University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 1-1-1975 Organizational development in non-traditional higher education : two models: institutional and community-based programs. Michael F. Beaudoin University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1 Recommended Citation Beaudoin, Michael F., "Organizational development in non-traditional higher education : two models: institutional and community-based programs." (1975). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 2928. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/2928 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN NON -TRADITIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION TWO MODELS: INSTITUTIONAL AND COMMUNITY-BASED PROGRAMS A Dissertation Presented by MICHAEL P. BEAUDOIN Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION June 1975 Educational Policy Studies (c) Michael F. Beaudoin 1975 All Rights Reserved 11 ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN NON-TRADITIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION TWO MODELS: INSTITUTIONAL AND COMMUNITY-BASED PROGRAMS A Dissertation By MICHAEL F. BEAUDOIN Approved as to style and content by: lid* William Kornegay, Chairman of ‘Committee Hruska, Member June 1975 m ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank Dr. William Kornega.y, Dr. Jack Hruska, Dr. Tony Butterfield, and Dr. Richard Ulin of the Univer- sity of Massachusetts for their help and guidance during the preparation of this study. I want also to thank Bee Beaudoin who has always helped and guided. Appreciation is expressed to the Community College of Vermont for its cooperation and to those individuals who consented to interviews connected with this study. For Charlie Russell, who always knew how to make orga- nizations work for people. Organizational Development in Non-Tradit ional Higher Education Two Models: Institutional and Community-Based Programs (June 1975) Michael F. Beaudoin, B.S. University of Maine M.A., The American University Chairperson: Dr. William Kornegay This study describes and analyzes the social, political, and organizational dynamics involved in the creation and development of selected post-secondary education programs identified as non-tradit ional These programs are categorized by two basic models: the institutional based (i.e., the innovation as a sub- system of a larger, parent institution) and the community- based (i.e., the innovation which is oriented to a community or constituency rather than closely affiliated with any ex- isting institution). Initially, an overview of the more prevalent institu- tional model is presented through a brief description of the development of the University Without Walls (UWW) with emphasis given to the implications of its affiliation with the University of Massachusetts. UWW's tenuous organiza- tional history is seen as characteristic of most new pro- grams conceived and nurtured in a larger institutional con- text. Through an in-depth case study, the Community College of Vermont (CCV) is seen, in contrast, as an example of a viable educational innovation spawned outside of any ex- isting institution. The complex interplay of personalities and events critical to the program's development are explicated through an open-ended quest ionnaire administered personally to nine- teen selected individuals who have been, or continue to be, Community l<;ey figures in the creation and development of the College of Vermont. The study also examines the organiza- tional strategies and individual styles utilized to arrive v at intended goals, and suggests approaches for use in fu- ture efforts lor the benefit of those who are engaged in the planning and implementation of similar programs. The general conclusions of the study are summarized as follows: 1. The cases analyzed reinforce the literature which suggests that the achievement of significant educational innovation is more likely to take place on the periphery of higher education (i.e., in community or non-institut ional settings) rather than in colleges and universities themselves. While the University Without Walls was ultimately constrained by the institution of which it was a part, the Community College of Vermont was able to establish for itself a unique role distinct from the prevailing system of higher educa- tion surrounding it. 2. This study has also emphasized that the acceptance of innovation is an inherently political process. In the case of CCV, its success can be attributed to the following factors: Its conceivers possessed both conceptual clarity as well as competency to implement their ideas; they main- tained contact with the political environment; they de- veloped effective systems for acquiring and utilizing data; CCV demonstrated at least as much accountability as did more traditional institutions; and it was both eclectic and selective in its development. 3. No one element emerges as entirely sufficient by itself to ensure implementation of a viable educational reform; an entire network of related factors must be pre- sent in sufficient number to ensure some likelihood of success. In particular, appropriate organizational mecha- nisms must accompany individual activist attitudes if real change is to occur. 4. Innovation, like growth, can become its own object, without form, direction, or plan; and an organization s vague goals can assume a causality of their own. The usual result of this process, once intensified, is that vi the innovation begins, at times unconsciously, to assume the same character as that of the larger system from which it seeks to distinguish itself. 5. Colleges and universities, as well as other edu- cational institutions , must reduce the discrepency be- tween what they say they are doing and what they actually are doing. Educational institutions that aspire to safe and effortless change to avoid potential conflicts do not distinguish themselves as instruments of reform. 6. A choice exists for those who wish to effect change temporary educational experimentation from within existing institutions or deliberate movement toward more permanent changes along the borders of our institutions where there may be higher gains and there always are higher risks. TABLE OF CONTENTS ChaDter I. INTRODUCTION Purpose of Study 2 Methodology ^ Limitations c, Organization of Study 0 II. A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 8 Reform in Higher Education 9 Organizational Behavior and Change 14 Planning for Social and Educational Reform . 18 Diffusion and Application of Innovation ... 29 Questions to be Considered 27 III. EDUCATIONAL INNOVATION: SOCIAL AND ORGANIZA- TIONAL PERSPECTIVES 29 The Sociology of Innovation 29 Education and Social Change 99 The Sociology of Organizations 42 Leadership 46 IV. NON-TRADITIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION: TWO MODELS 90 An Overview of the Institutional Model: The University Without Walls 99 Some Implications of an Institutional Model 67 A Case Study of the Community-Based Model: The Community College of Vermont 74 The Social Setting 76 The Community College Concept 77 From Idea to Implementation 80 Planning for Change 89 Organizational Development 90 The Politics of Innovation 96 Rhetoric and Reality 109 1 Innovation: Real or Imagined .' 108 Implications for the Future 119 The Impact of Innovation 129 Some Thoughts on the Community-Based ‘ * 127 Model * viii V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... Summary of Study 1^2 Conclusions 1*,*. Recommendations for Further Study 1^8 APPENDIX I Interview Procedures and Questions . 140 APPENDIX II List of Persons Interviewed 142 BIBLIOGRAPHY 144 ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION During the past dozen years, the response of higher education to the challenge for reform and rele- vance has accelerated to an almost desperate pace. In particular, we have seen the emergence of a more varied student population requiring a more creative and effec- tive utilization of diminishing resources. The result has been a continuing proliferation of innovative edu- cation programs in competition with more traditional academic enterprises. The idealism reflected in calls and promises for greater institutional commitment to educational change demands more than good intentions; also needed is imag- ination and insight into the actual means by which pur- poseful change takes place. Unfortunately, this gap be- tween intention and implementation has not yet been ef- fectively bridged. As a consequence, ambitious goals are hampered by a lack of knowledge of the social, eco- nomic, and political dynamics involved as well as an absence of skills adequate to the tasks at hand. There is a noticeable penchant to proceed ahis- torically with so-called innovative programs, to attempt to succeed where others have failed without examining factors related to that failure. There is also a reluc- tance to chronicle progress (or lack of it) in any sys- tematic way. As a result, we find few, if indeed any, reliable models for translating innovative ideas into sound practice. And, in many instances, it is not dif- ficult to discern a marked discrepency between what people say they are doing or intend to do and what they actually are doing or ultimately end up doing. 2 In short, the rhetoric