Learning Resources

Abstract: To gain a broader understanding of how educational equity is linked to campus design, architects and planners must critically examine community engagement practices. Using critical race theory (CRT) as a framework has exposed racial exclusion and colorblind practices in traditional planning processes. While outreach strategies have received greater scrutiny, less examined are the questions that direct those activities. If the prevailing understanding of a design problem is informed by colorblind inquiry, then design solutions hold little promise to improve social impact on communities most affected by educational inequity. Socio-spatial inquiry offers an equity approach to inclusive outreach and authentic engagement.

Abstract: While universities recognize the need for change, establishing an environment conducive to change requires time and movement through stages. In this article, I examine different tools and processes that can pave the way for innovation or change. These processes became evident in my research on the emergence of an interdisciplinary policy school jointly established on two campuses where previous models did not exist. The change came about because there was a confluence of forces that promoted it; these factors were strong enough to negate the barriers. There were key actions undertaken by the universities that promoted the change, including systematic program review, university-wide integrated planning, the appointment of an executive sponsor who had social and political capital, and the establishment of a “grassroots” working committee comprising faculty who were passionate about the initiative. However, there were equally important practices and policies that hindered the movement forward; these included institutional procedures that required multiple levels of approval in a lock-step process and the many facets of resistance to change. For universities contemplating a change agenda, the implementation of some of these processes and tools could potentially be beneficial in moving forward.

Abstract: This report from the SCUP Campus Facilities Inventory (CFI) aggregates space data submitted to the CFI survey from 2006 and 2007. Institutions submitting a CFI survey quantify how their space is allocated using classifications from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Facilities Inventory and Classification Manual (FICM).

Abstract: As leaders of colleges and universities continue to analyze changes today and plan for the future, the knowledge and insight from the SCUP community is critical. The 2021 Campus Facilities Inventory (CFI) report’s valuable facilities benchmarking data will help college and university leaders understand not only what they have now and how it compares, but also how things might change in the future.

The CFI report consists of three sections that provide a holistic picture of today—while enabling institutions to crowd-source a vision for the future: Current space use data, anticipated changes to space, and qualitative space changes.

Data are reported only in aggregate, protecting the privacy of each institution. Reporting focuses on findings and comparison tables by institution type (i.e., four-year public, four-year private, and two-year public), location (i.e., urban, suburban, rural), and size (i.e., enrollment, ­ 20,000).

Abstract: As leaders of colleges and universities continue to analyze changes today and plan their campuses for the future, the knowledge and insight from the SCUP community is critical. The 2022 Campus Facilities Inventory (CFI) report’s valuable facilities benchmarking data will help college and university leaders understand not only what they have now and how it compares, but also how things might change in the future.

The CFI report consists of two sections that provide a holistic picture of today while enabling institutions to crowdsource a vision for the future: current space use data and recent and planned changes to campus facilities.

Data are reported only in aggregate, protecting the privacy of each institution. Reporting focuses on findings and comparison tables by institution type (e.g., four-year public, four-year private, and two-year public), location (e.g., urban, suburban, rural), and size (i.e., in-person student headcount).

Abstract: As leaders of colleges and universities continue to analyze changes today and plan their campuses for the future, the knowledge and insight from the SCUP community is critical. The 2023 Campus Facilities Inventory (CFI) report’s valuable facilities benchmarking data will help college and university leaders understand not only what they have now and how it compares, but also how things might change in the future.

The CFI report consists of two sections that provide a holistic picture of today while enabling institutions to crowdsource a vision for the future: current space use data and recent and planned changes to campus facilities.

Data are reported only in aggregate, protecting the privacy of each institution. Reporting focuses on findings and comparison tables by institution type (e.g., four-year public, four-year private, and two-year public), location (e.g., urban, suburban, rural), and size (i.e., in-person student headcount).

Abstract: The study described in this article investigated diversity in a unit within a postsecondary institution using the model described by Cox in Creating the Multicultural Organization by verifying the unit’s view of diversity, examining existing strategies used for diversity, evaluating consistencies, and identifying areas of improvement. The study included an analysis of unit employees to verify broad diversity by race and gender and an interview with senior leadership about the strategic plan for the unit on matters related to diversity. Overall analysis showed that the unit is doing better than most peer institutions in hiring female and minority candidates for positions. However, there are gaps in the unit’s approach to diversity that impact its ability to be an effective multicultural organization.

Abstract: Few studies have investigated how academic deans enact their authority in Responsibility Center Budgeting (RCB), despite its widespread adoption. In this article I explore findings from a study that investigated how deans crafted a confidential annual budget report at an American university. Ultimately, deans adopted one of three approaches to crafting the report: delegating, distributing, or dominating authorship. Deans who distributed authorship collaborated with their senior teams to establish a shared sense of priorities for their colleges. In contrast deans who delegated and dominated authorship ignored and alienated members of their senior team during the budget review, engendering confusion and frustration.