THEME ONE
institutional culture

THEME TWO
teaching and learning

THEME THREE
management and enhancement of resource

THEME FOUR
new directions

Endnotes

Findings of the Institutional Culture investigation included many highly specific items, listed here. These points are all supported by focus group data, meeting and interview input, and assessments conducted by units of particular target populations. External consultants also gave us feedback on specific pieces of analysis and situations. None of the statements here represent unanimous points of view; none are opinions held only by a tiny minority, or only by members of the Steering Committee. Particular findings may be substantiated by specific input or documents, indicated as sources. All would be excellent discussion items for further focus groups or continuous self-study. This is not an exhaustive list.

1. High degree of faculty and staff loyalty. Many spend most of professional careers here. Sense of community often comes from local interaction and identity (e.g. within departments). Source: focus groups, high number of long-time workers (personnel statistics), interviews, meetings, Campus Climate survey.
2. Morale improving from 1997/98 low. Source: Campus Climate survey, interviews, meetings, Academic Senate communications and previous faculty surveys.
3. Generally high level of stress, time pressure, over-load. Source: focus groups, Campus Climate survey, interviews, meetings, CFA data.
4. Fragmented student community, low ‘school spirit’, though improvement over 1990. Some students still "feel like a number" sometimes. Source: student focus groups, Student Affairs research, Poly Post article, interviews, meetings.
5. General enthusiasm toward diversity of student body, some programmatic success in supporting it (cultural centers, mentoring programs). Success in recruiting diverse student body. Source: Campus Climate survey, Cultural Centers data, Office of Diversity and Compliance Programs data, FCPD ethnography project, college-based programs, enrollment statistics.
6. Redundancy or parallelism of evaluation and reportage processes for faculty and academic personnel (college, department and support unit reports, RTP, SSI, etc.). Source: RTP documents, FMI applications, Teaching and Scholarship reports, budget requests, JRC reports, focus groups, interviews, CFA, Senate.
7. Faculty believe they must do everything (publish, teach well, raise funds, recruit students, advise, serve on committees, conduct research, acquire technical skills, innovate curriculum, assess learning outcomes, write proposals, perform community outreach, acquire international and multi-cultural capability) in order to succeed. Source: focus groups, Campus Climate survey, interviews.
8. People value their colleagues, on the whole. Source: Campus Climate survey, interviews, focus groups.
9. Lack of clear chain of responsibility and accountability (not blame) for some specific actions and programs (people comment they do not know where to get information or how to get things done). Source: interviews, organizational charts of the 1990s, record of organizational and administrative personnel changes, staff respondents, growth in system-wide bureaucracy and number of external edicts.
10. Faculty consider it important to have ‘a place to go’, (e.g., faculty lounge, house). (President has responded positively.) Source: focus groups, interviews.
11. People enjoy the physical campus. Source: interviews, Capital Planning.

We base our recommendations for this theme on these findings. The documentary basis for the theme is assembled in Annex B and Appendix B. (Many documents in the General Annex and Appendix were also significant in evaluating the issues of continuity and integrity, diversity, leadership, assessment, and some of the other issues connected with institutional culture.) There is an extensive Support Document File for this theme in the Team Room.

As stated in the Preamble, the unifying imperative developed in this theme has to do with the need for community building and validation. The campus climate and diversity issues, the leadership, integrity and continuity issues, the change and growth issues, the new educational culture, the communication and technology issues, all relate to the nature of our community and everyone’s participation in it. Document after document, from the Strategic Planning Guidelines to the student organizations’ mission statements, refer to or attempt to call forth community consciousness, mutual respect, and cooperative action on campus. Community building and validation are the enabling mechanisms for consciousness and action, yet we have not been entirely successful so far in achieving this goal. The keys are in events, programs, and support for orientation, development, training, opportunities, advising, rewards, participation — for everybody as groups and as individuals — students, staff, faculty, administrators. The human potential of the organization is so great that a more concerted attention to preparing, validating, and connecting people can result swiftly in a cohesive, caring community. The Theme One Writers’ Group endorses the civility and continuous self-study recommendations of the self-study, which provide a reasonable foundation for the development of concrete community building and validating measures. We have also underscored the importance of bringing staff support systems into greater visibility and focusing even more sharply on student success.

The Key Questions Boxes are intended to summarize the principal steps in the process of self-study of each theme, the logical and evidentiary basis for proceeding to the next step, and the conclusions and interpretations that resulted, which feed back into the next responsive process of improvement as ideas for action. For thorough coverage, please refer back to the theme chapters. The Theme One Box appears as Figure 35.

The Teaching and Learning theme arrived at a lengthy list of "facts", based on extensive reading of curriculum documents, focus group and meeting/interview input, workshop participation, analysis of the policy and scholarly context, student assessment data from institutional research, and data developed for the Accountability Process by Academic Programs, Institutional Research & Planning and the Chancellor’s Office. The writers conducted a review of the literature on assessment, the learning-centered approach, the new scholarship and pedagogy, and related topics. The major publications of the university, such as the Catalog, Quest, college and division reports, program reviews, and so on, are a rich source of information. Occasional publications, such as those of ITAC and Public Affairs, Global Cal Poly, the Interdisciplinary Studies Journal, and scholarly work of faculty, complete the picture. The main findings include:

1. Broad agreement regarding high caliber of academic programs. Source: focus groups, interviews, meetings, employer and reviewer comments, academic program accreditations and reviews, teaching awards, ratings by periodicals.
2. The university has an impressive "learn-by-doing" philosophy and has made great progress in program-based assessment of clearly, richly defined student learning outcomes and in utilization of information technology in teaching/learning. Source: SOAP data, APR data, curriculum and assessment coordinators, ACE Project reports, ITAC and Faculty Computing Support Center.
3. General education reform model presented to Senate in 2000 embodies the coherence, integration of multiple disciplines in depth and breadth, fundamental skill and knowledge focus, capstone experience, and outcomes assessment needed. Source: EO 595, comparison of GE models (1990 smorgasbord, Track A, Track B, IGE, ISGE, new proposal), GE Committee, consultation.
4. The university, despite principled, energetic efforts, needs to forge consensus and direction on resource control issues of general education and its revision. Excellent problem-solving by Deans, GE Committee, Academic Programs, though many issues remain to be dealt with. Source: Senate, focus groups, Associate Deans, interviews.
5. Need to refine remedial role, promulgate policy, and further improve advising. Great strides already. Refreshing collaboration between Student and Academic Affairs. Source: IRP data, UAC and Advising Initiative, Math and English data, Testing Office, EO 665 assessment, Accountability Process.
6. Slow initial response to calls for greater accountability now improving. Source: focus groups, interviews, history of assessment, reactions to Cornerstones, FCPD.
7. Academic Senate experience with Joint Review, Cabinet, and inclusive committee deliberations shows its interest in and preparation for management of program and other assessment, conjointly with administrative units. Source: JRC history, interviews, APG, record of assessment proposals/referrals, GE Committee.
8. Enthusiastic incorporation of assessment results into program improvement schemes by departments. Source: SOAP workshop projects (e.g., Chemistry, KHP, Foods, Nutrition and Consumer Science), Academic Program Reviews.
9. Comparatively good retention rate. Source: Accountability Process indicators, IRP statistics, EERP charter paper.

Many of the seminal studies and documents on which these findings are based are contained in Annex and Appendix C. Some of the scholarly literature on which we drew, and other supporting materials are available in the Team Room.

The primary recommendation of this part of the study is for the university to enable increased collaboration between different divisions and constituencies and coordination of initiatives, arising directly from the above findings. Opening shared governance to students and staff could be an important mechanism; different management approaches to such efforts as outreach, GE, service-learning, technology, and research projects could also bring about a greater academic cohesiveness in this era of specialization and fragmentation.

The new emphases on new faculty and lecturers are helpful in marshalling support for pan-university academic cooperation. While we have many strong individual programs ("islands of excellence"), our great potential strength is in the inter-disciplinary, cross-divisional, community-based effort to address issues of the whole student. The theoretical templates we have used to measure our performance (Astin, Rendón and other models used in Chapter VI) link educational effectiveness with community issues, as we have done between this Theme and Theme One. See Figure 36 for the Theme Two Key Questions Box.

The Management and Enhancement of Resources Theme had the task of reconstructing the recent budget history of the university, analyzing its sustainability, and identifying the effects of changes in the resource base. Evidence for the capacity of the institution to maintain excellent programs is abundant. Both preceding themes mention, in specific recommendations, areas for continuing or greater investment of resources to maintain high quality or create opportunity. The attainment of these educational goals rests on the ability of the university to procure and allocate funds in a mutable environment without the process itself becoming a problem. Long-term academic and institutional planning was debated as the central preoccupation of the theme. Some major findings:

1. Campus recent history replete with successful funding initiatives. Despite the decentralized nature of fund-raising activities, there has been remarkable improvement in institutional development capability. Source: University Advancement, Foundation, ORSP, International Center, CEU, college development, construction update (Capital Planning).
2. Few complaints lodged for inept performance or poor judgement regarding resource management (except FMI and pay issues). With the exception of equipment replacement, resources have been well managed. Source: budget committees, Administrative Affairs data, AVP for Academic Resources, Planning and Administration.
3. Process of decentralization and reorganization has consumed most of the last decade. Source: organizational charts and history, interviews with President and Cabinet.
4. Budgetary and resource allocation infrastructure has changed often over the last ten years and remains a mystery to many Cal Poly Pomona faculty, staff, students, and administrators. Lack of consensus regarding priorities for allocation. Source: focus groups, meetings and interviews, strategic planning experience.
5. Some faculty and administrators inexperienced with development activities and grant writing. Source: ORSP, International Center, FCPD, University Advancement, CEU.
6. Despite this inexperience, rapid growth of external funding relative to our own past record. Resource development was largely the function of college Development officers and the Division of University Advancement during the past decade. Source: record of acquisitions, Foundation, ORSP, Advancement.
7. Slow success in aligning vision statements, needs, performance, and resources, the management of campus planning and resource allocation processes (not for lack of trying). Source: Technology Consultants report, ACE reports, interviews, profusion of different evaluation and reportage strategies and efforts, strategic plans from university down to departments, budget committees from university down to colleges, JRC.
8. Lack of coherence and campus priorities has spawned internal competition between units. Tremendous demand for additional resources to operate high demand (e.g., technology-related) programs. Source: UTC, JRC reports, college budget and planning committees, ORSP, meetings and interviews.
9. The system and campus rely on short-term decision strategies in determining priorities. Difficulty in fostering visions of the future that have general acceptance rather than crisis management. Need for long-range planning and participatory centralized decision-making. Source: JRC reports, Advantage Communications Technology report, ACE Project report, college, division and university budget committees.
10. Enrollment data management is improving; need opportunities for departments and other units to participate more effectively in enrollment planning. Source: IRP, Enrollment Services reports, accreditation reports, Accountability Process.
11. Some seed money for new initiatives is set aside, but frequently on a serendipitous basis. This should not be only for emergencies and sudden discoveries. Source: UTC, budget committees, Administrative Affairs, interviews.
12. Many internal experts on planning and management, who are gradually being incorporated into university work, but the campus tends to depend on a small cadre of individuals who have participated in these discussions in the past. Source: Strategic Planning process and committees, Master Plan charette, AVP for Asset Development, LandLab and Lyle Center history.

Annex and Appendix D provide the evidentiary basis for much of this analysis; (some documents are also to be found in the Team Room). Meetings with the Deans Action Council, Associate Deans, Divisions of University Advancement, Administrative Affairs and Instructional and Information Technology, University Budget Advisory Committee and Academic Affairs Budget and Planning Advisory Committee, University Technology Committee, Capital Planning, Financial Services, and many, many interviews with individuals from these and other offices formed the bulk of the additional research. Research and Sponsored Programs, Institutional Research and Planning, the Foundation, Academic Resources, Planning and Administration, and Human Resources furnished important data.

The planning and other management agendas of the university take on a larger role in this modern context. We seek a (strategic) academic planning model that conflates assessment, budgeting, and planning while incorporating feedback, into a continuous, unobtrusive cycle of self-study and response. Thus, the continuous self-study recommendation emanates from this theme, though it is a logical product of the others, as well. Leadership in this direction can come from almost anywhere, but the guiding vision has to be shared everywhere. The Theme Three Box on the next page illustrates the relations between the findings and recommendations [Figure 37].

Our issues here revolve around how to make planning more fruitful for the community. Many approaches to planning exist, a large and interesting literature on the subject has been identified, and the university boasts considerable expertise in various types of planning in academic departments and administrative offices. Every failed attempt is a learning opportunity.

The research in Theme Four, New Directions, was embedded in an experiment in assessment. We hypothesized that the university could build from the sometimes antithetical traditions of technical praxis and post-modern theory an approach to re-conceptualizing, managing, and designing for the future our new kinds of programs. The bulk of the chapter is devoted to a survey of such programs and an attempt to assign them to some kind of classifying, defining schema (Centers of Excellence). Our findings include the following:

1. The university is pre-adapted for service learning and community outreach due to its learn-by-doing and applied emphases. Source: Interviews, service-learning workshop with Chancellor’s Office official, Community and Economic Development Committee Report, CEU Annual Report.
2. Excellent human resources at all levels for international relations and activity. Source: International Initiatives Report, interviews.
3. Great general enthusiasm and energy in outreach activity. Source: rapid growth and general excellence of new programs, service-learning and exchange programs trends, Service-Learning Center assessment.
4. Competitive, rather than collaborative, nature of some outreach programs. Source: Interviews, development offices, (see Theme Three).
5. Lack of widely accepted assessment structure for non-traditional and support programs. Industrial advisory boards are good model for best practices. Source: interviews, FCPD, comparison of charters/brochures, program descriptions.
6. Ambiguity of some ‘new’ programs as to educational versus financially-driven nature. Source: interviews, program descriptions, consultations.
7. New direction in a polytechnic setting does not have to prioritize high-tech applications; applied humanities and social sciences focus on human and community issues can co-exist with traditional polytechnic disciplines. Source: Center for Community Affairs experience, Report of ECD Committee, International Center, nature of initiatives (Centers of Excellence).
8. Colleges and schools unevenly equipped for outreach. Source: informal survey of centers, development programs.
9. Compatibility between theoreticians (in this test case, postcolonial and critical theory scholars, environmentalists, human rights activists) and practitioners or business people (applied social sciences, development agents, technical and education managers) is achievable and desirable. Source: International Research Forum, FCPD, GIS workshops, success of inter-disciplinary programs.

As stated in the Preamble, this thematic research probed the future and tested our identity by examining the newer kinds of activities and directions on campus. We have studied a number of them under the umbrella term Centers of Excellence, in the service of assigning a coordinating structure that can give the whole movement character and direction. We believe this work should be continued as a collaborative assessment and decision-making effort, based in the pragmatic, technical experience of the university and inspired and perfused by its cultural studies scholarship. The evidence for these conclusions is presented in Annex and Appendix E, and documents in the Support File in the Team Room. We held a large number of interviews with on- and off-campus experts. A few external specialists responded to our analysis. The Theme Four Key Questions Box is seen in Figure 38.

Our primary recommendation for this theme is a proposed new vision for Cal Poly Pomona elucidated by a very profound, ramifying feature of our polytechnic character - the symbiotic relationship of the technical colleges and the liberal arts and sciences, who grow from and strengthen each other. Our research shows that this vision exists in the everyday working relationships and ideas we have about education, and that it is a penetrating and inspirational lens through which we can see our way into the future.

The university may decide to discard some of these ideas for better ones. The point of conducting the self-study has not been to achieve power for its authors, but to impel our community to engage its issues. The most important single thing we have hoped to achieve is a greater common investment on the part of the campus population in our common future, which we create together. The feeling of futility that has haunted many self-analyses and reports in the past can be banished from now on, in the knowledge that we can be open and honest in the processes of our institutional development, just as we are in our scholarly practice, and that we can expect results, just as we do in the classroom. We feel our work today, though mightily changed, maintains its coherence with the traditions of higher education, because of its continued embededdness in the majesty and magic of learning.

"The best thing for being sad," replied Merlyn, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something. That is the only thing that never fails. You may grow old and trembling in your anatomies, you may lie awake at night listening to the disorder of your veins, you may miss your only love, you may see the world about you devastated by evil lunatics, or know your honour trampled in the sewer of baser minds. There is only one thing for it then — to learn. Learn why the world wags and what wags it. That is the only thing which the mind can never exhaust, never alienate, never be tortured by, never fear or distrust, and never dream of regretting."

T. H. White

The Once and Future King