Search

Higher education institutions in the United States have come under increased scrutiny due to increasing demands for accountability in the use of public funds and increasing visibility (Altbach, Berdahl, and Gumport, 1999; Trow, 1974). Colleges and universities must continually prove their credibility and legitimacy to their stakeholders, including government officials (Lawrence & Sharma, 2002), donors, students, and sponsors. The proving process may involve engagement in legitimacy-seeking behaviors designed to show efficiency, access, and quality in terms defined mostly by external perceptions. The decision to concentrate organizational resources on activities designed to influence the opinions of external agents has the potential to lead organizations away from their core values and historic missions. The case study that follows documents the restructuring of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) and the drivers that led university administrators to pursue change. The case was developed based on a series of interviews with key informants associated with or affected by the restructuring process. Explanations for the restructuring and the underlying university goal of becoming a top 30 institution, included cost-savings and efficiency via a "fiscal rationalization"; the framing of programs in terms of their entrepreneurialism, innovativeness, and revenue generating capacity; and an emphasis on the economic development benefits of university programs. Even though Virginia Tech administrators were not expressly responding to external demands for restructuring, there was evidence to suggest that a need to construct a more business-like model for university structure and operations had entered the collective conscience of Virginia Tech's leadership. I document the rhetoric and actions that I believe influenced university administrators in their decision to restructure. I also draw attention to administrators' use of language that I believe exemplified the commodification of the university's human and intellectual capital. Theoretically, I believe that the constructs from resource dependency theory and neoinstitutional theory have relevance to the interpretation of this case. Specifically, the construction of legitimacy-seeking behaviors, the imperative to decrease reliance on external organizations (i.e., the state), and the institutionalization of acceptable management behaviors are aligned closely with the propositions of one or both of these theories. The lack of theoretical distinctiveness between these two organizational perspectives indicated a need for further research and limits the ability to anticipate the potential outcomes for Virginia Tech and the broader field of higher education. Ph. D.

National calls for improving the prospects of STEM workforce development and broadening participation in STEM place the focus of change within the education system. Despite many efforts towards integrating STEM, and specifically engineering, into pre-college settings, mechanisms for change in schools towards these goals remain underdeveloped. While collaborative solutions involving multiple organizations across sectors towards addressing this complex problem appear promising, more work is needed to develop a critical understanding of the processes involved when such different organizations come together to collaborate towards a social goal. Based in an effort to bring more theoretical literature into the discourse around school-university-industry partnership, the purpose of this research is to contribute to a better understanding of how K-12 STEM interorganizational relationships develop in their initial stages by focusing on the collaborative processes and structures and to develop implications for future success of such collaborations. To accomplish this, I used a multiple case study design to investigate the collaborative processes that emerged in the first year of the partnership within VT PEERS (Virginia Tech Partnering with Educators and Engineers in Rural Schools). I centered my analysis on select adult stakeholders in the collaborative problem who were also programmatic participants including teachers, administrators, industry partners, and university affiliates. Using pre-year and post-year semi-structured interviews with these stakeholders, I characterized the collaborative processes in the first year of the program. Interpretation of results comparing across cases indicated considerations for education and organizational theory literature as well as implications for collaborative practice. Findings confirmed the emergent and negotiated nature of interorganizational collaboration and highlighted the importance of managing communication and reflection in partnership. Organizational culture may impact capacity building when organizations come together towards a complex social goal, particularly when industry is involved, and autonomy and operational issues within the school system and teaching can make collaborating with schools particularly challenging. When organizations come together towards a social goal centered around one of the collaborative partners, equality in exchange may not be a good measure of success. With the caveat that communication needs to be well managed to build credibility among partners, an unequal but equitable exchange of resources may be appropriate in collaborations towards a social goal. While it is tempting to continue to measure quality in interorganizational collaborations narrowly by the outcomes produced, a macro-level look at the collaborative processes involved enables collaborative stakeholders to be intentional about designing for future success. Doctor of Philosophy National calls for a higher number and greater diversity of STEM professionals place the burden of change on school systems. Despite some successful efforts, there still remains significant challenges to making change in schools. Partnerships between private companies, universities, and school systems appear promising, but current work is limited in its conclusions. There is a need to reflect more critically on the process of how organizations build relationships in addressing social goals if we are to gain a better understanding of how to make these partnerships successful. To address this, I conducted pre-year and post-year interviews with teachers, administrators, industry partners, and university affiliates during the first year of VT PEERS (Virginia Tech Partnering with Educators and Engineers in Rural Schools). Because the project took place in three different rural school counties, I looked for similarities and differences across the collaborations in each county to build a broader understanding and develop implications for other partnerships. Findings from this study led to several important takeaways about collaborating across organizations towards goals in K-12 STEM. First, collaboration is a process and initial plans will change and develop over time. Reflecting on this and keeping open communication through changes potentially equips collaborators to better weather the ups and downs of partnership. Second, the nature and flexibility of an organization’s work environment impacts how much tension they feel between getting their everyday work done and contributing to the collaboration. Third, unequal costs and benefits may be acceptable in a collaboration as long as collaborators are in agreement on the balance. Again, communication is important to build trust and understanding among partners for a healthy balance to be achieved. Overall, taking a birds-eye view of collaborative processes allows collaborators to be more intentional about designing for future success.