The Milwaukee Idea: A study of transformative change

Through an initiative called the “Milwaukee Idea,” the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UW-Milwaukee) is striving to become a scholarly partner with its host city and to have that partnership energize the university’s teaching, research, and service activities. Chancellor Nancy L. Zimpher conceived the Milwaukee Idea in 1998 as a way to capture the spirit and potential of the university’s urban location and character. This study assesses the extent to which the university has transformed itself through this recommitment to community engagement and whether UW-Milwaukee’s new urban mission is likely to be institutionalized in the coming years. Zimpher knew from the start that, to be successful, the Milwaukee Idea would require strong commitments from advocates on campus and in the community. She also knew that these advocates would have to represent all disciplines and stakeholder groups. Creating this support for the Milwaukee Idea required months of discussion, planning, negotiation, and action. The process officially began in fall 1998 when 100 campus and community participants gathered in a daylong plenary session and identified seven focus areas that would form the core of the university’s new focus on community engagement. Over the next 2 years, many other interdisciplinary groups would meet to plan and implement community outreach initiatives in each focus area. Initiatives have included a new core curriculum that emphasizes multiculturalism and service learning, a community-based consortium that provides technical assistance and research for economic development, and a collaboration with health and social agencies that addresses urban health issues. This study suggests that the Milwaukee Idea possesses the ingredients needed to bring about transformative change at UWMilwaukee. These ingredients include a readiness for change at the university, a charismatic leader who has captured the university’s imagination, a capable and committed administrative team, an inclusive process, and new financial resources.This combination makes it likely, the authors suggest, that the Milwaukee Idea will become much more than simply the latest administrative initiative foisted on an unwilling or indifferent campus. How much transformation is likely to take place and whether that transformation will lead to institutionalization depends on the extent to which UW-Milwaukee can address the barriers to change identified by the authors.These barriers include a lack of shared definitions of partnership and engagement, traditional institutional behaviors and values, territoriality, conflicts over funding priorities, a fragile infrastructure, and a lack of widespread understanding about what true diversity means

The doctoral studies paradox: Indigenous cultural paradigms versus Western-based research practices

This is an exploratory conceptual paper regarding the ontological and epistemological premises that are present in the enrollment of Indigenous peoples in doctoral programs at higher education institutions (HEIs). The paradoxical nature of navigating through distinct points-of-view about two distinct cultural perspectives, that of the doctorate representing a culminating recognition of a professional culture based on Western tradition and the norms and values of Indigenous cultures. There are personal risks involved in undergoing an education predicated on conflicting messages paradoxes represent from prior personal and collective experience and from institutional dicta and expectations. This paper looks at how an individual brings these elements together in a transformative manner that accepts or rejects governmental preference for enhanced participation by Indigenous peoples in doctoral education programs

New directions for higher education

Publ. comme no 73, spring 1991 de la revue New directions for higher educationBibliogr. à la fin des textesIndex: p. 97-10

A MODEL FOR THE EVALUATION OF POLICY IN ORGANIZATIONS.

Abstract not availabl

Creating the Engaged Department

The professorate is filled with ironies; surely one of the most puzzling is why a community of people who are all committed to a life of engagement with learning could be so unengaged with each other, or with the department to which they belong. How can this be? Why is it that people treat the term “departmental collaboration” as an oxymoron? Why is it that, even though I wrote The Collaborative Department (Wergin, 1994) nearly 10 years ago, I continue to be kidded by colleagues who say that it was the only book of pure fantasy ever published by the American Association for Higher Education? How did we get this way

New directions for institutional research

Publ. comme no 83, fall 1994 de la revue New directions for institutional researchBibliogr. à la fin des textesIndex: p. 99-10

Senior Faculty Career Attitudes: Implications for Faculty Development

Method Findings Satisfaction Personal and Career Matters Disciplinary Differences Minority Differences Gender Differences Discussion Implications for Faculty Development Reference

Departmental Assessment: How Some Campuses Are Effectively Evaluating the Collective Work of Faculty

no description availabl

New directions for institutional research

Publ. comme no 56, winter 1987 de la revue New directions for institutional researchBibliogr. à la fin des textesIndex: p. 101-10