The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of Education WILSON’S MANTRA: SENSEMAKING, LOOSE COUPLING, AND THE INTRAMURAL ECONOMIC ENGAGEMENT INTERFACE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS A Dissertation in Higher Education by James Kenneth Woodell © James Kenneth Woodell Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 2014 ! ii The dissertation of James Kenneth Woodell was reviewed and approved* by the following: John J. Cheslock Associate Professor, Higher Education Program Dissertation Adviser, Chair of Committee Robert Hendrickson Professor, Higher Education Program Craig Weidemann Vice President for Outreach and Vice Provost for Online Education Göktuğ Morçöl Professor of Public Administration Dorothy Evensen Professor, Higher Education Program Program Coordinator, Higher Education Program *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School. ! iii Abstract Public research universities face increasing pressure from policy makers and the public to demonstrate economic relevance. As a response to this pressure, universities are adopting an “economically engaged” orientation, taking up and renewing commitments to technology-based economic development, workforce expansion, and cultivation of place through social, cultural, and community development. Research on university-engaged economic development has generally focused on external aspects of engagement, leaving internal organizational changes largely unexamined. When such research has been internally focused, it has been concerned with specific organizational units or functions within the research mission of the university, such as technology transfer operations or interdisciplinary research centers. In practice, engagement bridges internal and external aspects of the university. University economic engagement must employ aspects of the institution’s teaching and service missions as well as that of research, and it must include efforts across university units, departments, and functions. The lack of research on university adaptation to economic engagement from both an internal and institution-wide perspective has limited our understanding of this continually evolving aspect of university mission. Understanding internal and institution-wide dynamics around economic engagement will help university leaders and other practitioners, as well as researchers and policy makers, to shape more effective models of university-engaged economic development. Examining how a public research university adapts to a mission orientation of economic engagement provides the opportunity to see what kinds of organizational dynamics are at play. This study closely examined three universities within a public ! iv university system—the University of Massachusetts’s flagship institution in Amherst, its Medical School in Worcester, and its Lowell campus. Twenty-nine participants from these three institutions, the system president’s office, and the state government were interviewed. Using a conceptual framework adapted from the literature on universities and regional development, these interviews were explored through a new concept called the Intramural Economic Engagement Interface (Intramural EEI). This idea encompasses organizational/structural and functional dynamics that play in the university’s move toward an economically engaged orientation. Using an inductive and descriptive research design, the analysis of interview data led to development of case studies for each of the three UMass institutions. In a cross-case analysis, organizational theoretical concepts of sensemaking and loose coupling were applied, through which the characteristics of the Intramural EEI at these UMass institutions were interpreted. The research design and data analysis led to a detailed picture of the interrelationships between rhetoric, structure, and activities—and between the teaching, research, and service missions—and how these interrelationships facilitate adaptation to university-engaged economic development efforts. The Intramural EEI comprises three domains that were the focus of the study— rhetoric, structure, and activities—and the study yielded key findings in each of these domains. One key finding was that university rhetoric enacts institutional identity interpretation. University actors engaging in identity interpretation focus particularly on reconciliation of institutional identity with institutional image. UMass system President Jack Wilson presented an image to external stakeholders as well as the university community through his mantra: “The path to social and economic development in the ! v state of Massachusetts runs through the University of Massachusetts.” Participants at each campus sought to resolve this image with the individual identity of their institution. With regard to organization and structure, a key finding was that collaborative models were increasingly important, and coordinating mechanisms were more important than positions, titles, or departments for facilitating such collaborative models. With regard to the activities undertaken by institutions in support of economic engagement goals, an important finding was that there were differential emphases on inputs, processes, and outcomes among campuses when participants described their economic engagement efforts. This finding provides an opportunity to examine how different campuses and campus identities relate to views on economic engagement activities. Based on the findings of this dissertation study, propositions for further research and institutional policies and practices related to economic engagement are offered. Recommendations for further research focus not only on deeper examination of the rhetoric, structure, and activities that comprise the Intramural EEI, but also a closer look at the kinds of connections and linkages that are necessary to establish and maintain the interface. Ideas presented related to institutional policy and practice emphasize a campus- level focus on developing definitions and narratives related to economic engagement, and a focus on establishing coordinating mechanisms rather than centralization mechanisms. The propositions and recommendations can support ongoing research as well as policy development in university-engaged economic development. ! vi Table of Contents List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ix! List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... x! Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................. xi! Chapter 1 ............................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................... 6 Research Questions ................................................................................................. 7! Significance of the Study ........................................................................................ 8! Methods, Cases, and Data ....................................................................................... 9! Organization of this Dissertation .......................................................................... 10! Chapter Summary ................................................................................................. 11 Chapter 2 ........................................................................................................................... 13 Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................... 13! Literature Review .................................................................................................. 18! Part 1: The New Economy and Economic Engagement Contexts ........................ 21 Part 2: Responses .................................................................................................. 38! Part 3: Sensemaking, Loose Coupling, and the Economic Engagement Interface 43! Chapter 3 ........................................................................................................................... 52! Methodology and Methods ................................................................................... 52! A Qualitative Orientation ...................................................................................... 53! Case Study Method ............................................................................................... 55! Case and Participant Selection .............................................................................. 56! Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 67! Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 70! Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................... 72! Limitations ............................................................................................................ 73! Chapter Summary ................................................................................................