The Eighties are Over

Recently I went to see the movie version of Rock of Ages. Basically it was about Rock at the end of the 1980’s and the music was great.  Sadly, my date thought it was a little hard on boy bands but we will leave it at that (I could have been more sympathetic). I started thinking that the eighties were a great time in higher education—at least for me.  I had my first teaching job and started work on my doctorate.  I also began to wonder what happened. After giving the matter some though I came to a conclusion--The world changed and higher education began to change as well.

Starting in the mid-1970s we began to see the unmistakable growth of a global information economy. The huge round of deindustrialization, downsizing and so forth that we saw in the 1980s and 1990s were an early result of this trend. A lot of the changes in higher education were attempts to address these developments.

Unfortunately, not everyone seems to see this as being different. I like the analogy that our environmental science friends have with boiling a frog.  If you drop the frog into hot water it will jump out. If you drop the frog into cold water and slowly increase the heat, it will boil to death.  Sadly, a lot of faculty and administrators are in the position of the second frog.  So as a service to the academic community I thought I’d offer a brief tour of the present.  Sing along if you know the words.   

Are you ready to Rock?

Paradise City:  Colleges in the 1980s were almost exclusively traditional bricks and mortar arrangements and the total numbers of students was smaller than it is today.  Pressures for research and publication at smaller and midsize institutions were modest. Students enjoyed a large range of financial aid options that easily covered the relatively low cost of higher education.  Jobs for college graduates were relatively easy to get, in spite of the recessions that periodically hit the job market.  This was especially true for PhDs who found multiple offers for their services. 

Rock You Like A Hurricane:  Things changed. The demand for students increased due to the smaller demographic following the baby boom and other factors, such as the increasing size of administrative staffs.  Even smaller Universities began to see that teaching would not pay for operating costs and pressure for funded research increased. Universities also began to grow more concerned over prestige and rankings. To be fair, some universities were always like this.  In the last two decades however, it became more and more mainstream.

In the last two decades, Higher Education changed a great deal.  Class sizes increased, pressure for research grew and the demands of the faculty role became more substantial.  More and more teaching is done by adjuncts and TAs. The huge growth of administrative staff is dramatic and costly.  The cost of higher education increased dramatically leading to an explosion of student debt. Many new graduates are having a hard time finding jobs.  The economics of higher education will likely drive many institutions into oblivion.  The job I had in 1980 is nothing like the job I have today.  These forces have sparked a number of developments:

Any Way You Want It:   Most universities have moved from only on our campus day offerings to a range of possibilities.  Things like night classes, classes at more convenient locations, classes on Saturday and so forth were well established by the 1980s.  The growth of technology and distance education has accelerated this process. One exciting development, the spread of free courses online promises to change everything.

A lot of people balk at technology, even in the face of overwhelming evidence from the research community.  The truth is that the alternatives are huge classrooms (200-500 students), lot of adjuncts or burning out your faculty. None of those are good choices. Courses that are too small don’t make money.  If you run too many of these courses, you go out of business.

The other side of this is the global search for students.  Many universities have established programs in China, Korea and India. Other universities have created programs to bring international students into the fold.  They are a huge part of the emerging market and you ignore them at your peril. 

I Want To Know What Love Is:  The growth of metrics and activity based budgeting systems is taking a lot of the occasionally capricious choice out of the system.  We now have numbers that are difficult to finesse.  While some of the metrics are not that helpful, others provide needed clarity.  Years ago everything was a judgment call, now that’s changing. 

Students and families are beginning to use metrics to separate spin from substance. They have access to a variety of freely available metrics. It is kind of difficult to mislead an informed consumer.  If you say your program is world famous it had better have the rankings to back that up.

Some of the things that once worked for building fame and glory have fallen on the altar of metrics. Things like prestigious visitors, fancy parties and the like count for nothing in the new world.  Having a nice brochure is useless when a student can look at your placement rate or what your faculty really produces and draw their own conclusions. Transparency might be hard but it is really the way of the world. 

Waiting for A Girl Like You: Because of metrics, especially in the fields that use reputation rankings, schools try to recruit people with substantial reputations, publications and networks.  This is like incorporating a famous actor in your B-Movie.  People will come to see them.  Someone who is good at what they do can revitalize a department and lift it to new heights.  Sadly, that doesn’t always happen.  Sometimes you are there as window dressing for a mediocre program with unproductive faculty.  No one likes that. One of the things that I have learned is that you better be willing to respect what these colleagues bring because if you’re not, they leave and that reputation turns against you.

I’m Gonna Harden My Heart:   Getting a tenure track faculty job is getting more difficult every day and some places are trying to abolish tenure completely.  When I got my PhD, most doctoral students did not publish.  Now it is pretty much a prerequisite to getting a tenure track job at even mediocre universities.  While some schools are still hiring people for their teaching ability, more are looking for researchers.  Many of the former schools are unlikely to survive the next decade.  The quality of your research training, who your references are, publications and what your research plans are for the future can make the difference between a good job and an adjunct role at multiple institutions.

In spite of what people think, this has always been a hard job and it’s a whole lot more than teaching a few classes. After more than 3o years in this role, I push every day to keep up.

We're Not Gonna Take It:  Civility has taken a major turn for the worse in higher education.  Competition over resources always leads to conflict but I really think this is different.  In many cases, people see their positions eroded by changes in higher education and its environment. Even if your job isn’t in jeopardy, your self-concept might be. 

Frustration often leads to bad behavior and occasionally to mental illness.   The fact that the university wants you to produce more does not mean that the people who are already producing are out to get you.  It means that the university wants you to produce more.

When people say their having differences about the “Soul of the University” they are usually are arguing about resources.  It might be better if we dropped the pretense and just fought over that.   The truth is that universities make money on some things and not on others.  That doesn’t make those other things unimportant. There needs to be a balance. Most universities will support productive programs even if their enrollments are modest. What they won't support are programs that do nothing well.

Some departments degenerate into an almost cult-like state with incredible delusional systems that one almost has to see to believe.  Any questioning of the central set of beliefs is met with immediate and very hostile reactions.

Since managing higher education is much harder than it used to be, many talented leaders decide to go elsewhere or avoid management all together.  There are some very good leaders in higher education and some who try very hard to be so.  On balance, there are people who fulfill the old saying that those who have to have power are the ones that shouldn’t have it.  They can be a disaster.

Don't Stop Believin:  The big news is this is not the eighties.  That time has passed. Higher education is a whole different place. Sadly, some people don’t see it that way and for them, life is frustrating. You can make things happen in your mind, but that doesn’t make them real.  Many ideas that seemed to work in the 1980s are not going to work today, even if you wish really hard.

Higher education is changing but many of the changes have yet to come. Like most organizations, successful universities will become flatter, tech savy, more data driven and better able to deal with their various constituencies. State support for higher education will continue to shrink as state finances become tighter.  Universities will have to find less costly ways to deliver instruction. They will also have to find other sources of income. This is a challenge, not a disaster.

I suspect that in 3o years the university system will be far different than it is today. As always, the future will be what we make it. If we do things right, we can be the shining city on a hill.  If not we will be the used car no one wants—or maybe a boy band.

The University of Virginia Situation and the Future of Higher Education

The recent controversy around the President of the University of Virginia has resulted in a good deal of speculation about whether this situation foretells great change in higher education.  The way I understand it, the UVA board clashed with the president, who was subsequently forced out, about the pace of change in the university.  It is actually hard to know what else was involved and it may be that we will never know.  It might be just Virginia state politics or personalities or a range of other things. I suspect that when all is said and done, the impact on the University of Virginia will be minor.

Higher education is an institution that changes less quickly than other parts of society.  Change in colleges and universities comes hard and there is often considerable blood on the floor.  This is an incredibly complex business than many outside the academe fail to understand.  Colleges are not high schools and they are not factories.  We create knowledge and pass it along to those who will change the world.

A little caution is not always a bad idea.  Change does happen.  In the thirty or so years I’ve been a college professor I’ve seen a lot of transformation occur.  Some of that change is good and some of it is not so good.  The pace of change has accelerated in the past few years and this is disconcerting to many.

Students are certainly different and their needs and concerns are different. Not only that, but the future they can expect is certainly not what things were when the diploma was placed in my eager hands.  Huge student loans and the changing nature of the American economy are real stressors. The faculty is also different. A lot more of the teaching is done by adjuncts and more of the employees are professional staff.  Civility in the faculty ranks is in serious decline.  Some of the behavior I’ve seen in the past few years would have been unheard of in the past.  As in much of the rest of the economy, pressure for productivity and new metrics to measure results are increasing.  Then there is the politics of higher education funding and the culture wars.

I have new tools that I wouldn’t have dreamed of in the 1980s that add to my teaching and research.  There are new opportunities to interact with people from many parts of the globe.  There are exciting new things to study.  It is an exciting time in that regard.

The problem is that you are talking about a resilient institution in the hypercompetitive environment that Tom Friedman (2005) described in The World is flat. Colleges and universities, besides being difficult to change, have a number of organizational constraints that make it costly to change. 

In a major university, activities are far more extensive that just teaching.  While that is what the public sees most, it is just the tip of a rather large iceberg.  It is difficult to control the costs of traditional teaching situations and Tuition is probably as expensive as it can reasonably get.  While distance education and technology can help here, it isn’t a perfect solution. While many faculty members are resistant (even in the face of substantial research evidence that it is good as or better than traditional approaches), there are other problems as well. Universities have tremendous sunk costs in terms of classroom and dormitory buildings, an entire range of student affairs facilities, substantial non-instructional staff and so forth.  It would be difficult or impossible to walk away from all that and go to a complete distance education model. At the same time, many of the resources needed for the teaching mission are also needed for the research mission (faculty members, Labs and libraries).  The message is that it can be done but the cost savings may be decades in coming. That is not a good reason for not doing it—only for doing it in an intelligent fashion.

While there is always resistance to change, most people, including those who work for colleges, will eventually see the light.  Good leaders will get the right result.  Poor leaders will not.  Sadly, there are a lot of poor leaders and managers in higher education. From what I hear from my friends in almost any field, we’re not alone.

Badly designed change processes lead to poor morale, turnover and lower productivity. The job market in higher education is challenging, but it is not that challenging for the people that you cannot afford to lose.  This leads to a cycle where valuable employees leave, less valuable employees stay and the enterprise grinds to a halt.

Then there is the matter of reputation.  Universities live for reputations and many of the other functions they have depend on those standings. Those reputations are tied to faculty activity and faculty reputations.  Faculty members with national and international reputations who leave because they are dissatisfied take a chunk of the institution’s reputation with them.  This makes it harder to attract top students, the best faculty members and funding from a variety of sources. There is a tipping point where the university becomes far less desirable.

Turning a boat too quickly results in it turning over.  On balance, not turning it at all can be equally serious.  There are very serious threats to higher education and an intelligent response is needed or we will hit the rocks.  This is not going to be easy and we will not wind up in the same place at the end that we started out in the beginning.

Reference

Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

 

S & P US Credit Downgrade: Implications for Social Policy

As I’m sure you’ve heard Standard and Poor's has downgraded the Nation’s credit rating from AAA to AA+. There are serious financial consequences for this action and the political spin will be interesting as well. It is likely that Congress will have to reconsider a few things, principally raising taxes and entitlement reform.

I suspect what entitlement reform is going to mean is small adjustments in Social Security's OA/Disability Programs and Medicare and a substantial hit for Medicaid. This will probably lead to, among other things, substantial cuts in health, mental health and probably child welfare. That will mean a lot of pain for the helping professions and their clients.

We could use this opportunity to redesign the programs in the Social Security Act. Changes in the labor market and in the composition of the economy, as well as demographic changes, have altered the fit between these programs and the population. One wonders if, given the current political climate if anything positive is possible.

Why Nonprofit advocacy needs an R & D Approach

Building effective advocacy techniques in the nonprofit sector is an important undertaking. Much of what we think we know is based on practice wisdom. Practice wisdom, like most forms of experience, has limitations and can have a very short shelf life. That certainly doesn't mean it isn't valuable--it means that it isn't enough. We need some generalizable strategies that can meet the needs of the sector in the immediate future. This means the following:

1) Techniques and strategies that build on existing knowledge that has been validated and tested;

2) Techniques and strategies that have been rigorously examined using solid research approaches;

3) Techniques and strategies that can be easily implemented in many settings.

Doing any one of these important tasks is a challenge. Taken together, they form a major investment. Fortunately, the technology and management options developed for industrial research and development provides a way to meet these major tasks.

A properly conducted project would develop a prototype, based on a careful consideration of the existing research. This prototype would then be field tested and evaluated. Changes to the basic design would be made and an additional field trial would be conducted. This process will continue until a satisfactory system is created. It would them be carefully packaged and marketed. A nice overview of this process is presented in an older book by Rothman (1980) that could easily be applied today.

This would require a commitment of time, money and political will. It could yield world changing results. We are already spending a significant sum of money on nonprofit advocacy. Wouldn't it be great if we could make it more effective?

Reference

Rothman, J. (1980). Social R & D: Research and development in the human services. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Does Real Change Only Happen Off Line?

I chaired a session on this at the 2009 ARNOVA Conference in Cleveland. There was a lot of excellent discussion and spirited debate.

During the 2008 Presidential Election, much was made of the community organization experience of then candidate Barack Obama. This combined with interest about the Obama Campaign's use of on-line organizing and interest by younger voters in working for causes. The reaction of the traditional community organization sector wasn't completely positive however. For example (far from the only one), Sally Cohen of the Center for Community Change wrote an opinion article in the Christian Science Monitor arguing that if young people want to make real change they will have to do it in face to face communities. She provide a set of examples from US History and concludes that on-line efforts are individualistic efforts. Her concerns have been echoed by others in the traditional social change community.

In the first place I think this is an unfair characterization of how on-line techniques work. There is definitely a social dimension to current network technologies--people work together using technology to solve problems. That is certainly different from the activism of earlier days but it doesn't mean that it is less effective.

If everything we did in the 1960s and 1970s had work, wouldn't we be living in a very different society? I do not mean to disparage the efforts of those who use traditional social change techniques (and I'm often one of them) nor to suggest that these methods are ineffective. In point of fact, however, there really isn't a boatload of credible scientific evidence that supports much of what traditional social change practitioners do. That doesn't mean that it doesn't work--only that we don't know. At the same time, there is a beginning body of evidence that on-line techniques can be effective.

To be honest, I wonder how many traditional techniques have survived beyond the point where their underlying assumptions about society are valid. Some of the ideas that might have been relevant in the 20's and 30's or even the 60's and 70's are now facing a society and an economy that is almost completely different. Even in the 35 years I've been in the field things have changed radically.

At the end of the day, I suspect that we might need a mix for many situations, on-line efforts for others and face to face for still others. We need better knowledge about which things work and where. This is too important to rely only on assumptions.

Does Nonprofit Advocacy Work? Part II

In my last post, I suggested that we needed to move forward the research agenda on the effectiveness of nonprofit advocacy. We need to generate objective evidence that the techniques work (or they don't) and information on how they work and whether the connection between technique and outcome is situation dependent (eg: It only works here).

What we're talking about is causality--the connection between potential causes and effects. In general, causality depends on three things. First that the cause comes before the effect. Second, that they [the cause and effect] are somehow related. Third, that other, alternative factors are not available to explain the causal relationship.

The methodologies that are generally considered the strongest at establishing causal relationships are experiments. They are often very difficult to do in advocacy situations. They also have some other limitations. This means that other types of methodology will continue to be needed, especially to help us understand context and how the causal process works.

Until recently, very few experiments were conducted on political issues, but that is clearly changing. I really like what Alan Gerber and Donald Green at Yale have done in their work (along with many colleagues)on GOTV methods. This an important harbinger of where we need to go in terms of methodology.

In addition to methodology, there needs to be a partnership between the research community and the practice community. Having been on both sides, I can say that each group brings something of potential importance. Practitioners bring an intimate understanding of the context, the tools and the situation. It is difficult for researchers, particularly academic researchers, to match that understanding. That understanding is critical if research is going to be useful.

Researchers (academic and otherwise) have a different skill set and a different worldview. The understand their research tools and are acutely aware of their strengths and limitations. They have (hopefully) better research skills. They also have something else that is important--detachment. One thing that I have learned from both my own practice experience and reading the research literature--If you don't believe in what you are doing you are not going to do it well. This makes you an effective practitioner but it also means that you tend to be less than objective.

I am not arguing that practitioners can't do excellent research or that all researchers don't understand practice. I am saying that there is a reason for collaboration and that better work can result. Some of the work that Deborah Elizabeth Finn has been doing with her resource matching group is very valuable in making this type of collaboration work.

A better knowledge base will benefit everybody. It will make both research and practice better and more effective. It may make it more likely that advocacy will be funded. It's worth the effort and thought involved.

Does Nonprofit Advocacy Work?

Reading about Citizen's United v. FEC and the possible implications for nonprofit advocacy, it occurred to me that not all the right questions are being asked by researchers when it comes to nonprofit advocacy. We are faced with an excellent opportunity to move the field forward.

We spend a lot of time figuring out if tax laws, organizational cultures, governmental contracting and other factors suppress nonprofit advocacy. We also look at the techniques they use, how much time is spent on doing advocacy and whether advocates think their work is useful. The field of nonprofit studies has developed a reasonable research base on many of those questions.

All of that research appears to presuppose that we have evidence that advocacy is effective. If advocacy doesn't work then it doesn't matter if anyone does it. I am not arguing that nonprofit advocacy is ineffective. My point is that the evidence attesting to it's effectiveness is pretty light. This is more a comment about the state of the research rather than the state of the field.

There is no shortage of opinions on whether advocacy works and what varieties of advocacy techniques are effective. Some of these arguments are backed by experience and some are not. Experience has limitations when discussing practice. Quite a bit appears to be based on self interest. Few are based on research.

To be sure, there is some research on nonprofit advocacy effectiveness. A good deal of it is survey based and lacks the ability to make firm causal statements. Don't get me wrong, this is useful research and can help us answer the needed questions. The problem is that it doesn't go far enough--the field needs to take the next step toward different types of methodology.

I suspect that at least some advocacy efforts are very effective and some are far less effective. Others might be counterproductive. Better information will let us improve this critical area of nonprofit practice.