2.5 Analysing institutional commitment to the TM
2.5.2 Modified analytical framework
institutional commitment to service to facilitate institutional planning, decision-making and evaluation (Compact, 2003). The challenge associated with the potential use of the matrix as an analytical tool, then, is its weak conceptual support, and, how to adapt it to the purpose and focus of this study. Although the matrix is a recognised instrument (see Anderson & Callahan, 2005; Burack & Saltmarsh, 2006; Furco & Miller, 2009;
Mohrman, 2010; Weerts, 2005) for assessing institutional commitment, it has not been widely utilised; hence, some of its potential practical and conceptual limitations have not been widely explored.
In addition, since most HEIs would exhibit, to varying degrees, traits of all four levels of commitment (Holland, 1997), establishing the actual level of commitment is not just difficult; it is virtually impossible. However, since the purpose of this study relates, to a greater extent, to the issue addressed by the matrix,29 the matrix, with minor adjustments, is an appropriate tool with which to carry out a detailed and descriptive analysis of the key policies, structures, practices and programmes of MUK to ascertain the match between its goals and priorities regarding the TM and the existing realities. After all, the intention of the matrix, as Holland (1997) points out, is not to judge the correctness or goodness of the efforts of a university but rather to serve as a framework for assessing the current location of that institution on the matrix to create coherent institutional planning and decision- making.
Thus, the decision to use the matrix was based on the comprehensiveness of the tool (Furco & Miller, 2009)30 and, as such, the fact that it would enable the researcher to examine the commitment of the university to the TM in a detailed and descriptive way, ascertain the existing challenges to the TM and offer suggestions towards deeper institutionalisation of the TM. After all, the importance of the organisational aspects that constitute the matrix has been confirmed by other studies (e.g., Beere et al., 2011; Carot et al., 2012; Charles, Conway, & Benneworth, 2009; Mohrman, 2010; Vidal et al., 2002; Weerts, 2005). Thus, although the matrix focuses on one aspect of the TM—service learning—and lacks a deep theoretical foundation, the relevance of its constituent elements to the institutionalisation of the TM has been verified.
by other studies (e.g., Beere et al., 2011; Brukardt et al., 2006a; Brukardt, Holland, Percy, &
Zimpher, 2006; Mohrman, 2010; Wergin, 2006) is organisational leadership and support, especially budgetary commitment (Fox et al., 2011). Brukardt et al. (2006a), for example, note that the institutionalisation of the TM requires the support of the top leaders, such as the university president, chancellor and academic leadership team, including faculty deans and heads of departments. Although supportive leadership alone is insufficient, it plays a critical role in the institutionalisation of the TM because “administrative leaders are the voice for the campus and can use their positions to rally support, connect to the community and identify engagement as an institutional priority” (Brukardt et al., 2006a, p. 18). The existence of supportive institutional leadership, then, can serve as a signalling mechanism to the internal and external communities that the university is committed to community issues and to promoting the TM (Weerts, 2005).
However, since organisational policies are believed to come into existence not because of the strong initiative of individual leaders alone but due to a confluence of various factors at the right moment (Fox et al., 2011), the presence of strong and committed leaders alone cannot guarantee the support of an issue. In addition, reliance on the personalities of institutional leaders could be harmful; it might foster dependence, limit the involvement of staff and students and curtail the sustainability of the TM when such leaders leave or are no longer in charge. In fact, in most cases, university-wide initiatives fail because leaders assume that everyone has the same understanding of, and commitment to, what should be (Wergin, 2006).
The above discussion shows that institutional commitment to the TM can be inferred from the policy, structural and cultural characteristics of an institution, namely: mission;
hire and promotion policy and practices; organisational structure; faculty involvement and commitment; student involvement; community involvement; campus publications and communications; and leadership and support. These organisational factors correlate, in some way, with the five pathways for organisational transformation by means of entrepreneurial action: a strengthened steering core, an expanded developmental periphery, a diversified funding base, a stimulated academic heartland and an integrated academic culture (Clark, 1998a). Thus, to analyse the institutional commitment of MUK to the TM, the researcher will focus on eight organisational factors (see Table 5).
Table 5. Framework for Analysing Institutional Commitment to the TM Organisational
factor Level 1: Low
relevance Level 2:
Medium relevance
Level 3: High
relevance Level 4: Full
integration Literature
Mission No mention
or rhetorical reference to outreach and engagement in the mission
Outreach and engagement is part of what we do as educated citizens
Outreach and engagement is an element of the academic agenda of the institution
Outreach and engagement are central and defining characteristics
Beere et al.
(2011);
Brukardt et al.
(2006b)
Hire and promotion policy and practices
Service to campus committees or to discipline
Community outreach and engagement mentioned and included among the criteria
Formal guidelines for defining, documenting and rewarding outreach and engagement
Community outreach and engagement are key criteria for hire and promotion
Cloete et al.
(2011);
Hollander (2002);
Preece et al.
(2012b) Organisational
structure No units focus on outreach or engagement
Units may exist to foster community service and/or engagement
Various separate centres and institutes are organised to advance outreach and engagement
Infrastructure (with base funding) exists to support widespread involvement of staff and students
Clark (1998a);
Hölttä &
Pulliainen (1996)
Faculty involvement and commitment
Service defined only as campus duties; little interdisciplinary work; no training or development opportunities for staff
Pro bono consulting and community volunteerism acknowledged
Senior academics pursue community-based research and/or teaching
Community- based research and teaching intentionally integrated across disciplines;
Interdisciplinary &
collaborative work supported
Beere et al.
(2011);
Brukardt et al.
(2006a);
Charles et al.
(2009);
Clark (1998a)
Student
involvement Outreach and engagement are part of students’
extracurricular activities
Limited opportunities and organised institutional support for volunteerism and community-based learning
Opportunities for internships and other community- based learning activities exist
Community- based learning integrated into curriculum; linked to learning goals
Gelmon et al.
(2005);
O’Meara &
Jaeger (2006)
Community
involvement Occasional, symbolic or limited individual or group involvement
Community representation on advisory boards for departments or schools;
limited external representation
Community influences campus through active partnerships and participation in teaching and research
Communities involved in defining, conducting and evaluating teaching and research;
sustained partnerships
Charles et al.
(2009);
Hollander (2002);
Ivanov (2008)
Campus publications and communication
Community engagement not emphasised
Stories of staff and students’
volunteerism and contributions to society emphasised
Emphasis on economic impact of institution;
public role of the centres, institutes, advocacy, public policy
Community connection as key to mission
Ivanov (2008);
Mankin (2000)
Leadership and
support TM not mentioned as a priority;
general rhetorical references to the TM; no resources devoted to the TM
Interest in and support for specific, short- term community projects exist; TM funded primarily from external sources
University supports a number of major TM activities;
engagement discussed as a part of research and learning
Broad leadership commitment to sustained engagement;
ongoing funding support and community input;
financial support and incentives for staff
Beere et al.
(2011);
Charles et al.
(2009);
Brukardt et al.
(2006a);
Clark (1998a);
Lynton (1995);
Mohrman (2010)
Source: Author (based on Holland, 1997; Mohrman, 2010).
Conceptually, as Table 6 shows, the above-mentioned organisational factors can be categorised into three groups—regulative, normative and cognitive institutions (Scott, 1995). Regulative, as used here, denotes the procedures and regulations that guide organisational and individual behaviour (Colbeck, 2002) at the university. These include the faculty hire and promotion policy and practices, organisational structure and campus publications and communications. The normative pillar denotes values and norms that provide a social framework for appropriate action (Colbeck, 2002). In this case, the aspects of the normative pillar are the mission, leadership and support and faculty hire and promotion policy and practices. The cognitive pillar denotes the beliefs, understandings and actions of the academic staff, students and external communities. The cognitive indicators of institutional commitment to the TM are the following: faculty involvement and commitment, student involvement and community involvement. However, these categories are not mutually exclusive; some of the organisational factors—for example, faculty hire and promotion policy and practices—can fall into more than one category.
Table 6. Categories of the Indicators of Institutional Commitment to the TM
Regulative Normative Cognitive
Bases of compliance Expedience social obligation
Values Taken for granted
Enforcement
mechanisms Rules and sanctions Norms
Values Cultural support
Prevalence Indicators Faculty hire and
promotion policy and practices
Organisational structure Campus publications and communications
Mission
Leadership and support Faculty hire and promotion policy and practices
Faculty involvement Student involvement Community involvement
Source: Author (based on Colbeck, 2002; Scott, 1995).
3 Research Methodology and Design
This chapter describes and discusses the research methodology, the methods used to generate and analyse data and the trustworthiness of the study.