statements were made and the context in which conclusions were drawn. In
order to compensate for any bias this researcher unknowingly brought to the study,
he explained what he understood the transcribed data to mean and provided support
for his reasoning. This was done so that the reasoning and the thought processes
would be transparent to the reader who could then decide if the advanced
conclusions were appropriate. The purity of this data/metal was also maintained as
the information was transcribed /refined from personal communication to written
storage. In the analysis stage, the data/metal was sorted and evaluated. Finally, the
value of the knowledge gained/refined metal is dependent on its ability to inform
real world practices/the metal’s market value.
Theoretical Perspective
Kvale (1996) first noted in the aforementioned epitaph that knowledge is
presumed “buried” and must be “unearthed” by the researcher. Ontologically and
epistemologically speaking, this unearthing descriptive phrase infers a modernistic
philosophical perspective which contends that truth and meaning can be discerned
through skilled, systematic observation and empirical research. As such, this is also
the theoretical/philosophical foundation from and upon which this study is built.
This research seeks to understand how the academic dean operationalizes excellence
in teaching and scholarship. Data were collected from interviews, documents and
observations performed during the interviews with the belief that they cannot only
answer research questions superficially but also through analysis provide the
67
researcher with deep truths and meanings of how excellence in teaching and
scholarship is operationalized in this case study.
Additionally, Kvale noted, “meaning is derived [from that newly mined
knowledge] out of the subject’s pure experiences” (Kvale, 1996, p. 3). This
epistemological assumption is also the theoretical tact employed in this case study’s
methods. One of the important theoretical underpinnings of this case study is that
the meaning which is attached to knowledge is socially constructed. Socially
constructed knowledge, or as it is also known, social constructivism, is derived from
works such as Berger and Luckmann’s, The Social Construction of Reality (1967)
and Lincoln and Guba’s Naturalistic Inquiry (1985). Additional “writers who have
summarized this position more recently are Lincoln and Guba (2000), Schwandt
(2000), Neuman (2000) and Crotty (1998) among others” (Creswell, 2003, p. 8).
Social constructivism contends that
individuals seek understanding of the world in which they live and
work. They develop subjective meanings of their experiences—
meanings directed towards certain objects or things. These meanings
are varied and multiple, leading the researcher to look for complexity
of views rather than narrowing to a few categories or ideas. The goal
of research then, is to rely as much as possible on the participants’
views of the situation being studied” (p. 8).
As a researcher, it is important to acknowledge that we all have and bring
certain constructs and cognitive frames of reference to each new event in which we
participate. Our paradigms have been formed in part as a consequence of our past
experiences. While previous experience is an important influence on our operating
belief system, it is our perceptions and interpretations of our experiences which are
68
most significant in influencing our cognitive model of reality. As we all have
different experiences and different perceptions of those experiences, we all have
different lenses through which we see and interpret events. Therefore, as stated
previously, “the goal of research then, is to rely as much as possible on the
participant’s views of the situation being studied” (Creswell, 2003, p. 8) rather than
our own tinted perceptions of them.
Role of the Researcher
According to social constructivism and this case study’s underpinnings, every
effort should have been and was made by the researcher to understand the meaning,
implications, and relationships between people, situations, observations and actions
noted within the context of this case study. This researcher sought to dig “nuggets of
data or meanings out of [the] subject’s pure experiences” rather than the experiences
of the researcher (Kvale, 1996, pp. 3-4). The researcher speaks in the participants’
voice with empathic neutrality (Patton, 2002). That is, this researcher actively
inhibited any tendencies to positively or negatively identify with his subjects’
feelings or difficulties. Instead, this researcher actively tried to present the data
gathered from each subject in the subject’s own voice, from the subject’s perspective
submerged in his or her perception of reality and with the subject’s attributions of
meanings and relevance.
Additionally, the researcher brings no constructs of what is real, or what is
intended. Reality in effect was bounded by the socially constructed reality of this
study’s participants. That is, the researcher did not question the participants’
69
assumptions, perceptions, judgments or feelings. Each participant was given the
opportunity to relate his or her own socially perceived and constructed description of
events, occurrences and activities pursued in order to promote excellence. As the
data they provided was analyzed, it was likewise reviewed through the lens and in
the same context in which it was provided. For example, if the Academic Dean
believed the establishment of a deanship in the school of education was the single
most important act preformed in his attempt to promote excellence in teaching and
scholarship, then it was accepted as such for all intents and purposes in this case
study. Patton (2002) noted that
constructivists study the multiple realities constructed by people and
the implications of those constructions for their lives and interactions
with others. William Shadish reminds us that social constructivism
“refers to the constructing [of] knowledge about reality, not
constructing reality itself” (Shadish, 1995, p. 67). Constructivists
commonly assume that humans “do not have direct access to a
singular, stable, and fully knowledgeable external reality. All of our
understandings are contextually embedded, interpersonally forged,
and necessarily limited” (p. 96).
Inquiry Strategy and Justifications
The inquiry strategy design employed in this study can best be described as
“purposeful sampling” (Patton, 2002, p. 40). In this research strategy “Cases for
study (e.g., people, organizations, communities, cultures, events, critical incidences)
are selected because they are ‘information rich’ and illuminative. That is, they offer
useful manifestations of the phenomenon, not empirical generalizations from a
sample to a population” (p. 40). The phenomenon of interest in this study was
collectively the actions the Academic Dean of Education took to promote excellence
70
in teaching and scholarship. The sample was purposefully constructed to inform the
research question.
Documents were collected in order to serve as an additional data source
relevant to the research question, but also in order to add an additional element of
context and dimension to the activities of the School of Education Dean in this study.
Documents were read in order to better inform the researcher as to how the
Academic Dean promotes excellence in teaching and scholarship.
A case study methodology of inquiry was applied in this study, with data
acquired through interviews of key informants who included the past Director of the
School of Education, the Vice President of Instruction, the current Dean of the
School of Education and the Director of the Excellence in Teaching Committee.
Pertinent documents developed in association with the goal of promoting excellence
in education and scholarship in the school of education. Additionally, the Jesuit
Pacific University Strategic Plan and other institutional documents that were relevant
to the school’s efforts to accomplish this objective were read.
The documents reviewed in this case study were referred to this researcher
and his dissertation group by key informants in administrative positions at Jesuit
Pacific University. Specifically, during a meeting with the Vice President of
Academic Affairs, each member of the thematic dissertation group presented his or
her topic and was directed by Dr. Woods to pertinent internal documents and
communications associated with each research question. Additionally, as other
subjects were interviewed, this researcher asked his interview subjects to identify
71
any and all documents which may be helpful and relevant to his particular research
question and topic. Finally, internet sources of data from the University and School
of Education’s website were reviewed to gain access to knowledge of documents,
processes and activities which were related to this research topic.
The analysis strategy employed in this study can best be described as
“inductive analysis and creative synthesis” (Patton, 2002, p. 41). In this approach
there is, “immersion in the details and specifics of the data to discover important
patterns, themes, and interrelationships; [it] begins by exploring then confirming;
guided by analytical principles rather than rules; [and] ends with a creative
synthesis” (p. 41).
A case study method was appropriate for several important epistemological
reasons. First, case studies are bounded by time and activity. This allows the
researcher the ability to collect a variety of data that explores in appropriate scope
and detail a specific issue (Stake, 1995). The flexibility this method affords relative
to depth and focus of information acquired is important because it provides to the
researcher the freedom necessary to address the single research question and purpose
of this study, understanding how the Academic Dean of Jesuit Pacific University’s
School of Education promotes excellence in teaching and scholarship. The means
employed by the dean to accomplish this objective may cover a wide variety of
disciplines. These may include leadership adjustments; organizational, structural
elements involving clarifications or adjustments in the roles of faculty; adjustments
72
in pedagogies of instruction; an expansion and recognition of broader forms of
scholarship; as well as other domains and formulations of activity.
The case study methodology allows for the collection of data from a variety
of different sources, which allows researchers the ability to track across a wide rather
than narrow array of behaviors and activities in multiple disciplines, dimensions,
forms and formats while still remaining grounded and united by the single guiding
research question. A quantitative research process would significantly limit the task
of attaching meaning to actions, mapping out actions and relationships that cross
disciplines and that are not easily described statistically by a null hypothesis.
Second, a case study provides an excellent mechanism for thoroughly
contextualizing the data and knowledge obtained in an interview or observation to
the setting in which these events occurred. The observations and facts revealed in
the case study exist within a web of relationships that are simultaneously unique to
and inseparable from the case study. The inherent uniqueness of each of these
relationships color and influence the meaning a researcher would attach to the
isolated facts or observations. The same observation made in one setting may take
on an entirely different meaning in a different setting. Just as citing the middle
passage from a sentence without the context provided from what came before or after
it may grossly affect that middle passage’s interpretation, presenting data without
developing a keen appreciation for the contextual factors surrounding their
situational presentation is equally problematic. Attributing meaning to data and
73
knowledge gleaned without adequate, essential and sufficient context is highly
problematic.
Finally, the narrative design afforded to case study research employing
interview data acquisition allows for more accurate information communication. In
an interview format, questions can be presented with open endings. As a result of
this format, participants can formulate their answers in their own words, and in a
way which uniquely reflects their thoughts, feelings, attitudes and conceptions. This
is considerably different from the latitudes afforded to data gathering via surveys,
questionnaires and polls. Data collection is comparably more reflective of the
participants’ impressions in an interview format because gestures, facial expressions,
and tone employed by those interviewed to convey nuance and clarification to their
spoken words can be detected and used to add dimension to the data obtained.
Data Collection and Analysis Procedures
The data collection and fieldwork strategy employed in this study can best be
described as “the qualitative data strategy” (Patton, 2002, p. 40). In this strategy, one
collects “observations that yield detailed, thick description; inquiry in depth,
interviews that capture direct quotations about people’s personal perspective and
experiences; case studies; [and] careful document review” (Patton, 2002, p. 40).
As mentioned previously, a case study methodology of inquiry was applied in
this case study, with data acquired through interviews of key informants who
included the past Dean of the School of Education, the Vice President of Academic
Affairs, current Dean of the School of Education and the Director of the Center for
74
Teaching Excellence. Data were also obtained through observations of the
Academic Dean of Education during the interview with the understanding that
gestures, facial expressions, voice emphasis and tone were applicable and could infer
additional meaning to what was literally spoken. Further, pertinent documents
developed in association with the goal of promoting excellence in education and
scholarship in the School of Education were read. Finally, relevant institutional
documents to include the Jesuit Pacific University Strategic Plan, which seeks to
promote excellence in education and scholarship and other institutional documents
that are relevant to the School’s efforts to accomplish this objective were also read.
The interviews were recorded with the participants’ permission and notes
were also taken during this process. Efforts were made to perform the interview in
an environment that was free of interruptions and that was not only conducive to
clear and precise communication but also conducive to the free flow of thoughts and
ideas. Each interview occurred in the subject’s office on the campus of Jesuit Pacific
University. Additionally, each interview was free from interruption with only one
exception, a two-minute telephone discussion during this researcher’s interview with
the Director of the Center for Teaching Excellence. This phone call was one that the
Director had been expecting. For reasons unknown to this researcher, the Director
felt the need to accept the call at that time. A completed transcript of the interviews
was created from the taped transmissions. Questions presented during the interview
received the approval of the University of Southern California Institutional Research
Review Board prior to being used (Institutional Review Board, UP0600361). On
75
occasion, the subject’s response was not clear or the researcher did not understand
the response. When this occurred, a brief follow up, clarification question was asked
or the respondent was encouraged to elaborate at a later time or different interview
time.
Transcript records, observations and reviewed documents were analyzed for
factual data and relationships that link these together into themes. Results of this
analysis were correlated to the body of empirically validated, relevant, discipline-
specific knowledge base. Empirically, the works of Fullan (2001), Bolman and Deal
(2003) and Pascarella and Terrenzini (2005) were used liberally as a means to inform
the data collected from transcripts, reviewed documents and observations made
during interviews.
Strategies for Validating Findings
This study has been performed in such a way that its credibility and
authenticity were maximized. A number of precautions were taken to ensure this
quality in the research design, data acquisition and analysis sections of this study.
From a design perspective, triangulation of data was performed between the
institutional document data sources, each interview participant and observational
data acquired during subject interviews. Additionally, each interview participant’s
responses were evaluated for inconsistencies in responses from other interview
participants when similar factual data were requested.
Research validity was also considered in the acquisition of data and the
writing of this study. First, data were presented with rich, deep descriptions and
76
emphasis given to empirical evidence and findings. Whenever it was possible,
complete and sufficiently lengthy quotations and narratives were provided in order to
present the reader with sufficient context and substance for them to form their own
assessments and explanations for what was reported in this study. When factual data
were obtained, they were validated and corroborated to other records and documents
that could support their authenticity where this was possible. For example, during
the data gathering interviews, the researcher asked the same questions of multiple
subjects. This was done in order to corroborate and evaluate the consistency of
responses between subjects. When inconsistencies were noted, follow-up, clarifying
questions were asked allowing respondents to elaborate. Additionally, documents
were reviewed prior to each interview and used to direct the questioning process.
After each interview, pertinent documents were reviewed again in order to draw
correlations between what was said and what was noted in these records.
Finally, between interviews, documents were also reviewed in order to better
inform the questioning process. This practice was particularly helpful in identifying
important areas and areas of ambiguity that required further clarification between
multiple interviews with the same subjects and separate interviews with different
subjects. Empirical data were always referenced, often by more than one author, and
contrasting and conflicting empirical data and opinions were also presented
whenever it was available. Data was always presented the participants’ own voices,
rather than the voice of the researcher. The reader will note examples of such thick
descriptions in Chapter 4 where rich, verbatim quotations of subjects’ responses
77
from interviews are included. This researcher has frequently included the specific
language of the question posed during the interview so that the reader is able to fully
understand the context in which the data was acquired.
In the analysis portion of this study, consistent, sincere and conscious efforts
were made and “dedicated to really getting as close as possible to what [was] really
going on (Patton, 2002, p. 93). Inferences were avoided wherever possible. When
meaning was inferred, supports for and against the inferred interpretation were
presented so that the reader was able evaluate the inferential interpretation linkages
and determine their soundness.
Significance of the Study
As academic deans seek to live up to the expectations of a variety of external
and internal stakeholders, in an academic environment which is complicated by
variable levels of faculty commitment, fiscal limitations and unanticipated trade-offs
from past decisions, their ability to lead and the leadership process has become
increasingly complex. Academic leadership has been defined as “the art of building
a community of scholars, to set direction and achieve common purpose through the
empowerment of faculty and staff” (Wolverton and Gmelch, 2002). Understanding
how this School of Education Dean develops a community of scholars, set direction
and empowers others to promote excellence in teaching and scholarship at Jesuit
Pacific University may be helpful to scholars and other academic deans entrusted
with the same responsibility of providing leadership in similar settings. Though the
results and understandings gleaned from this case study are not transferable, they are
78
intended to inform the reader of the factors which positively and negatively influence
this Dean’s ability to achieve his strategic initiative.
79
Chapter 4
ACTIVITIES OF THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION DEAN
AT JESUIT PACIFIC UNIVERSITY
The first initiative in Jesuit Pacific University’s strategic plan is the
promotion of excellence in teaching and scholarship. Simply stated, as an
overarching goal, it is not very specific, nor is it particularly descriptive as a
directive. Considering the possibilities of multiple interpretations, one of the first
obligations of the data-gathering portion of this study was to assess the intended
meaning of this phrase as it applies to the School of Education and within the larger
institution. Once this is clarified, then the actions taken by the Dean of Jesuit Pacific
University’s School of Education can be viewed in the appropriate context. Through
interviews with upper and middle levels of administrative personnel, as well as past
and present Deans of the School of Education, data were collected that address the
question of what is excellence in teaching and scholarship. These data are presented
in the pages that follow, often as direct quotes from transcribed text of interviews, so
that the reader is able to draw his or her own conclusions of these conceptualizations,
at different levels within the institution.
One facet of the excellence conceptualization of teaching and scholarship
held by J. Bauer, the current Dean of the School of Education, notes that teaching
and scholarship are not separate, but rather are synergistic entities. Excellence in one
component, teaching for instance, requires the active presence and contributions of
scholarship. For example, when asked the question, “How do you define, and how
80
does the School of Education define excellence in teaching?” the current Dean of the
school remarked, “… We see teaching and scholarship as highly integrated and very
much connected. We are a professional School of Education, and so for us teaching
really needs to be connected to scholarship and scholarship needs to be brought into
teaching” (J. Bauer, personal communication, January 12, 2007).
The integration of research into teaching is seen as vital in order to ground
and enhance the relevance of the content presented in the School of Education’s
curriculum. The instructional content in this school is centered and focused on
improving instruction in K-12 settings. Speaking to these points, the current Dean of
the School of Education remarks, “One of the things that we really say and hold up is
that for us, theory and practice must come together in a very meaningful way to
make a difference” (J. Bauer, personal communication, January 12, 2007).
The term “theory” mentioned in the preceding sentence refers to the act of
scholarship and the relevant contributions of that research. The term “practice” is
interpreted to mean all and any activities that the School of Education performs as it
trains teachers to be effective in improving instruction in K-12 settings. “And that is
really our major goal in the School of Education …to form educators who can make
a difference in the communities in which they will be serving” (J. Bauer, personal
communication, January 12, 2007). Therefore, in this model, scholarship enriches
and informs the teaching/learning process in ways that support the mission of
improving urban school instruction.
So, it is very much mission driven. And when I say mission driven,
I'm not talking about a specific Catholic mission. It’s much broader
81
than that. It's the mission of K-12 education, or pre K-12 education,
for both public schools and Catholics. We serve both; but in terms
of our commitment to theory and practice, for us practice that is not
under girded by theory, there is the real danger of it becoming the
next educational fad and simply not helpful and ineffective. But
theory that is not connected to the real world of schools, and is not
in dialogue with educators who are in the classroom … is not helpful
in making change. The Jesuit educational viewpoint is really about
changing the world. It is nothing short of that. We are educating
men and women who have the moral convictions and intellectual
ability to be leaders and to be change agents. So, as we approach
teaching to get to your big picture question, and as we approach the
scholarship of teaching and (as) we talk about different types of
scholarship, those are the key elements. Scholarship for the sake
of scholarship is not helpful. And I do not want to say that it’s not
valued, but it is not our emphasis here …knowledge just for the sake
of knowledge. We are looking for scholarship that makes a difference
that really engages the real world problems of our schools and our
communities (J. Bauer, personal communication, January 12, 2007).
From the passage above, a clearer picture of the School of Education’s
conceptualization of excellence in teaching and scholarship can be postulated. In
this model, scholarship and teaching are integrally intertwined to support the larger
mission of the school, improved instruction in inner city Catholic and public schools.
All forms of scholarship in this model are not seen as equivalent. Instead scholarship
and theory which are grounded by real life, inner city contexts have greater
relevance, utility and are better suited to foster the Jesuit educational mission of
change in urban K-12. Additionally, in this passage there is the expectation that the
teaching process should provide not only the intellectual attributes required to “be
leaders and to be change agents,” but also the “moral convictions” essential to
serving this urban K-12 community (J. Bauer, personal communication, January 12,
2007).
82
The current Dean of the School of Education further elaborated on this
expectation of teaching in saying,
looking at excellence in teaching … it’s very much a world affirming
view … very much an optimistic view which doesn’t mean that, that
you don’t look at things which are challenging, but it’s very much
about expanding horizons, about having students … stretching
students … having them grow intellectually as well as in other areas.
It is very much about teaching to the whole person and that is one of
the Jesuit axioms in our educational model. It is very much about an
appreciation and respect not only for the individual, but for
communities. So when we talk about living with global diversity
and diversity in general, there is no question that that is a very strong
commitment in Jesuit education (J. Bauer, personal communication,
January 12, 2007).
Considering the message and sentiment of the passage above, one can
reasonably understand that excellence in teaching at Jesuit Pacific University School
of Education should include the development of specific intellectual abilities of their
students which allows them to be effective in improving the educational outcomes
for urban communities of students. Additionally, in keeping with the Jesuit tradition,
this passage hints that excellence in teaching should also include affective
dimensions of character development like “stretching students” so that they grow
“in other areas” like accepting diversity, respecting individuals, and their
communities (J. Bauer, personal communication, January 12, 2007).
Excellence in teaching as defined by J. Woods, Jesuit Pacific University’s
Vice President for Academic Affairs is a “transformative experience,” which
awakens, and spurs further learning, and brings into real life contexts the
applications of text and factual data.
83
I think that teaching in its best sense for the learner becomes a rather
transformative experience. A good teacher takes you to places you
have never been before. Or if you have, you don’t realize it until the
teacher got you to think about it. Somebody who really makes you
feel engaged, makes you feel intellectually alive, and makes you
curious. I think great intellect begins with inquiry. A good teacher
makes you want to know more about the subject. That's really one of
the best things. In this day and age, things are becoming more sort of
framed around learning outcomes, and the assessment of learning
outcomes, and things like that. That's fine, but I don't think you want
to miss that transformational part of what good teaching is. And how
do you define and measure that is pretty difficult I think. Because
it’s really almost the emotional side of learning and the intellectual
side (J. Woods, personal communication, January 29, 2007).
It is interesting to note that teaching has been defined here from the learners’
perspective. Teaching accordingly is effectually oriented and governed not so much
by what the teacher does but rather by the results of those activities in his or her
students.
A number of advantages are attained in the identification of excellence in
teaching from a student-centered perspective rather than a teacher-centered
description. Globally, if we simply look at the teaching process, we are able to
identify at least three general components, the teacher, the student and the
intervention or instructional application. If excellence in teaching is defined from a
teacher-centered intervention lens, then the discussion will turn around issues like
teacher training, teacher classroom behaviors, the teacher’s innate ability to transfer
knowledge and the depth of his or her contribution. Conversely, if excellence in
teaching were defined as an instructional application for instructional intervention,
then the determinants of excellence would be based on pedagogical issues. By
identifying excellence in teaching from the student-centered perspective, the
84
discussion of what constitutes excellence shifts to elements of the student’s
cognitive, psychosocial, psychomotor and affective development. The discussion is
limited in scope to neither effective teacher literature, nor effective pedagogy
literature but instead is able to encompass both in concert, and in a manner which
highlights their intricately complex, dynamic and potentially synergistic relationship.
Like the Acting Dean of the School of Education, excellence in teaching as
defined by the Academic Vice President also includes an affective component and
recognition that those educated at the University should be compelled to use their
knowledge and skills to serve not only themselves but also others. The Vice
President of Academic Affairs noted:
So, understanding … developing a consciousness, developing what you
know and then can do for others is highly important. And that's really
one of the very strong tenets of Jesuit Universities … educating men
and women for others. So, you use what you learn not only for your
own good but also for the good of others. That is a real tenet of Jesuit
education. Public universities, they use [a] variation of that. You do
what you can for the common good or for/in the public interest and so
forth. But in a Jesuit University there’s that and that sort of, kind of
spiritual push” (J. Woods, personal communication, January 29, 2007).
In the paragraph above, the Vice President of Academic Affairs’
conceptualization of excellence in teaching and scholarship is consistent with the
present Dean of the School of Education. Both consider appropriate end results of
excellence in teaching to include positive effects in the larger community. Both also
expect teaching to encompass providing students with the willingness and ability to
be “change agents”. The context of this interaction with the larger world and
community is not specified however, at the Vice President’s level of organizational
85
leadership, except to say that it should have a “sort of … spiritual push” and be used
also for the “good of others” (J. Woods, personal communication, January 29, 2007).
Instead, the context of this interaction is brought into focus and articulated by the
current Dean of the School of Education to include improving educational outcomes
in urban, Catholic, public, K-12 and diverse student populations.
The constructs of excellence in scholarship and excellence in teaching are
also considered to be interconnected by the Vice President of Academic Affairs and
the current Dean. The Academic Affairs Vice President noted as he responded to the
comment, “A lot of text has been written upon how the integration of teaching and
scholarship is integral in maintaining the vitality of a University.”
I think there are certainly people who talk about people who are
good teachers. And that's all they really concentrate on [teaching].
I think that, I think that is possible, but what you are teaching is
other peoples’ ideas, other peoples' work. You can develop in being
a good presenter and really helping people understand and learn
about other peoples' work and other peoples' ideas. But in my mind,
the very best teachers are those who not only do that but are also
teaching about their own ideas and work. That is an entirely
different situation. And when you, you yourself are involved in
producing new ideas and practices, you have to know the knowledge
base of your area very well to do that. So you not only have a
wonderful understanding of other peoples’ ideas, you have a
working knowledge of those ideas and understanding too,
because you are engaged in that work. So, that is the key to being
an even better teacher because you know, you have a working
knowledge, not just an intellectual or book knowledge collection”
(J. Woods, personal communication, January 29, 2007).
Drawing from the sentiment presented in this passage, it is interpreted that
excellence in teaching requires and is intertwined with the practice of scholarship. In
fact, being an active researcher ensures a degree of mastery within a discipline and
86
provides students with the additional point of view and vantage of the scholarly
professor.
Generally, discussing the promotion of scholarship in the University, the
Vice President’s interview presented an interesting chronicle of past and present
activities. He noted in response to this researcher’s question, “What is your/the
University’s perspective of excellence in scholarship at Jesuit Pacific University?”
[Jesuit Pacific University] has a strong teaching mission. In fact, we
have a Center for Teaching Excellence. …And the focus of the
Center over the last years has been on Boyer’s notions on the
scholarship of teaching. …We have some people who are well-known
scholars here, but there has never been the kind of push or pressure
here that you have at doctoral granting universities. So, one of the
things that I have been initiating here is to make the scholarship part,
or the research and artistry [parts] much more visible and much more
intentional as part of our work than it has been emphasized in the past.
So, one of the things that we are doing in conjunction with that is
looking at the whole teaching load for our faculty and in the context
of the dimensions as well. But, the teaching load here is three
courses per semester – which is a pretty heavy load if you put that in
context of conducting [research], doing a lot of scholarship as well.
Some people are pretty masterful at being able to pull that off. But
it's difficult. So what we’re trying to do is to look at, if we change
the teaching load, how that affects the dynamic of actually creating
more time for quality teaching, in addition to being able to be more
active in scholarly pursuits (J. Woods, personal communication,
January 29, 2007).
The inherent logic of the statements presented above is that resources, time
and faculty activities with few exceptions have been primarily focused on providing
excellent instruction. In an effort to increase the attention paid to scholarly activities,
the University has embarked on a path that reduces the teaching load and frees up
time for additional academic pursuits, specifically the scholarships of discovery,
integration, application and teaching. These additional scholarly and artistic pursuits
87
are accomplished with newly available time. Therefore, it does not negatively affect
the time and emphasis placed on teaching. The University and hence the School of
Education have recently moved from a four in four teaching load to a three in three
and is presently questioning the possibility of further lowering teaching
responsibilities. Three in three refers to three courses, taught during three semesters
each year. A four in four refers to four courses taught during four semesters each
year. There is an understanding that as you free faculty from teaching
responsibilities, they will invest that additional free time into scholarship.
When questioned about the likelihood that faculty freed of a portion of their
teaching load will utilize that additional time for the pursuit of scholarly activities,
the Vice President remarked,
Well that’s the hope you know, and we will have to see how that
goes. … So you know we’ve got to come up with some metrics to
show that it is making a difference. That we are not just across the
board saying that everyone is teaching one less class and then there
is nothing really to show for that in relationship to productivity and
scholarly productivity” (J. Woods, personal communication,
January 29, 2007).
Therefore, the centralized response to the promotion of scholarship by the
University has been directed at increasing faculty free time, through reducing
teaching loads, with the expectation that faculty would more vigorously pursue
research and forms of scholarship. Lacking from this tactic is the recognition that
other obstacles may be preventing Jesuit Pacific University’s faculty from research
pursuits. In discussions with the past Director of the School of Education, some of
the problematic concerns of faculty were identified.
88
When speaking of some of the difficulties the older tenured faculty members
had with publishing during his tenure as the Director of the School of Education, the
past Director remarked, “ … if you hadn’t been writing for years. You know that if
you stop writing for 5 years that it will be hard to get back” (R. Palmer, personal
communication, January 18, 2007). These words are taken to mean that in the past
Director’s opinion, long periods of scholarly inactivity are difficult to overcome and
recover from individually. They also imply that additional help may be warranted to
assist older, inactive or reluctant faculty members who were not in the practice of
routinely publishing and conducting research.
The past Director further noted that the School of Education, under the
direction of the current Dean, has been successful in pursuing grants and the
promotion of scholarship within the School of Education because of the additional
assistance provided to support such activities. He remarked,
“In the education school [currently] they have gotten two or three
major grants in the last 2 years. The current Dean has really pushed
that and helped people … (This explains) part of this excellence in
scholarly work. You have to provide faculty with help. We have
a great research support area. They can all get research assistants;
they can hire them for 60 hours per semester. And they are well
paid; we pay $11.00 an hour. You can get graduate students to do
a lot of good stuff for you if you just make use of it” (R. Palmer,
personal communications, January 18, 2007).
The impressions of the past Director of the School of Education are
corroborated by the Vice President of Academic Affairs and the Dean of the School
of Education in that it is indeed not easy to get faculty who are not involved in
scholarship pursuits to become engaged in research. All are in agreement that
89
incentives, supports and strategic activities will all come into play in the process of
encouraging scholarship within their professoriate. For example, the current Dean of
the School of Education spoke to the importance of new faculty in changing the
cultural expectation of scholarship within the University’s professoriate. The
Academic Vice President spoke to the need to provide appropriate incentives,
rewards and the need to develop and make available the appropriate supports and
infrastructure in order to provide reluctant faculty members with the wherewithal to
publish and conduct research. The Vice President noted,
Well, I mean you’re sort of creating a history for the institution in
some respects. And so, you have to put in place the right kind of
supports and infrastructure. And the right kinds of incentives and
rewards for people to move in that direction. And they do and a lot
of the junior faculty that we hire … I mean, they come in with that
expectation and they jump right in, too. Some of the folks who have
been here many, many years in some cases say “that's not the JPU I
joined”. That was not the expectation. … Others have been very
willing to change and say, “Okay, the University is going through a
change,” and they say, “I will, too.” And then they jump on it. So,
you kind of have different groups and opinions. I think that the
challenge for someone in my position is how do you move the
University into a different direction while still valuing the work that
people have done back when it was a different University, and
continue to keep them engaged and feeling like there is a place for
them in the University even as it changes. That’s a real challenge
(J. Woods, personal communication, January 29, 2007).
The current Dean of the School of Education did not contradict the opinion of
the past Director as it relates to the importance of supports for those who are more
challenged by the task of performing research. Instead, he offers a variety of other
factors that are also crucial to the school’s success in the procurement of two
Department of Education grants. In addition to providing supports, the current Dean
90
of the School of Education acknowledged that it is also important to identify key
personnel with the ability to accomplish the specific task, communicate the
importance of the task to that person and the entire school, empower that person to
complete the task, reward the behavior and create a culture within the School of
Education that embraces research.
The institutional strategy to promote excellence in scholarship has been
largely structural in nature, involving the creation of new positions with new
responsibilities. The Academic Vice President, in an effort to move the University
toward the directive of scholarship, noted in response to this researcher’s question,
“What sort of activity has JPU engaged in to support and promote this change in
paradigm in the evaluation of scholarship?”
Well, one of the things we’re doing is we are creating a whole [new]
Office of Research and Graduate Studies. And I hope within the
next couple of weeks to hire a Vice President for that. We've been
running a search, national search. So, while I’ve sort of done this
reorganization and to really focus our attention on research and
graduate education, I've not been filling in a lot of details because I
want this new Vice President to be the person to have the opportunity
to do that. But this person will come in and need to take a very good
look at our sponsored projects office and see if we have the sufficient
infrastructure and support and incentives there to get people to write
more grant proposals and seek more external funding (J. Woods,
personal communication, January 29, 2007).
Sponsored projects refer to an initiative in which the University provided
seed money to support research efforts that once completed, had the ability to attract
private funding. They were intended to be targeted to strategic, highly marketable,
collaborative [external partnerships], and interdisciplinary research efforts. The
reasoning behind the sponsored projects initiative is to promote partnerships which
91
financially could support the research efforts at Jesuit Pacific University. This was a
university-wide strategy orchestrated by the highest levels of Jesuit Pacific
University’s administrators. The role of the School of Education Dean was primarily
supportive in this initiative. That is, he was expected to encourage and coordinate
activities of his faculty which lead to the procurement of these university grants and
to the establishment of relationships with external funding sources.
Additionally, the University has made available resources to foster the
scholarship of integration (Boyer, 1990). In an effort to encourage the collaborative
efforts across different related disciplines within the University, the Academic Vice
President would accept research proposals involving multidisciplinary collaborative
efforts. The current Dean of the School of Education was asked by this researcher if
the grants and seed monies for collaborative multidisciplinary efforts were a focus in
the School of Education’s strategy to increase the level of research performed in the
school. He responded:
Well, some of us have been doing that for years (multidisciplinary
and integrative research). I mean, the University has put together the
special grants in that area, and the other area that they put it in was
diversifying the curriculum. Okay, well I'm glad they did that. There
are a lot of places in the University that both of those areas are new.
So this grant competition will be incentives to get that done. But
those are not issues for us in the School of Education. We are
interdisciplinary by nature, and we have been very involved in
cultural diversity just by the nature of what we do. So, neither of
those programs has really applied to us because our whole curriculum
infuses diversity through it. You really can’t apply for a grant to
infuse diversity (if we’ve already done it)” (J. Woods, personal
communication, January 29, 2007).
92
This quote highlights the inconsistency between the pace and tactics
employed at the University level to spur research and their ability to do so in the
School of Education. From a disciplinary standpoint, the focus of the grants and
sponsored projects is not a poor performance issue for the School of Education. In
fact, the School of Education is by nature ahead of the curve in comparison to other
schools and colleges within the University. The construct of valued research in the
School of Education had evolved dramatically within Boyer’s classification of
scholarships of application and integration. This rendered the transactional policies
and tactics of focused rewards less viable as incentives to spur research efforts in the
School of Education.
The actual descriptions of what represents scholarly work and their levels of
hierarchy have come from discussions with the past Director of the School of
Education. Traditionally, it has been within the discretion of the individual
disciplines to clarify the specifics of what excellence in scholarship means.
Historically speaking, the past Director of the School of Education, speaking about
excellence in scholarship, remarked:
Clearly publications become the major, major issue. They need to
write. They need to be published. And then you’ve got to work very
hard at kind of ranking the publications. Stuff that is peer reviewed
[is] pretty clearly at the top of the list. We … made the decision [that]
the top category [would be] … peer reviewed articles, federal grants
that you received, not that you wrote … you actually had to get the
grant. And there were maybe … obviously a book, an article or
chapter in a book and all those were kind of considered first level
(R. Palmer, personal communication, January 18, 2007).
93
The first level refers to stratifications established for the attainment of top
annual pay adjustments, as required by the University’s merit pay raise incentive
system. Within this compensation system, the University recognizes scholarly
activities performed during the past year by each school’s faculty. Scholarship is
divided into three classifications in the School of Education. Recipients of the top
merit pay classification were guaranteed twice the percentage of pay adjustment
provided to the lowest level. Scholarly activity that was considered worthy of the
highest levels of compensation as discussed above include funded federal grants,
peer reviewed articles, books and chapters in books.
The middle level received an intermediate level of pay adjustment for their
scholarly services to the University. Secondary levels of recognition include grants
that were written but not funded, presentations at conferences and publications that
were not peer reviewed. Each school in the University was allowed the opportunity
to define the expectations of their first and second levels of merit pay classification.
Through establishing the standards for the annual merit based compensation, each
school was given the authority to discern within its discipline what forms of
scholarly activities would be recognized and their relative merit. The merit pay
document (Appendix C) delineates the complete strata and hierarchy of scholarly
activities acknowledged initially in the School of Education. This document helped
to formalizing the School’s earliest conceptualization of scholarly excellence.
These valuations of scholarly activity provide an indication of the initial
scholarship expectations in the School of Education. From them we can conclude
94
that initially, excellence in scholarship during the first years of the strategic initiative
meant primarily publications, books, chapters in books, and peer-reviewed journal
articles. Additionally, scholarly presentations and other scholarly writings were also
considered worthy of varying levels of merit compensation and hence scholarship
indirectly. Lacking from this early description of excellence in scholarship are the
qualitative factors of excellence in scholarship, such as, for example, being effectual,
supportive of school mission, informed by practice, and focused on inner city
Catholic and public K-12 issues and instructional settings. These requirements and
expectations of scholarship were relayed through the current Dean of the School of
Education and represent the current qualitative specifics of the school’s expectations
of scholarship.
It is important to note that the refinement in the specific characteristics of
scholarship excellence is not at odds with the past connotation but rather represents
an adjustment that better links the mission and purpose in the Jesuit tradition to the
scholarship activities of the School of Education’s professoriate. This is not to say
that initially there was not an emphasis on the qualitative aspects and characteristics
of scholarship.
Even though the exact qualities of scholarship were not as clearly delineated
or stipulated earlier by the School of Education, there was nonetheless safeguards
like peer review and peer acceptance acknowledged in the scholarship hierarchy in
the first connotation of excellence in scholarship for the School of Education. The
fact that peer reviewed publications were seen as worthy of the highest merit, while
95
other forms of publication were not accepted in this category indicates or at least
telegraphs an academic standard and expectation that the scholarly work be of such a
caliber that it is capable of withstanding intradiscipline intellectual scrutiny. That
expectation still exists in the School of Education; however, it is also coupled with
the expectation that the scholarship be effectual, has social purpose, and supports the
greater Jesuit mission of change and service.
This evolution in constructs of what excellence in teaching and scholarship
means parallels the evolutionary process delineated in Chapter 1 involving the
functions and purpose of the University. It was noted that as expectations change
over the years, these new expectations are added onto widely held perceptions of
what the University should do, as well as be. Seldom if ever is an expectation
dropped entirely. Likewise, as years passed, the School of Education’s construct of
which forms of scholarly research were most valued also developed. It always
included quality and rigor expectations of peer scrutiny, grounded in theory and peer
acceptance. However, qualitative dimensions of being effectual, supportive of the
school’s mission and improving educational outcomes were later added to this
construct.
Linking scholarship to rank, tenure and salary advancement can be viewed as
an effort to direct and motivate faculty to perform research. It essentially served as a
transactional mechanism and process through which the University could direct
faculty to perform research. When asked how effective these tactics were in
96
increasing research productivity, the past Director of the School of Education
responded:
I would say it was very successful with younger faculty. If you are
A senior faculty and you’re making $70-, $80,000 a year, sometimes
$90,000, you didn't really worry about it too much. If you got the
lower merit, life went on. And they often … it was hard to push
them and motivate them, to [kind of] do this extra shot just for
money. And we really had to put more pressure on them just to be
part of the new, whatever … and they had to try and do this. And
for the most part, it worked. But the problem is consistency across
the whole University. [This] is very difficult to get. Because the
people … let's say in liberal arts, if you are in philosophy, it's much,
much harder to get published in a peer journal than it is in education.
It's certainly a great deal easier in say education, engineering and
perhaps science to write successful grants because there is more
money available. So, as you cross disciplines, there is a certain
amount of hesitation” (R. Palmer, personal communication,
January 18, 2007).
There are a number of key points made in the quotation above. One of these
is that the effectiveness of monetary incentives was relative to the overall salary of
the faculty member. Faculty members who were comfortable with their base salaries
prior to the incentives were less likely to accept additional research responsibilities
to increase them. Conversely, those faculty members who were earning less were
more likely to be motivated by these monetary incentives to become more active in
their scholarly pursuits. Additionally, senior faculty members, those with tenure,
were less likely to increase their scholarly productivity because they had already
advanced to and attained the higher ranks without this expectation. Finally, the
monetary incentives were based on a percentage increase in salary above one’s
present salary. The difficulty of attaining this increase was not applicable across all
disciplines. For example, the ability to obtain a grant is easier in many science
97
fields, primarily because there are so many grants available in these disciplines as
compared to others. Additionally, when one considers the inherent difficulty
associated in some fields like liberal arts and philosophy to be published as
compared to the relative ease to do so in engineering and education, the increase in
salary motivation had a variable intra-disciplinary inducement value. The need to
motivate faculty to improve the quality of teaching was perceived by the University
to be less urgent than the need to motivate improvement in scholarship. Teaching,
in large part, was considered the strength and forte of the School of Education.
Nevertheless, the University also pursued excellence in teaching as well as
excellence in scholarship.
The construct of teaching excellence has been promoted in the School of
Education in a combination of centralized and decentralized formats at Jesuit Pacific
University. Historically speaking and to a large degree even now, the centralized
student/teacher evaluation form has played a major role in the evaluation process of
teaching. The past Director of the School of Education remarked concerning
teaching,
We have to admit that student evaluations play a big role in the way
we measure teaching. Rightly or wrongly, they do. We evaluate
every class every semester; and we’ve worked and spent a lot of
time on the questions” (R. Palmer, personal communication,
January 18, 2007).
The “we” in the sentences above refers to the University at large not the School of
Education specifically. Historically speaking, excellence in teaching was a goal
supported generally by the whole institution. Therefore, it is not surprising that as
98
the University began the campaign to renew its commitment to excellence in
teaching and expand conceptually to also include excellence in scholarship, that the
excellence in teaching component maintained its historically centralized focus
administratively. In fact, the Center for Teaching Excellence was established to
coordinate this part of the initiative across the institution. The discussion of this
Center’s efforts is presented below.
Jesuit Pacific University developed an office known as the Center for
Excellence in Teaching to advance the fourfold mission of the University, which is
the encouragement of learning, education of the whole person, service of faith and
the promotion of justice. However, in the words of K. Lopez, the current Director of
the Center:
We are here to support the portion of the University’s mission which
includes the promotion of academic excellence. And we do that by
providing a number of resources for faculty. These include individual
workshops on issues of interest. We also have a small library of
books, and we offer one-on-one consulting. We do video taping if
faculty asks for that. In the last couple of years, the Center has begun
to use the language of “scholarship of teaching” and learning
(Boyer, 1990). And there are now resources for that on the Center's
website. There is even a protocol for hopping into an investigation
on what do students understand about their discipline” (K. Lopez,
personal communication, January 29, 2007).
This student investigation of what is meant by “discipline” understanding
involves determining the similarities and differences between what the faculty
considers a discipline to entail to what freshmen, sophomores, juniors and senior
students consider the discipline to encompass.
In mathematics, most students think that mathematics is the study
of numbers, or maybe numbers and then how they apply to the real
99
world. Where, if you ask mathematicians, they will tell you that
mathematics is about patterns, proof, logic, abstractions and
generalizations. They will not say that mathematics has anything to
do with numbers, because it's much broader than that. And they may
mention applications” (K. Lopez, personal communication, January 29,
2007).
Then the Center’s Director remarked,
The questions, "Do students’ understanding of what mathematics is
about [change]? Does it grow as they go through your curriculum?
Do seniors have a better understanding than freshmen? In a single
course, can you change student perceptions of what mathematics is
about?” become relevant (K. Lopez, personal communication,
January 29, 2007).
All of these questions become part of the department’s dialogue. The Center’s
Director described the methodology employed in this examination. “When we did
this in mathematics, we polled all of [the] faculty and asked what is mathematics
about” (K. Lopez, personal communication, January 29, 2007)? The impressions of
students were also obtained by asking them to “describe what mathematics is all
about, and then analyzing those responses” (K. Lopez, personal communication,
January 29, 2007). It is assumed that through analysis, faculty would be able to
identify what overarching themes were being conveyed during the students’ course
work and which deeper truths about their discipline had not been transferred during
that course work. By doing before and after course assessments or sequential
assessments each year, student progress across a single course could be documented.
The intended purpose of this investigation was to ascertain to what degree the
department is succeeding in conveying the overarching concepts and views that are
central to their studies. In the words of the Center’s Director:
100
It makes you stop and ponder what's happening with our students’
learning and understanding about their majors, or say an important
part of their studies. … It really is [about the students’
understanding of] what the heart of mathematics is, what are we
studying, how do we approach it (K. Lopez, personal communication,
January 29, 2007)?
Through collecting these data and initiating this dialogue, the Center seeks to
identify the degree to which individual departments are succeeding across courses
and years of study in conveying the most essential components and central rationales
of their discipline.
This service is available to the School of Education and as such, it represents
a centralized attempt to promote the scholarship of teaching (Boyer, 1990). The role
of the School of Education Dean in this program is primarily supportive, as he
informs, facilitates and encourages members of his faculty to participate. This
activity of the Center for Teaching Excellence if relatively new; consequently, it has
not been utilized by any other academic dean in the University. It does nonetheless
represent a serious attempt at understanding how clearly students perceive the larger
and more abstract pictures of their majors. Squarely residing in what Boyer (1990)
would refer to as the scholarship of teaching, this assessment and questioning
represent a decentralized attempt to first, discern what major points within a course
of study should students understand their discipline to entail. Secondarily, it assesses
apart from student learning objectives, how well the curriculum is delivering these
larger points.
101
Additionally, the Center has “… a brown bag faculty group that meets over
lunch once or twice a month and talks about what people are doing and different
opportunities” (K. Lopez, personal communication, January 29, 2007). For example,
“We've had three faculty [members] go to the Carnegie Summer Institute. Two in
2005 and one in 2006 and I'm hoping that we will have a couple of applications …
and be successful again this year” (K. Lopez, personal communication, January 29,
2007). At the Carnegie Summer Institute one would “spend time learning more
about becoming a scholar of teaching and learning. You write a proposal with a
question that you want to investigate. And then they do mentoring. It's a 3-day
program. So we've [The Center for Excellence in Teaching] been encouraging that”
(K. Lopez, personal communication, January 29, 2007).
To further faculty interest on issues related to college teaching and pedagogy,
and the scholarship of teaching and learning (Boyer, 1990), the Center has recently
made available several small travel grants to partially cover expenses incurred in
traveling to conferences involving these topics. These funds are also available to
faculty to go to conferences and disseminate their work on the scholarship of
teaching and learning.
Another decentralized effort of the University to further excellence in
teaching takes the form of four $4,000-research grants previously known as
Innovation Grants which are presently called Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Grants (K. Lopez, personal communication, January 29, 2007). These grants are
available to faculty who want to scientifically evaluate a classroom, instruction,
102
teaching and learning intervention or innovation. Here, the emphasis is on the
assessment component of the researcher’s work. As the Center’s Director
commented, “It isn't that you just try something and you tell us how it worked …
that your students liked it, or that you like it, but that you provide evidence based on
student work, how successful it was” (K. Lopez, personal communication, January
29, 2007). Through promoting these grants, the Center seeks to encourage faculty to
scholarly investigate aspects of their teaching and curriculum within their disciplines,
and their teaching effectiveness.
The Center also responds to perceived needs. For example, presently, the
Center is investigating the use of personal response systems known as Clickers.
“Clickers” allows students to vote or answer conceptual questions posed by their
professors in class. The class results can then be displayed as bar graphs via data
projectors and used to guide further class discussion or as a feedback mechanism for
the professor to evaluate how effectively he/she is communicating. The University,
over the last several years has developed and filled the position of instructional
technology analyst for each of the colleges in the University. Personnel in this
position across the campus have been working with the Center to make presentations
on what technology is available and then training faculty to use it. This technology
has recently been employed in two colleges on campus and is available to all as a
means to get more student engagement and to promote more active learning.
103
In the Center’s continuing effort to create a discussion on campus about
teaching and learning, the Center also routinely sponsors a book club. The Center’s
Director commented:
We instituted a faculty book club which I think has great promise
for getting faculty to be involved in thoughtful conversation with
colleagues, not just in their own departments … some in their own
department but also with others about teaching and learning. …
(K. Lopez, personal communication, January 29, 2007).
The Center advances and facilitates an open dialogue between departments and
within the School of Education on matters concerning excellence in teaching.
Although the association and connection to the School of Education is indirect, it is
presented so that the reader is able to understand how excellence in teaching is
actively being promoted in the School of Education.
Dr. Lopez then began to discuss how the Center for Teaching Excellence was
becoming involved in larger initiatives across campus. Specifically, she noted:
Our core curriculum committee has been working very hard for
about 2 years now on looking at the core (general education
requirements for the University), assessing what it's doing, what it's
not doing, trying to move the University forward to a new core by
2011. The Center has now started to work with the Core Committee
to get some conversations going” (K. Lopez, personal communication,
January 29, 2007).
The Center is in the early phases of working with administrative officials to
analyze how the University evaluates teaching. The Center’s Director noted:
We've got a new Associate Vice President for Institutional
Effectiveness … who has been a great resource to come in and to
talk about assessment in evaluating teaching. We had two great
sessions in the fall and we’re about to have another one in the
spring on how do we do that, how could we do that. Mostly, I mean
104
the only thing that is University-wide is student teaching evaluations.
… We are trying to put together some suggested best questions to
go on teaching evaluations, and perhaps on a new teaching
evaluation” (K. Lopez, personal communication, January 29, 2007).
We hope
to pick a collection of these to indicate how the research supports, why
these questions belong on teaching evaluations and perhaps why some
of the questions that are right now on our teaching evaluations don’t
belong there, based on what we know from the research” (K. Lopez,
personal communication, January 29, 2007).
Essentially the Center likes to be a part of the University’s efforts to identify “what
students can and cannot evaluate, and then present that to a committee that is
forming in [the] faculty senate” (K. Lopez, personal communication, January 29,
2007).
In summary, the Center for Excellence in Teaching works to perform four
key functions for the institution: the Center serves to create a discussion across the
University about the general topic of teaching quality; the Center is actively involved
in improving the quality of teaching on campus; the Center is actively encouraging
others to engage in the scholarship of teaching (Boyer, 1990); and finally, the Center
is initiating a response to the larger questions of purpose and intention of this
institution and its curricula. First, the Center promotes an open forum discussion on
teaching through its sponsorship of the book club, travel grants and brown bag
lunches. In each of these activities faculty are able to gather and insightfully discuss
issues of pedagogy, best teaching practices and literature concerning the art of
teaching. Second, the Center through its investigation of classroom teaching
technology, assistance in crafting empirically valid teacher evaluation instruments
105
and individual consultation with faculty members seeks to improve the quality of
their teaching at the University. Additionally, the Center actively supports others in
conducting research involving the general topic of learning and teaching. This is
accomplished through its sponsorship of Teaching and Learning Grants.
Finally, the Center is in the early stages of crafting an institutional response
to contemporary criticism of the modern university posed in the first chapter of this
dissertation. Bruce Wilshire, author of Moral Collapse of the University, asserted
that the education offered at many American universities has become not only
incoherent but also ill prepared to answer the larger question “…of what we are and
what we ought to be” (Wilshire, 1990, p. xxiv). Author Derek Bok also wrote,
“Knowledge itself has splintered into a kaleidoscope of separate academic specialties
with far too little effort to integrate the fragments, let along show students how they
might connect” (Bok, 2006, p. 2). Each author spoke to the disconnected unfocused
and inconsistency of overarching concepts which they postulate are missing from the
curricula in contemporary universities. The Center for Excellence in Teaching is
taking an important first step in answering the critiques of Bok and Wilshire through
its efforts to discern how well students are grasping big picture conceptualizations
within their disciplines. In one Center sponsored investigation, the degree to which a
department was succeeding in conveying these deeper truths and views that are
central to their discipline was assessed. The Center’s Director described the effort
as: “…It really is [about the student’s understanding of] what the heart of
mathematics is, what are we studying, how do we approach it” (K. Lopez, personal
106
communication, January 29, 2007)? Her use of the word “heart” is taken to mean
that this effort was an attempt to discern the degree to which the University and the
department had succeeded in conveying a deeper message within that curriculum.
The Center, through its sponsorship of this effort is institutionally initiating the
introspective reevaluation of the curricula’s ability to impart deeper meaning and
overarching conceptualizations from a scholarship in teaching framework.
The Center for Excellence in Teaching represents the University’s centralized
attempt to improve and maintain high teaching standards and quality. The Dean of
the School of Education, like all of Jesuit Pacific University’s academic deans, is
able to utilize the Center for Excellence in Teaching in order to stimulate and support
efforts to improve teaching. Since the Center is managed by the University, all
faculty members are free to use the Center in order to improve their teaching skills.
Therefore, the Dean is able to promote excellence in teaching simply through
referring faculty to the Center and communicating its importance.
Additionally, there are three practices supported institutionally and
pedagogically in the School of Education at Jesuit Pacific University. They include
maintaining low student-teacher ratio, promoting student engagement and the
application of a form of experiential teaching known as service learning. Separate
from collaboration with the Center for Teaching Excellence, these efforts represent a
decentralized, School of Education specific approach to attain teaching excellence.
These practices are presented in the following section because they represent
components of the teaching process valued by the School of Education at Jesuit
107
Pacific University and as such, are linked to specifically acquired cognitive and
behavioral traits of the student body in the School of Education. Therefore, the
presentation of these pedagogies and their empirical grounding are intended to
inform the reader of the School of Education’s efforts to promote excellence in
teaching and to concretize the operative paradigm of teaching excellence.
Strategic Activities of the School of Education to Promote Excellence in
Teaching
Jesuit Pacific University has become known for its personal and mentoring
teaching approach. Comparatively speaking, this feature is a strength of the school
of education that positively distinguishes Jesuit Pacific University from its
competitors who have opted for a larger, less personal classroom instructional
approach (J. Woods, personal communication, January 29, 2007). Class size for
undergraduates at Jesuit Pacific University averages 19 students. Class size for
graduate students is slightly lower, currently 15 students per class.
While there is a strong consensus among faculty in general that large class
sizes have the potential to interfere with learning, to date there are no empirical data
that relate explicitly optimal class size to subject matter and instructional pedagogy.
In fact, “When learning is measured by course grade, the post 1990 research is
reasonably clear that class size is negatively related to learning” (Pascarella &
Terenzini, 2005, p. 609). The weight of evidence from the body of research using
course grade as a dependent measure is reasonably clear in suggesting that, other
factors being equal, increasing class size has a statistically significant, negative
108
influence on subject matter learning (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005, p. 94). When
learning is assessed on standardized measures, however, little evidence exists to
suggest that class size has a negative influence, at least in the field of economics”
(Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005, p. 609).
While class size can adversely affect the amount of subject matter specific
learning taking place, it also positively correlates to another trait highly valued at
Jesuit Pacific University in their excellence conceptualization of teaching. Student
engagement is a second component or trait of the excellence in teaching paradigm
operating in this institution. Excellence in teaching, as defined by the Vice President
of Academic Affairs, is an experience which awakens and spurs further learning. “A
good teacher takes you places you have never been before. Or if you have, you don’t
realize it until the teacher got you to think about it. Someone who really makes you
feel engaged makes you feel intellectually alive and makes you curious (J. Woods,
personal communication, January 29, 2007). From this passage, this researcher
concludes that excellence in teaching at Jesuit Pacific University is more than simply
the presentation of knowledge, but also includes a transcending component where
students become enthralled, intellectual vibrant and engaged through the teaching
processing. “Engaged” is a key word in this passage because empirically, the level
of student engagement has been linked to both class size and student success.
Student engagement and class size are related in that as class size grows larger “it
becomes easier (for students) to be anonymous and more difficult (for students) to
get involved in meaningful ways in campus governance and other activities” (Kuh et
109
al, 2005, p. 288). The level of student engagement has been supported by research as
a critical issue in relationship to how much students learn and gain from the college
experience (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
Student academic success and engagement are also linked. There is
substantial evidence indicating that, apart from courses taken and instruction
received, both knowledge acquisition and general cognitive growth depend in large
measures on an individual's level of academic effort and engagement. Other things
being equal, the more students are psychologically engaged in activities such as use
of the library, reading unassigned books, individual study, writing papers, and course
assignments, the greater their knowledge acquisition and general intellectual growth
(Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005, p. 613). Therefore, the valuation of small class sizes
held at Jesuit Pacific University as part of its excellence in teaching paradigm is
supported by empirical evidence. In short, small class size improves course grade
performance, subject matter learning and most importantly, it is positively correlated
to higher levels of student engagement. Additionally, the importance given to
student engagement in the excellence in teaching construct of Jesuit Pacific
University is also empirically validated because of its positive effects on the
cognitive and psycho-social development of students.
The School of Education’s efforts to promote excellence in teaching is also
exemplified by the School’s practice of employing service learning. In an interview
with the Vice President of Academic Affairs, he revealed that service learning was a
valued component of this institution’s extra curricular student life and a means
110
through which the University encourages student engagement and community
service (J. Woods, personal communication, January 29, 2007). Service learning is a
method of teaching, learning and reflection that combines academic classroom
curriculum with meaningful youth service throughout the community. As a teaching
methodology, it falls under the category of experiential education. More
specifically, it integrates meaningful community service with instruction and
reflection to enrich the learning experience, teaches civic responsibility, encourages
life long civic engagement and strengthens community.
Empirically, service learning has been identified as an effective means to
impart a variety of affective and psycho-social behaviors in students. In fact, the
weight of evidence from both quasi-experimental and correlational research,
although equivocal, indicates that service-learning experiences enhanced both course
learning and dimensions of cognitive development. Quasi-experimental evidence
concerning the impact of service-learning on principled moral reasoning is mixed. In
addition, service-learning experiences appear to influence positively such dimensions
of career development as self-ratings of leadership skills, the importance of a career
that seeks to improve the human condition, occupational identity processing and
salient career development tasks. The most effective service-learning approaches
appear to be those that integrate service experiences with course content and provide
for reflection about the service experience through discussion or writing (Pascarella
& Terenzini, 2005).
111
The post-1990 research also links several aspects of students' academic
experiences to some element of psychosocial development (Pascarella & Terenzini,
2005). Service-learning courses help students clarify and define their identities and
improve their self-esteem, internal locus of control, and interpersonal skills. Many
of the academic experiences that influence psychosocial changes also promote shifts
in attitudes and values. Although the evidence is sometimes mixed, service-learning
courses appear to promote students' comments to social justice, social activism, and
changing social and political structures as well as to a sense of social responsibility
and civic engagement (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
Therefore in conclusion, Jesuit Pacific University’s construct of excellence in
teaching deductively constructed includes not only the expectation that cognitive
development occurs within its students but that students also develop in psycho-
social and affective dimensions as well. The tools employed to meet these standards
include maintaining low teacher-student ratios, promoting student engagement and
the application of service learning. Research has positively correlated small class
size to improved student engagement as well as improved student subject matter
learning (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Student engagement has been identified
empirically as a key component in fostering greater student acquisition of knowledge
and generally promoting intellectual growth (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Service
learning research has been shown to positively correlate to the development of
principled moral reasoning, a clarification of student identity, improved self esteem,
shifting previously held attitudes and values, and promoting a stronger commitment
112
to social justice, social activism and social responsibility (Pascarella & Terenzini,
2005). The decentralized activities of the School of Education Dean to promote
excellence in teaching as well as scholarship are presented below.
Strategic Activities of the Academic Dean of the School of Education
When asked to refer to the Strategic Plan and identify which efforts were
most critical to promoting excellence in teaching and scholarship, the current Dean
of the School of Education spoke to several initiatives from the first and second
Strategic Plans of 2000 (Appendix A) and 2006 (Appendix B). One goal, which was
seen as most vital and relevant to the promotion of excellence in teaching and
scholarship, was the restructuring of the organizational platform of the School of
Education. Specifically, this realignment included the creation of the Deanship
position. The present Dean of the School of Education commented, “Well, the first
objective had to do with aligning the School of Education leadership and governance
structure. We did not have a Dean; we had a Director.” When asked how important
it was to create the Deanship position, the Dean responded,
Critical. Critical. In this institution it’s critical. The major decisions
in this institution are made at the Dean’s Council; and if you don't
have a place at the table, then you are just not part of it. I could not
overemphasize that enough, critical (J. Bauer, personal
communication, March 30, 2007).
Puzzled by the intensity of this comment, this researcher wondered why
realigning the school of education’s leadership and governing structure was so
important in this campaign. Quickly, in order to get the Dean to elaborate further
about this strong conviction, this researcher inquired, “Does the Deanship give you
113
more authority within the school, or does it give you more insight and ability to
make points outside of the School of Education”? The Dean responded:
Well it's both, but let me talk this through. The major decisions are
made at the Dean’s Council. So, if you do not have a place at the
table, there's no one representing your set of programs. So everyone
is fighting for resources. And that is where resources are really
allocated. And so again, if you are not there, you are not there. And
so, then you have no ability to bring in your case, from the School of
Education perspective, into the decision-making process. So, you
know it was important internally, it was important externally. We
were seen as less than in the University, because our structure was
not equivalent. We were really a super sized department rather than
a school. We were called the school, but we were not functioning
as a school. We were functioning like a super sized department.
And our Director was really nothing more than a glorified chair
(J. Bauer, personal communication, March 30, 2007).
In this response a number of factors clearly surfaced that deserve further
mention. They warrant further attention partially because of the intensity of these
convictions and secondarily because of their perceived importance in the Dean’s
ability to promote excellence in teaching and scholarship. The intensity and
importance of these convictions is conveyed in the passage above by the Dean’s use
of “critical” no less than three times. The first important point is, resources within
the University structure are competitively awarded. Second, the ability of this Dean
to procure these resources is dependent upon at least three variables: his ability to
represent the needs of the programs, his access to the forums in which decisions are
made and the perceived worthiness of the School of Education as compared to other
schools. Worthiness is at least partially inferred by the organizational structure, the
presence of a Deanship in this institution. Finally, access to resources and the ability
to partially direct decision-making processes within the University, effect the Dean’s
114
ability to orchestrate change both internally within the School of Education and the
perception of that change outside the School of Education.
The current Dean then added the mechanisms through which the Deanship
position rearranged organizational structure and the additional access afforded by
these two accomplishments enhanced the ability of the school to meet its excellence
goals.
Okay, so the objective [was] to participate fully in the mainstream
decision-making process of the University, making sure that we had
the School of Education [involved] on our key strategic University
committees: the Rank and Tenure Committee, the Sabbatical Committee
and the Research Committee. Now let us ramp back to how we
accomplished excellence in teaching and scholarship. Again, if we
did not have representation or committee membership on the key
committees that make the decisions in these areas, your areas [were]
not represented. Education is both a specific discipline and an applied
discipline. So, in areas of rank and tenure, and sabbatical [leave], and
research [proposal funding], decisions on our work are being made
by engineers and by scientists and folks in liberal arts who don't
necessarily understand the applied nature of the work that we do in
education. And so, you don't have anyone on the committee that can
speak to that. So that was critical for us, critical” (J. Bauer, personal
communication, March 30, 2007).
In the paragraph above, it is noted that education as a discipline has at least
two facets, applied and specific. As an applied discipline, it links varied theoretical
perspectives from other schools of study into a cohesive approach that is directed
toward accomplishing succinct objectives. As a specific discipline it has unique and
identifiable empirically substantiated theories, practices and principles of its own
right which are central to it as a science. The logic implies that having these two
sides makes the field of education unique as a discipline and that this uniqueness is
not always adequately represented or understood in the University’s decision making
115
processes. These resource allocation and decision making processes relate to the
School of Education’s ability to promote excellence in teaching and scholarship. As
a solution to this perceived dilemma, the School of Education has enacted a strategy
in which it places faculty on key strategic committees that control access to valued
resources. The assumption at work in this reasoning is that faculty within the School
of Education are better able to explain and convey the unique needs, importance and
nature of the discipline; and consequently, they are better able to advance the
school’s agenda through securing resources and the vital wherewithal to promote
excellence in teaching and scholarship.
A reasonable question a reader might ponder at this juncture is “What
resources do this Dean view as being most necessary?” In the previous section, a
number of committees and forums have been identified as crucial to the School of
Education’s efforts to promote excellence in teaching and scholarship. Among these
were the Dean’s Council Committee, Rank and Tenure Committee, Sabbatical
Committee and the committee in which research proposals are screened.
Additionally in the preceding passage, the Dean’s Council Committee has been
deemed critical because it is the forum in which resource allocation decisions are
made among competing Deans, schools, and alternative proposals. If one looks at
the committees that have been identified by the Dean as critical to the School of
Education’s efforts to promote excellence in teaching and scholarship, and the
decisions that are likely made within those committees, one may be better able to
appreciate what decisions and what resources the current Dean considers most vital
116
to the effort of promoting excellence in teaching and scholarship in the School of
Education.
With this in mind, and through this lens, faculty sabbatical decisions and
ranks and tenure decisions become more important. Faculty rank and tenure
promotion decisions and the criteria that inform this process gain additional
significance as vital tools/resources required in the promotion of excellence in
teaching and scholarship. Sabbatical leaves, because sabbatical committee
representation was identified as critical, also become a valued transactional
leadership tool to the Dean of the School of Education in the school’s efforts to
promote excellence in teaching and scholarship. Through partially affecting
decisions concerning what work merits sabbatical leaves, the Dean is able to support
and reward the specific research efforts valued in the School of Education.
Additionally, if the criteria for rank and tenure decisions can be influenced and
geared to recognize the specific research ambitions of the School of Education, then
rank and tenure rewards can be used as incentives for furthering School of Education
scholarship.
Finally, funding and input into forums which direct the funding and
evaluation of research proposals are likewise viewed as significant to the Academic
Dean’s ability to promote excellence in teaching and scholarship. Funding was
identified again later in this interview with the current Dean when he noted, “We
wanted to name the School of Education but that hasn’t been done yet. We’re
getting closer to it than we were in 2000, I’ll tell you that” (J. Bauer, personal
117
communication, March 30, 2007). As the Dean refers to naming the school, it is
reasonable to conclude that he is referring to the act of securing a very large
endowment. It is customary for schools that receive large sums of money in the
forms of endowments to accept the name of their benefactors. Therefore, it can be
concluded that if naming the School of Education is a priority for the current Dean,
that obtaining the additional financial resources annually is important to this Dean’s
ability to promote excellence in teaching and scholarship.
The current Dean of the School of Education also commented about objective
number three of the 2000 Strategic Plan (Appendix A) which reads: Provide
necessary resources for implementation of mission and goals. Strategies under this
heading include personnel, facilities and equipment, partnerships, internships and
increasing financial opportunities for graduate students. The Dean remarked, “Ah,
objective number three in the strategic plan ... three, about necessary resources. That
was about new tenure track positions. That was extremely important” (J. Bauer,
personal communication, March 30, 2007). The current Dean did not elaborate as to
why the creation of new tenure track faculty was important to the process of creating
excellence in teaching and scholarship.
However, in a different interview with the past Director of the School of
Education, it was also noted that new faculty were seen as important to efforts of
promoting scholarship. The logic of how new faculty contributed in accomplishing
this objective was also given. As the University grew over the years, additional
faculty was hired with the understanding that scholarship was expected (R. Palmer,
118
personal communication, January 18, 2007). As more new faculty was present and
actively pursued research interests, the University culture changed to include the
expectation of scholarship. In speaking to this, the past Director of the School of
Education identified this factor as one that was helpful in the promotion of scholarly
activity across the campus. He remarked,
… and you know, just the hiring of probably well over a hundred
faculty over the last 6 or 7 years … and a lot of young people just
coming out with degrees and rearing to go … and they just expect
this as part of their life, to write and to publish (R. Palmer, personal
communication, January 18, 2007).
Therefore, the Director was acknowledging that these new hires are at least partially
responsible for success in the operationalization of excellence in scholarship at Jesuit
Pacific University.
Several questions naturally flow from the preceding paragraph, two of which
are: Is the expectation to write and publish an innate characteristic of new faculty
and if so, are candidates actively screened for this ability and proclivity as a
mechanism of the Dean’s promotion of excellence in teaching and scholarship?
Another question is: If the proclivity to write and to publish is not considered as an
innate trait in newly hired faculty, is the School or University actively supporting
and nurturing this behavior in their newly hired faculty members? Newly hired
faculty, in the estimation of the past Director of the School of Education have played
a pivotal role in changing the culture at Jesuit Pacific University to include routinely
the act of publishing and conducting research (R. Palmer, personal communication,
January 18, 2007). Therefore, a related question which follows is, as the School of
119
Education places more weight on the scholarship potential and abilities of
prospective new faculty, is the School of Education able to compete as a
comprehensive University with similar schools with research one institutions (Boyer,
1990, pp. 129, 130)? The assumption operating in this question is that research one
institutions are likely to also screen heavily for this trait as well and would have an
advantage in what they could offer this candidate as compared to Jesuit Pacific
University, a comprehensive University. These questions are important because, as
noted by the past Director of the School of Education, progress in the
operationalization of excellence in scholarship has been accomplished in large part
through the hiring of new, research-oriented faculty.
The current Dean was asked the question, “How difficult is it for you to
recruit tenure track faculty”? He remarked,
It depends on the field. It's always an issue. You want every new
hire to be a strong addition in value added to the University and the
School of Education. Also we have had very competitive candidate
fields in most of our positions. Now there are some areas like school
psychology, [that are] very hard to recruit, because it is a very small
field … school counseling also. But, in general across the School of
Education we have a lot of folks who want to be here (J. Bauer,
personal communication, March 30, 2007).
The Dean went further to point out the differences in their perception of an ideal
faculty applicant from an ideal research one faculty applicant.
We are [a] comprehensive University [and as compared to a research
one institution] … we're looking at different types of faculty. We
are not looking for faculty. Well, let me put it this way, we are not
a research one [university]. So, we are looking for faculty that is
interested in being a strong program, a strong commitment to teaching
and a strong commitment to research. And they will be balanced. I
120
think in all honesty, in an R-1 it is going to be tipped strongly for
research” (J. Bauer, personal communication, March 30, 2007).
In the quotation above, when the Dean noted, “We are looking for faculty
that is interested in being a strong program, strong commitment to teaching and a
strong commitment to research. And they will be balanced” (J. Bauer, personal
communication, March 30, 2007), he answered the question of screening new faculty
for research interests and ability. An applicant’s commitment to scholarship is seen
as a positive attribute in the School of Education’s hiring decisions. An equally
strong commitment to teaching is also seen as a positive attribute. The use of the
word “balance” in the phrase “And they will be balanced” is taken to mean that new
faculty will be balanced in their commitment to research and teaching excellence.
Also implied in this phrase is a disproportionate commitment to either research or
teaching excellence is not positively acknowledged in the School of Education’s
hiring decision processes and not positively acknowledged as a desirable attribute of
new faculty.
Therefore, in conclusion, the answer to the question, does the School of
Education actively screen for the tendency in faculty candidates to perform research,
the simple answer is yes. However, a simple response is complicated by the fact that
the School of Education also currently, in equal measure, screens for a strong
commitment to teaching as well. Commitments to both teaching and scholarship are
applied as criteria for the selection of new faculty. Further, it is these traits and the
sheer number of newly hired faculty members who share them that have been
identified at least in part as significant over the last 6 to 7 years in shifting the
121
college’s and the University’s culture toward the inclusion of scholarship activities
within the professoriate.
Other characteristics of newly hired faculty have also been implicated as
important to the acquisition of excellence in teaching and scholarship by the current
Dean of the School of Education.
Now one of our objectives in goal two [of the 2000-2005 Strategic
Plan] was about increasing resources in the recruitment and retention
of full-time faculty from underrepresented groups. We are 42% faculty
of color in our full-time faculty. We are the highest percentage of any
school or college here at JPU. And I would put that out nationally.
We are really [working] hard at being a diverse faculty and we have
a diverse faculty and we have done well in [this] issue. Very well in
this issue” (J. Bauer, personal communication, March 30, 2007).
Goal two of Jesuit Pacific University’s Strategic Plan is intended to answer
the Jesuit call to serve marginalized and underserved members of society in the
promotion of social justice (Appendix A). Objective two of this goal directs the
University to diversify the ranks of full-time faculty of Jesuit Pacific University
(Appendix A). The link between faculty diversity and the promotion of excellence
and scholarship is difficult to appreciate without clarifying the type of research that
is most valued and most consistent to the construct of excellence in teaching and
scholarship identified by the current Dean. As stated previously, the Dean feels that
research for research sake is of almost no benefit. He noted in discussing the need
for research to be connected in meaningful ways to practice,
I would say that it is a perspective that I believe is our institutional
perspective. I can't say that every individual here would agree with
me. But there is no consensus on that. There are many people in
higher education that would say that research for research sake is a
legitimate value. I would disagree. I think particularly in the field
122
of education with the achievement gaps that we have in this country,
I don't think we can afford the luxury of performing research for
research sake. I think that if we don't have clearly directed research
with specific goals … I mean this is the one thing that I'm interested
in. How do we create more equitable educational opportunities for
students? How do we close these achievement gaps that we have in
this country (J. Bauer, personal communication, January 12, 2007)?
The applied form of scholarship (Boyer, 1990) that the School of Education
is most interested in pursuing deals with improving academic outcomes for
underachieving, underserved, ethnically diverse, urban, public and private, K-12
school populations. The best faculty capable of accomplishing this task, it can be
argued, is likely one that not only shares this commitment, but one that can also
understand well and can relate to the cultural, ethnic and social nuances of this
problem. In fact, increases in multi-cultural awareness and understanding have been
positively correlated to a variety of classroom features that include instructors who
are women and instructors who are persons of color (Pascarella and Terenzini,
2005). Additionally, multi-cultural awareness and understanding have been
positively correlated to classrooms that feature diversity related content and research
and instructional practices that facilitate discussion of racial and cultural issues
(Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005). Therefore, the attempt to diversity faculty ranks at
Jesuit Pacific University can be empirically validated and correlated to their mission
to promote social justice.
Now that a thorough discussion of the actions taken by the Academic Dean to
promote excellence in teaching and scholarship in the School of Education has been
presented, it is now appropriate to discuss how, through a leadership lens, he
123
accomplished these tasks. Specifically, the next section evaluates the Dean’s
activities through a transactional and transformative leadership lens in order to
discern which frame best describes his leadership strategy.
Transactional and Transformative Leadership Applications in the Promotion of
Scholarship Excellence
Another question this study was intended to address is the issue of how
change was accomplished at Jesuit Pacific University. Specifically, it looked at the
processes of change with a discerning eye to evaluate if the change process is
transformative or transactional in nature. Two schools of leadership thought
prevalent in higher education include transactional and transformative leadership
(Burns, 1978).
Transformational leaders are viewed as directing and having personal
impact on their colleagues [followers] and are sought after as a
resource of motivation and inspiration. In contrast, transactional
theory defines leadership as a reciprocal process of social change
between leaders and followers (Wolverton and Gmelch, 2002, p. 32).
There is ample evidence that both transactional and transformational
leadership is operational at the upper level of administration at Jesuit Pacific
University. The Vice President of Academic Affairs was asked by this researcher,
“Which do you think this is, [the promotion of] excellence in teaching and
scholarship, transformative [or] transactional”? He responded,
“Overall, I hope it ends up being transformational but I think
sometimes when you put structures in place, they tend to be somewhat
transactional. In other words, you are probably going to put in place
processes which have been proven to be successful. So, they will be
somewhat transactional. Hopefully the outcome will be more
transformational. They will transform us from looking at ourselves
124
and thinking about ourselves in one way to another. Hopefully in a
way which is more expansive, not to lose the focus and appreciation
we have on teaching right now but to expand that, now including
research and artistry and service. I mean, people are doing it anyway;
it’s just making that part of how we think about ourselves, how we
express ourselves and that kind of thing [more deliberate)]”
(J. Woods, personal communication, January 29, 2007).
There are a number of significant points to be drawn from the paragraph
above in regard to the nature of the change model operating in this case study. In
this explanation of organizational change, the inclusion of scholarship activities at
Jesuit Pacific University was first documented through strategic planning efforts.
Then appropriate rewards, incentives and supports were put into place in order to
engender this behavior. Finally, these behaviors become accepted and performed as
a matter of normal routine. With the personal acceptance of these new
responsibilities the faculty develops a new more expansive view of their roles in the
institution, in their discipline and an expanded sense of individual and collective
purpose. Transformational leadership, highlighted by this evolving sense of purpose
and more expansive view of roles, is in this model the result of a process that initially
employed transactional leadership constructs.
Another view of the change process, the inclusion of scholarship on the part
of faculty at Jesuit Pacific University, through the transactional and transformative
lenses comes from the current Dean of the School of Education. The Dean was
asked, “I know also that you have gotten two very prestigious grants from the
Department of Education, Department of Education grants, is that true”? The Dean
replied, “Yes, we have actually, and some other foundation grants recently”
125
(J. Bauer, personal communication, March 30, 2007). The researcher then asked,
“Can you discuss how that came about? Any sort of issues? How did you develop
the momentum to do that? From where you were, [that must have been] like landing
at 200 pound marlin”. The Dean answered,
Yes, well in the case of our Title V Grant, I actually identified the
grant and the area, and I identified someone and asked them to take
the lead on it, and gave him some support. We wrote the grant and we
didn't get it. We missed it by about 2 points. So the following year we
wrote it again and we were funded. So, I think the key is a number of
things: I think it's someone at the time in a leadership role who says
this is important, we value this, I value this, we will reward this, I will
give you the support for it; and then you really have to encourage
people, because as you said, it is hard to go from almost zero to landing
these grants. Grants lead to grants. So if you don't have that tradition
and that reputation as an institution, you may submit a grant proposal
and people at the end of the day look at it and they can't fund all of the
excellent proposals. So they make decisions. And you know, back in
Washington D.C., they know certain schools and other ones they may
not know. So, you have to be persistent. We can't be frustrated or
disappointed when we don't succeed. You have to build a relationship
with the program officers, call them, and talk to them. We've had some
luck being successful on the second or the third round. Persistence is
really important, but the big thing I think is changing the culture here
and making the case for why this is important and what we're doing.
For example this year, there was a grants workshop held at USC and I
think it was a third party that actually did it. But it just happened to be
at USC. So, I funded 10 people to go. I said, to the first 10 people who
asked me to go, you can go. We'll pay everything” (J. Bauer, personal
communication, March 30, 2007).
The interviewer then asked, “How long did it take to get 10”? The Dean of
the School of Education replied, “About 45 minutes” (J. Bauer, personal
communication, March 30, 2007). The fact that it took a short period of time to get
10 members from his faculty to volunteer for this event is evidence that the efforts of
the Dean to promote excellence in scholarship are changing the culture of the School
126
of Education. Previously in Chapter 2 it was noted by researchers Wolverton and
Gmelch (2002) that one of the key duties of an academic leader was to build a
community of scholars. Additionally, it was noted that this community of scholars
individually worked of their own free will to conduct research. The additional fact
that each faculty member volunteered to participate in this event further substantiates
that this Academic Dean has not only succeeded in changing the culture in the
School of Education but that he has also created a community of scholars in the
language of Wolverton and Gmelch (2002).
One of the many key phrases from the exchange above which is illuminating
in the discussion of transactional and transformational leadership is “ … the big thing
I think is changing the culture here and making the case for why this is important and
what we're doing” (J. Bauer, personal communication, March 30, 2007). This
language is consistent with transformational leadership in that it speaks to the
processes of motivating individuals, having personal impact and changing
perspectives. Transformational leaders are motivators, with personal impact on their
colleagues. It is through changing the perceptions, expectation and norms that
transformational leaders move their organizations toward the attainment of their
goals. Additionally, the current Dean said that the “big thing,” in orchestrating
change was changing the culture, through explaining what is being done, and what
we are seeking to accomplish (J. Bauer, personal communication, March 30, 2007).
It can be argued that cultural change largely deals with perceptual changes within
and outside of the organization; and, as such, describes transformational leadership
127
more so than transactional leadership tactics. If this argument is accepted, then the
current Dean believes that the larger part of promoting change in this institution, and
in the context of the School of Education thus far, is transformational in nature.
Also hidden in this exchange is the assertion that changing and influencing
the development of appropriate impressions of those outside of the University is
important in changing the culture within the School of Education. The Dean spoke
to the necessity of changing the perspective of decision-makers in Washington, D.C.
as being instrumental in attaining these grants and promoting scholarship in the
passage,
Back in Washington D.C. they know certain schools and other ones
they may not know. So, you have to be persistent. We can't be
frustrated or disappointed when we don't succeed. You have to build
a relationship with the program officers, call them, and talk to them.
We've had some luck being successful on the second or the third
round. Persistence is really important (J. Bauer, personal
communication, March 30, 2007).
The importance of changing the way others see the School of Education was
also mentioned previously during the interview with the current Dean. When
discussing the effort to rename the School of Education as a consequence of
obtaining a large endowment, the current Dean was asked to respond to the
following question: “Well, sometimes in marketing when you change the name, for
example if you just say "new and improved" there will be some people who will
assume that it's all different. Is that as well a part of that name change”? In
response, the Dean remarked, “Oh yes, all of that. It’s no question about it” (J.
Bauer, personal communication, March 30, 2007). His remarks are taken to indicate
128
again that part of the strategy in the promotion of scholarship is changing the minds,
perceptions and conceptions of others as they pertain to their view of the School of
Education. As people see you differently, their view becomes reaffirming of the
changing perceptions within the School of Education and the University. It was
implied here that to at least some degree, you become figuratively and perceptually
what you are perceived to be. In this way the current Dean of the School of
Education pushes as well as pulls, in a transformational context, the reevaluation of
roles, the acceptance of new roles and the cultural shifts in expectations both within
and outside the School of Education. As these perceptions change and the School of
Education is seen in a more favorable and supportive light, it develops a reputation
and it is better able to compete with others to secure additional resources, which are
utilized to further promote the excellence in teaching and scholarship paradigm.
The Dean has involved the School of Education in a number of activities
which have all served to help change perceptions externally and within the
University. Through realigning the governing structure of the School of Education
to that of other prominent schools in the University, the Dean was able to structurally
and symbolically obtain parody for the School of Education within the University.
This parody then in turn aided in creating appropriate perceptual shifts of the School
of Education. Obtaining representation on decision making committees within the
University was an additional distinction the Dean created in the persona of the
School of Education. Competing for fiscal resources and succeeding in the
University over competing schools was also instrumental in formulating a new
129
identity for the School of Education. Finally, through establishing partnerships with
underserved, inner city Catholic elementary schools and publicizing their successes,
the Dean creates the all important momentum and communicates symbolically the
emphasis and direction of the School of Education to internal and external
stakeholders. All these activities and accomplishments serve to communicate change
and serve to shift perceptions as they are sustained and publicized over time.
To a casual observer reputations are earned as a consequence of behavior.
That is, perceptions follow fact. This has not been disputed by the current Dean of
the School of Education. Instead, however he also acknowledges that impressions
and perceptions can encourage and engender the behaviors that give them credence.
Equally as important, the current Dean in the quoted passage above also said
that the secrets to creating momentum within faculty to pursue research included
having “someone at the time in a leadership role who says this is important, we value
this, I value this, we will reward this, I will give you the support for it; and then …
really encouraging people” (J. Bauer, personal communication, March 30, 2007).
The importance of appropriate supports and rewards for the desired new behaviors
are identified here. These elements are the tools and constructs upon which
transactional leadership theory is based. Therefore, it is interpreted from the passage
above that the current Dean employs both transactional and transformational
leadership practices in the promotion of excellence in teaching and scholarship. It is
also gathered from this passage that at the Academic Dean’s level of administration,
in this case study, the larger leadership components leveraged in this process of
130
change is transformational. Transformational tactics seek to inspire others,
encourage others, empower others and change perceptions both inside and outside of
the School of Education in order to create a sense of momentum and acceptance of
expanded roles and obligations within the School’s professoriate.
Applications for Future Practice
As this researcher looks back at this case study in an attempt to identify
components which are important to informing current practice, three key facets are
readily apparent. These components are discussed in this section and they include:
aligning the change initiative with the mission of the University and School of
Education, utilizing the new faculty selection process to sustain the change process
and paradigm and mapping out key attributes within the professoriate so that they
can be selectively leveraged in order to support key components of the larger change
strategy.
Aligning the Change Initiative
The first and most important application to future practice unearthed in this
case study is the necessity to synchronize the change process with/to the mission of
the University and the School of Education. Earlier in this dissertation a number of
critiques of contemporary universities and the schools within them were presented.
These included assertions that: schools within the university were placing too much
emphasis on scholarship at the expense of teaching (Washburn, 2005; Smith, 1990;
Sykes, 1988); schools within the University were not focusing sufficiently on the
quality of teaching (Bok, 2006); schools lacked a “firm grasp of their goals and
131
missions” (Massy, 2003, p. 9); schools lack a concise vision “…of what an educated
human being is” (Bloom, 1987, p. 337); schools have segregated themselves into
multiple academic specialties with “far too little effort [devoted] to [integrating] the
fragments” (Bok, 2006, p. 2); and finally, that universities and the schools within
them fail to answer the key questions of “what we are and what we ought to be”
(Wilshire, 1990, p. xxiv). The Dean of the School of Education in this case study,
through embracing the Jesuit mission in his efforts to promote teaching and
scholarship excellence made all these criticisms largely irrelevant. The Jesuit
tradition, particularly the components of the mission statement which emphasize
service and justice (Appendix B) grounds the efforts of the Dean as he promotes
excellence in teaching and scholarship in the School of Education. “Service and
justice for all” (Appendix B) as mission statement components, provide the vital
scaffolding for addressing Wilshire’s question of “what we are and what we ought to
be” (Wilshire, 1990, p. xxiv) in the professoriate as well as student body of the
School of Education. It also provides the vision of, “what an educated human being
is”, that Bloom (1987, p. 337) and others contend is missing. Another component of
the School of Education’s mission statement is to educate “the whole person”
(Appendix B). This mission statement directive represents a positive valuation and
acknowledges the significance of affective components in the teaching process.
Additionally, it emphasizes the importance of teaching in the School of Education
and University in direct contrast to the critiques of Smith (1990), Washburn (2005)
and Sykes (1988).
132
Through adapting the mission of the School of Education, pursuing
excellence in teaching and scholarship in such a way as to improve academic
outcomes for underserved inner city Catholic and public schools, the Dean is able to
engender “moral purpose” (Fullan, 2000) and “environmental soundness” (Pascal,
Millmann, Gioja, 2000) to the change initiative. These characteristics have been
shown to bode better in garnering “internal commitment” (Argyris, 2000) which in
turn is important in sustaining the change process over time (Fullan, 2000).
Therefore and in conclusion, through one simple yet all-important act of linking
excellence in scholarship and teaching to the mission of the School of Education and
the mission of the School of Education to the larger University, this School of
Education Dean silences the contemporary critiques prominent within postsecondary
education theaters and additionally, engenders moral purpose, environmental
soundness, internal commitment and sustainability in this change process. It is
difficult to find any other action taken by this School of Education Dean which
informs future practice better than this one. Simply stated, linking excellence in
teaching and scholarship to the broader mission of Jesuit Pacific University and the
School of Education is essential.
Faculty Selection and the Change Process
The second most important nugget of truth refined through this case study
which has significant potential to inform future practice concerns the selection
process of new faculty. This School of Education Dean screened intently for specific
traits which were lacking in the professoriate of the School of Education.
133
Specifically, the proclivity within the School of Education to perform research which
informs practice in inner city, underserved K-12 Catholic and public settings was
enhanced through carefully selecting professors who shared interest in this
population and scholarship topic. The academic leadership functions of “setting
direction”, “building a community of scholars” and “achieving common purpose”
(Wolverton and Gmelch, 2003) were all addressed in large part by this School of
Education Dean through his careful and deliberate selection of perspective new
faculty (R. Palmer, personal communication, January 18, 2007). Also in this way,
over time, the School of Education Dean was able to enhance the scholarship pulse
of the School of Education while maintaining the historical emphasis and importance
of Jesuit Pacific University’s excellence construct in teaching. Therefore as a
reference for future practice, careful and strenuous selection processes which are
designed to enhance specific faculty shortcomings is a key means of promoting and
sustaining change within the School of Education.
Create Inventory of Faculty Traits
The third and final point illuminated in this case study which should inform
future practice is closely related to the careful and focused selection of faculty. It is
mapping out the unique cognitive, behavioral and scholarly attributes of existing
faculty members. In this case study, the School of Education Dean was especially
successful in procuring two U.S. Department of Education research grants. In
recalling how he was able to accomplish this, the Dean noted that he identified a
member of his faculty who showed a unique talent which lent itself to accomplishing
134
this goal (J. Bauer, personal communication, March 30, 2007). Through assigning
this faculty member to this specific task and making available to him the necessary
resources, this School of Education Dean was able to expand the collective capacity
of the School of Education. In this way he was able to utilize the complete spectrum
of untapped or insufficiently leveraged cognitive assets of his faculty. Conversely, it
is difficult to selectively acquire new traits and abilities which compliment and add
to the School’s repertoire without having a firm grasp of what capabilities are
already represented. Therefore and in conclusion, having a keen grasp of the
cognitive ability and potential of faculty is important in the formation of committees
and focus groups designed to obtain and advance the strategic goals of the School of
Education.
135
Chapter 5
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
An analysis of the data presented thus far in this report reveals a number of
significant points about the Academic Dean’s efforts to promote excellence in
teaching and scholarship at Jesuit Pacific University. This chapter delineates and
analyzes the key activities taken by the Dean of the School of Education in his
efforts to promote excellence in teaching and scholarship. This chapter also
identifies and discusses briefly the theoretical underpinnings that support the actions
and tactics employed by the Dean in this endeavor. These applicable theories and
postulations are taken from previous discussions presented in the first and second
chapters of this study. As with the first four chapters of this study, every effort has
been made to provide the reader with sufficient background information so that he or
she is able to interpret and understand its significance and weigh the relevance of
these data in the specific context of this case study.
Activity One: Rearrange Organizational Structure From Director/Manager to
Deanship/Leader
Earlier in Chapter 2 there was a discussion centering on the role of the
Academic Dean. Specifically, differences between the role of an academic dean as a
manager and as a leader were articulated. This discussion ended with the postulation
that “managers are primarily concerned with the manipulations of the structural nuts
and bolts of planning, organizing and controlling” (Bolman and Dean, cited in
136
Kotter, 1998, p. 337). Leadership is a “change oriented process of vision,
networking and building relationships” (Kotter, 1998, p. 337). Finally, Gardner
suggested that academic deans are leaders if they “think long-term, look outside as
well as inside, and influence constituents beyond their immediate jurisdictions”
(Bolman and Deal, 2003, p. 337). Many of the first activities initiated by this
Academic Dean dealt with distinguishing between this dichotomy of
characterizations, the scope and nature of the Deanship and his interactions within
and outside this University.
The current Dean strongly contended that the first and most important action
taken to promote excellence in teaching and scholarship was changing the way the
School of Education functioned and creating a Deanship. These actions correlate
well to the distinctions made previously by Kotter (1998) and Gardner (1989) in
reference to the transition from manager to leader. As stated previously by the
current Dean of the School of Education,
We were seen as ‘less than’ in the University because our structure
[was] not equivalent. We were really a super sized department rather
than a school. We were called the school but we were not functioning
as a school. We were functioning like a super sized department.
And our director was really nothing more than a glorified chair
(J. Bauer, personal communication, March 30, 2007).
In the opinion of the current Dean, the most important activity undertaken in
this case study to promote excellence in teaching and scholarship was realigning the
organizational structure of the School of Education and transitioning from a
director/manager to a dean/leader organizational structure and perspective. With the
new leadership authority granted through the creation of the Deanship, the Dean was
137
better able to influence others and procure the necessary resources to promote the
School of Education’s initiatives in teaching and scholarship excellence. The
Deanship and the governing structure within the School of Education allowed the
Dean to participate in the Council of Deans meetings. Having a seat at this table was
particularly pivotal in enhancing the Dean’s ability to procure the prerequisite fiscal
resources and all important clout to marshal change.
Presently, there is little doubt in the manager/leader role debate which
characterization best represents the scope and nature of interaction of the Deanship
in the School of Education. As evidenced by the comprehensive nature and long-
term outlook of the School of Education’s Strategic Plan for 2006-2011, the current
Dean of the School of Education functions primarily as a leader in this dichotomy of
depictions (Appendix B).
Activity Two: Influence Decision-Making Processes
The second important activity of the Dean that was identified as important in
the promotion of excellence in teaching and scholarship was influencing decision
makers and decision-making processes. In Chapter 4 of this study, we learned that
the Dean has actively sought to influence perspectives in a number of arenas where
decisions were being made. Specifically, the Dean has gained influence on Jesuit
Pacific University’s Rank and Tenure Committee, Dean’s Council Committee,
Sabbatical Committee, the Research Committee and with program officers at the
Department of Education in Washington D.C., in connection with the School of
Education’s efforts to secure nationally funded research grants. Representation on
138
these committees was important to the Dean’s ability to secure the necessary
resources to pursue not only the School of Education’s goals of teaching and
scholarship excellence, but also their strategic planning initiative delineated in the
Strategic Plan of 2000 (Appendix A) and 2006 (Appendix B).
Providing or facilitating the acquisition of resources to sustain the change
process has been identified as an important responsibility of the change process and
academic leadership. Specifically, in Chapter 2 it was noted that in order for the
change process to be sustainable it must be economically viable (Pascal, Millmann
and Gioja, 2000). Additionally, financial planning surfaced as a key responsibility of
academic deans in the Washington University survey of contemporary roles
attributed to academic deans (Gmelch, Wolverton, Wolverton, et.al., 1996). This
Dean was able to enhance his ability to secure funding and other key resources by
better representing the School of Education on a number of key committees.
Internally, this was important because the unique nature and needs of this School
could be communicated to the larger institution and as a result was better able to
secure internal resources. Externally, the Dean and the change process also
benefited from better communication. By establishing lines of communication with
the United States Department of Education, the Dean was able to secure valuable
insights and the assistance of program officers as they prepared grants to fund the
School’s scholarship activities. Success externally at securing financing enhanced
the internal perceptions of the School, which in turn made it better able to secure
additional internal funding as well.
139
Activity Three: Practice Transactional and Transformative Leadership
Strategy
Another issue introduced in the second chapter of this study, was the question
of transformative leadership strategy versus transactional leadership strategy being
operable in the change process and the promotion of excellence in teaching and
scholarship in the School of Education at Jesuit Pacific University. Transactional
leadership involves reciprocal processes that entail identifying appropriate
incentives, making those incentives available, and developing the necessary policies
and supports to promote their attainment by constituents (Wolverton and Gmelch,
2002, p. 32). Transformative leadership centers on the concepts of personally
impacting colleagues and establishing appropriate perspectives in garnering
internally focused commitments both collectively and individually to pursue a
different course of action (Wolverton and Gmelch, 2002, p. 32). In this discussion,
two prevailing schools of thought were aired. One strand of reasoning contends that
while transformational theory is seductive, transactional theory may be more
characteristic of leadership on most campuses (Bensimon, Neumann, and Birnbaum,
1989, p. 78). The second strand of reasoning contends that deans, as leaders, may in
fact, fall into either one of those camps or both, and it may be a matter of degree
rather than an either/or situation (Wolverton, Gmelch, et.al., 2001, p. 32; Wolverton
and Gmelch, 2002).
Evidence unearthed in Chapter 4 of this study leaves little doubt that within
the bounded reality of this case, the Dean of this School of Education employs both,
140
transformative as well as transactional leadership styles in the promotion of
excellence in teaching and scholarship. Indications that the Dean is both a
transactional leader and a transformational leader are derived from the current
Dean’s remarks in explaining his secrets of success in attaining several prestigious
educational research grants. He noted,
I think the key is a number of things: I think it’s someone at the time
in a leadership role who says this is important, we value this, I value
this, we will reward this, I will give you the support for it, and then
you have to encourage people (J. Bauer, personal communication,
March 30, 2007).
There are mixed messages in the statement above, some comes from the
transformational stream of thought and others come from the transactional frame of
reasoning. When the Dean uses phrases like “we value this, I value this, [and] you
have to encourage people,” he employs transformational leadership tools. This
language is designed to evoke personal commitment. It engenders the personal
acceptance of new, expanded perceptions of one’s role and obligation. Conversely,
as the Dean uses phrases like, “we will reward this, [and] I will give you the support
for it”, he is employing the tools of transactional leadership that are designed to
appeal to one’s self interest and then provide the structural elements for goal
attainment.
Activity Four: Meld Perceptions to Set Directions and to Create a Supportive
Culture
When asked to relay his thoughts of how to develop the momentum to secure
external research grants, the Dean remarked, “persistence is really important, but the
141
big thing I think is changing the culture here and making the case for why this is
important and what we’re doing” (J. Bauer, personal communication, March 30,
2007). The key word in this phrase is culture. As the Dean speaks toward changing
the culture, he speaks to the nature and process of changing perspectives at both the
individual and collective levels inside and outside the University. There are several
predominant cultures identified in Chapter 1 that are prevalent in American
universities and the schools that they comprise, and these cultures are apparent in
this case study. These cultures are buttressed by fundamental differences in the
perceived roles of the university and its various schools. As the culturally perceived
roles of the University and the Schools within it differ, there is ample opportunity for
conflict and dissension, both of which would negatively effect the Dean’s and the
institution’s ability to move their constituents toward strategic objectives.
Therefore, in order for this Academic Dean to successfully promote
excellence in teaching and scholarship, he must change and meld these individually
held perceptions which collectively give rise to culture. In the transformational
leadership approach exemplified in this case study, the way to change culture is to
change perceptions, collectively and individually. A brief description of the cultures
identified at Jesuit Pacific University and their historical justifications are presented
below so that the reader is able to understand how the Dean utilized them to set
directions and funnel perceptions into a new collective mind set which is consistent
with the change process
142
There are a number of perceptions about roles of the university that are
components of the university’s culture and its respective schools. There are
perceptions about the role of the university, of the school of education, of the
professoriate and of the administration that have been delicately constructed and
intertwined to form an institutional culture and behavioral norm. Some of these
perceptions and cultures aid in the transformative and transactional processes of
change. Others conflict and are at odds with the pursuit of excellence in scholarship
and teaching. As stated previously, the ability of the Dean to manipulate these
perspectives is very important to his ability to promote research and teaching
excellence.
In Chapter 1 of this report, three perspectives of the University were
presented in a historical format. Each school of thought, in varying degrees, has
relevance today at Jesuit Pacific University and in its school of education. The first
stream of reasoning is credited to Cardinal Neumann who saw the University as a
detached, student-centered, self-absorbed entity. The two most important functions
served by this University were the development of its students and being true to the
tenets of one’s own discipline. The second stream of reasoning is credited to Francis
Bacon and Abraham Flexner. They saw the University as part of the social fabric of
society rather than being set apart from it. They favored the acquisition and
application of knowledge that had utilitarian merit and that could improve the human
condition. Finally, Kerr saw the University as a collection of faculty entrepreneurs
143
functioning independently where knowledge is a commodity on a global scale. Each
of these perspectives has been identified in the study.
Many of the older faculty members in Jesuit Pacific University, those who
were less likely to accept the obligation and responsibility of conducting research,
subscribed to the beliefs of Cardinal Neumann in the role of the university and their
place within that university. They remain loyal to their obligations of teaching and
discipline currency primarily. The Dean’s leadership obligation in dealing with
members of his faculty who subscribe to the culture and conceptualizations of
Neumann is to move them conceptually and expand their perceptual paradigm to
accept the utilitarian service and social constructs of Bacon and Flexner. In so
doing, the Dean endeavors to build a community of scholars collectively. As noted
previously, building a community of scholars is one of the obligations of academic
leaders (Wolverton and Gmelch, 2002). In contrast, the School of Education based
on its perception and valuation of scholarship seeks to have positive impact in K-12
urban, public, and catholic educational settings. The School identifies with and sees
itself as part of the larger social fabric. Hence, it most aptly fits into the University
described and characterized by Bacon and Flexner. Within this cultural backdrop,
the role of the academic dean is to set a course. That is, the Dean is responsible for
selecting a path of scholarship which allows and supports faculty efforts to improve
academic outcomes in K-12 urban, public and Catholic school settings. Also as
previously noted, setting direction is an important role of an academic leader
(Wolverton and Gmelch, 2002).
144
Finally, the administration, strongly rooted in the Jesuit tradition of service, is
also cognizant of the increasingly competitive nature of postsecondary education and
market realities inherent in Kerr’s conceptualization of the modern university. This
historical tradition of service to others is not necessarily opposed to the university
perceived by Kerr. In fact, the Vice President of Academic Affairs noted the
potential for complimentary, coexistence of entrepreneurship and service as he
commented,
In the Jesuit tradition … what they didn’t want to do is to create a new
order that sort of followed the monastic tradition of being kind of
cloistered and just doing some of their own spiritual activities. [Saint
Ignatius] created a new order that was on the street that was working
with people, that was starting schools, starting up small businesses and
whatever to help people out – very, very industrious and enterprising
in that regard and totally different from any other order. So in many
ways my message is we need to recapture the Ignatius tradition of
being out there on the street or as St. Ignatius said “living with one
foot off the ground ready to step in whatever direction is needed”
(J. Woods, personal communication, January 29, 2007).
This sentiment is most consistent with the perspectives of Kerr. The
university of Kerr was compared to a conglomerate in the first chapter with faculty
entrepreneurs, each competing in a market where knowledge has value as a
commodity. In the passage above, the Vice President of Academic Affairs speaks of
how the Jesuit tradition of active participation is one which engages the world, one
which is industrious and one which is enterprising.
The Dean’s ability to meld each of these perspectives into one that supports
the connotation of scholarship and teaching excellence valued in the School of
Education is key to the success of his efforts in this initiative. In Chapter 2,
145
establishing purpose was identified as one of the key functions of an Academic
Dean. Setting direction, establishing a course, and directing a school toward its
destination are perhaps the most important responsibilities to academic leaders
(Sample, 2002). It is ultimately, though not exclusively, the Dean’s responsibility to
steer the school toward a strategic goal. As the Dean identified improving
educational outcomes in K-12 urban, public and private underserved educational
settings as the University’s primary goal and purpose, he established an overarching
purpose and a standard against which future efforts taken within the School of
Education would be measured.
In the first chapter of this study, it was postulated that universities and
individuals as well live within a bounded reality with limitations, constraints and
trade-offs. Often, in this context, doing more of one thing invariably, reciprocally
leads to doing less of another. This same reasoning is seemingly operable at Jesuit
Pacific University in that they recognized early on in their change process the
potential for efforts to promote excellence in scholarship to cannibalize efforts to
promote and maintain excellence in teaching. When the University moved from a 4
in 4 teaching load to a 3 in 3 teaching load, a strong symbolic message and practical
standard was established. Namely, efforts to improve the depth and breadth of
scholarship across the University’s schools would not be achieved at the expense of
current and future proficiencies in teaching and learning. Instead, it would grow and
evolve as a consequence of newly available time. The way the Dean goes about the
146
task of attaining his goals of scholarship and teaching excellence is nothing short of
creating a new culture for the School of Education.
Activity 5: Build a Community of Scholars
The phrase, community of scholars, is borrowed from the second chapter of
this study. Community, in this application, implies a collective of individuals with
shared interests who choose to work toward mutually accepted rewards and beliefs.
As separate members, each individual has specific beliefs, abilities and interests.
They are each autonomous and capable of acting independently but exist within a
whole. Within the School of Education the Dean has been successful in changing
culture through selectively hiring new members of the faculty who demonstrate a
propensity toward excellence in both teaching and scholarship. The shared
propensity, expectation and commitment to excellence in teaching and scholarship
unify this autonomous, independent collection of individuals into the community of
scholars; specifically, scholars who are willing and able to work on improving
educational outcomes in underserved inner city, multicultural educational settings.
As these new scholars become faculty members, they have changed the dynamics of
the school and gradually shifted the norm in behaviors to include the performance of
research.
When asked the question, “How difficult is it for you to recruit tenure tract
faculty?” the Dean responded, “…We are looking for faculty that [is] interested in
being a strong program, a strong commitment to teaching and a strong commitment
to research. And they will be balanced” (J. Bauer, personal communication, March
147
30, 2007). In these sentences the Dean commented on the characteristics the School
of Education values in new faculty members. As new members are screened and
hired for these specific traits, their expectations and behaviors become significant
components within the school of education and shift culture in favor of producing
research.
Activity Six: Utilize Diversity to Promote Multi-Cultural Understanding
The Dean of the School of Education remarked,
We are 42% faculty of color in our full-time faculty. We are the
highest percentage of any school or college at Jesuit Pacific University.
We are really working hard at being a diverse faculty and we have
a diverse faculty and we have done well in that issue (J. Bauer,
personal communication, March 30, 2007).
One of the goals of the School of Education in scholarship and teaching is to pursue
research and activities that improve learning outcomes in urban, multicultural, K-12
public and private school settings. Increasing the diversity in faculty in the School of
Education allows them to better meet their goals and strategic initiatives of teaching
and scholarship excellence. Increases in multicultural awareness and understanding
has been positively correlated to a variety of classroom features that include
instructors who are women, who are persons of color, diversity related content and
research, and instructional practices that facilitate discussion of racial cultural issues
Pascarella and Terenezini (2005).
The Dean’s ability to enhance diversity within his professoriate also means
that issues of diversity will remain central to the excellence in scholarship and the
excellence in teaching initiative. Maintaining interest, focus and enthusiasm become
148
key factors in the sustainability of change, and hence ultimate goal attainment when
the initiative requires multiple years for complete implementation. In such a setting,
the hiring process offers the academic dean not only the ability to meet instructional
demands of the school but also a means of deepening and strengthening the school’s
commitment to mission specific standards of excellence in teaching and scholarship.
Activity Seven: Create a Supportive External Perception
There are data presented in Chapter 4 which reveals that the Dean is not only
cognizant of the importance of changing perceptions within the School of Education,
but also outside the School of Education. The Dean has sought to form relationships
both within and outside of the University. Outside of the University, the Dean has
established dialogue with the Department of Education in Washington, D.C. while
inside the University, the Dean has obtained a voice on the Dean’s Conference
Committee. In all of these instances, these actions were taken in order for the Dean
to acquire resources that would better allow him to pursue the strategic goals of the
School of Education. As members of the University come to view the School of
Education differently, the new persona begins to support and concretize the cultural
shifts taking place within the school. In this way, the Dean works not only to push
cultural, perceptive changes with documented successes and enhanced efficiency
within the School of Education; but also, to pull those changes along by
communicating his vision externally to the larger community and symbolically
emphasizing the new direction of the School of Education. As he sustains these
activities over time, external stakeholder perceptions and expectations of the School
149
of Education gradually become more aligned with the articulated vision and new
emphasis of the School of Education.
Activity Eight: Appeal to Internal Locus of Motivation
When deans employ the transformative theory of leadership, they seek to
develop an internal locus of motivation that drives and compels faculty to willingly
contribute in ways that support the goals and objectives of the school. There is an
internal locus, a sense of ownership and connectedness in belief and commitment to
a shared altruistic purpose, vision and mission of the School of Education. More
precisely, internal commitment derives from energy internal to human beings that is
activated because doing a job well is “intrinsically rewarding” (Argyris, 2000, p. 40).
The current Dean stipulates that the form of scholarship valued in the School
of Education must be purposeful and have impact on improving social and
educational performance disparities in underserved minority communities. The
moral imperative and overarching egalitarian nature of this mission is important in
garnering internally motivated and committed faculty in sustaining change processes
(Fullan, 2001, p. 28). Jesuit Pacific University is in the 6
th
year of this strategic plan.
The School of Education has recently completed its 5-year strategic plan. Sustaining
the change process as it pertains to promoting scholarship and teaching excellence is
very important when the effort is expected to span 10 years. Therefore, linking
scholarship to positive, effectual outcomes is pivotal to the Dean’s ability to
transform culture, infuse “passion and purpose” and sustain new behaviors within the
School of Education (Bolman and Deal, 2000, p. 185).
150
Activity Nine: Repair Only That Which is Broken
The Dean of the School of Education in speaking of excellence in education
remarked:
We are a professional school of education, and so for us teaching
really needs to be connected to scholarship and scholarship needs to
be brought into teaching. Excellence in teaching for us is very much
a first criterion for our faculty. We evaluated it in a number of
ways. We evaluate it with student evaluations, peer evaluations, chair
evaluations, and dean evaluations. We have a number of awards for
excellence in teaching that has various criteria. But excellence in
teaching has really been a hallmark of Jesuit Pacific University as an
institution probably from its beginning. In fact the emphasis on
scholarship and research is more a recent interest. There is a very
strong connection between teaching and learning and between
teaching and research that happens here” (J. Bauer, personal
communication, March 30, 2007).
From the passage above, the Dean has chosen to rely on the existing
processes and practices present within the School and the University to monitor and
maintain the level of proficiency in teaching presently operable at Jesuit Pacific
University. As noted in the passage “…excellence in teaching has really been a
hallmark of Jesuit Pacific University”, the logic and wisdom of relying on tried and
true practices and evaluation system, though defensive in nature, are perhaps
reasonable if the desired level of performance has already been attained.
Additionally, this tactic makes available resources for and allows the school to focus
on issues that are comparatively more problematic.
Activity Ten: Develop a Team Leadership Approach
Developing a team approach to leadership has been identified as a
characteristic of effective organizations and as a fundamental principal of leadership
151
within larger organizational structures (Briand, 1993). When discussing how the
merit pay system was developed for the School of Education, the past Director of the
School of Education spoke of how they formulated standards for each of the three
merit pay categories. In this discussion he noted that he gathered the entire faculty
and went on a weekend retreat. During this retreat, they hammered out a consensus
of what activities teaching and research would garner recognition. Their merit pay
standards are available in the appendices of this study, and they are currently
operational in the School of Education.
The activities highlighted in this chapter are not inclusive of all of the
practices performed by the Dean of the School of Education. Instead, they are
practices which have been discovered through interviews and document analysis
processes employed in this study. The order in which they have been presented
should also not confer the sequence of importance as well, except to note that the
first and second activities, rearrangement of organizational structure and influencing
decision making processes, were pointed out as being crucial early on in the
successful promotion of these initiatives. It is reasonable to assume that as the Dean
and the School of Education accomplished some of their subordinate goal or as they
face different challenges the relevance and importance of each activity will vary
based on situational constraints.
152
In summation, there are a number of lessons which can be gleaned from this
School of Education Dean in his efforts to promote teaching and scholarship
excellence. This final section is intended to hone some of the exiting perceptions
held by this researcher and to finally and succinctly answer the research question.
Stated simply, the research question is “How does this Academic Dean
operationalize excellence in teaching and scholarship?” Supported by the findings of
this study, this Academic Dean promotes excellence in teaching and scholarship
through a combination of transactional and transformational leadership practices.
Most of these practices are intended to garner internal commitment as he seeks to
develop a community of scholars within the School of Education, set direction for
the School of Education and empower faculty and staff within the School of
Education to attain their mutually accepted and shared excellence construct in
teaching and scholarship (Wolverton & Gmelch, 2002).
Perhaps the most important lesson gleaned from the case study was the
necessity of linking the view of excellence operating in the School of Education to
the larger mission of the University. Succinctly stated, the mission of this University
is “… to encourage life-long learning and academic excellence, the education of the
whole person and the promotion of service and justice for all” (Appendix B). This
Dean, through directing faculty to pursue scholarship which informs practice and
improves educational outcomes in urban, underserved, K-12 Catholic and public
schools, not only defined the excellence construct for the School of Education but
also critically made it an extension of the larger Jesuit mission. This compatibility,
153
grounding and couching of the School of Education’s ambitions to operationalize
excellence in this context provided the Dean with the “environmental soundness”
and “social justice” elements identified by Pascal, Millmann and Gioja (2000) as
being critical to sustaining change processes.
Lesson two underscores the fact that perceptions and views are more
important than we typically perceived them to be. In multiple examples within this
case study, views of the university generally, of Jesuit Pacific University
specifically, of the School of Education Dean and of the faculty within the School of
Education gave rise to various perceptual roles of these entities respectively. These
perceived roles then coalesced into normative supporting behaviors. In this change
initiative, the School of Education Dean is essentially seeking to adapt the views of
internal and external stakeholders to one which would be conducive to the promotion
of a single, shared and unifying excellence construct of teaching and scholarship.
Once views are formulated, they are not easily modified. Therefore and
consequently, perceptual roles and behaviors are likewise difficult to change. With
this in mind, consistency of views within the School of Education becomes very
important to creating a consensus, changing and coordinating new behaviors and
specifically supporting new initiatives to conduct research.
Lesson three reminds us that persistence is a virtue; however, informed
persistence is strategically better as an implication for future practice. In a
transformative context, changing perceptions is not easy and will likely not occur
quickly. Instead, multiple attempts and effort will be required. In this event,
154
persistence which is informed by careful identification of what worked and what fell
short, along with thorough analysis prior to the next attempt will be more likely to
secure the focused objective. Attempts to repair and correct behaviors without a
keen assessment of all aspects of the problem from which they arose are more likely
to miss their mark and prove to be ineffective.
155
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and organization. New York: Harper Collins.
Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the individual and the organization. New York:
Wiley.
Argyris, C. (2000). Flawed advice and the management trap. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Association of American Colleges. (1985). Integrity in the college curriculum: A
report to the academic community. Project on redefining the meaning
purpose of baccalaureate degrees. Washington, DC: Author.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bacon, F. (1937). The advance of learning. New York: Oddesy Press.
Bates, F. L. (1956). Position role and status: A reformulation of concepts.
Social Forces, 34, 313-321.
Belasco, J. A., & Stayer, R. C. (1993). Flight of the buffalo: Soaring to
excellence, learning to let employees lead. New York: Warner Books.
Benditt, T. M. (1990). The research demands of teaching in higher education.
in S. M. Cahn (Ed.), Morality, responsibility, and the university: Studies
in academic ethics (pp. 93-108). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Beniger, J. R. (1986). The control revolution. Cambridge, MS: Harvard
University Press.
Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge.
New York: HarperCollins.
Bensimon, E. M., Neumann, A., & Birnbaum, R. (1989). Making sense of
administrative leadership: The “L” word in higher education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A
treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Books.
156
Biddle, B. J. (1979). Role theory: Expectations, identities, and behaviors.
New York: Academic Press.
Blanchard, K. H. (1984). SLII: A situational approach to managing people.
Escondido, CA: Blanchard Training and Development.
Bloom, A. (1987). The closing of the American mind. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Bogue, E. G., & Saunders, R. L. (1992). The evidence for quality. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Bok, D. C. (2006). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much
students learn and why they should be learning more. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organization: Artistry, choice and
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bowen, W. B., & Bok, D. (1998). The shape of the river: Long-term consequences
of considering race in college and university admissions. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Bowman, S. P. (1994). Academic leadership and stress in higher education.
Los Angeles: [publisher].
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate.
Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Brewer, D. J., Gates, S. M., & Goldman, C. A. (2001). In pursuit of prestige:
strategy and competition in U.S. higher education, technical papers.
Sumerset, NJ: Transaction Press.
Briand, M. (1993). People, lead thyself. Kettering Review, 38-46.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting
the right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Cleveland, H. (1985). The knowledge executive: Leadership in an information
society. New York: Dutton.
157
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & England, M. E. (1994). Improving information resources for
academic deans and chairpersons. In (Ed.), Providing useful
information for deans and department chairs (pp. 5-18). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundation of social research: Meaning and perspective in
the research process. London: Sage.
Cyphert, F. R., & Zimpher, N. L. (1980). The education deanship: Who is the dean?
In D. E. Griffiths (Ed.), the dilemma of the deanship (pp. 91-122).
Danville, IL: Interstate.
Dembo, M. H. (2004). Motivation and learning strategies for college success: A
self-management approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Denzin, N. K. (1989). Interpretive interactionism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Dibden, A. J. (1968). The academic deanship in American colleges and universities.
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dill, D. D. (1992). Quality by design: Toward a framework for academic quality
management. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and
research (Vol. 8, pp. 37-83). New York: Agathon Press.
Dill, W. R. (1980). The dean: An unstable craft. In D. E. Griffiths (Ed.), The
dilemma of the deanship (pp. 261-284). Danville, IL: Interstate.
Dupont, D. C. (1968). The dean and his office. In A. J. Dibden (Ed.), The academic
deanship in American colleges and universities (pp. 111-130). Carbondale,
IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dupont, D. C. (1991). An architect creates a fanciful world. Chronicle of Higher
Education, [need balance of entry]
Flexner, A. (1930). Universities: American English German. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
158
Fusarelli, L. D. (1999). Education is more than numbers: communitarian leadership
of schools for the new millennium. In L. T. Fenwick (Ed.), School
leadership: Expanding horizons of the mind and spirit. Cambridge, MA:
Technomic. (Internet-based publication).
Gardner, J. W. (1989). On leadership. New York: Free Press.
Glassick, C. E., Huber, M. T., & Maeroff, G. I. (1997). Scholarship assessed:
Evaluation of the professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gmelch, M. W., & Gmelch, W. H. (2002). College deans leading from within.
Westport, CT: Oryx Press.
Gmelch, W. H., Wolverton, M., Wolverton, M. L., & Hermanson, M. (1996).
National study of academic deans in higher education. Pullman, WA:
Center for Academic Leadership.
Hall, M. R. (1993). The dean’s role in fund raising. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Handlin, O. (1990). Glimpses of the Harvard past (epilogue-continuities). In
D. B. Bok (ED.), Universities and the future of America (pp. 111-130).
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Has America Lost its edge. (1979, June 4). Newsweek, 58-59.
Hewitt, J. P. (1997). Self and society: A symbolic interactionist social psychology.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hood, A. B., & Arceneaux, C. (1990). Key resources on student services: A guide
to the field and its literature. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hunt, G. T. (1990). The assessment movement: A challenge and opportunity.
ACA Bulletin, 72, 5-9.
Hunt, G. T. (1993, April). Scholarship reconsidered and its impact on the faculty
member. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern
Communication Association, New Haven, CT.
The innovation recession. (1978, October 2). Time, 57-63.
Jacob, P. E. (Ed.). (1981). Changing values in college: An exploratory study of
the impact of college teaching. [City, ST]: Greenwood.
159
Kerr, C. (2001). The uses of the modern university. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1988). The leadership factor. New York: Free Press.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1998). Encouraging the heart: A leader’s guide to
rewarding the recognizing others. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates. (2005). Student
success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. J. H. D. (1997). The art and science of portraiture.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Levy, J. M. (1952). The structure of society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Lewin, R., & Regine, B. (2000). The soul at work. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lincoln, Y. W., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions,
and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzkin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 163-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lubienski, C. (2003). Instrumentalist perspectives on the “public” in public
education: Incentives and purposes. Educational Policy, 17, 478-502.
March, J. G. (1981). Footnotes to organizational change. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 26, 663-677.
Martin, J. L. (1993). Academic deans: An analysis of effective academic leadership
at research universities. Atlanta, GA: American Educational Research
Association.
Massy, W. F. (2003). Honoring the trust: Quality and cost containment in higher
education. Boston: Anker.
Massy, W. F., & Wilger, A. K. (1995). Improving productivity. Change, 27(4),
10-20.
160
Massy, W. F., & Zemsky, R. (1994). Faculty discretionary time: Departments and
The “academic ratchet”. Journal of Higher Education, 65, 1-22.
McGrath, J. E. (1999). The dean. Journal of Higher Education, 70, 599-605.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structures
as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 440-463.
Meyerson, J. W., & Massey, W. F. (1995). Revitalizing higher education.
Princeton, NJ: Peterson’s Guides.
Mooney, C. J. (1990). New U.S. Survey assembles statistical portrait of the
American professoriate. Chronicles of Higher Education, 36, A-15, A-18.
Murphy, J. T. (1985). Managing matters: Reflections from practice.
Cambridge, MA: Graduate School of Education, Harvard University.
Neimeyer, G. J. (Ed.). (1993). Constructivist Assessment: A case book:
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Neuman, W. L. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Newman, J. H. (1947). The idea of a university. New York: Longmans, Green.
Pascal, R. Millmann, M., & Gioja, L. (2000). Surfing the edge of chaos. New York:
Crown Business.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: Vol. 2: A
third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pfeiffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A
resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
Polanyi, M. (1987). The tacit dimension. In E. L. Boyer (Ed.), College: The
undergraduate experience in America (pp. 111-130). New York: Harper &
Row.
Rizzo, J. R., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163.
161
Rosovsky, H. (1990). The university: An owner’s manual. New York: Norton.
Sample, S. B. (2002). The contrarian’s guide to leadership. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry. In
N. K. Denzin (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 189-213).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sewell, T. E., DuCette, J. P., & Shapiro, J. P. (1998). Educational assessment and
diversity. In N. M. Lambert & B. L. McCombs (Eds.), How students learn:
reforming schools through learner-centered education (pp. 311-338).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Shadish, W.R. (1995). Philosophy of science and qualitative-quantitative debate:
Thirteen common errors. Evaluation and Program Planning, 18(1), 63-75.
Simmel, G., & Wolff, K. L. (1964). The sociology of George Simmel. New York:
Free Press.
Smith, P. (1990). Killing the spirit: Higher education in America. New York:
Viking.
Something’s happened to Yankee ingenuity. (1978, September 3). Washington Post,
G1-G2.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stake, R. E. (1998). “Hoax?” In stake symposium on educational evaluation.
Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Steinbruner, J. D. (1974). The cybernetic theory of decision. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Strategic plan 2000-2005. (2000). San Francisco: Jesuit Pacific University.
Sykes, C. J. (1988). ProfScam. Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway.
Tagg, J. (2003). The learning paradigm college. Bolton, MA: Anker.
Twombly, S. B. (1992). The process of choosing a dean. Journal of Higher
Education, 63, 653-683.
162
Veysey, L. (1973). Stability and experience in the American undergraduate
curriculum. In C. Kaysen (Ed.), Content and context: Essays on college
education (pp. 1-64). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Washburn, J. (2005). University inc.: The corporate corruption of higher education.
New York: Basic Books.
Wilshire, B. W. (1990). The moral collapse of the university: Professionalism,
purity, and alienation. Albany: University of New York Press.
Wilson, R. (2001). A higher bar for earning tenure. Chronicle of Higher Education,
47(17), A12-A14.
Wisniewski, R. (1998). The new Siyphus: The dean as change agents. In (Ed.),
Reform-minded leaders for schools of education. Washington, DC: American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
Wolverton, M., Gmelch, W. H., Montez, J., & Nies, C. T. (2001). The changing
nature of the academic deanship. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wolverton, M., Gmelch, W. H., & Sorenson, D. (1998). The department’s double
agent: The call for departmental change and renewal. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Woods, P. (1992). Symbolic Interactionism: Theory and method. New York:
Academic Press.
163
APPENDIX
Appendix A: School of Education Strategic Plan
2000-2005
Goal #1: Leadership: Improve the connection, communication, and integration of the
School of Education with the University community
Objective 1: Align the School of Education leadership and governance structure with the
colleges at JPU
Strategies
Status
Timeline
• Change Director to a Dean of the School of Education
• Replace the faculty position occupied by the Director
of the School of Education
• Restructure the administration programs for growth in
leadership giving consideration to Program Chairs
• Create an Associate Dean position to oversee special
programs, accreditation, etc.
• Establish an Endowed Chair in Ethical Issues in
Education to align with other Endowed Chairs in the
four colleges
• Establish Endowed Chairs in Social Justice and
Catholic Education
• Establish designated School of Education area in
University library
• Increase School of Education working relationship
with JPU’s University Relations Department
including:
o Establish a School of Education liaison
position with University Relations
o Create a School of Education fund-raising
council
o Create and develop an interactive multimedia
presentation on the School of Education
accomplishments including mission, goals,
conceptual framework, programs, and
community and alumni outreach
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Completed
Started/Ongoing
Ongoing
1
1
2
1
1, 2, 3
1, 2, 3
2, 3
1
1
2
164
Goal #1: Leadership: Improve the connection, communication, and integration of the
School of Education with the University community
Objective 2: Participate fully in mainstream decision-making in the University
Strategies
Status
Timeline
• Continue the School of Education proactive
faculty involvement in seeking representation on
strategic University Committees, including, but
not limited to:
o Faculty Senate
o Rank and Tenure Committee
o Sabbatical Committee
o Research Committee
• Academic Computing Committee
• Social Justice Committee
• Excellence in Teaching Committee
Completed/
Ongoing
Completed/
Ongoing
1
1
Objective 3: Provide necessary resources for implementation of mission and goals
Strategies
Status
Timeline
• Personnel
o Add 8 new tenure-track positions to
reflect the last five years of increased
student enrollment (from approx. 400 to
800) in the following areas:
Administration, School Counseling,
Educational Psychology,
TESL/Multicultural, Special Education,
Secondary Education and Elementary
Education (2 positions)
o Designate an “Irvine Grant-like” position
for the School of Education
4 Added/
Ongoing
Ongoing
1,2,3,4…
1
1,2
165
Goal #1: Leadership: Improve the connection, communication, and integration of the
School of Education with the University community
Objective 2: (cont.) Provide necessary resources for implementation of mission and goals
Strategies
Status
Timeline
• Create 3 clinical faculty positions; one each for
Elementary Education, Special Education and
School Counseling/Psychology programs
• Create an administrative position for Catholic
School programs
• Create an administrative position for Teach For
America
• Create a computer lab staff support position
• Increase part-time faculty salaries and benefits to
be competitive with comparable Schools of
Education
• Add 1 credential specialist
• Facilities and Equipment
o Establish state-of-the-art computer
teaching lab, computer student lab,
teacher education lab, reading lab and
counseling lab
• Partnerships
o Support and formalize partnerships with
local school communities with
corresponding administrative positions
including: Lennox Charter School, Playa
Vista Lab School (LAUSD), Coalition of
Essential Schools/Sm. Learning
(LAUSD), Wiseburn School District,
Dolores Mission/Verbum Dei and LA
Archdiocese Teacher Volunteer Program
2
Added/Ongoing
Completed
Completed
Completed
Ongoing
Completed
Completed/
Ongoing
1
1
2, 3
3
1
1, 2, 3, 4…
166
Goal #1: Leadership: Improve the connection, communication, and integration of the
School of Education with the University community
Objective 2: (cont.) Provide necessary resources for implementation of mission and goals
Strategies
Status
Timeline
• Internships
o Support and formalize internship
programs which provide links for the
University to local school districts (i.e.
LAUSD and LBUSD for Teacher
Education, Special Education,
Counseling/School Psychology and
Administration)
• Increase financial aid opportunities for graduate
students in the form of teacher assistant positions,
student teaching grants, fellowships, internships,
scholarships and graduate assistantships
Ongoing
Ongoing
1, 2
2, 3
Goal #2: Social Justice and Cultural Responsiveness: Personally and professionally
commit ourselves to serve diverse and marginalized populations
Objective 1: Increase methods and resources for recruitment and retention of students
from under-represented groups
Strategies
Status
Timeline
• Increase financial aid for under-represented
graduate student groups
• Provide additional resources to ensure full range
of services for graduate students, comparable to
undergraduate students, in Student Psychological
Services, Health Services, Student Development
Services, Learning Resource Center, Career
Development Services
Ongoing
1, 2, 3
1
167
Goal #2: Social Justice and Cultural Responsiveness: Personally and professionally
commit ourselves to serve diverse and marginalized populations
Objective 1: (cont.) Increase methods and resources for recruitment and retention of
students from under-represented groups
Strategies
Status
Timeline
• Add resources and increase evening accessibility
to the campus offices of Financial Aid,
Controller, Registrar, and Graduate Admissions
• Improve communication and working
relationships with SDS, Disabled Support
Services (DSS), Student Psychological Services
(SPS), and related services for graduate students
• Develop mentoring opportunities for graduate
students as established in LRC and APP
Completed
Completed
Completed
1
1, 2
2
Objective 2: Increase methods and resources for recruitment and retention of full-time
faculty from under-represented groups
Strategies
Status
Timeline
• Develop recruitment strategies and materials to
attract full-time faculty
• Support faculty scholarship and research on
social justice and equity issues (travel, stipends,
remissions)
• Designate an Irvine Grant-like position for the
School of Education (refer to Goal 1: Object. 3)
• Recruit an Endowed Chair in Social Justice (refer
to Goal 1: Object. 1)
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
2
2
2
2
168
Goal #2: Social Justice and Cultural Responsiveness: Personally and professionally
commit ourselves to serve diverse and marginalized populations
Objective 3: Implement programs focusing on social justice and cultural responsiveness
to meet the needs of the region and to serve under-represented groups
Strategies
Status
Timeline
• Implement the following programs with
appropriate personnel and resources (refer to
Goal 1: Objective 3)
o Implement Teach For America Program
o Implement LA Archdiocese Teacher
Volunteer Program
• Implement Dolores Mission and Verbum Dei
Program
• Form partnership to establish a charter high
school with Lennox School District
• Create an administrative assistant position for the
Literacy and Educational Community Outreach
Clinic
• Continue advisory support for the Los Angeles
Center for International Studies Program
Completed
Completed
Ongoing
Completed
Ongoing
Discontinued
1
1
2
1
3
Ongoing
Objective 4: Design and implement programs to prepare leaders who influence future
educational policy in the region
Strategies
Status
Timeline
• Develop a joint-doctoral program in leadership
and equity with Cal State Los Angeles (refer to
Goal 1: Objective 3)
• Develop a Center to support Institutes in Catholic
Education (NCEA), Cultural Diversity and Social
Justice, and the Coalition of Essential Schools
Single/
Completed
Completed
1, 2…
1, 2…
169
Goal #3: Catholic Education Alliance: Strengthen and foster our network of Catholic
educational institutions
Objective 1: Implement programs focusing on the outreach and support for K-12
Catholic Schools
Strategies
Status
Timeline
• Create and define the Coordinator position for
Catholic School Programs with LA Archdiocese,
Orange Diocese and San Bernardino Diocese
(refer to Goal 1: Objective 3)
o Work with Special Education Program
Coordinator on a certificate program to
support inclusion and assist in faculty
development of teachers/administrators
in the schools
o Programs to include: CLAD/BCLAD
Credentials, MA in Catholic School
Administration, MA in Elementary and
Secondary Education and MA in
Catholic Inclusive Education
o Coordinate Catholic School Professional
Development Day
• Request financial assistance from Archdiocese to
support the administrative position (refer to Goal
1: Objective 3)
• Collaborate with the Division of Continuing
Education which plans to develop and coordinate
a comprehensive program to the LA
Archdiocese, Orange and San Bernardino
Dioceses
Partial/Ongoing
Ongoing
1, 2
1
1
2, 3
170
Goal #3: Catholic Education Alliance: Strengthen and foster our network of Catholic
educational institutions
Objective 2: Improve linkages with other Catholic universities and organizations
Strategies
Status
Timeline
• Continue to expand relationship ;with Mount St.
Mary’s (i.e., Administration Tier II and Special
Education Level II credentials and volunteer
programs
• Cooperate with University in pursuing linkage
with other Jesuit Universities in Distance
Education possibilities, national MA in Catholic
School Administration and JNET
• Work directly with University of Notre Dame in
the establishment of a volunteer teacher
education program for the LA Archdiocese
• Develop a Center for NCEA, focusing on
Cultural Diversity and Social Justice in Catholic
Schools (refer to Goal 2: Objective 4)
Ongoing
Ongoing
Completed
Completed
1
1
1
2
Goal #4: Technology: Prepare students to use technology in service of the mission of
the School of Education
Objective 1: Further integrate technology into the teaching and learning process
Strategies
Status
Timeline
• Design and equip a teaching computer lab (30
stations) (Projectors, software, printers) (refer to
Goal 1: Objective 3)
• Design and equip a student computer lab (add 10
stations) (projectors, software, printers) (refer to
Goal 1: Objective 3)
Completed
Completed
1
1
171
Goal #4: Technology: Prepare students to use technology in service of the mission of
the School of Education
Objective 1: (cont.)Further integrate technology into the teaching and learning process
Strategies
Status
Timeline
• Continue to increase/upgrade technology
usage/equipment in the School of Education with
color laser printer, and LCD projection board
• Expand operating budget support for lab land
classroom
• Hire full-time lab manager
• Hire student lab assistants
• Explore partnerships with community based
technology companies
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Ongoing
1
1
1
1
1
Objective 2: Explore alternative methods of delivery of instruction via distance learning
Strategies
Status
Timeline
• Support the development of web-based, on-line
courses
• Investigate and design two-way video
conferencing for networking with professional
organizations, field supervisors, and instruction
• Pursue linkage with other Jesuit Universities,
JNET (refer to Goal 3: Objective 2)
Completed
Ongoing
Ongoing
1
2
2
172
Goal #4: Technology: Prepare students to use technology in service of the mission of
the School of Education
Objective 3: Enhance instructional program via technology
Strategies
Status
Timeline
• Systematically integrate technology into courses
• Provide ongoing training and support in
technology for full and part-time faculty
• Submit $750,000 continuation grant proposal for
technology training and development
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
1
1
1
Goal #5: Excellence and Quality: Support excellence of all current and future
programs in the School of Education
Objective 1: Design and implement comprehensive assessment processes for monitoring
excellence in all programs
Strategies
Status
Timeline
• Create a position for an Accreditation
Administrator in preparation for 2003 joint
national/state re-accreditation
• Emphasize technology and assessment in all
programs in preparation for California
Commission on Teacher Credentialing and
NCAT accreditation visits in Spring 2003
• Work with University community in preparation
of WASC visit in 2001, especially in terms of
measuring student progress
• Explore the possibility of gaining further
accreditation approval for specific programs, e.g.,
NASP and CACREP
Completed
Completed
Completed
Ongoing
1
1, 2, 3
1, 2, 3
1, 2
173
Goal #5: Excellence and Quality: Support excellence of all current and future
programs in the School of Education
Objective 2: Develop future academic programs in support of the School of Education
Mission
Strategies
Status
Timeline
• Offer additional credential programs (e.g. PPS
Child Welfare and Attendance, Single Subject
Credential in the Arts)
• Develop MA in Student Affairs
• Develop a joint-doctoral program in leadership
and equity with Cal State Los Angeles (refer to
Goal 2: Objective 4)
• Investigate additional program emphasis in
technology
• Explore offering a joint program with local
universities who have approved single subject
area programs, e.g. Arts and Physical Education
• Refine, in coordination with academic
departments, the MAT program in subject areas
• Supply appropriate operating costs and supplies
to support new programs, personnel, and students
Partial/Ongoing
Ongoing
Single/
Completed
Ongoing
Completed
Completed
Ongoing
1
1
1, 2
2, 3
2
1
Ongoing
Objective 3: Recruit additional personnel and supply appropriate resources to support
scholarship and research
Strategies
Status
Timeline
• Create 10 full-time student fellowships to attract
excellent students to support Program
Coordinators
• Increase endowment support for student
scholarships
Ongoing
Ongoing
2, 3
2, 3
174
Goal #5: Excellence and Quality: Support excellence of all current and future
programs in the School of Education
Objective 3: (cont.) Recruit additional personnel and supply appropriate resources to
support scholarship and research
Strategies
Status
Timeline
• Increase support and resources for faculty
research and scholarship
• Name the School of Education
Ongoing
Ongoing
1, 2
2, 3
Objective 4: Strengthen collaboration with the School of Education for subject matter
programs offered in other colleges on campus, e.g. Arts, English, Liberal
Studies, Math, Modern Languages, Science, Social Science
Strategies
Status
Timeline
• Establish an undergraduate minor in elementary,
secondary, bilingual, and special education
• Provide more support and resources for Liberal
Studies majors, i.e. dual advising
• Explore the advising process to give more
support to single subject major students
• Establish a Teacher Education Committee
University-wide
• Hire part-time clinical faculty considering the
systemic needs appropriate to support subject
matter competencies (refer to Goal 1: Objective
3)
• Identify and recruit students in conjunction with
academic departments
• Refine and design feedback loops to ensure
stewardship of appropriate student talent
Completed
Ongoing
Partial/Ongoing
Completed
Partial/Ongoing
Partial/Ongoing
Ongoing
1
2
1
1
2
1
Ongoing
175
Appendix B: School of Education Strategic Plan 2006-2011
JPU/LA
School of Education
A New Generation of Leaders
Strategic Plan 2006-2011
School of Education
MISSION In accordance with the Mission of Jesuit Pacific University, the
faculty, staff, and students of the School of Education understand
and declare our purpose to be the encouragement of life-long
learning and academic excellence, the education of the whole
person, and the promotion of service and justice for all. We
commit ourselves to serving public and private education by
fostering excellence inspired by the Jesuit and Pacific traditions
of Catholic education.
To fulfill the Mission for the years 2006-2011, the School of
Education is committed to the following goals and objectives:
Mission Articulate a sense of Mission and Identity that is lived by the
and Identity School of Education and permeates our daily activities and
programs
Leadership in the Engage and impact the educational community at the local,
Field of regional, and national levels
Education
176
JPU/LA
School of Education New Generation of
Leaders
Scholarship Promote culture of inquiry that facilitates excellence in scholarly
and Research activity and reflective practice
Quality in all Provide rigorous and relevant academic programs that respond to
Academic the greater needs in the communities we serve
Programs
Infrastructure Build a School of Education infrastructure that promotes and
supports excellence and professionalism
Mission Articulate a sense of Mission and Identity that is lived by the
and Identity School of Education and that permeates our daily activities and
programs
Infuse Mission and Identity into the work of the School of
Education
• Ensure that Mission and Identity permeates School of
Education practices in recruiting, hiring, orienting, and
retaining faculty and staff
• Ensure that Mission and Identity permeates School of
Education practices in recruiting, orienting, and retaining
students
• Strengthen communication on a School-wide level
• Enhance School-wide events that build community
• Explore the development of a graduate student organization
• Disseminate EDvision to all students
Enhance Catholic school partnerships
• Develop a hybrid Catholic Administration program for the
diocese of Orange, San Diego, and San Bernardino
• Enhance support for the LEAD Center
• Develop research projects for Catholic education
177
Jesuit Pacific University * School of Education * Strategic Plan
2006-2011
• Enhance existing Catholic School programs (CAST, PLACE,
PDP, Catholic Inclusion, Professional Clear 2042)
Build alumni outreach and involvement
• Work with Alumni Relations to strengthen alumni outreach
for the School of Education
• Develop School of Education specific alumni programs
• Develop a School of Education alumni organization
Leadership in Engage and impact the educational community at the local,
the Field of regional, and national levels
Education
Position the School of Education more prominently as a leader
in education
• Host at least three national conferences, such as the Forum
for Education and Democracy
• Foster faculty and staff participation in leadership roles in
professional organizations
• Recruit students at the national level
• Expand visibility in the media
• Increase influence with policy makers at the local, regional,
and national levels
Build community partnerships and increase outreach
• Assess current partnerships and outreach efforts
• Develop the JPU Family of Schools
• Develop partnerships to support local public schools, such as
with the Weschester/Playa Educational
• Foundation and the Westchester Neighborhood Council
• Participate in the advocacy initiative for the Disability Rights
Center at Jesuit Pacific Law School
• Participate in the PROMISE Initiative
Establish professional development and research centers
• Develop a collaborative plan for purposeful growth of new
centers such as:
o Charter School Leadership Acadamy
o Math and Science Education
o Center for Equity and Excellence in English Learner
Education (CE4R)
178
Jesuit Pacific University * School of Education * Strategic Plan
2006-2011
Scholarship Promote a culture of inquiry that facilitates excellence
and Research in scholarly activity and reflective practice
Acquire resources to support faculty research
• Identify and pursue appropriate grant opportunities
• Increase state, federal, and foundation funding for sponsored
projects
• Establish School of Education policies and procedures for
internal grants
• Develop a plan to reduce course loads to support faculty
research
• Target external funding to support research projects, such as
travel and research assistants
Develop opportunities for student research and publication
• Target external funding to support student participation in
research projects and professional conferences
• Develop a research presence on the School of Education
website
• Evaluate and strengthen research components in current
master’s level coursework and culminating experiences
Promote and develop dialogue regarding research and
scholarship
• Sponsor School of Education research symposia
• Develop collaborative research opportunities on key School
of Education initiatives
Conduct research projects that integrate theory and practice
• Initiate the Catholic Schools Research Project
• Develop a research agenda for all partnerships
179
Jesuit Pacific University * School of Education * Strategic Plan
2006-2011
Quality in all Provide rigorous and relevant academic programs that respond
Academic to the greater needs in the communities we serve
Programs
Strengthen the Ed.D. program in Leadership for Social
Justice
• Develop a business plan for the doctoral program
• Conduct a curriculum review of the doctoral program
• Develop networking and alumni support for doctoral students
• Establish an endowed chair in ethics and moral leadership
Expand degree and credential programs
• Expand the online MA in Literacy to a national level
• Explore the development of new programs, such as:
o Early Childhood Education
o Moderate/Severe Disabilities
o Higher Education Administration
o Instructional/Educational Technology
o Child Welfare and Attendance
Strengthen undergraduate teacher preparation
• Collaborate with undergraduate academic programs in the
Liberal Studies department and academic departments that
prepare secondary education teachers in content areas (math,
sciences, social sciences, English, and visual and performing
arts)
• Develop a plan for emphasizing math, science, and special
education
Enhance academic assessment
• Create a curriculum review process
• Expand program-level assessment linked to accreditation
Collaborate with professional accreditation agencies as
appropriate
• Prepare a 2008 NASP accreditation rejoinder
• Prepare for the 2010 NCATE accreditation visit
• Explore CACREP accreditation for the school counseling
program
Expand technology in education
• Increase professional development in technology
180
Jesuit Pacific University * School of Education * Strategic Plan
2006-2011
• Increase integration of technology, including assistive
technology, in coursework
• Increase communities of practice via technology
Infrastructure Build a School of Education infrastructure that promotes and
Supports excellence and professionalism
Enhance infrastructure to support School of Education
programs
• Develop and implement a business plan that addresses
growth, finances, facilities, resources, and assessment
Promote faculty and staff development
• Increase participation in University professional development
opportunities
• Increase collaboration with the Center for Teaching
Excellence
• Provide professional development opportunities for faculty
and staff serving in leadership roles
• Develop mentoring programs for new staff and faculty
Enhance marketing and student recruitment efforts
• Hire a director of student recruitment and outreach
• Develop and implement a marketing and recruitment plan
• Promote the School of Education as well as graduate
education within the University community
Strengthen student services
• Hire an academic advisor for the Professional Services
department and an additional academic advisor for the
Teacher Education department
Increase the level of service to students for recruitment to
181
Appendix C: Scholarly Activities in the School of Education
Jesuit Pacific University
Scholarly Activities in the
School of Education
January, 2000
182
INTRODUCTION:
Education is an applied discipline involving both the theoretical and the practical
applications of knowledge related to teaching and learning. The primary function of
the School of Education at Jesuit Pacific University is professional preparation, that
is, to prepare students to become effective teachers, counselors, school
psychologists, administrators and educational specialists in bilingual education,
reading literacy and special education. At the same time, the School of Education
and its faculty reaffirm their commitment to accomplish this goal within the
framework of our increasing diverse and multicultural student population in the city,
state and the nation’s schools.
Since our primary mission and emphasis is to enhance service delivery in the
schools, the faculty of the School of Education defines scholarly activities as all
those activities that not only emphasize traditional basic and applied research
activities, but also those activities that have a direct impact on practitioners in the
field.
The following is a description of those activities. They have been categorized into
three areas for ease of representation and evaluation. The activities within each
category have not been listed in any particular order of priority.
183
Scholarly Activities in the
School of Education
CATEGORY 1: Scholarship that reflects direct and/or indirect research, pure or
applied research that is published.
• AN ARTICLE/CHAPTER IN A BOOK
• ARTICLES IN PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS
• ARTICLES IN REFERRED JOURNALS
• BOOKS AND TEXTBOOKS
• ACCEPTED PROJECT REPORTS
• FUNDED GRANT PROPOSALS FOR RESEARCH, TRAINING,
AND/OR EVALUATION
• PRESENTATION AT NATIONAL OR STATE CONFERENCES WITH
PUBLISHED (PRINT/VIDEO/AUDIO) RECORD
• EDITORSHIP OF A PROFESSIONAL JOURNAL
• ACCEPTED PROGRAM DOCUMENT SUBMITTED TO AN
ACCREDITING AGENCY
184
Scholarly Activities in the
School of Education
CATEGORY 2: Applied scholarship that demonstrates involvement with peers,
professionals and/or the community which is disseminated to the public.
• PRESENTATION AT INTERNATIONAL, NATIONAL OR STATE
CONFERENCES
• PRESENTATION OF EXPERT TESTIMONY IN COURT CASES
• PRESENTATION OF PROFESSIONAL TRAINING/IN SERVICE
SESSIONS
• PRESENTATION OF SELF-STUDY OR PROGRESS REPORTS AND
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR PROFESSIONAL
AGENCIES AND GOVERNMENT BODIES
• SUBMISSION OF GRANT PROPOSALS FOR TRAINING,
RESEARCH AND/OR EVALUATION
• PUBLISHED REVIEW OF BOOKS, TESTS, OR TEXTS
• ARTICLES IN PROFESSIONAL NEWSLETTERS OR MAGAZINES
• PREPARATION OF A POSITION PAPER, TASK FORCE REPORT
OR ACCREDITATION DOCUMENT ON BEHALF OF A
PROFESSIONAL AGENCY OR ORGANIZATION
185
Scholarly Activities in the
School of Education
CATEGORY 3: Educational scholarship which contributes directly and indirectly to
the School of Education faculty member’s growth and competency as well as to the
School of Education and University, in the field of education.
• REPRESENTS THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AT A
PROFESSIONAL MEETING, ORGANIZATION, CONVENTION OR
AGENCY THAT IMPACTS THE PROFESSION
• SERVICE IN A SIGNIFICANT CAPACITY AS AN OFFICER OR
MEMBER IN A PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION, TASK FORCE
BOARD, OR COMMITTEE OF A PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION
• PRESENTATIONS AT LOCAL CONFERENCES, PUBLIC
HEARINGS, AND PUBLIC COMMUNITY ADDRESS
• PRESENTATION OF PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE TO THE
UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY OR PROFESSIONAL AGENCIES
• PRESENTATION/INTERVIEWS TO THE MEDIA AS EXPERTS IN
THE FIELD OF EDUCATION FOR USE IN BROADCASTS,
NEWSPAPERS, TELEVISION, ETC.
• EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERSHIP
• REVIEWER OF MANUSCRIPTS FOR PUBLICATION AND/OR
CONFERENCE PROPOSALS
186
CONCLUSION:
The faculty of the School of Education, Jesuit Pacific University, believes that the
scholarship takes many forms in the academic discipline of Education. Given that
scholarship in our area is both theoretical and practical, faculty members may be
involved in all or some of the above-mentioned categories. The professional
educator is one who is flexible in addressing as many of the above scholarly
activities as possible. We believe, as a faculty, that each individual has his or her
own special strengths.
To be considered for top merit, a faculty member, in addition to effective teaching,
shall have experiences in all three categories. To be considered for the second merit
category, a faculty member, in addition to effective teaching, shall have experience
in two of the three categories.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this case study was to discover the significance of and the relationship between actions taken by the Dean of the School of Education at a Catholic Comprehensive University as he interprets and implements a strategic directive to promote excellence in teaching and scholarship. Drawn from a research foundation that includes leadership, organizational change, higher education administration and college effects on students, this qualitative study seeks to discover how change occurs and how specific aspects of change are promoted by the academic dean. This study employed a partially structured interview protocol of key informants and an institutional document review process. The data obtained through this method were manually screened for themes, which resulted in 10 thematic conclusions about the activities of this School of Education Dean in his efforts to promote excellence in teaching and scholarship. Each theme represents a collection of actions, processes, and policies that were formulated and that were placed into motion by the Academic Dean. These themes include: improving the School of Education s organizational structure to enhance the Dean s authority and leadership potential
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Strengthening Catholic identity: the role of an academic dean in strategic planning
PDF
The role of an academic dean in creating a new academic program as part of a university strategic plan
PDF
Sensemaking of an identity change: a case study in higher education investigating the role of the academic vice president in facilitating change
PDF
In the implementation of standards-based reform: what is the leadership role of the principal in building school capacity and accountability to sustain student academic growth?
PDF
Globalization, curricular elements, organizational practices and perceived student outcomes in California schools
PDF
Plugging the leaky pipeline: how academic deans support the persistence of underrepresented minority students in science and mathematics
PDF
A lighthouse at risk: combating the life-cycle of the innovative high school
PDF
A case study of the instructional leader's role in leading change: preparing for the implementation of Common Core State Standards in elementary schools
PDF
Technology tango: perceptions of the roles of school technology coordinators and library media specialists
PDF
A comparative case study analysis of academically at risk African American male student athletes
PDF
The role of teachers in academic discussion
PDF
The integration of academics into career-technical education in two California charter schools
PDF
Impact of academic scholarships on persistence of first-generation low-income students
PDF
The effect of a language arts intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Negotiating racial conflict: the leadership role of the dean of students
PDF
The block schedule and the English language learners: impact on academic performance and graduation rate at Oxbow High School
PDF
Arts in education and organizational culture
PDF
The global citizenship initiative: a case study examining the leadership of Pacific Coast Community College implementing organizational change in response to globalization
PDF
Comparative evaluation of English learner student achievement in inner city urban schools
PDF
Perceived factors for narrowing the achievement gap for minority students in urban schools: cultural norms, practices and programs
Asset Metadata
Creator
Boyd, Steven L. (author)
Core Title
The operationalization of excellence in teaching and scholarship: the role of the academic dean in the school of education
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/09/2008
Defense Date
03/21/2008
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
academic dean,educations leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,School of Education
Language
English
Advisor
Gallagher, Karen Symms (
committee chair
), Hocevar, Dennis J. (
committee member
), Mafi, Gabriela (
committee member
)
Creator Email
stevenbo@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1092
Unique identifier
UC1127143
Identifier
etd-Boyd-20080409 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-55915 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1092 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Boyd-20080409.pdf
Dmrecord
55915
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Boyd, Steven L.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
academic dean
educations leadership