Learning Resources

Abstract: This report was produced by the researcher awarded the M. Perry Chapman Prize for 2016–2017.

This research evaluates the role the campus built environment plays in student retention and graduation. The relationship between objective and perceived measures of the physical campus and student academic performance was examined using the California State University (CSU) campuses as the sample. The results show that both objective and perceived measures are significantly associated with academic performance and provide higher education institutions with insight regarding the role of the physical campus in enhancing student retention and graduation rates.

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: Public-Private Partnership (“P3”) procurement models for built infrastructure serving higher learning institutions started to gain attention in North America in the late 1990s—mostly as an alternative approach to adding student housing at select universities and colleges. More recently, P3 models have been applied to a diverse range of higher learning projects, with some serving core academic and research functions.

Although many institutions are considering P3 approaches among their options to address emerging pressures to expand or update their facilities, their implementation is not yet common. The researcher’s intention was to better understand P3 models and learn how they have performed, possibly generating some useful lessons for how P3 models can be applied with desired outcomes.

Abstract: Industry and academia are partnering like never before as entrepreneurship and maker culture become more important to our economy and a regular fixture in higher education curricula. With the influx of allied industry partnerships, evolving pedagogies, entrepreneurship programs, and a maker culture comes a pressing need for new spaces, ranging from fabrication and prototyping studios to innovation districts devoted to new kinds of research partnerships. Schools like the University of Washington, Babson College, and Arizona State University are leading the way on new collaborations. In this article, Sasaki planners and urban designers examine how design disruption will guide the development of campuses that enable 21st-century teaching, learning, and research paradigms.

Abstract: With North Dakota experiencing a significant shortage in all health care-related fields, the University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences replaced its aging facility with a new school in order to (1) increase enrollment by 25 percent, (2) attract and retain top-tier faculty and staff, (3) encourage inter-professional collaboration, (4) colocate all eight medical, health sciences, and basic sciences in one building, and (5) retain more in-state graduates. The facility is now a shared collaborative learning environment, the result of the university “rethinking everything” about how it delivered health sciences education.

Abstract: After its first application nearly 40 years ago, responsibility center budgeting/responsibility center management (RCB/RCM) is now in place at nearly 70 major North American universities. An unstudied fact is that despite its popularity RCB/RCM is rarely deployed to its fullest extent. Instead, it usually exists in parallel with conventional planning and budget models. This study asks why, instead of fully implementing RCB/RCM, universities have chosen to apply it partially. The study finds multiple explanations. On the revenue side, some universities hold back a portion of income to create funds that are used to underwrite institution-wide strategies or subsidize mission-central academic programs that cannot be fiscally sustained under RCB/RCM. In other cases, revenue is held back to fund shared “public utility” services, while in still others the practice of holding back revenue for allocation by some other means is due to difficulty in drawing a functional line between the “academic” and the “non-academic.” On the cost side, some universities have limited the application of RCB/RCM in order to limit market behavior and forestall “fragmentation” (Burke 2007). The study points to several problems in both the practice and theory of RCB/RCM. For example, models meant in theory to complement RCB/RCM may in practice compete with it or promote monopolistic behavior.

Abstract: In 2009 the Arizona University System (supporting over 130,000 enrollments) through its Board of Regents directed its board president and the presidents of Arizona State University, University of Arizona, and Northern Arizona University to create an operational plan that reflected the board’s vision, goals, and strategic directions. A primary objective was to transform the system (or enterprise) vision into concrete goals and outcomes that would directly connect to financial decision making at the system and university level. The backdrop for higher education planning and budgeting expectations included the continuation of severe reductions in state funding, rapidly increasing student tuition and fees, and a call for greater accountability. The planning processes were characterized by the integration of board and presidential discussions, inclusion of constituent debate, identification of strategic choices, and approval of outcomes focused on measuring performance. The integration ran across and within three organizations or levels that included the Arizona Board of Regents, its system administration, and the three universities.