Learning Resources

Abstract: “In 2013 TRU established ‘increasing sustainability’ as one of its five strategic priorities for 2014-2019. This Strategic Sustainability Plan (SSP) is aligned with the university’s strategic plan, and provides a focus for TRU’s efforts toward sustainability over the same period. The SSP is comprehensive in nature, and includes more than 130 recommended strategies across four key focus areas: Operations & Planning, Advocacy & Engagement, Learning, and Administration. The SSP is intended to provide a framework for each TRU department and operational unit to incorporate sustainability initiatives into their own planning processes (the structure of the plan is illustrated on the opposing page). . . . Unlike some strategic documents, the plan takes a comprehensive approach of documenting strategies over the next 5 years. These strategies are not all the responsibility of one department or office, but rather are shared among many. This comprehensive approach will allow each office or department to see where and how it can play a role in TRU’s sustainability journey.”

Abstract: A high-level document enumerating the institution’s five strategic goals and strategies for achieving each goal. The goals are framed as increasing and enhancing each of the following qualities:

1. Student Success
2. Intercultural Understanding
3. Research Capacity
4. Entrepreneurial Capacity
5. Sustainability

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: Over the course of two years, The New School, a New York City university established in 1919 by philosopher John Dewey and other prominent Progressive Era scholars, partnered with the Stevens Institute of Technology, a private research university in Hoboken, New Jersey, founded in 1870. The partnering universities entered—and were selected as one of 20 finalists of—a biannual, international competition among higher education institutions to design and build an energy-efficient house. Typically, the competition draws significant public attention because of its focus on showcasing innovative technologies to advance energy savings. (All 20 finalist houses—this time, including the New School–Stevens “Empowerhouse”—are displayed on the National Mall in Washington, DC.) As well, the competition spurs innovation among students and provides an extraordinary “real-world” educational experience. Five of us who worked on this project discuss the challenges and benefits of an inter-institutional approach that also centered on collaboration with multiple community partners including Habitat for Humanity of Washington, DC, several DC government agencies, and community-based organizations in the DC neighborhood of Deanwood, where the competition house would ultimately be relocated and reconstructed as a two-family Habitat for Humanity residence. The project involved more than 200 students over a multiyear period working on and employing their academic preparation in areas including community engagement, advocacy, mechanical engineering, civil engineering, environmental policy, sustainability management, fashion design, lighting design, organizational change management, urban policy, environmental studies, architecture, and product design.

Abstract: The role of central administration in program development varies from institution to institution. Applications of shared governance, differences in state regulations, and evolving institutional procedures result in dissimilar administrative structures. This article reports on the role of central administration in new program development, as discussed by 13 senior academic officers at 12 public universities in the Carnegie Research Universities/Very High classification. The themes of fostering institutional communication and partnerships emerged in the interviews. In addition, the perceptions of the assistant provosts, associate provosts, and vice provosts responsible for the process are included.

Abstract: The demand for interdisciplinary teaching and research suggests the need to understand how universities are undertaking and fostering interdisciplinarity. Through an examination of strategic and master plans at 21 research universities, this article explores how institutions plan and foster interdisciplinary engagement through the use of space on campus. The construction of such space acknowledges that the discrete functions of the university, frequently attributed to the disciplines and departments, are not generally conducive to interdisciplinary engagement. Physical space is a necessary component for successful interdisciplinary initiatives both functionally and symbolically.