This paper examines the development of the U.S. research university, highlighting both its great success as well as some fundamental problems. Arguing that the U.S. research university is often looked to globally as a model for other nations, the author offers some cautionary concerns. More specifically, the author identifies four critical stages in the development of the U.S. research university: the Germanic influence of the 1800s, the rise of government sponsorship of research during World Wars I and II, the emergence of the multiversity, and the rise of the entrepreneurial university under neoliberalism. The author argues that critical flaws related to each of these stages are evident in the contemporary rendition of the U.S. research university and that such flaws must be considered in either drawing from the U.S. model or in seeking to recast it.

This paper examines the ways in which the Bush administration and its allies have targeted the American university as part of a broad assault on democracy. The author maintains that the administration has used the tragic events of September 11 to strike fear in the American people for the purposes of formulating a more aggressive militarization both home and abroad. This “New Militarism” justifies two particular positions with regard to the relationship between the Bush administration and the nation’s universities. First, and because of the potential for criticism to arise from within the walls of the university, the Bush administration and its allies have sought to limit such critiques through a variety of actions and policies. Second, the Bush administration and its supporters have been intent on strengthening the already strong ties between the American university and the U.S. military industrial complex, including the Department of Defense. These two broad assaults have resulted in further deterioration to the American university’s democratic potential and its ability to advance a more just world.

Based on the presumptions that faculty are critical to student success and that faculty in the community college sector are largely underprepared to serve the diversity of students they encounter, this study sought to examine how community colleges create and sustain their faculty development programs. The faculty development programs selected for this study have high participation of faculty across disciplines, including both adjunct and full-time faculty, and are permanent fixtures on their campuses instead of relying on grant funding or other temporary sources of funding that could eventually be phased out. Further, institutions in this study are improving student outcomes across their campuses, particularly of low-income students and students of color. Utilizing a multi-case study design based on semi-structured interviews, document analysis and observations of public spaces, this study looked holistically and in-depth at institutionalized faculty development programs at three community colleges across the country: Bradley Community College, Pomelo College and High Hill College, all pseudonyms. Some critical findings of this study include the nature of leadership that facilitated institutionalizing these programs, the role of the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) at each site, and the centrality of pedagogy. At all three sites, faculty and administrative leaders converged to create their faculty development programs. Critical administrative leaders in charge of faculty development began as faculty members, and they helped shepherd their respective programs to institutionalization as they moved into administration. Further, the CTLs at all three sites act as nexus points between authentic faculty needs and institutional priorities. All strategic initiatives are executed with the support of the CTLs; they are the facilitators of change. While each CTL still uses various grants from state, federal, local and foundation sources, the CTL staff and spaces have been institutionalized. Finally, all faculty development activities start with good instruction; whether the topic is high-impact practices, equity, guided pathways or global learning, the CTL focus is on what those ideas look like (or should look like) in a classroom. All three sites in this study are willing to invest in supports for the faculty, both adjunct and full-time, to help them become better instructors.

Higher education is under pressure to improve student success rates. These demands require postsecondary institutions to examine and evolve their practices to create learning environments where all students can succeed. One method to improve institutional persistence rates is to develop collaborations between academic and student affairs. Current evidence indicates that these partnerships are essential to improving student success, but can be difficult to cultivate. As the landscape of higher education is not monolithic, exclusively examining Jesuit universities provides valuable insight due to their unique organizational context. Therefore, this dissertation examined the phenomenon of collaboration through the experiences of 22 academic and student affairs officers involved in these partnerships to help answer a fundamental question. How are successful intra-organizational partnerships between academic and student affairs, focused on undergraduate persistence, developed, implemented, and sustained at Jesuit universities?

Using phenomenological methodology and organizational theory frameworks, this study used semi-structured interviews and document analysis to explore how student and academic affairs officers understand and experience cross-functional collaborations focused on undergraduate student persistence in the Jesuit university setting. Employing organizational theory frameworks of culture, structure, and open systems, I examined the factors that support or undermine collaboration’s success, and how these collaborations overcome barriers to sustainability. Furthermore, I explored how academic and student affairs officers evaluate the success of their collaborations and how the Jesuit mission relates to distinctive approaches to creating collaborations.

From the data collected, it became evident that participants perceived cross-divisional collaboration as a critical component to student success strategies, and crucial to realizing significant improvements in metrics like student persistence. However, on the campuses studied, organizational factors (i.e., resourcing, leadership support, institutional transitions, mission, academic/administrative cultures), individual factors (i.e., fostering trust and respect of expertise, collaborative competencies, ability to dialogue), and external factors (i.e., changes to student demographics, compliance, selection of board members) coalesce to produce an environment that can both support and undermine the sustainability of these essential partnerships. Collaborative structures, processes, and methods of evaluating student persistence partnerships varied across the campuses, however, there was a pronounced trend regarding their common purpose, which focuses on whole- student success grounded in the charisms of the Jesuit mission. The overwhelming commitment, alignment, and infusion of the Jesuit mission into daily practices was the most profound and prominent finding of this study.

This dissertation offers several recommendations for practitioners at Jesuit universities, as well as, educators from other types of postsecondary institutions desiring insight on developing successful cross-divisional collaborations for student persistence. Implications for educational practice and recommendations for educational leadership are also addressed.

This multi-site case study explored collaborative interpersonal and organizational relationships among university administrators, business leaders, and nonprofit stakeholders at three University of California campuses (UCLA, UC Berkeley, and UC Davis). These stakeholders engaged in efforts to expand African American and Latinx representation in STEM graduate programs. Inside California’s selective public research universities, African Americans and Latinx students comprise only 14 percent of graduate students enrolled across all disciplines. Globalization, shifting demographics, and scarce financial resources have shifted the landscape for diversity in higher education and tasked institutions within the UC system to develop strategies to achieve truly diverse student populations.

This study employed a theoretical framework based upon theories of social systems, collaborative complexity, and social capital to investigate URM recruitment for graduate study in a “STEM College.” Using a statewide sample drawn from participants linked to three University of California campuses, data was collected and analyzed from semi-structured interviews in order to compose three case studies. Case study is a valuable technique because of its rich detail. Moreover, case study allows the researcher to learn more about developing and implementing a new program or strategy.

There were four key findings from this research. First, stakeholders intentionally collaborated to achieve shared goals in conducting outreach to prospective underrepresented minority (URM) graduate students. Second, stakeholders collaborated to identify and provide research and job opportunities for URM students enrolled in STEM graduate programs. Third, the financial resources and power dynamics of business leaders’ relationships as alumni and with school leadership, gave them additional leverage to influence diversity strategies at the three campuses studied. Fourth, stakeholders collaborated in designing support services to mitigate social isolation many of the URM students encountered on the campuses studied. As a result of this study, campus administrators, business leaders, and nonprofit influencers and advocates now have information about multi-faceted, collaborative approaches designed to increase enrollment of African American and Latinx candidates in STEM graduate programs at UC campuses.