flagship expectations and a land-grant mission:...
TRANSCRIPT
FLAGSHIP EXPECTATIONS AND A LAND-GRANT MISSION: SEEKING A CONSENSUS DEFINITION FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA’S
PREEMINENCE
By
JOSHUA CLAYTON HURDLE
A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2018
© 2018 Joshua Clayton Hurdle
To the 12 presidents who faithfully served my alma mater, a tribute to your body of work
4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am blessed to have a variety of individuals to whom I may express my sincerest
thanks. Without the support of these dear friends and family members, none of this
would have been possible.
Without a doubt, my work is a product of the support and encouragement from
my loving parents, Greg and Janice. My time in graduate school would not have been
possible, let alone wholesome and fulfilling, without their constant, positive influence on
my life. All my love to them and respect for all that they are and do.
Thank you, Dr. Nicole Stedman for serving as my committee chair, program
advisor, and graduate school mentor. She has gone above and beyond the call of duty
in serving as a shining example of what it means to be an authentic and transformative
leader in academia and in life. Her patience, wonderful sense of humor, and positivity
were crucial to the successful completion of my master’s thesis and navigating the
waters of being a graduate student and graduate assistant. Her appreciation for my
random, vintage movie and television references was an unexpected delight of my time
as her advisee. I am ecstatic to benefit from her guidance and friendship in the future.
Thank you to Dr. Tony Andenoro for agreeing to serve on my committee and
continuously challenging me to tap my creative psyche in an effort to show authenticity
and genius in everything I do. I could have in no way done this without him leading by
example. His enthusiasm and intrepid nature have always inspired me, and I look
forward to being energized by his example in the years to come.
Thank you to Dr. Angela Lindner for leading with grace and kindness and caring
deeply for the welfare of all UF students. I am blessed to have met and worked with her
during my time as a student leader in my undergraduate career at UF. Furthermore, I
5
am deeply appreciative of her help in aiding me ascertain the appropriate
communicative means to reach my target population for my thesis study. Without her,
the study could not have commenced.
Thank you to Dr. Brian Marchman for being the best mentor for whom I could
have ever asked. His thoughtfulness, kindness, and Gator spirit inspire me. His example
sets the benchmark which I aim to meet in everything I do. His unwavering support and
encouragement have benefitted me greatly. I deeply appreciate his counsel and will be
privileged to be blessed with his guidance and friendship in the years to come. With a
little luck, he and I will live to see the Gator football program return to the glory days of
the Fun ‘n’ Gun.
Thank you to Dr. Elaine Turner for always instilling in me that, in the College of
Agricultural and Life Sciences, there is always a place for grand ideas so long as they
are supported by equally as grand people, be they students, faculty, or staff. Her
leadership is what I believe to be a direct reflection of the Gator Good in action. I am so
fortunate to have been a part of the college during her time as dean and look forward to
thousands of more students benefiting from the family culture that stems from her office
and propagates throughout the apparatuses of our fair college.
Thank you to Dr. W. Kent Fuchs for serving the University of Florida in the most
outstanding of manners. The personal interest he has taken, not just in my work, but in
the work and activities of all of his students is both heartwarming and commendable:
something all university leaders should aspire to emulate. His sincere willingness to
both recognize and encourage my fervent interest in pursuing his job have been the
source of much joy during my time at the university. Additionally, I am deeply in debt to
6
his proclivity for picture taking as photos of us together have made numerous
appearances on my social media accounts and Christmas cards through the years.
Thank you to Myra Morgan and Kim Pace for their fervent support of me since I
was blessed to be selected to be a part of the Reitz Scholars program while an
undergraduate student. Their investment in the students of UF is unparalleled. I am
privileged to have seen their incredible leadership first-hand and to have benefitted from
their guidance and support. It will be a blessing to listen to their stories and benefit from
their kindness in the years to come.
Thank you to Dr. Nancy Chrystal-Green for her unwavering support of the UF
student body and her kindness to me during my time in UF Student Government and
graduate school. She has served as an excellent sounding board for many of my
academic and professional ideas and has never failed to provide me with keen insight
with respect to academia and looking to the future.
Thank you to my favorite Georgia Bulldog, Mrs. Cheryl Varnadoe, for supporting
me in all of my endeavors and for matching my enthusiasm for my Florida Gators with
her enthusiasm for her Georgia Bulldogs. Her faith in me during my time in Georgia 4-H
was pivotal to furthering my self-efficacy as a scholar, student leader, and person.
Thank you to Dr. Mimi Wetherington for always taking the time to inquire after my
research and graduate education, encouraging me through both processes. Her support
and personal insight to thesis writing were appreciated beyond measure. Additionally,
her commitment to education and the development of young people are qualities which I
strive to emulate in my own career.
7
Many thanks to Dr. E. Gordon Gee, president of West Virginia University, for
indulging the inquisitive nature of a precocious young junior at the University of Florida
who e-mailed him once, asking for advice on how to go about becoming a university
president. His response has stuck with me through the years: embrace the successes
and victories of the present, no matter how small, because they prepare you for the
greater designs yet to come.
Thank you to one of my role models, Coach Steve Spurrier. He set a precedent
on the field and in life as a player and as the Head Ball Coach. His zest for life and
tenacity on the field have taught me that navigating life is much like a football game.
There are indeed ups and downs. As he would say, no matter how many bad things
happen to a person during the course of a game, just keep playing until good things
start to happen. Words to live by.
A wholehearted and sincere thank you to all of my friends who were so kind and
supportive of me during my time in my master’s program. Their brilliance gives me hope
for the future as they are sure to positively and fundamentally impact the world through
their work and with their incredible spirits. A shout out to these wonderful individuals, in
alphabetical order by last name: Claren Anderson, Marcela Astudillo, Caroline Baldwin,
Sloane Bochman, Jesse Chen, Austin Council, Jill Faull, Alia French, Sky Georges,
Danielle Grosse, Meaghan Hanley, Katie Hernandez, Kaitlyn Jacobs, Kris Klann, Kayla
Kolka, Gilly Mangan, Justin Marty, Dr. Greg Moreland, Ben Morris, Dr. Milton Newberry,
Haley Oberhofer, Jackie Phillips, Kristen Quintana, Nick Shields, Haley Smith, Saneh
Ste.Claire, Kelsey Torgerson, Susan Webster, and Audra Weeks.
8
Lastly, a huge thank you to the creative geniuses of Bill Finger and Bob Kane,
George Lucas, and Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Without the products of their
creativity, the hours spent conducting my research study and writing my thesis would
have been filled with silence. Instead, I am in a great deal of debt to the escapades of
the world’s greatest detective, Batman, the galaxy’s never-ending conflict between the
light and dark side of the Force, and the nonsensical musings of Jerry, Elaine, George,
and Kramer.
9
TABLE OF CONTENTS page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 4
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... 12
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ 13
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... 14
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 15
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 16
Overview ................................................................................................................. 16 American Higher Education .............................................................................. 17 The Morrill Act and the Rise of Land-Grant Institutions .................................... 19 Higher Education in the State of Florida ........................................................... 22 The Board of Control and Its Successors ......................................................... 22 The University of Florida................................................................................... 23 The Florida Preeminence Initiative ................................................................... 24
Research Problem .................................................................................................. 26 Purpose .................................................................................................................. 27 Significance ............................................................................................................ 27 Definition of Terms .................................................................................................. 29 Limitations ............................................................................................................... 31 Assumptions ........................................................................................................... 32 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................... 33
2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 34
Chapter Introduction ............................................................................................... 34 Institutional Isomorphism ........................................................................................ 35 Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................... 40
Transformational Leadership ............................................................................ 41 Transformational Leadership in Organizations ................................................. 43 Transformational Leadership Begets Authentic Leadership ............................. 45
Conceptual Considerations ..................................................................................... 48 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................... 52
3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 53
Chapter Introduction ............................................................................................... 53 Research Design: The Delphi Method .................................................................... 53
10
Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 56 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 59 Definitions of Emergent Themes Identified in Round 1 ........................................... 64
Question 1 Themes .......................................................................................... 65 Question 3 Themes .......................................................................................... 65
Subjectivity Statement ............................................................................................ 65 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................... 67
4 RESULTS ............................................................................................................... 68
Chapter Introduction ............................................................................................... 68 Round 1 Results ..................................................................................................... 68
Response Rate ................................................................................................. 69 Demographics .................................................................................................. 69 Round 1: Question 1 ........................................................................................ 71 Round 1: Question 2 ........................................................................................ 73 Round 1: Question 3 ........................................................................................ 74
Round 2 Results ..................................................................................................... 75 Response Rate ................................................................................................. 76 Demographics .................................................................................................. 77 Round 2: Question 1 ........................................................................................ 78 Round 2: Question 2 ........................................................................................ 79 Round 2: Question 3 ........................................................................................ 80
Round 3 Results ..................................................................................................... 81 Response Rate ................................................................................................. 82 Demographics .................................................................................................. 83 Round 3: Question 1 ........................................................................................ 83 Round 3: Question 2 ........................................................................................ 84 Round 3: Question 3 ........................................................................................ 84
Mean Scores ........................................................................................................... 85 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................... 85
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 99
Chapter Introduction ............................................................................................... 99 Discussion and Implications .................................................................................... 99 Recommendations ................................................................................................ 103 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................. 106
APPENDIX
A UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD PROTOCOL APPROVAL LETTER ............................................................................................ 107
B STUDY INFORMED CONSENT LETTER ............................................................ 109
C ROUND ONE SURVEY QUESTIONS .................................................................. 110
11
D ROUND TWO SURVEY QUESTIONS.................................................................. 114
E ROUND THREE SURVEY QUESTIONS .............................................................. 121
F UF ACADEMIC DEPARTMENTS CONTACTED FOR STUDY ............................ 124
LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 128
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................... 134
12
LIST OF TABLES
Table page 4-1 Round 2 Survey: First question themes .............................................................. 86
4-2 Round 2 Survey: First question’s most prevalent themes ................................... 87
4-3 Round 2 Survey: First question’s less prevalent themes .................................... 88
4-4 Round 2 Survey: First question’s least prevalent themes ................................... 89
4-5 Round 2 Survey: Second question’s preeminence descriptors .......................... 90
4-6 Round 2 Survey: Second question’s prevalent preeminence descriptors and percentages ........................................................................................................ 90
4-7 Round 2 Survey: Second question’s least prevalent preeminence descriptors and percentages ................................................................................................. 90
4-8 Round 2 Survey: Third question’s responses and themes ................................. 91
4-9 Round 2 Survey: Third question’s percentage breakdown ................................. 92
4-10 Round 3 Survey: First question’s definitions and themes ................................... 94
4-11 Round 3 Survey: First question’s percentage distribution ................................... 95
4-12 Round 3 Survey: Second question’s percentage distribution for UF descriptors .......................................................................................................... 95
4-13 Round 3 Survey: Third question’s percentage distribution for barriers to land-grant and preeminence relationship ................................................................... 96
4-14 Round 2 Survey: First question’s themes mean scores ...................................... 97
4-15 Round 2 Survey: Second question’s preeminence descriptors mean scores ..... 98
13
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page 2-1 University of Florida’s land-grant narrative ......................................................... 49
2-2 Intersection of the University of Florida’s preeminence narrative and its land-grant narrative ............................................................................................ 50
3-1 Flowchart of Delphi Method Procedure .............................................................. 55
14
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
KWIC Key-Words-In-Context
SERU Student Experience in the Research University
SUS State University System
UF University of Florida
15
Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science
FLAGSHIP EXPECTATIONS AND A LAND-GRANT MISSION:
SEEKING A CONSENSUS DEFINITION FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA’S PREEMINENCE
By
Joshua Clayton Hurdle
May 2018
Chair: Nicole LaMee Perez Stedman Major: Agricultural Education and Communication
This study sought to ascertain a definition of the University of Florida’s
preeminence from amongst the members of the UF academic administrative
community.
UF’s academic department chairs were selected to be surveyed via the Delphi
method in an effort to establish a UF preeminence definition based on the consensus
opinion of a group of experts (the chairs).
The study was conducted over a three-week period in February of 2018 and
consisted of three rounds in which qualitative responses guided a numerical
assessment (rating and ranking) of said data as means to build consensus throughout
the data collection period.
At the conclusion of the study, it was determined that, while a word-for-word
definition may not have resulted from the study, consensus did indicate that a definition
of UF preeminence could be inferred from several key themes which emerged from the
study in addition to a series of descriptors common to perceptions of UF preeminence
which the respondents also provided.
16
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Overview
While the University of Florida (UF) has been designated a preeminent institution
of higher learning within the state of Florida, it remains unclear if preeminence can be
universally defined outside the realm of metrics among UF stakeholders, the state
legislature, and the state university system. Preeminent status has already been
assigned to Florida State University, and many speculate that other State University
System (SUS) schools and private schools will be assigned this status in the coming
decade. Preeminent capital campaigns and related, non-fiduciary, preeminent initiatives
within the UF community would imply that preeminence is an important topic in Florida
higher education. However, within the administrative circles and stakeholder groups of
Florida’s flagship institution, a consistent, non-metric definition for UF Preeminence
remains elusive.
Due to the numerous cultural implications that preeminence has within the UF
community, it is important that a deeper understanding of preeminence’s meaning is
established. Therefore, this study seeks to ascertain general consensus regarding the
definition of preeminence among academic leadership at the University of Florida.
Specific consideration will be given to the University of Florida’s narrative as a
preeminent, land-grant institution and its role as a transformative force in the lives of its
students and faculty.
In so doing, it is necessary to consider the various contextual factors which have
contributed to the development of the higher education in the United States and the
State of Florida. Furthermore, it is essential to consider the history of the University of
17
Florida and the factors which serve as the foundation for the Florida Preeminence
Initiative.
American Higher Education
With the founding of Harvard College in 1636, higher education in the Americas
would flourish through the centuries producing some of the world’s finest and most
prestigious universities (Thelin, 2011). European universities influenced the
development of American universities throughout the first several centuries of American
higher education (Thelin, 2011). In line with the Old World’s trends in matriculation
rates, higher education was most generally accessible to the upper class, those who
wished to serve as clergy, and those who were fortunate enough to have the support of
a generous benefactor (Thelin, 2011).
Following the American War for Independence, higher education in the United
States would undergo changes in its structure, which would fundamentally change the
course of education in the Western Hemisphere. Universities established under British
rule were chartered under the imperial, federal government, typically including some
oath of loyalty to the Crown in their original charter documents (Thelin, 2011). As the
United States established its form of government under a constitution, individual states
were granted certain liberties and autonomies under the federal government of the new
country (Thelin, 2011). As such, established universities, and their subsequent peers,
would find themselves obliged to swear fealty to the states in which they found
themselves (Thelin, 2011).
More than setting a precedent for the administration of American universities, the
newly-vested state governments would oversee tremendous growth in the American
academy in the coming decades. There is great debate about the rise of the distinction
18
between what are now known as public and private schools. Many higher education
scholars have pointed to Dartmouth College vs. Woodward (1819), in which the
Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dartmouth, protecting the school charter from
interference by the New Hampshire state government, as the point in which a proverbial
schism delineated private and public universities (Thelin, 2011; Geiger, 2015).
Essentially, many have argued that this case furthered the future identity of private
institutions in asserting that Dartmouth was a private, charitable organization not subject
to government intervention (Geiger, 2015). In essence, the case being decided in
Dartmouth’s favor diminished the state government’s ability to formally control the
university (Geiger, 2015). Furthermore, many consider the case to have set a precedent
for university control as a non-profit corporation (Geiger, 2015). Regardless of the
case’s ramifications, it is speculated that the terms public and private as they are known
in higher education circles today were not used until the 1870s when numerous New
England universities and Midwestern church affiliated colleges began designating
themselves as such in an effort to secure funding from sources other than the state
legislature (Thelin, 2011; Geiger, 2015). Realistically, all universities are public in
nature, because they must abide by their charter, federal law, and the laws of the state
in which they find themselves (Thelin, 2011).
The American universities would see another fundamental change during the
American Civil War. Such a change would further the expansion of the American
academy and significantly enrich the classification system of American universities in
the ensuing decades.
19
The Morrill Act and the Rise of Land-Grant Institutions
During the American Civil War, the United States Congress passed a piece of
legislation that would fundamentally impact the course of American higher education.
The legislation would usher in a paradigm shift in the population demographics of those
who matriculated into universities, the content which was taught in universities, the way
in which faculty engaged learners, and the nature of research conducted in university
settings. The bill in-question is now referred to as the Morrill Act of 1862. Beyond its
singularity as the bill which parceled land to a number of universities which, when built
or upon acceptance of the legislation’s tenants, would become known as land-grant
universities, the Morrill Act helped to set a precedent for American higher education: a
university-level education could now be accessed by the common man (Seevers &
Graham, 2012). Through the years, as civil and social liberties were garnered through
legislation for women, people of color, and other previously marginalized groups,
American higher education would truly become accessible to individuals from all walks
of life. Soon, numerous universities began to adopt or were founded due to the support
of funds and land provided by the Morrill Act.
As the 19th century progressed, land-grant institutions were growing and
furthering the education of numerous Americans through quality instruction. Additional
federal legislation would eventually be needed to further the primary purpose of land-
grant schools: teaching. After considerable growth and expansion, the land-grant
schools would take on two additional responsibilities during the latter half of the 1800s
and the early decades of the 20th century: research and extension.
Many legislators began to feel that a land-grant education should be supported
by high caliber research. The Hatch Act of 1887 established the support for the
20
development of state agricultural experiment stations or SAESs (National Research
Council, 1995). In so doing, the federal government would fund research in the
agricultural and life sciences to further enhance the quality of education at land-grant
universities and to benefit the respective state communities (National Research Council,
1995). Although SAESs and faculty with such a research appointment have traditionally
worked for land-grant institutions, the importance and success of the work in the life
sciences has led to the inclusion of SAESs faculty at non-land-grant institutions as well
(National Research Council, 1995).
While some universities were able to adopt the tenants of the Morrill Act, the
majority of the land-grant schools established in accordance with the 1862 legislation
were founded as new state universities (Kerr, 1987; National Research Council, 1995).
The original legislation allocated land to be used or parceled and sold for funds to
support a state college for the instruction of agriculture, mechanical arts, and military
sciences (Library of Congress, n.d.). For the majority of these “1862 land-grants,” the
money afforded by the sale of land was quickly extinguished. The vast majority of these
institutions were short on funds in a few decades. As a result, in 1890, Congress
authorized the annual appropriation of funds to states for the support of their land-grant
colleges; this was known as the Second Morrill Act (National Research Council, 1995).
Additionally, admission discrimination upon the basis of race was prohibited by the
Second Morrill Act (The 1890 Land-Grant Universities, n.d.). Nevertheless, the act did
allow for the establishment of separate institutions and a just division of governmental-
allocated monies (The 1890 Land-Grant Universities, n.d.). In light of the prevalent
racial tensions of the day, separate land-grant institutions dedicated to the education of
21
African Americans were established as a result of the Second Morrill Act of 1890
(National Research Council, 1995; Geiger, 2015).
To fulfill the original intentions of land-grant universities educating the common
man and to ensure that such public institutions were indeed serving their states and
communities, the federal legislature passed the Smith-Lever Act in 1914. The legislation
allocated federal funds to finance “the giving of instruction and practical demonstrations
in agriculture and home economics and related subjects to persons not attending
college, and giving information through demonstrations, publications, and otherwise”
(Seevers & Graham, 2012, p. 34). In effect, this act ensured that research-based
information and instruction would propagate the state through land-grant university
faculty and other such personnel – as in later years – Extension agents. In addition to
the federal and state oversight of Extension work, county government would later
provide support and serve as the primary mechanism for Extension outreach to the
general public (National Research Council, 1995).
As the 20th century progressed, and land-grant institutions with it, the tripartite
mission emerged for land-grant universities. Namely, through teaching, research, and
extension in the agricultural and life sciences, land-grant institutions would directly and
indirectly benefit the university local, state, and national communities (National
Research Council, 1995; Seevers & Graham, 2012). As such, this shift in focus that
aimed to produce high quality research and provide excellent research-based
instruction to university students and the public at large would secure the public
research, land-grant university’s place in the American academy.
22
Higher Education in the State of Florida
In 1884, the first public college in the state of Florida opened in Lake City and
was known as the Florida Agricultural College (Van Ness, 2009). Through the in-state
legislation known as the Buckman Act, along other various political and financial factors,
the Florida Agricultural College was combined with the East Florida Seminary of
Gainesville, the St. Petersburg Normal and Industrial School, and the South Florida
Military College of Bartow to establish the University of the State of Florida, located in
Gainesville (Van Ness, 2009; University of Florida Honors Program, n.d.). By 1909, the
institution was commonly referred to as the University of Florida (University of Florida
Honors Program, n.d.).The Buckman Act was also significant in that it vested a Board of
Control with the authority to govern the universities established by the Buckman Act
(Van Ness, 2009).
The Board of Control and Its Successors
The board of control would govern the state university system, which included all
Florida public universities, from 1905-1965 (Florida Memory: State Library and Archives
of Florida, n.d.). In 1965, the Board of Control was renamed and reorganized into the
Board of Regents. This body would formally govern the state university system from
1965-2001 (Florida Memory: State Library and Archives of Florida, n.d.). During its time,
the board’s roles and responsibilities would be further refined compared to those of its
predecessor. In accordance with Florida statutes, the board was to oversee presidential
appointments, the approval new degree programs, budget requests, and the
establishment of student fees (Online Sunshine: Florida Legislature, 2001).
Furthermore, and more broadly, the board was to “develop a plan for the future
expansion of the State University System and recommend the establishment of new
23
universities consistent with the criteria adopted by the State Board of Education. . . . ”
(Online Sunshine: Florida Legislature, 2001, para. 2). By 2001, Florida’s government
opted to amend the governing body of Florida’s public universities once again. In this
way, the Board of Governors was established as the chief, controlling body of the state
university system (State University System of Florida, n.d.a,).
Much like the responsibilities outlined for the Board of Regents, the Board of
Governors purpose is quite similar. In general, the powers and duties of the body are
best summarized:
For each constituent university, the Board of Governors, or the board’s designee, shall be responsible for cost-effective policy decisions appropriate to the university’s mission, the implementation and maintenance of high-quality education programs within law, the measurement of performance, the reporting of information, and the provision of input regarding state policy, budgeting, and education standards. (Online Sunshine: Florida Legislature, para. 1, 2017).
The University of Florida
At present, the University of Florida is recognized as the flagship university of the
state of Florida while also serving as a land-grant institution (Land Grand, n.d.). The
school’s mission is “to enable our students to lead and influence the next generation
and beyond for economic, cultural and societal benefit” (University of Florida, n.d.a,
para. 2). Not only as a public university, but as a land-grant institution, the University of
Florida services the nearly 20 million people of the state of Florida. The university’s core
purposes are teaching, research and scholarship, and service (University of Florida,
n.d.a). The University of Florida furthers its mission and purposes through its
membership with the Association of American Universities and the Southern
Association of colleges and schools (AAU, n.d.b; Southern Association of Colleges and
Schools Commission on Colleges, 2017). Over 50,000 students comprise the University
24
of Florida, which governs 16 colleges that house a multitude of departments that cover
hundreds of disciplines (University of Florida, n.d.b). These departments offer nearly
300 total graduate and undergraduate programs of study (University of Florida, n.d.c). In
the last decade, the university has made strives to achieve top 10 public university
status. As of 2017, the University of Florida is in a tie for 9th place amongst U.S. top 10
public schools (U.S. News Staff, 2017).
The Florida Preeminence Initiative
With the advent of Bernie Machen’s tenure as president of the University of
Florida, the university’s board of trustees and the president himself, endeavored to raise
the University of Florida’s standing as a public university (Revello, 2013). Namely, at
that time, the university’s officials hoped to attain top 10 public university status. In
2013, while attempting to fundamentally impact state education as a whole, the Florida
legislature awarded Florida State University and the University of Florida preeminent
status (Revello, 2013).
In essence, in its quest for top 10 status, the University of Florida was afforded
“an opportunity to achieve national and international recognition for our work in serving
students and the world” (UF Preeminence., n.d.). Much of the preeminent funds have
been used to drive the recruitment and appointment of new faculty. By 2015, new
preeminent faculty at the University of Florida numbered 84 (Glover, 2013).
At the inception of the Florida Preeminence Initiative, the Florida legislature
proposed a specific system of metrics for identifying a preeminent institution and a
means for which said institution(s) could maintain preeminent status. As such, in 2013,
Florida Senate Bill 1076 outlined 12 academic and research excellence standards for
preeminent state research universities.
25
In order for a state research university to qualify for the preeminent designation,
they must meet 11 of the 12 academic and research excellence standards. The
standards are listed below:
• “An average weighted grade point average of 4.0 or higher on a 4.0 scale and an average SAT score of 1800 or higher for fall semester incoming freshmen, as reported annually” (The Florida Senate, 2013, p. 117).
• “A top-50 ranking on at least two well-known and highly respected national public university rankings, reflecting national preeminence, using most recent rankings” (The Florida Senate, 2013, p. 117).
• “A freshman retention rate of 90 percent or higher for full-time, first-time-in-college students, as reported annually to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)” (The Florida Senate, 2013, p. 118).
• “A 6-year graduation rate of 70 percent or higher for full-time, first-time-in-college students, as reported annually to the IPEDS” (The Florida Senate, 2013, p. 118).
• “Six or more faculty members at the state university who are members of a national academy, as reported by the Center for Measuring University Performance in the Top American Research Universities (TARU) annual report” (The Florida Senate, 2013, p. 118).
• “Total annual research expenditures, including federal research expenditures, of $200 million or more, as reported annually by the National Science Foundation (NSF)” (The Florida Senate, 2013, p. 118).
• “Total annual research expenditures in diversified nonmedical sciences of $150 million or more, based on data reported annually by the NSF” (The Florida Senate, 2013, p. 118).
• “A top-100 university national ranking for research expenditures in five or more science, technology, engineering, or mathematics fields of study, as reported annually by the NSF” (The Florida Senate, 2013, p. 118).
• “One hundred or more total patents awarded by the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the most recent 3-year period” (The Florida Senate, 2013, p. 118).
• “Four hundred or more doctoral degrees awarded annually, as reported in the Board of Governors Annual Accountability Report” (The Florida Senate, 2013, p. 118).
26
• “Two hundred or more postdoctoral appointees annually, as reported in the TARU annual report” (The Florida Senate, 2013, p. 118).
• “An endowment of $500 million or more, as reported in the Board of Governors Annual Accountability Report” (The Florida Senate, 2013, p. 118-119).
Research Problem
While preeminence is recognized both as a designation and a funding
mechanism by the Florida legislature and the State University System, little attention
seems to have been given to the cultural implications that preeminence has in the UF
community. Preeminence funding continues to serve as an effective means of financial
support for the advancement of the university, but the term preeminence and its
connotation and perception would seem to have become far more multidimensional
since the term’s inception.
Indeed, since 2013, conversations about preeminent status and the quest for top
10 public university status have permeated the UF community. From their first point-of-
contact with the university, incoming-freshmen are inundated with the high aspirations
of their alma mater. Preeminence is essentially ingrained in them as an aspect of UF’s
core identity. Yet, other than the original legislative intent, little attention seems to have
been given to the implications that preeminence currently has in the UF community
amongst students, faculty, staff, alumni, and non-legislative personnel. This may beg
the question of whether or not a member of the UF community (one of the
aforementioned groups) could effectively articulate what preeminence currently means
for the UF community or what it might mean in 10 or 20 years.
If one were to look for how UF formally perceives its preeminence, the following
could be found on the UF preeminence webpage: “It began in 2013 with the University
of Florida’s designation by the Florida Legislature as the state’s preeminent institution
27
and grew into an opportunity to achieve national and international recognition for our
work in serving students and the world. (UF Preeminence, n.d., para. 2)
While the previous statement is clear on preeminence as it was originally
perceived and intended, little can be inferred with respect to its present implications or
those for the future.
In effect, it is unclear if there is a holistic, working definition for UF’s
preeminence. Considering the multitude of responsibilities which the University of
Florida bears as a flagship and land-grant institution, the question arises: What is
preeminence for Florida’s land-grant, flagship institution: the University of Florida?
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to develop a non-metric, working definition of
preeminence from the perspective of University of Florida academic administrators,
specifically academic department chairs. The primary research objective of this study is
to understand the perceptions of preeminence held by University of Florida
administrators. Following this study’s conclusion, it will likely be possible for researchers
to draw inferences regarding the opinions of preeminence which UF administrators hold.
Significance
While the University of Florida has indeed achieved top 10 public university
status, a deeper understanding of preeminence is vital to maintain the status and to
continue rising through the public university rankings in the coming years.
Many of the previously-mentioned benchmarks outlined by the Florida legislature
and supported by the Florida Board of Governors, such as the hiring of renowned
faculty or the high graduation rates, are metrics which weigh heavily in national rankings
and govern designations such as top 10 public university status. While setting
28
benchmarks and setting objectives to achieve them is effective, ascertaining the deeper
meaning behind preeminence in the UF community could establish a stronger sense of
rapport between the preeminence initiative and UF stakeholder groups.
As such, working to meet and even exceed the benchmarks for preeminent
funding could be far more practical and fulfilling for the UF community. Thus,
preeminent designation and top 10 status could both be more easily maintained and
expanded upon in the coming years.
Furthermore, the sense of invigorated rapport with preeminence, brought upon
by a deeper understating of what it really means for UF, could certainly positively impact
the tenants of the land-grant mission (tripartite): teaching, research, and extension.
Namely, the tripartite mission is predicated on faculty and students who perform
at high level in the areas of teaching, research, and extension. Preeminent legislation
would dictate that preeminent schools recruit these types of individuals who perform at
such a high level. It is reasonable to infer that UF’s efforts toward the recruitment and
acquisition of prestigious faculty and students could be enriched if there were a greater
understanding of preeminence within the university community.
In a sense, UF’s story would be far more compelling than it already is and thus
fundamentally affect the recruiting process of such high achieving individuals. In
essence, a greater understanding of UF preeminence could augment the number
renowned students and faculty who would fundamentally impact teaching, research,
and extension for the state of Florida, thus furthering the tripartite mission.
Additionally, preeminence could be more adequately presented with the
University of Florida’s mission and general purposes, mentioned previously. In general,
29
if there were a definition of preeminence, it is possible that a greater understanding of
what actions and strategies to be taken to achieve this status could manifest, thus
fostering a stronger sense of commitment to the improvement of higher education in the
state of Florida, particularly with respect to current preeminent universities and
emerging preeminent universities (Bakeman, 2016).
Ultimately, having a clear definition of preeminence could significantly impact the
effectiveness of the leadership which the university provides in the realm of educating
its students, developing its faculty, and positively impacting the state of Florida.
As a whole, the University of Florida holds a unique position within the state,
country, and the world due to its responsibilities as a flagship, land-grant, and, indeed, a
preeminent institution. With respect to its unique role, UF Trustee Anita Zucker stated:
Never in the history of civilization have changes and opportunities been as abrupt or globally consequential — or as hopeful — as they are now. Our universities will the lead way in the 21st century, and the University of Florida is one of the most important, influential and impactful. (Mitchell, 2017, para. 6)
More than ever, a grounded sense of institutional identity, through an
understanding of preeminence is vital for the continued growth and success of the
University of Florida as it strives positively and fundamentally impact the world. The
theoretical implications for achieving this sense of institutional identity will be discussed
in Chapter 2.
Definition of Terms
The following terms are vital to understanding the theories and information
presented in this study and those associated with its pending results.
• ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT CHAIR. A member of faculty within an academic unit that is comprised of faculty students, and at least one undergraduate or graduate major; this member of faculty is tasked by his or her dean with the governance,
30
resource management, program development, external relations, and facilities management of said academic unit (University of California, Irvine, n.d.).
• ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES. “Comprises 62 distinguished research universities across the United States that continually advance society through education, research, and discovery” (AAU, n.d., para. 1).
• CONSENSUS. The cornerstone of consensus methods approach to research, which entails the extent to which people, in this case, a group of experts agree with each other on a subject (Jones & Hunter, 1995). Simple agreement would imply experts’ agreement with a subject or an issue; consensus implies agreement with each other’s opinions (Jones & Hunter, 1995). Consensus is generally measured in a numeric fashion. For the purpose of this study, consensus may be operationalized numerically at a 57.69% threshold for the responses to Likert type questions.
• FLORIDA BOARD OF GOVERNORS. A group of 17 individuals, 14 of them with a gubernatorial appointment, which “oversees the operation and management of the Florida public university system's twelve institutions” (State University System of Florida, n.d.a, para. 1). While not synonymous, the term is quite comparable to its predecessors, the Florida Board of Regents and the Florida Board of Control.
• FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM. “Public university system includes twelve universities with an enrollment of more than 300,000 students, more than 60,000 faculty and staff, and an annual operating budget of more than $8.5 billion (State University System of Florida, n.d.c, para. 1).”
• FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM CHANCELLOR. “The Board of Governors is led by a chancellor appointed by the Board. The Chancellor serves as the Chief Executive Officer. The mission of the Office is to mobilize resources and diverse constituencies to govern and advance the State University System of Florida by supporting and advocating for high-quality teaching, research, and public service” (State University System of Florida, n.d.b, para. 1).
• LAND-GRANT. “The land grant system began in 1862 with a piece of legislation known as the Morrill Act. This law gave states public lands provided the lands be sold or used for profit and the proceeds used to establish at least one college – hence, land grant colleges – that would teach agriculture and the mechanical arts” (National Research Council, 1995).
• PUBLIC RESEARCH UNIVERSITY. “Institutions of higher education that receive a portion of their funding from state appropriations, educate undergraduate and graduate students, are Carnegie-classified as Very High and High Research Activity universities, and are located in one of the 50 states” (American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2016b, p. 2).
31
• PUBLIC UNIVERSITY. “A college or university primarily funded by a state government. Public colleges and universities generally are larger than private schools and have larger class sizes” (Department of Homeland Security, 2013, para. 2).
• SOUTHERN ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND SCHOOLS. “The regional body for the accreditation of degree-granting higher education institutions in the Southern states. It serves as the common denominator of shared values and practices among the diverse institutions in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Latin America and other [approved] international sites. . . . ” (SACSCOC, n.d., para. 1).
• UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES. “The public body corporate of the university. It sets policy for the institution, and serves as the institution’s legal owner and final authority . . . The UF Board of Trustees consists of six citizen members appointed by the Governor and five citizen members appointed by the Board of Governors. The Chair of the Faculty Senate and the President of the Student Body are also voting members.” (UF Board of Trustees, n.d., para. 1).
• UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT (OR CHANCELLOR). “The chief executive officer in some state systems of higher education” (Merriam Webster, n.d., para. 1).
Limitations
Although department chairs do represent a fair portion of the university
community with respect to their opinions, work output, and academic and political
influence, there is no guarantee that their opinion will constitute the most accurate
definition that could encompass every university community member’s opinion or
beliefs. Rather, their opinion was sought as a means for establishing a holistic, working
definition of UF preeminence that was as accurate as possible and served to uphold
that practicality of any research conducted to reach a consensus definition given the
time and resources allotted to this research project.
While this study does employ a mixed methods approach to gathering data, it is
uncertain whether each respondent will be able to provide the greatest detail about their
opinion of UF preeminence. Some may find the study questions’ parameters helpful in
32
providing a concise, measured opinion. Others may find the parameters taxing, thus
inhibiting their ability to provide significant depth.
Lastly, members of the target population may not wish to respond for a variety of
reasons. Chief among the reasons may include feeling that they are not connected to
this study’s research focus, feeling that they are not the most qualified to answer on
behalf of a collective, exhibiting a lack of awareness about the research topic, and/or
feeling that, in their opinion, the research topic is not congruent or pertinent to the
university’s overall progress as well as the state and university system’s posterity.
Non-respondents were accounted for by follow-up e-mail during the course of
each round. Specifically, every member of the target population was e-mailed the day
before a survey closed in an effort to elicit any last minute responses or to remind those
who had delayed responding to the survey to that point.
Assumptions
This study assumes that the University of Florida’s preeminence is a vast
concept which could be defined by input from a variety of stakeholders. However, in
accordance with mixed methods practices under the Delphi Method, this study opts to
ascertain the opinions of a segment of the university community’s administrative wing in
an effort to build a consensus of opinion regarding the university’s perceptions of
preeminence. In so doing, this study assumes that a portion of the university community
can provide relative accuracy and substantiation to any definition agreed upon by
participants at the end of the consensus building and data collection period.
Additional assumptions include:
1. Study respondents will have a general understanding of the land-grant mission.
33
2. Study respondents will have a general understanding of the University of Florida’s history.
3. Study respondents will have at least a basic familiarity with the University of Florida preeminence initiative.
4. Study respondents will have been at the University of Florida long enough to be able to synthesize elements of the three preceding assumptions.
5. Study respondents will not compare any similar initiatives, experiences, or opinions from previous employment at other universities to the research topic presented by this study.
Finally, it is assumed that researcher bias could affect the interpretation of this
study’s data and adversely impact the study’s credibility. Researcher subjectivity is
discussed in Chapter 3.
Chapter Summary
Chapter 1 introduced an overview of the history and development of higher
education and the land-grant university system in the United State of America.
Additionally, the University of Florida’s history and the evolution of its governing bodies
were examined. The Preeminence Initiative’s development was also presented.
The research problem and study’s purpose were also identified in chapter 1. The
research problem posed the question: "What is preeminence for a land-grant, flagship
institution such as the University of Florida?”
The research study’s purpose is to develop a non-metric, working definition of UF
preeminence. The research objective is to understand the perceptions of preeminence
held by University of Florida administrators.
Additionally, chapter 1 presented definition important for understanding the
context of this research study. Lastly, the study’s significance, limitations and
assumptions were also discussed.
34
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Chapter Introduction
Universities engage in the development of students. Throughout their time in
college, students undergo academic, social, and professional growth. Essentially,
universities aim to fundamentally change their students. Often, the time spent in college
encompasses the period in a young person’s life when he or she addresses critical
elements of maturation and adulthood such as the affirmation of core values, the
establishment of life goals and objectives, and the formation of long-lasting
relationships. Furthermore, faculty are a key player in this transformative process.
Indeed, without faculty participation, universities would find it difficult to enrich the lives
of their students in the aforementioned domains. In essence, it can be reasonably
inferred that, just as students are transformed by a university, faculty are beneficiaries
of the transformative process as well.
In line with its purpose as an institution of higher learning, a preeminent
university should aim to facilitate the development of its students in a manner that falls
in line with its preeminence initiative. Namely, it is reasonable to infer that a preeminent
institutions would seek ways in which to enhance the developmental process of its
students and faculty producing a far more enriching and fundamentally impactful
experience than a typical university. Taking this into consideration, it is also important to
recognize, as mentioned previously, that a university’s land-grant mission also holds the
institution accountable for the educational and professional enrichment of its students
through high caliber research, teaching, and extension work. Essentially, a preeminent
35
land-grant university is held to an even greater standard than peer institutions which are
not designated preeminent and may or may not have been assigned land-grant status.
The nature of the type of impact that preeminent land-grant institutions are to
have on their students may reasonably lead key stakeholder groups and higher
education scholars to ponder the most effective form of leadership and leadership
principles which should be a part of the preeminent, land-grant university culture. From
a leadership theory perspective, the way in which universities are to fundamentally
impact their student populations would align with concepts that comprise
transformational leadership.
Nevertheless, before the obligations that the University of Florida has a
transformative institution can be understood, it is worthwhile to consider the theoretical
implications which may contribute to the University of Florida’s pursuit of preeminence
and national/international recognition. Essentially, it is important to understand why the
University of Florida is relentless in its pursuit of institutional excellence with respect to
other universities of equal or greater state and national/international recognition.
Institutional Isomorphism
For many years, students at the University of Florida or students interested in the
University of Florida, have fondly referred to the institution as a public ivy. There are a
variety of reasons which could have contributed to this moniker, but the most logical
assumption is that the informal designation refers to UF’s constant vigilance in seeking
localized and institutional recognition at the national and the international level.
While the notions of reputation and recognition could be debated amongst
university administrators, most would likely agree that academic associations or
acclaimed and otherwise reputable news reports that rank the members of the
36
American academy are the reputation boosters and the proverbial well of recognition,
which most universities seek to tap.
The University of Florida has aimed to climb higher through the ranks of public
and private universities extensively through the last two decades. Much of UF’s efforts
may have resulted from embracing wholeheartedly the Florida preeminence initiative
and the agendas of UF President Emeritus J. Bernie Machen or current UF president,
W. Kent Fuchs. Additionally, major capital campaigns, such as the current Go Greater
campaign, may also underscore UF’s quest to be, simply, the best.
Seeking a place as one of the most influential and comprehensive universities in
the nation and world is by no means a poor or subversive aspiration. However, it is
indeed a challenging undertaking. The theoretical implications for why an institution
such as the University of Florida would embark on this endeavor for preeminent status
in the eyes of the state and, indeed, the nation, may stem from the concept of
isomorphism.
As a concept, isomorphism finds its roots in research related to organizational
homogenization. Homogenization can be considered as an organizational defense
against environmental uncertainties or constraints (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).
Essentially, homogenization is a process by which organizations from highly structured
fields begin to mirror each other in culture, structure, and output (DiMaggio & Powell,
1983).
Isomorphism is a means to encapsulate homogenization, most especially from
an organizational standpoint. Hawley described isomorphism as the “process that forces
37
one unit in a population to resemble other units that face the same set of environmental
conditions” (as cited in DiMaggio & Powell, 1983, p. 149).
In essence, there are two types of isomorphism: competitive and institutional
(DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). For the purposes of this study, it is most applicable to
consider aspects of institutional isomorphism, which denotes that “Organizations
compete not just for resources and customers, but for political power and institutional
legitimacy, for social as well as economic fitness” (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983, p. 150).
Understanding this, there are mechanisms which bring about isomorphic change:
coercive isomorphism, which stems from political influence and concerns with
legitimacy; mimetic isomorphism, which stems from standard responses to uncertainty;
and normative isomorphism which stems from professionalization (DiMaggio & Powell,
1983).
The latter two mechanisms are important to consider within the context of
universities and for the purposes of this study. Namely, within mimetic isomorphic
processes, one finds the term modeling. Modeling entails that an organization borrows
the practices of another organization, whether the modeled organization is (un)aware or
supportive of the modeling behavior is not taken into consideration (DiMaggio & Powell,
1983).
DiMaggio and Powell pointed to Japan’s efforts at modernization (modeling
various practices of other countries’ industries and sectors) following the conclusion of
the Edo Period in Japan, with the dissolution of the shogunate, as an example of
modeling (1983).
38
Another example of modeling in global context may be Russian Czar Peter the
Great’s tour of Western Europe. Upon his return to Russia, he instituted a number of
sweeping governmental and cultural reforms from the modernization of the Imperial
Russian Military to changes of style in Russian architecture and fashion. All of these
changes could trace their roots to the practices of the Western European nations
observed on Peter’s tour.
Indeed, DiMaggio and Powell affirm that organizations will often model
themselves after those peers which they deem to be more “legitimate or successfull
(1983, p. 152).
With this in mind, normative isomorphic processes, based primarily in
professionalization or the collective efforts of members of a field to define their work,
dictate that universities play a part in isomorphic processes (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).
Namely, universities can be considered “important centers for the development of
organizational norms among professional managers and their staff. Professional and
trace associations are another vehicle for the definition and promulgation of normative
rules about organizational and professional behavior” (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983, p.
152).
With all these concepts in mind, many of the actions taken by the University of
Florida in its effort to build its reputation and to rise through the rankings of public
universities could seem somewhat isomorphic in nature. This notion is not necessarily
negative. Aspiring to produce innovative research and to recruit prestigious faculty to
cultivate high-caliber students like Harvard University, University of California Los
39
Angeles, Stanford University, and other universities which round out the nation’s best is
indeed a noble pursuit.
DiMaggio and Powell aptly noted that innovation or innovative practices often
result from isomorphic processes. However, there does seem to be a certain
responsibility associated with what may be referred to as the University of Florida’s
isomorphic approach to attaining preeminence, or its modeling of other preeminent
institutions and nationally acclaimed universities.
In his first major scholarly contribution to the field of economics, Armen Alchian
noted that:
While there certainly are those who consciously innovate, there are those who, in their imperfect attempts to imitate others, unconsciously innovate by unwittingly acquiring some unexpected or unsought unique attributes which under the prevailing circumstances prove partly responsible for the success” (1950, p. 218-219).
It is then possible that the University of Florida’s quest for top 10 status and the
Florida Preeminence Initiative may have precipitated its own unique attribute within the
UF community: preeminence itself. Indeed, preeminence seems to play a large role in
the present culture of the University of Florida. It was absent prior to the great strides
toward an augmentation in national ranking, begun under the preeminence initiative in
2013.
The role that preeminence plays within the University of Florida raises a variety
of questions outside of the realm of the Florida Preeminence Initiative’s metrics.
Namely, if preeminence, a unique attribute that is the product of innovation brought on
by isomorphic practices, is indeed a part of the University of Florida’s culture, what are
the implications for the university and its role as an institutional leader within the state of
Florida and in the lives of its students and faculty?
40
As stated previously, UF’s endeavors are indeed noble in pursuit. However,
isomorphic practices, as implied previously, can have negative repercussions with
respect to homogenization. If the university is to evade this pitfall, it is important to
consider the theoretical foundations of its leadership and the means by which it can
effectively practice its leadership.
To better understand preeminence’s implications for UF and to better understand
UF’s leadership from theoretical standpoints, it is important to consider the kind of
leadership with which the University of Florida aligns.
Theoretical Framework
The concept of transformational leadership traces its roots to the work of James
MacGregor Burns in the late 1970s. In his seminal work, Burns makes the distinction
between leadership which is transactional and leadership which is transforming.
Namely, transactional leadership involves a leader exchanging something of value with
another person for his or her followership (Burns, 1978). While both parties, leader and
follower, may have a similar purpose, their relationship goes no further; they are not
bound to each other (Burns, 1978). Conversely, leadership that is transforming implies
that leaders and followers are engaged with each other in such a way that they raise
each other to “higher levels of motivation and morality” (Burns, 1978, p. 134). This kind
of leadership is uplifting and augments “the level of human conduct and ethical
aspiration” of both the leader and follower (Burns, 1978, p. 134).
Many have assigned transformational leadership to the New Leadership
paradigm (Bryman, 1992). As such, transformation leadership has received a great deal
of scholarly attention in a variety of contexts since its genesis (Northouse, 2016). As
such, as a leadership theory, transformational leadership has distinct components which
41
may be analyzed and fully explicated in an effort for leadership practitioners to better
understand the ways in which they might engage their followership in the
transformational leadership process.
Transformational Leadership
In order to understand the new leadership paradigm, it is necessary to
differentiate between transformational and transactional leadership. Through this
understanding, the distinction between the proverbial old and new schools of leadership
theory will be made clearer.
Transformational leadership theory traces its earliest roots to the concept of
charisma, which, as a personality characteristic, it generally associated with
transformational leadership as either an antecedent or as a complimentary factor.
Weber posited that people with charisma are inherently treated as leaders (1947).
Burns was the first two define the two concepts. Essentially, transactional leadership
broadly encompasses the majority of leadership theories and models which stress the
exchange between leaders and followers (Burns, 1978; Northouse, 2016).
Transformational leadership is a process in which the leader connects with followers,
mutually enhancing both parties’ motivation and sense of morality (Burns, 1978;
Northouse, 2016).
Burns’ perspective of this leadership theory is an appropriate means of beginning
to understand broadly the theory of transformational leadership through his explication
of the process-orientation of transformational leadership and the theory’s emphasis on
heightening leaders and followers’ sense of morality. Nevertheless, the theory as a
whole can be further understood by examining the work of Bass.
42
Bass developed the model of transformational leadership which is comprised of
seven factors: Idealized influences, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation,
individualized consideration, contingent reward, management by exception, and laissez-
faire (1985).
In this way, Bass’s perspective refines what Burns established in the late 1970s
and provides leadership practitioners and theorists with a distinct means of identifying
transformational leadership and its tenants in-practice. Below are abridged definitions of
the seven factors:
• Factor 1 -- Idealized influence: acting as a role model for followers, providing a vision and/or mission for which to strive (Bass, 1985; Bass, 2000; Northouse, 2016).
• Factor 2 -- Inspirational motivation: using inspiration to motivate followers to buy into the organization/leader’s mission (Bass, 1985; Bass, 2000; Northouse, 2016).
• Factor 3 -- Intellectual stimulation: when the leader fosters an atmosphere of creativity and innovation, encouraging followers to challenge their own beliefs and those of the leader/organization (Bass, 1985; Bass, 2000; Northouse, 2016).
• Factor 4 -- Individualized consideration: listening to the needs of the follower(s) (Bass, 1985; Bass, 2000; Northouse, 2016).
• Factor 5 -- Contingent reward: “effort by followers is exchanged for specified rewards” (Northouse, 2016, p. 171).
• Factor 6 -- Management-by-exception: “corrective criticism, negative feedback, and negative reinforcement” that take a passive and active form (Northouse, 2016, p. 171).
o Active: Engaging in micromanagement. o Passive: A leader intervenes only when the follower commits an error.
• Factor 7 -- Laissez-faire: a hands-off approach which represents leadership’s absence (Bass, 1985; Bass, 2000; Northouse, 2016).
43
Transformational Leadership in Organizations
Although transformational leadership is traditionally analyzed through a leader-to-
follower frame, it can also be observed in an organizational context. Specifically,
transformational leadership can impact organizations in addition to the individuals which
comprise said entities. It is important to consider the transformative nature that large
organizations – like a university – manifest when transformational leadership is present
within their hierarchies and decision making.
Transformational leadership can trace the genesis of much of its formal research
in organizational contexts to one of its foremost theorists and supporters. Bass posited
that transformational leadership would have a place in organizational settings because
he believed organizations to be institutions predicated on adaptive needs (2000).
Essentially, leaders and followers in organizations would rely less on the monotony of a
single job with consistent tasks, and rely more on the assignment of tasks to different
employees and team players based on the organization’s changing needs (Bass, 2000).
As such, he believed that learning institutions would soon see the introduction of
transformational leadership principles in their hierarchy due to their innate adaptive
needs.
Jung, Chow, and Wu analyzed the relationship between transformational
leadership and organizational innovation (2003). They found that transformational
leadership has a positive relationship with “both empowerment and an innovation-
supporting organizational climate” (Jung, Chow, & Wu, 2003, p. 527). Gumusluoglu and
Ilsev also found that transformational leadership concepts are associated with
organizational innovation (2009). Furthermore, their study suggested that there is a
44
positive relationship between employee creativity and transformational leadership
practices (Gumusluoglu and Ilsev, 2009).
Although transformational leadership has slowly been introduced in higher
education settings, many of the initial ideas regarding transformational leadership
principles’ integration into education revolved around primary and secondary education.
Indeed, Leithwood noted that prior to the rise in scholarly attention given to
transformational leadership, instructional leadership permeated school settings
throughout the 1980s and early 1990s (1992). Essentially the term entails that school
leadership focuses on “first-order changes – improving technical, instructional activities
of the school through the close monitoring of teachers’ and students’ classroom work”
(Leithwood, 1992, p. 9).
In light of school complexities and the need for second-order changes,
transformational leadership is considered the appropriate pursuit of educational
leadership to address these issues and to foster a greater sense of hope, optimism, and
energy (Roberts, 1985; Leithwood, 1992). Much discussion has revolved around the
benefits of transformational leadership in school settings.
Hallinger noted that transformational leadership establishes a school climate in
which teachers “engage in continuous learning and in which they routinely share their
learning with others” (2003, p. 338). Furthermore, transformational leadership ensures
that those in the school community will link their personal goals to those of the
organization (Barth, 1990; Lambert; 2002; Hallinger; 2003).
45
As primary and secondary education have explored transformational leadership’s
place in school settings, higher education has also seen the opportunity for university
apparatuses to incorporate transformational leadership principles in their communities.
If universities are to play more of an active role in intentionally engaging their
students and faculty through transformational practices, special consideration must be
given to a university’s identity. Without an institution’s foundational awareness, it will
likely become difficult for a university to authentically and holistically engage its students
and faculty, resulting in the aforementioned benefits associated with transformational
leadership.
In the case of an institution like the University of Florida, one must look to its
roots as a land-grant institution to begin formulating its narrative. Furthermore, the
school’s recent commitment to preeminence will also factor heavily in the establishment
of its narrative as a transformative institution for its students and faculty.
Transformational Leadership Begets Authentic Leadership
As previously mentioned, transformational leadership provided leadership
scholars with a chance to understand leadership as a process that stems from the
relationships between leaders and followers and the growth therein. As research about
transformational leadership grew in the 1990s, leadership scholars attempted to
understand the nature of leader-follower trust, the genuine nature of leader practices,
and purpose and values-based decisions. Although authentic leadership is generally
agreed to have derived itself from transformational leadership (Bass, 1990; Bass &
Steidlmeier, 1999; Burns, 1978; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Northouse, 2016), the term
authenticity, finds its roots in Greek philosophy and is concerned with being true to
46
oneself (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Through the analysis of themes in positive
psychology, transformational leadership, and authenticity, Avolio, Luthans, and
Walumbwa (2004, p.4) determined that authentic leaders are:
those who are deeply aware of how they think and behave and are perceived by others as being aware of their own and others’ values/moral perspectives, knowledge and strengths; aware of the context in which they operate; and who are confident, hopeful, optimistic, resilient, and of high moral character (as cited in Avolio, Gardner et al., 2004).
Although multifaceted, Avolio and Gardner note that leadership theorists are
beginning to believe that self-awareness in leaders is a suitable point to begin
considering the themes that comprise authentic leadership (2005). Self-awareness is
then defined as the “process where one continually comes to understand his or her
unique talents, strengths, sense of purpose, core values, beliefs, and desires” (Avolio &
Gardner, 2005, p. 324).
The debate for an all-encompassing definition of authentic leadership as a
concept has persisted in recent decades on due to the theory’s various domains and
moving pieces. Nevertheless, Gardner, Cogliser, Davis, and Pickens (2011) conducted
a content analysis of 91 authentic leadership publications in an attempt to clarify the
theory for the good of the broader leadership field. Much of their analysis focused on
reviewing and synthesizing previously proposed definitions of authentic leadership
outlined amongst the 91 publications.
While their results would indicate that no one definition of authentic leadership
was agreed upon, several themes were common across most definitions (Gardner et
al., 2011). These included self-awareness, positive self-regulation, positive self-
development, and/or a positive moral perspective (Gardner et al., 2011). Due to these
similarities, the study did affirm that much has been done in the way of conceptual
47
definitions of authentic leadership, but more research will be needed to further refine
authentic leadership theory.
For the purposes of this study, authentic leadership may best be operationalized
from Luthans and Avolio’s perspective (2003) as it seems to encompass the
aforementioned themes identified in the work of Gardner and associates (2011) and
makes references pertinent to individuals as well as organizations:
We define authentic leadership in organizations as a process that draws from both positive psychological capacities and a highly developed organizational context, which results in both greater self-awareness and self-regulated positive behaviors on the part of leaders and associates, fostering positive self-development. The authentic leader is confident, hopeful, optimistic, resilient, transparent, moral/ethical future-oriented, and gives priority to developing associates into leaders themselves. The authentic leader does not try to coerce or even rationally persuade associates, but rather the leader's authentic values, beliefs, and behaviors serve to model the development of associates. (Luthans & Avolio, 2003, p. 243)
As mentioned previously, it would seem that various elements of authentic
leadership are common across a great number of the proposed conceptual definitions.
Indeed, many authentic leadership scholars do affirm that self-awareness is crucial to
the development of authentic leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner et al., 2011).
Understanding this, establishing a sense of self-awareness requires a great deal
of introspection and reflection over the plethora of factors which contributed to self-
awareness elements such as values, core beliefs, desires, etc. There are a variety of
methods which could be used to find this self-awareness, but the process is difficult for
at an individual level, let alone an organizational or institutional level.
One way in which self-awareness may manifest clearly is through narrative. The
narrative concept’s origins may be found in the philosophical works of Ricoeur (1992).
He believed that individuals their various life events, behaviors, decisions, and
48
motivations to construct a unified life story for themselves (Ricoeur, 1992; Avolio &
Gardner, 2005). Essentially, for a person, or an entity, narrative can serves as a means
for which to enhance self-awareness, establishing a strong sense of identity through the
multitude of experiences and beliefs which can span a lifetime. Sparrowe posed a
similar idea stating that with narrative “consistency is the outcome of successfully
narrating how the self is the same self through the disparate events of one’s life so that
the unity of character becomes evident” (2005, p. x).
If institutions of higher learning are transformational in nature as previously
implied, and, if authentic leadership and its principles are linked directly to a foundation
in transformational leadership, it may be reasonable to infer that institutions, such as
universities, not just people, are subject to the same responsibility to lead authentically
in order to successfully transform its community members. Therefore, academic
institutions such as the University of Florida should engage in the development of its
narrative in order ensure that its apparatuses attain a sense of self-awareness to
establish a concrete identity. In so doing, institutions like the University of Florida may
lead and effect change that is authentic and transformational with confidence with
respect to its key stakeholder groups, students and faculty.
Conceptual Considerations
Land-grant universities have an established narrative as universities whose
purposes are predicated on teaching, research, and extension (Seevers & Graham,
2012). As such, land-grants have sought to fundamentally impact their students, faculty,
and the general public in the last 150 years. To name a few of the results of this impact
on students, faculty, and the general public have been the conferment of degrees,
scientific progress and public education and or awareness. Although not fully
49
comprehensive, Figure 1 illustrates basic outputs of a land-grant university such as the
University of Florida.
Figure 2-1. University of Florida’s land-grant narrative
As stated previously in chapter 1, the University of Florida traces its agricultural
roots to the Florida Agricultural College of Lake City, Florida. The University of Florida
has claimed land-grant status and has served the state and nation in the capacity since
the turn of the 20th century.
It is then reasonably inferred that the land-grant mission and all of the
experiences, values, and responsibilities it entails serve to comprise a large portion of
the University of Florida’s narrative which contribute to its identity as a transformational
institution.
University of Florida
Conferment of Degrees
Scientific Progress
Public Education/AwarenessExtension
Research
Teaching
50
If the University of Florida is to be a preeminent, land-grant institution, see Figure
2, the university’s land-grant narrative will need blend with the principles, descriptors,
actions, and terminology which comprise the university’s preeminence.
Figure 2-2. Intersection of the University of Florida’s preeminence narrative and its land-grant narrative
To ensure that these two elements of the university’s narrative overlap, it will be
crucial for university administrators, faculty, staff, and students to clearly outline the
elements which comprise both so that the narrative may be articulated effectively.
While the University of Florida’s land-grant narrative is well-established through
the historical and modern development of the land-grant mission, the University of
Florida’s preeminence initiative and its part in the university’s narrative as a
transformational institution is a bit unclear.
Preeminence University of Florida
Land-Grant
51
To better understand the concept of preeminence and to effectively include it in
the University of Florida’s narrative, it is reasonable to infer that preeminence itself
should be defined. This is crucial, because it is reasonably inferred that this is a means
by which the University of Florida will further its sense of institutional self-awareness.
If the University of Florida can establish its preeminent narrative, through the
development of a definition of UF preeminence, this firmer grasp on narrative will lead to
an enhanced sense of intuitional self-awareness amongst key stakeholder groups within
UF administration, faculty and the student body.
Furthermore, with this refined sense of self-awareness, the university, and all its
apparatuses, may practice leadership which is more genuine and authentic to the core
values, beliefs, and narratives which make the university unique – and indeed
preeminent.
Finally, with a firmer grasp on authentic practice, the University of Florida may
approach its role as a transformative institution in the lives of its students, faculty, staff,
and alumni with a great sense of fulfillment and confidence moving forward as it seeks
to maintain its preeminent status and strives for top 5 public university status.
In so doing, the authentic practice of transformational leadership will ensure that
the University of Florida can continue to strategically and positively incorporate
isomorphic practices such as modeling in its quest for national, institutional hegemony
without running the risk of the negative effects of isomorphism such as implied by the
notion of homogenization.
52
Chapter Summary
Chapter 2 reviewed that relevant elements of the literature as they pertained to
the development of the various elements of this research study. A theoretical frame
work and a conceptual model were introduced.
A discussion regarding isomorphism was initiated to understand the beginnings
of UF’s move toward national and international hegemony. This was critical to begin
understanding the ways in which UF could consecrate its institutional identity through
leadership theory and practice, avoiding the pitfalls of isomorphic processes.
Transformational leadership was defined as a part of the new leadership
paradigm (Burns, 1978) was selected as the overarching theory for this research study.
Transformational leadership lays the foundation for understanding a university’s
transformative power in the lives of its students and faculty.
Authentic leadership (Avolio, Luthans, & Walumbwa, 2004) was discussed as a
means to introduce the concept of narrative as an avenue for attaining a greater sense
of self-awareness, affirming a person or an organization’s identity.
The University of Florida’s two narratives, land-grant and preeminent were
discussed. The development of the preeminent narrative serves as the avenue by which
a definition of preeminence might be sought.
53
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY
Chapter Introduction
The ensuing sections will address the methods and procedure for this research
study. Rationale of the methodological decisions will also be overviewed. Additionally,
the target population will be identified and explained.
Research Design: The Delphi Method
The practice of utilizing consensus methodologies in formal research can find its
genesis in the 1940s (Fink, Kosecoff, Chassin, & Brook, 1984). Since that time, the
approach has been popularized in various fields of the social sciences, particularly in
nursing and health sciences (Fink et al., 1984; Powell, 2003). Nevertheless, consensus
methods have proven effective in non-health-related fields. The Delphi method in
particular has garnered much use since its first usage in 1948 (Fink et al., 1984). Simply
put the Delphi method is “an attempt to obtain expert opinion in a systematic manner”
(Fink et al., 1984, p. 979). Broadly speaking, the Delphi method typically consists of
three to four rounds of questionnaires in which the selected group of experts are polled
individually and anonymously with regards to the research topic (Fink et al., 1984;
Powell, 2003; Skulmoski, Hartman, & Krahn, 2007). The method is deemed terminated
once there is a “convergence of opinion or when a point of diminishing returns is
reached” (Fink et al., 1984, p. 980). Regarding the method’s limitations, some argue
that the Delphi method’s flexibility can often hinder its natural inclination to expediency.
Namely, as a benefit, the Delphi method can augment the number of rounds in which
participants are queried based on the needs of the study as it develops. Nevertheless,
some argue that this may lead to negative effects such as a lack of participant
54
exhaustion and/or attrition (Powell, 2003). Furthermore, other research scholars have
argued that the Delphi method can lead to an attenuated expert opinion by virtue of too
many varying perspectives (Powell, 2003). The primary benefit of the Delphi method
include its ability to garner consensus on a subject where there is uncertainty, generally
due to a lack of empirical evidence (Powell, 2003). Additional advantages range from its
flexibility, cost-effective nature, expediency, and the wide-ranging experience that
expert participants can bring to the study in-question (Powell, 2003).
With all of its advantages in mind, the Delphi method was identified as the means
for achieving the objectives and purpose of this study. Furthermore, due to the
broadness and complexity of preeminence, expert, group opinion seemed the natural
way to arrive at a definition that is both accurate and appropriate. Indeed, Linstone and
Turoff noted that “Delphi may be characterized as a method for structuring a group
communication process so that the process is effective in allowing a group of
individuals, as a whole, to deal with a complex problem” (Linstone & Turoff, 2002, p. 2).
Namely, it is believed that expert opinion can and will establish a valid, definition of
preeminence within the context of the University of Florida.
By its essence, the Delphi method is a mixed methods approach. Nevertheless,
based on the needs of the study, the method can take on a more qualitative or
quantitative tone. This study, at its core, is more qualitative in nature in that its
responses which begin the process for establishing consensus are free response.
However, ensuing rounds do incorporate quantitative practice in that they allow for
ranking and ratings based on Likert type questions and other such numerical measures.
55
The University of Florida’s academic department chairs comprise the target
population for this research study. Numerous scholars have indicated that a university’s
overall success may be measured by the success of its departments (Coats, 2000;
Sadeghi & Pihie, 2012). Furthermore, department chairs are the parties primarily
responsible for influencing the quality of their unit (Bowman, 2002; Williams, 2001;
Sadeghi & Pihie, 2012). Therefore, as this study seeks a holistic definition for the
University of Florida’s preeminence and lacks a set, research study precedent,
department chairs were deemed a suitable audience that could be queried.
Figure 3-1. Flowchart of Delphi Method Procedure
56
Data Collection
This study is of the social sciences and deals in the study of people. In
accordance with federal, state, and university laws and regulations, Institutional Review
Board (IRB) approval was sought so that the appropriate and ethical inclusion of human
subjects could be carried out for the purposes that this studied proposed. This study
was conducted over a three week period during the University of Florida’s 2018 spring
semester.
This research study was outlined and fully explicated by the correct means to the
pertinent IRB channels. As such, this study’s principal investigator sought the approval
of the Behavioral/Nonmedical Institutional Review Board or IRB 02. Exempt review was
requested as there were few to no known risks associated with participation in this
study. At the conclusion of the IRB review process, this study was awarded exempt
status and approved by the appropriate IRB 02 authorities. The study’s IRB number was
IRB201800090. The approval form may be viewed in Appendix A.
The surveys which were to comprise the study were designed and developed via
Qualtrics software service. The Qualtrics organization specializes in the development of
electronic surveys to be used by academic institutions, private corporations, and other
such entities. By virtue of an agreement between UF and Qualtrics, UF students have
considerable access to Qualtrics tools so that they may use the software in the
development of research projects at the undergraduate and graduate level.
Prior to the study’s start, the principal investigator sought out the contact
information for UF department chairs. It was originally believed that a department
chair/head listserv existed and could be obtained via the UF associate provost for
undergraduate affairs office. The principal investigator reached out to members of this
57
office to request the appropriate method for e-mailing the chairs/heads. The associate
provost’s office then sought permission from the provost’s office to provide the principal
investigator with the means to email the chairs/heads.
Upon the review of the study’s IRB approval form, the provost’s office approved
the use of the department chair/head e-mail list which was then forwarded, via the
associate provost, to the principal investigator. In effect, this was approval for the
principal investigator to reach out to all UF department chairs/heads for the purposes of
this research study.
In lieu of listserv, the provost’s office had provided a simple list of all UF
department chair/head e-mails. This list of departments contacted may be viewed in
Appendix F. From this point, the term chair is assumed to refer to all of those titles
department chair/head/director which imply the chief administrator of a department.
The principal investigator would use the mail merge process via Microsoft Word
and Microsoft Excel when he e-mailed department chairs throughout the course of the
study.
To begin the study, a primer e-mail was sent to the study’s target population:
UF’s 131 department chairs. In this e-mail, they were provided with an introduction to
the principal investigator, the study’s purpose and the study’s IRB approval number.
The study’s informed consent letter (Appendix B) was not provided via e-mail. Rather, it
was presented at the beginning of every survey in each of the rounds. In this way,
participants were obliged to read the letter prior to beginning the surveys.
58
Through the study’s informed consent, survey respondents were made aware
that the study presented them with no potential benefits, harm, or risk. The study’s
pursuit was purely academic in nature.
Additionally, the department chairs were made aware of the study’s timeline,
shown below:
• Week of January 29: Primer e-mail introducing the study • Monday February 5: Round 1 of Delphi (open for five days) • Monday February 12: Round 2 of Delphi (open for five days) • Monday February 19: Final round of Delphi (open for five days)
In essence, this study’s approach to the Delphi entailed contacting department
chairs over a three week period in which a survey round was conducted over a five day
period (Monday-Friday) and data collection occurred over a two day period (Saturday-
Sunday).
With each round, chairs were contacted on the Monday of the corresponding
round’s week. In so doing, they were provided with access to the survey for that week
and given the appropriate instructions. Reminder e-mails were sent once during each
round. These reminder e-mails were sent the day before the surveys closed (Thursday).
These e-mails were discussed in more detail in the limitations section of this document
(Chapter 1).
As they were designed, each round’s survey instrument should have taken
anywhere between three and five minutes to respond to the questions presented. All of
the survey instruments distributed throughout this study may be viewed in Appendices
C-E.
Upon the conclusion of each round, this study’s principal investigator analyzed
and summarized data so that it could be used in ensuing rounds of the study’s Delphi
59
method in an effort to maintain the consensus building process. Data was not shared
with anyone, and respondents’ identities were anonymous as the study utilized no
identifiers through questioning nor any of its techniques.
Upon the receipt of the research study’s IRB approval form, the department chair
contact information, and the conclusion of the initial survey’s design, the study was
initiated on February 3, 2018, beginning with the primer e-mail.
The first round instrument (Appendix C) was then distributed on Monday,
February 5, followed by the first round reminder e-mail on February 8. The second
round instrument (Appendix D) was distributed on Monday, February 12, followed by the
second round reminder e-mail on February 15. The third round (final) instrument
(Appendix E) was distributed on February 19, followed by the third round (final)
reminder on February 22.
Data Analysis
Data analysis for this study took place on three different occasions. Namely, at
the conclusion of each round’s data collection period (five days each), the principal
investigator took two days to analyze results and compile the appropriate information for
the ensuing survey rounds. Consensus would build from round 1 through round 3.
Round 1 data was collected through free response. Round 2 data was collected through
voting with Likert type questions. Round 3 data was collected through three types of
questions: ranking, simple yes/no, and multiple response choices.
Demographic items were described using their frequency (f) and corresponding
percentages. Amongst this study’s responses, frequency may be of occurrences for a
given value (Agresti & Finaly, 2009).
60
Three questions were used to guide this study beginning in round 1. Throughout
all three rounds, this study aimed to garner consensus from their responses. Questions
1 and 2 were essential to the core purpose of this study. In effect, they attempted to
answer the study’s question directly. Question 3 was not necessarily pertinent to the
overarching purpose of the study. Rather, it was supplemental. Realistically, it could
serve as a foundational question for a separate study entirely. However, the principal
investigator felt that its inclusion might provide valuable insight on the perceptions of the
relationship between the UF land-grant narrative and the UF preeminent narrative. Such
a question might provide implications for further research on topics of UF’s institutional
identity.
The questions were presented as follows:
• In two to three sentences, how would you define the University of Florida’s preeminence?
• In your opinion, what are 5-10 descriptors which accurately portray UF’s preeminent status?
• In two to three sentences, do you feel that your views of UF preeminence align with the University of Florida’s land-grant mission? (or what are the similarities and differences between UF’s role as a land-grant and preeminence?)
Round 1 data was collected via three free response (Chapter 4). As such, round
1 data was analyzed in a qualitative fashion with emphasis placed on the key-words-in-
context (KWIC) analysis method. KWIC is a qualitative analysis method predicated on
simple observation (Ryan & Bernard, n.d.; Ryan & Bernard, 2003).
In essence, the method would have this study’s principal investigator identify key
words or phrases in collected responses and then search the “corpus of the text to find
all instances of the word or phrase” (Ryan & Bernard, n.d., para. 15). Through this
61
method, themes can be identified as words or phrases used in a certain context are
organized into “piles of similar meaning” (Ryan & Bernard, 2003, p. 97).
Through KWIC, the principal investigator was able to refine the results from
round 1. Essentially, as key words and phrases were compared between responses,
themes developed in the responses from question 1 and question 3. Specifically, three
themes developed for question 1, and five themes developed for question 3. These
themes will be explicated further in the next section.
Once the responses to questions 1 and 3 were organized by themes through
KWIC, the principal investigator determined which responses would be included in
round 2 so that respondents could vote on their agreement or disagreement. As KWIC
naturally entails that responses are organized into “piles of similar meaning” (Ryan &
Bernard, 2003, p. 97), these thematic groupings and their statements were analyzed
further for similarities and repetitions amongst the themselves by a simple compare and
contrast method (Ryan & Bernard, n.d.).
In this way, statements which were most representative of the thematic
groupings were identified and chosen to be included for voting in round 2. Statements
which were not included in round 2 were omitted because they were already addressed
by another statement (selected for round 2) or because they lacked coherency.
Additionally, some of the omitted statements did not truly align with any of the identified
themes nor seemed to provide a holistic answer to the original question.
Question 2 did not yield themes in the same fashion as questions 1 and 3.
However, similarities and the foundation for consensus of responses were ascertained
upon review. By virtue of the question’s structure and the responses that were collected,
62
this data was primarily refined by means of simple word repetition method (Ryan &
Bernard, n.d.; Ryan & Bernard, 2003).
The majority of responses fell under this method of word repetition during
analysis. However, a few descriptors may have differed slightly in language from some
of their fellow descriptors responses. Essentially, their meaning was the same but their
language was slightly varied. In cases such as these, KWIC was used in conjunction
with the word repetition method to aid in the facilitation of the data’s refinement and to
clarify the relationship between these descriptors.
Essentially, over 100 descriptors were collected from the responses to question
2. It was determined that certain consistencies should be found amongst these
descriptors in order to provide respondents with terms that demonstrated the beginnings
of consensus agreement.
Since the descriptors were not a part of complete sentences, they were collected
in list format. The principal investigator analyzed the terms and determined which ones
were repeated the most across all the responses.
The highest number of occurrences for a single descriptor numbered nine; the
lowest number of occurrences numbered three.
The total amount of descriptors which carried over to round 2 for voting
numbered 10 (Chapter 4).
Responses yielded from round 2’s Likert scale questions were culled at 57.69%
in the strongly agree category. Responses as a whole demonstrated certain polar
qualities which made it logical to assume consensus from the categorical grouping
which innately reflected high affirmation, supported by the majority of respondents.
63
Namely, responses which reflected 57.69% or greater in the strongly agree category
typically reflected most of remaining percent totals in the other affirmation category
(somewhat agree). Responses which reflected a percentage lower than 57.69% often
reflected higher percentages in the non-affirmation categories (strongly disagree or
somewhat disagree).
It appeared that consensus could not be ascertained from the third question’s
percentages in round 2. Therefore, due to the qualitative elements of this study, it was
decided that the question’s responses would not advance to round 3 for additional
voting. Instead, a new question was devised (Chapter 4) to try and ascertain why
consensus could not be established from the respondents. Nevertheless, at the
conclusion of the data collection period, it was discovered that an error in the survey
instrument was the root cause for the lack of consensus.
In effect, question 3 of the round 2 survey instrument was mistakenly assigned
an additional Likert category entitled “agree” (Appendix D). This did not align with the
original intent to use a five-point Likert scale throughout the course of this study nor, in
the eyes of the principal investigator, did it accurately reflect the responses of survey
participants for that question (as six categories reflected responses instead of five).
As such, the information pertaining to the round 2 survey instrument’s question 3
is presented in Chapter 4 as the study was carried out prior to the discovery of the
instrument’s error. It is believed that the process by which the principal investigator
approached this question prior to the discovery of the error was both valid and worth
note. Nevertheless, the results of said question (prior to the error’s discovery) and any
implications they might have provided will not be considered valid and shall be
64
addressed accordingly in Chapter 5 with brief recommendations regarding the proper
resolution of the issue moving forward. Additionally, it is believed that the error does not
overwhelmingly tarnish this study’s overall implications. This will also be discussed
further in Chapter 5.
Round 3 presented the responses from questions 1 and 2 in round 2 which
demonstrated 57.69% in the strongly agree category of the Likert scale. These were
voted on again to try and determine consensus. Question 1 responses were ranked in
order of most likely to include in a final definition of UF preeminence to least likely to
include in a definition of UF preeminence. The remaining descriptors from question 2
were voted on in a simple yes/no fashion: yes this descriptor should be included in a
final definition of preeminence or no it should not be included in a final definition of
preeminence. The newly devised question, although the result of an error, will be
explained in further detail in Chapter 4. In essence, it sought to allow respondents an
opportunity to indicate why consensus could not be achieved by means of a multiple
response questions with a free response option.
Definitions of Emergent Themes Identified in Round 1
As stated previously, questions 1 and 3 developed themes which helped the
principal investigator to refine data as the study attempted to establish consensuses
throughout the ensuing rounds. Although it was not considered a thematic category in
itself, it should be noted that some responses from question 3 were assigned an
overlapping theme descriptors (Chapter 4). This occurred in one or two instances where
responses demonstrated elements of some of the other themes mentioned in the
question 3 subsection below.
65
Question 1 Themes
• RESEARCH, TEACHING, AND SERVICE. Responses implied that preeminence is centered around or deeply related to the concepts of teaching, research and service.
• RANKING AND RECOGNITION. Responses implied that preeminence was centered around or deeply related to furthering the ranking and national/international recognition of the University of Florida.
• PRESTIGIOUS FACULTY. Responses implied that preeminence was centered around or deeply related to the recruitment, hiring, and development of renowned faculty.
Question 3 Themes
• YES, TRIPARTITE MISSION. Responses implied that there was a relationship between UF’s land-grant mission and preeminence. The relationship was a result of the tripartite mission (or elements of it).
• YES, PUBLIC SERVICE. Responses implied that there was a relationship between UF’s land-grant mission and preeminence. The relationship was a result of UF’s commitment to and responsibility for public service to the state of Florida.
• POSSIBLY, PRACTICAL TRAINING AND RESEARCH DISTINCTION. Responses implied that there might be a relationship between UF’s land-grant mission and preeminence. The relationship might exist, but a distinction must be made between practical training and research.
• NO, THE CONCEPTS DO NOT RELATE. Responses implied that the two concepts did not relate.
• UKNOWN IF THERE IS CONNECTION. Responses implied that it was unknown whether the responses related or could relate.
Subjectivity Statement
I am a Florida Gator. I was born in Gainesville, Florida in the midst of Coach
Steve Spurrier’s Fun ‘n’ Gun and President John Lombardi’s academic renaissance.
While I grew up in Georgia surrounded by a sea of people clad in red and black, my
fervor for my mother’s alma mater and the university which has conferred degrees on
numerous cousins and uncles never failed.
66
Most people tell me that they have never seen me not wear Orange and Blue.
This observation on their part is accurate. As a person grows older, he or she develops
his or her identity. As I have matured over the last two-and-a-half decades, I have come
to embrace my identity as a fully-realized Florida Gator.
I love my university and all its apparatuses and people more than I love myself. I
came to this realization in the middle of my second year at UF when I discovered the
path to my life’s work. Namely, I wanted to embark on the journey of working in
academia both as a professor and as an administrator. Additionally, I set as my ultimate
goal: becoming president of the University of Florida. My aspirations and life’s dream
have not wavered in the last half-decade.
By loving my alma mater as much as I do, I admit that I find myself trying to
understand the various initiatives, causes, and endeavors that the institution has taken
on during its history and those which it plans to pursue in the future. The Preeminence
Initiative and the quest for top 10 (now top 5) public university status has been as much
my obsession as it has been for UF’s cabinet level administrators and the board of
trustees.
While I would readily proclaim that my alma mater is the finest academic
institution in the country and one of the finest in the world, I am one of the last people to
be critical of the university. Certainly, I am not blind to imperfections and shortcomings,
but I do tend to prefer to present an optimistic, glass-is-half-full view of the university.
Some may consider this a light case of institutional elitism on my part or, perhaps, just a
simple overabundance of passion.
67
In any case, I often paint a very fine picture of UF. Were I to take on research
initiatives specific to understanding aspects of the University of Florida, this could
certainly prove a shortcoming on my part as a researcher who strives for the accurate
interpretation and presentation of results.
I hope that, in some small way, this statement and confession for my undying
love for my alma mater will benefit this study’s research process and ensure that I
evade the biases that subjectivity precipitates.
Chapter Summary
Chapter 3 summarized the methodology that was selected to fulfill the purpose
and objectives devised for this research study. The study was mixed methods in nature
and adhered to the Delphi method of consensus building.
The target population was comprised of UF academic department chairs and
heads. The chairs and heads were queried via surveys. A primer e-mail was sent prior
to the commencement of the data collection period so that the study could be properly
introduced.
The data collection period consisted of three rounds – a survey per round –
which were conducted over a three week period in February of 2018.
Data analysis was conducted after each round to prepare the survey for the
ensuing round.
68
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS
Chapter Introduction
This study’s data collection consisted of three rounds over a three week period.
With each week, a survey was sent to the target population. The surveys were open for
a five day period followed by a two day period in which the data was analyzed and
compiled for the ensuing round.
The ensuing sections will present this study’s findings, including the
demographics and response rates.
Round 1 Results
The first survey of this study was conducted over a five day period in the
University of Florida’s 2018 spring semester. The survey was designed in Qualtrics and
ensured that respondents familiarized themselves with the study’s UF institutional
Review Board’s informed consent letter. The survey contained demographic questions
and three questions which would serve as the basis for the survey’s consensus building
process and the ensuing Delphi rounds. The three questions central to this survey were
free response and thus presented the principal investigator with qualitative data. At the
conclusion of the five days, the first round survey’s results were analyzed, refined, and
compiled to prepare the second round survey’s distribution.
Responses collected coalesced around three questions:
• In two to three sentences, how would you define the University of Florida’s preeminence?
• In your opinion, what are 5-10 descriptors which accurately portray UF’s preeminent status?
69
• In two to three sentences, do you feel that your views of UF preeminence align with the University of Florida’s land-grant mission? (or what are the similarities and differences between UF’s role as a land-grant and preeminence?)
As this round of the Delphi method is primarily qualitative in nature, assessments
were made regarding the similarities and differences of the collected responses across
the three questions (Chapter 3). This was done through a combination of key-words-in-
context (KWIC) method and simple word repetition method (Ryan & Bernard, n.d.; Ryan
& Bernard, 2003).
In total, three themes emerged from the responses for the first question and five
themes for the third question. The second question did not manifest any thematic
elements and was simply interpreted through numerical implications. The information
which was deemed most prevalent across all responses (themes for the first and third
questions and frequency for the second questions) was carried over into the second
round.
Response Rate
The round one survey’s questions all yielded a 16.8% response rate (n=22). This
would imply that 109 responses were missing. As mentioned in Chapters 1 and 2, non-
respondents were accounted for through a weekly reminder e-mail.
Demographics
The round one demographics questions covered a variety of areas and asked
respondents to provide the gender with which they identified, their ethnicity, age range,
and highest level of academic degree. Additionally, they were asked to indicate which of
their degrees they obtained in the state of Florida, how many years they have lived in
Florida (text response), and whether or not they were previously employed at the
University of Florida prior to being appointed a department head or chair. Lastly,
70
respondents were to provide the year (text response) in which they began serving as
department head or chair and indicate whether or not they teach coursework regularly.
When asked to report their gender, 81.82% (n=18) identified as male and 18.18%
(n=4) identified as female.
Respondents were able to report their ethnicity as White, Black or African
American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native American or Pacific
Islander, or Other. The vast majority of respondents identified as White (n=20 or
90.91%), while other ethnicities reported were Asian (n=1 or 4.55%) and Black or
African American (n=1 or 4.55%).
The age range of respondents varied across the categories presented (25-35;
36-46; 47-57; 57+). The largest number of respondents was in the 57+ range (n=11 or
50%), while 47-57 (n=7 or 31.82%) and 36-46 (n=4 or 18.18%) were smaller in number.
Regarding their level of education, nearly all respondents obtained a doctoral
degree in their career (n=21 or 95.45%) with one exception being a master’s degree
(n=1 or 4.55%).
The number of years in which respondents lived in the state of Florida varied
significantly, with the least amount of time being less than a year and the greatest
amount of time being 40 years.
When asked if they if they were previously employed by UF prior to their
appointment as department chair or head, 63.64% (n=14) indicated yes and 36.36%
(n=8) indicated no.
71
With one exception, all respondents began their tenure as department chair or
head in the 2000s. One respondent began his or her term in 1987. The most recent
appointment was in 2017.
Lastly, respondents were asked to indicate if they regularly teach course work in
addition to their responsibilities as department chair or head, 59.09% (n=13) indicating
yes and 40.91% (n=9) indicating no.
As mentioned previously, respondents were asked to indicate which of their
academic degrees was obtained in the state of Florida. This data is incomplete due to
an error in the survey design process. Only a portion of the respondents recorded this
information. Therefore, this particular demographic data will be considered unusable
within the context of this study.
Round 1: Question 1
With the first theme, definitions alluded to the UF preeminence being predicated
on solid research, teaching, and service to the local, state, and or national community.
An example of this is shown by the survey respondent’s answer below.
Response The University of Florida is in a continuing process of achieving and maintaining preeminence in research, teaching and service to the broader community. We have a diverse and talented student body at all levels, being educated and trained by a highly capable and dedicated faculty with expertise in all areas of knowledge. Research taking place at the University of Florida is at the forefront of progress, as indicated by external funding and publication in leading journals and monograph series.
Essentially, these definitions implied that their respondents had a vision of
preeminence in which the university was secure in its core responsibilities so that it
could fulfill its social obligations as a servant unto various stakeholder groups. Most
respondents mentioned extension, or the extension concept, as a means of fulfilling this
service to the public. Other responses made references to the concept of scholarship.
72
One response in particular noted that this is achieved through the attainment of grant
funding and subsequent publication of studies in leading research journals.
With the second theme, definitions alluded to UF preeminence being predicated
on recognition and ranking at the national and international level amongst peer
institutions and academic associations. An example of this is shown below.
Response This is a program to identify parameters to raise the scholarly profile of the University to be nationally and internationally recognized. The effort is to break away from the regional excellence thinking. This covers the scope of teaching, research and service. For IFAS, outreach is also a theme.
These definitions indicated that some respondents hold a view of preeminence
based largely on the university’s prestige as it is perceived by members of the academic
community. Most attention was given to regional or national recognition. However,
several respondents did make mention of international recognition as more than just an
afterthought. Some respondents specified that this recognition stems from high quality
faculty, programs, students, grants and research. Additionally, some responses cited
top 10 or top 5 public university status as a specific metric of preeminence.
With the third theme, definitions alluded to UF preeminence being predicated on
the recruitment, hiring, and development of quality or prestigious faculty. An example of
this type of response is shown below.
Response UF Preeminence is an effort to establish the University of Florida as a leading academic center of excellence defined by the quality of faculty and work performed at this institution.
These definitions always traced the success of teaching, research, prestige, and
scholarship to the quest for obtaining high-quality faculty and allowing them to helm
projects in their area of expertise. Some felt that, rather than the university’s
responsibility, it was the collective faculty’s responsibility to serve the community of UF
73
stakeholder groups in Florida by addressing key issues (e.g. climate change, obesity,
etc.) and/or meeting expectations put in place by the university itself. Others felt that
preeminence as a whole or the quest for preeminence were synonymous with the
recruitment of high quality faculty – nothing more.
Aside from the three emergent themes of respondent’s definition of preeminence,
there were a few responses which could not necessarily be categorized primarily
because they possessed elements of all three categories and were subject to severe
categorical overlap. One exception was of note: a single response was highly
contextualized and indicated that UF’s preeminence could be defined as excellent
patient care, the high-level development of medical professionals, and the refinement of
care. It should also be noted that one response indicated that athletic excellence was a
part of top 10 public university status and, by association, preeminence. The notion was
not expounded upon further.
Round 1: Question 2
The number of descriptors per response to this question varied from three to five
descriptors provided. The results were analyzed, and, while no themes were apparent
as with the other two questions’ responses, it was evident that certain descriptors were
common across multiple responses. Descriptors which occurred three or more times
amongst the responses were considered prevalent and retained to be included in the
second round. In all, 10 descriptors emerged as the culled data from the responses that
were collected. The terms which comprised the list which carried over to round two were
excellence, research, funding, nationally/internationally recognition, comprehensive,
high-level research output, impactful, prestigious faculty, public service, and
outstanding.
74
Round 1: Question 3
With the first theme, any such responses were interpreted as a somewhat neutral
in stance. Essentially, respondents that answered in this way did not address the
relationship between preeminence and the land-grant mission directly. Rather, they
addressed what they believed both to be in a separate fashion and affirmed that there is
a distinction between practical education and high-caliber research. An example of this
is shown by the survey respondent’s answer below.
Response Somewhat. UF's land-grant mission is to teach the next gen farmer, research in the area of ag sciences, and provide that research to the public. Many of the preeminence areas correlate to the land-grant mission. Whereas the land-grant mission tends to be local, preeminence has some global aspects that are different.
With the second theme, any such responses implied that respondents were not
familiar enough with the land-grant mission to safely state the existence of any
relationship or potential relationship between the land-grant mission and preeminence.
An example of this is shown in the response below.
Response Probably not, honestly. Beyond the CALS, I'm not sure many of us recognize or know what land-grant missions entail. I don't know that they can't coexist, I just don't think many of us have thought about reconciling those two aspects.
With the third theme, responses indicated that respondents were resolute in their
recognition of a relationship between the land-grant mission and preeminence.
Responses of this nature also tended to cite public service and doing good for the
greater community as the lynchpin for the land-grant mission and preeminence. An
example of this type of response is shown below.
Response The greater the university's success and status, the more effectively it can serve its land-grant mission of helping the citizens of Florida. Greater preeminence enhances UF's ability to attract the best and brightest faculty and students, which then leads to a better workforce, more resources
75
flowing to the state, and a more attractive environment for high tech industry to locate in Florida.
With the fourth theme, respondents were exceedingly clear in indicating that they
believed that there was no relationship between the land-grant mission and
preeminence. An example of this clarity of response is shown below.
Response I don't think the land-grant mission and preeminence are aligned. The land grant mission was originally more about access and making research have an impact. Preeminence seems to me to be more about how we compare nationally.
With the fifth theme, responses indicated agreement with the relationship
between the land-grant mission and preeminence. Additionally, respondents made
references and allusions to the tri-partite mission, or elements of the mission, as a
principle which binds the concept of land-grant and preeminence. An example of this
kind of response from a respondent is below.
Response Preeminence refers to a level of distinction, and aligns with the land-grant mission in that the UF vision is to have preeminent university programs that address the land-grant mission. The mission is what we do, the vision of preeminence is how well we do it.
A few responses were not assigned to a specific category due to the fact that
they presented multiple elements of the themes previously mentioned. Essentially,
these responses were identified as relevant for the ensuing rounds but were assigned
an overlapping status. An example of this is below.
Response I feel that UF's role as a land-grant can only be improved by the preeminence distinction. The view and descriptors I have used above should, and are applied to our land-grant mission.
Round 2 Results
The second survey of this study was conducted over a five day period in the
University of Florida’s 2018 spring semester, two days following the conclusion of the
76
first round survey. The second round survey was designed in Qualtrics and ensured that
respondents familiarized themselves with the study’s UF Institutional Review Board
informed consent letter. The three questions central to this survey were designed
honoring the Likert scale method and thus presented the principal investigator with
quantitative data. The questions asked respondents to rate agreement or disagreement
to responses from the round 1 survey on a scale from one to five. The survey also
contained demographic questions. At the conclusion of the five days, the second round
survey’s results were analyzed, refined, and compiled to prepare the third round
survey’s distribution.
To establish a course of action for this round, the responses from round one
were organized by the themes which emerged from the research project’s three primary
questions. From there, the principal investigator narrowed down the responses to those
which seemed to best represent the responses for the questions in addition to the
previously-mentioned, emergent themes.
Response Rate
The round two survey’s responses yielded a 19.8% response rate (n=26) for
questions one and two. This would imply that 105 responses were missing. Question
three and the demographics questions suffered participant attrition and yielded a 16.8%
response rate (n=22). This would imply that 109 responses were missing for question
three and the demographics questions.
As mentioned in Chapters 1 and 2, non-respondents were accounted for through
a weekly reminder e-mail.
It should be noted that, unlike round 1, this round includes partial data from
collected responses. A discrepancy between the culling percentage between the first
77
two questions and the last question of round two will be noted in the ensuring
subsections.
Demographics
The round two demographics questions asked respondents to provide the gender
with which they identified, their ethnicity, and their age range. The number of questions
was reduced for this round primarily because the principal investigator felt that the
previously included questions were most pertinent to qualitative data presented in round
1. Namely, it seemed that round one responses might prove to be the only instance in
which the principal investigator could possible draw any hypothetical inferences
regarding contextual factors and motivations regarding the initial response to the three
questions posed in this research project.
As previously noted, this round reflects information from partially collected data.
As such, the number of responses to the demographics questions does not necessarily
align with the total number or reported data for each research question. This is due to
the fact that demographics questions were placed at the end of the survey; respondents
who dropped out in the middle of their responses would not have reached the
demographics section yet.
When asked to report their gender, 86.36% (n=19) identified as male and 13.64%
(n=3) identified as female.
Respondents were able to report the ethnicity as White, Black or African
American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native American or Pacific
Islander, or Other. The vast majority of respondents identified as White (n=20 or
90.91%), and the remainder (n=2 or 9.09%) reported as Asian.
78
The age range of respondents varied across the categories presented (25-35;
36-46; 47-57; 57+). The largest number of respondents was in the 57+ range (n=10 or
45.45%), while 47-57 (n=8 or 36.36%) and 36-46 (n=4 or 18.18%) were smaller in
number.
Round 2: Question 1
For the first question, “In two to three sentences, how would you define the
University of Florida’s preeminence?”, respondents were asked to rank the degree to
which they disagreed or agreed (scale of one to five) with the statements shown in
Table 4-1.
Responses were considered after reviewing the degree to which respondents
agreed or disagreed with the statements. Overall, most of the round 1 responses
presented regarding the definition of preeminence received favorable ranking from
round 2 survey respondents. Indeed, most of the responses received a great deal of
votes in the “Strongly Agree” category. As such, this category was analyzed for the
purposes of determining a cull point for responses. Special consideration has been
given to those responses which received 57.69% (n=15) or greater response rate in the
“Strongly Agree” category. In this way, the principal investigator opted to cull the
responses for advancement to the third round survey at the 57.69% threshold for the
“Strongly Agree” category. Furthermore, these categories typically received a significant
percentage of responses in the “Somewhat Agree” category. These responses were
eventually incorporated into the third round of the study. The themes which received this
level of agreement were Teaching, Research, and Service; Ranking and Recognition;
and Prestigious Faculty. The responses culled at 57.69% and their themes are reflected
in Table 4-2.
79
Some responses from round 1 which were presented exhibited a considerable
amount of ranking in the “Strongly Agree” and “Somewhat Agree” categories, but they
were not deemed the most significant as they failed to reach the 57.69% threshold in
the “Strongly Agree” category. It should be noted that numbers one and three received
a considerable number of votes in the categories outside of “Somewhat Agree” and
“Strongly Agree.” While number five did receive a great deal of responses in the
“Somewhat Agree” category, it was determined that it was more appropriate to not
include it with the most prevalent themes of this round. The themes which received this
level of agreement were Teaching, Research, and Service; and Ranking and
Recognition. These responses, their percentages, and their themes are reflected in
Table 4-3.
Lastly, several responses presented from round 1 were rated with considerably
less fervor in the “Somewhat Agree” and the “Strongly Agree” categories. The themes
which received this level of agreement were Ranking and Recognition; and Prestigious
Faculty. Table 4-4 reflects the percentages from each category in an effort to showcase
the variation of respondents’ rankings outside of the culling category.
Round 2: Question 2
For the second question, “In your opinion, what are 5-10 descriptors which
accurately portray UF’s preeminent status?”, respondents were asked to rank the
degree to which they disagreed or agreed (scale of one to five) with the preeminence
descriptors shown in Table 4-5.
Responses were considered after reviewing the degree to which respondents
agreed or disagreed with the statements. Overall, most of the round 1 responses
presented regarding the preeminence descriptors received favorable ranking from round
80
2 survey respondents. Indeed, most of the descriptors received a great deal of votes in
the “Strongly Agree” category. As such, this category was analyzed for the purposes of
determining a cull point for responses. Special consideration has been given to those
responses which received 57.69% (n=15) or greater response rate in the “Strongly
Agree” category. In this way, the principal investigator opted to cull the responses for
advancement to the third round survey at the 57.69% threshold for the “Strongly Agree”
category. Furthermore, these categories typically received a significant percentage of
responses in the “Somewhat Agree” category. These responses were eventually
incorporated into the third round of the study. The descriptors which advanced to round
3 were excellence, research, funding, national/international recognition, high-level
research, impactful, and outstanding. The responses culled at 57.69% are reflected in
Table 4-6.
Several descriptors presented from round 1 were rated with considerably less
fervor in the “Somewhat Agree” and the “Strongly Agree” categories. The descriptors
which did not advance to round 3 were comprehensive, prestigious faculty, and public
service. Table 4-7 reflects the percentages from each category in an effort to showcase
the variation of respondents’ rankings outside of the culling category.
Round 2: Question 3
Bearing in mind that the mistake in the survey instrument was not discovered
until after the data collection period was completed (Chapter 3), the procedure which
was carried out under the assumption that the survey instrument was correct is worth
noting. As such, the procedure will be presented in its original form here. The error,
responses’ invalidity, implications, and recommendations will be discussed in Chapter 5.
81
For the third question, “In two to three sentences, do you feel that your views of
UF preeminence align with the University of Florida’s land-grant mission? (or what are
the similarities and differences between UF’s role as a land-grant and preeminence?)”,
respondents were asked to rank the degree to which they disagreed or agreed (scale of
one to five) with the land-grant and UF preeminence statements shown in Table 4-8.
Upon a review of responses to the third question of the round 2 survey, there are
several considerations to keep in mind. Of the second round questions, this questions
received only 22 responses compared to the 26 responses of the preceding two
questions. At this point, it seems that four respondents dropped out of the survey. As
such, the principal investigator resolved to modify the cull point for this question to
reflect the change in number of respondents. However, after reviewing the data
collected across the various responses and Likert categories, it was concluded that no
convincing consensus could be assigned to any of the round 1 responses featured in
the question due to an extraordinary amount of variation for all of the question’s
responses. All themes were a part of the interpretation of this question in this round.
The themes were Yes: public service; Yes: tripartite mission; Unknown if there is a
connection; Possibly: distinction between practical training and research; and No. Table
4-9 reflects the questions responses, their percentages, and their themes.
Round 3 Results
The third and final survey of this study was conducted over a five day period in
the University of Florida’s 2018 spring semester, two days following the conclusion of
the second round survey. The third round survey was designed in Qualtrics and
ensured that respondents familiarized themselves with the study’s UF Institutional
Review Board informed consent letter. The three questions central to this survey were
82
of differing designs but all presented the principal investigator with mostly quantitative
data. Question 1 allowed respondents to rank UF preeminence definition responses
from the previous round from most favorable to least favorable; question two allowed
respondents to indicate whether the preeminent descriptors from previous rounds
should be included in a final UF preeminence definition; question three was a multiple
response question which sought to ascertain why consensus could not be established
for a relationship between UF preeminence and the land-grant mission. Question three
also provided respondents with an opportunity to provide a free response in addition to
the choices provided. The survey also contained demographic questions. At the
conclusion of the five days, the third round survey’s results were analyzed, refined, and
compiled to conclude the data collection period for this study.
To establish a course of action for the final round, the responses from round two
with the greatest percentage of votes and those which occurred most frequently were
presented to be voted and/or ranked for inclusion in a final definition of UF
preeminence. Data regarding the relationship between the land-grant mission and UF
preeminence was inconclusive. Therefore, a new question to address this lack of
consensus was devised for this round.
Response Rate
The round three survey’s responses yielded a 16.8% response rate (n=22) for all
questions. This would imply that 109 responses were missing. As mentioned in
Chapters 1 and 2, non-respondents were accounted for through a weekly reminder e-
mail.
83
Demographics
The round three demographics questions asked respondents to provide the
gender with which they identified, their ethnicity, and their age range.
When asked to report their gender, 72.73 % (n=16) identified as male and
27.27% (n=6) identified as female.
Respondents were able to report their ethnicity as White, Black or African
American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native American or Pacific
Islander, or Other. The vast majority of respondents identified as White (n=19 or
83.36%), and the remainder (n=1 or 4.55%) reported as Asian, Black or African
American (n=1 or 4.55%), and Other (n=1 or 4.55%).
The age range of respondents varied across the categories presented (25-35;
36-46; 47-57; 57+). The largest number of respondents in the 57+ range was 32.36%
(n=8), while the 47-57 range was 40.91% (n=9), and the 36-46 range was 22.73%
(n=5).
Round 3: Question 1
This question presented respondents with the four most highly ranked UF
preeminence definitions from round two. The statements in question are listed in Table
4-10 along with the theme they were assigned in the previous rounds.
After collecting the responses to this question, percentages indicate that there is
a great deal of disparity across all responses with respect to which results were favored
over the others in the 1-4 ranking system provided in the survey. If a respondents
assigned a definition a one, they were indicating that it was their first choice to be
included in a final definition of UF preeminence. A four would have been their last
choice. This percentage distribution can be seen in Table 4-11.
84
Round 3: Question 2
This question presented respondents with the seven most common UF
preeminence descriptors that were established in round two. Respondents had that
opportunity to indicate which descriptors they felt should or should not be included in a
final definition of UF preeminence. Table 4-12 illustrates the percentage distribution
pertaining to the descriptors and the “yes” and “no” responses.
Round 3: Question 3
Bearing in mind that the mistake in the survey instrument was not discovered
until after the data collection period was completed (Chapter 3), the procedure which
was carried out under the assumption that the survey instrument was correct is worth
noting. As such, the procedure will presented in its original form here. The error,
responses’ invalidity, implications, and recommendations will be discussed in Chapter 5.
In round two, consensus could not be established with respect to the relationship
between UF preeminence and the land-grant system. Round three presented the
principal investigator with an opportunity to briefly explore the possibility of why this
perceived lack of a relationship might be the case. As such, a new question was
devised to seek this type of input from respondents: Please indicate all, if any, barriers
that might inhibit the ability to establish consensus for a relationship between UF
preeminence and the land-grant mission. Respondents could select multiple responses
from a series of five statements provided by the principal investigator. Respondents
could also provide a free response if they selected the “other.” The options provided and
the percentage distributions of participants’ responses are shown in Table 4-13.
85
Mean Scores
Although the cull point for this study was 57.69% in the strongly agree category
for the Likert type questions, the mean scores were also collected for the responses to
questions 1 and 2.
These scores were not used in the development of consensus, but, in retrospect
could provide some implications for consensus were the study to be revisited.
The mean scores and their corresponding responses are reflected in Table 4-14
and Table 4-15.
Chapter Summary
Chapter 4 presented the results of this study. Each section addressed the study’s
three rounds, which covered their respective demographics, response rates, and the
responses themselves.
Tables of data were referenced extensively. Due to the nature of their size, these
tables are located on the pages following this chapter summary.
86
Table 4-1. Round 2 Survey: First question themes Reference Number Response Assigned Theme
1 The University of Florida is in a continuing process of achieving and maintaining preeminence in research, teaching and service to the broader community. We have a diverse and talented student body at all levels, being educated and trained by a highly capable and dedicated faculty with expertise in all areas of knowledge. Research taking place at the University of Florida is at the forefront of progress, as indicated by external funding and publication in leading journals and monograph series.
Research, Teaching, and Service
2 This is a program to identify parameters to raise the scholarly profile of the University to be nationally and internationally recognized. The effort is to break away from the regional excellence thinking. This covers the scope of teaching, research and service. For IFAS, outreach is also a theme.
Ranking and Recognition
3 A national and international leader. Preparing students to be productive citizens locally and globally.
Ranking and Recognition
4 We are preeminent when we publish impactful research in high-quality journals, when we attract significant competitive grant funding, when we train the future generation of scientists in growing undergraduate and graduate programs, and when our work has a significant positive impact on livelihoods in FL, the US and internationally.
Research, Teaching, and Service
5 It refers to the superior level or distinction of the University of Florida as an institution of higher education. It also refers to the high quality of the university's teaching, research, and service programs.
Research, Teaching, and Service
6 UF Preeminence is an effort to establish the University of Florida as a leading academic center of excellence defined by the quality of faculty and work performed at this institution.
Prestigious Faculty
7 A good program to identify prominent faculty that can elevate the overall quality of diverse research programs at the University.
Prestigious Faculty
8 Preeminence is the recognition by peer institutions of an elite status is academia with nationally recognized faculty, students of high caliper and excellent physical resources.
Ranking and Recognition
9 The State of Florida and UF's effort to hire people who can meet important challenges. The people hired are positioned in areas of importance (obesity, biodiversity, climate change, etc.) and are also experts who can help increase the research dollars for the UF community.
Prestigious Faculty
10 Preeminence at UF means we have been recognized by our peers as one of the leading public universities in the nation. This designation shows that UF has some of the most impactful research, teaching, and outreach programs among our peer institutions.
Ranking and Recognition
87
Table 4-2. Round 2 Survey: First question’s most prevalent themes
Reference Number Response Strongly
Disagree Somewhat Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree Theme
2 This is a program to identify parameters to raise the scholarly profile of the University to be nationally and internationally recognized. The effort is to break away from the regional excellence thinking. This covers the scope of teaching, research and service. For IFAS, outreach is also a theme.
7.69% 0.00% 3.85% 30.77% 57.69% Ranking and Recognition
4 We are preeminent when we publish impactful research in high-quality journals, when we attract significant competitive grant funding, when we train the future generation of scientists in growing undergraduate and graduate programs, and when our work has a significant positive impact on livelihoods in FL, the US and internationally.
7.69% 3.85% 7.69% 19.23% 61.54% Research, Teaching, and Service
6 UF Preeminence is an effort to establish the University of Florida as a leading academic center of excellence defined by the quality of faculty and work performed at this institution.
7.69% 3.85% 0.00% 26.92% 61.54% Prestigious Faculty
10 Preeminence at UF means we have been recognized by our peers as one of the leading public universities in the nation. This designation shows that UF has some of the most impactful research, teaching, and outreach programs among our peer institutions.
3.85% 0.00% 11.54% 26.92% 57.69% Ranking and Recognition
88
Table 4-3. Round 2 Survey: First question’s less prevalent themes
Reference Number Response Strongly
Disagree Somewhat Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree Theme
1 The University of Florida is in a continuing process of achieving and maintaining preeminence in research, teaching and service to the broader community. We have a diverse and talented student body at all levels, being educated and trained by a highly capable and dedicated faculty with expertise in all areas of knowledge. Research taking place at the University of Florida is at the forefront of progress, as indicated by external funding and publication in leading journals and monograph series.
7.69% 3.85% 3.85% 30.77% 53.85% Research, Teaching, and Service
3 A national and international leader. Preparing students to be productive citizens locally and globally.
7.69% 7.69% 11.54%
19.23% 53.85% Ranking and Recognition
5 It refers to the superior level or distinction of the University of Florida as an institution of higher education. It also refers to the high quality of the university's teaching, research, and service programs.
7.69% 0.00% 0.00% 42.31% 50.00% Research, Teaching, and Service
89
Table 4-4. Round 2 Survey: First question’s least prevalent themes Reference Number Response Strongly
Disagree Somewhat Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
Theme
7 A good program to identify prominent faculty that can elevate the overall quality of diverse research programs at the University.
11.54% 15.38% 15.38% 34.62% 23.08% Prestigious Faculty
8 Preeminence is the recognition by peer institutions of an elite status is academia with nationally recognized faculty, students of high caliper and excellent physical resources.
3.85% 0.00% 26.92% 30.77% 38.46% Ranking and Recognition
9 The State of Florida and UF's effort to hire people who can meet important challenges. The people hired are positioned in areas of importance (obesity, biodiversity, climate change, etc.) and are also experts who can help increase the research dollars for the UF community.
11.54% 11.54% 34.62% 19.23% 23.08% Prestigious Faculty
90
Table 4-5. Round 2 Survey: Second question’s preeminence descriptors Reference Number Descriptor
1 Excellence 2 Research 3 Funding 4 National/international recognition 5 Comprehensive 6 High-level research 7 Impactful 8 Prestigious faculty 9 Public service 10 Outstanding
Table 4-6. Round 2 Survey: Second question’s prevalent preeminence descriptors and percentages
Reference Number Descriptor Strongly
Disagree Somewhat Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
1 Excellence 3.85% 3.85% 3.85% 15.38% 73.08% 2 Research 3.85% 0.00% 7.69% 7.69% 80.77% 3 Funding 7.69% 3.85% 11.54% 19.23% 57.69% 4 National/international
recognition 3.85% 3.85% 3.85% 11.54% 76.92% 6 High-level research 3.85% 3.85% 0.00% 26.92% 65.38% 7 Impactful 3.85% 0.00% 11.54% 26.92% 57.69%
10 Outstanding 3.85% 3.85% 7.69% 23.08% 61.54%
Table 4-7. Round 2 Survey: Second question’s least prevalent preeminence descriptors and percentages
Reference Number Descriptor Strongly
Disagree Somewhat Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
5 Comprehensive 3.85% 7.69% 23.08% 26.92% 38.46% 8 Prestigious faculty 3.85% 0.00% 3.85% 42.31% 50.00% 9 Public service 3.85% 11.54% 15.38% 34.62% 34.62%
91
Table 4-8. Round 2 Survey: Third question’s responses and themes Reference Number Response Theme
1 The preeminence program is being operationalized as focusing on elitism. The Land-grant mission serves teaching, research and outreach. The pre-eminence program initially focused on only research.
Overlapping Themes
2 The greater the university's success and status, the more effectively it can serve its land-grant mission of helping the citizens of Florida. Greater preeminence enhances UF's ability to attract the best and brightest faculty and students, which then leads to a better workforce, more resources flowing to the state, and a more attractive environment for high tech industry to locate in Florida.
Yes: Public Service
3 I'm concerned that the land-grant value of "educating the common man" is lost in our push to preeminence.
No
4 Preeminence refers to a level of distinction, and aligns with the land-grant mission in that the UF vision is to have preeminent university programs that address the land-grant mission. The mission is what we do, the vision of preeminence is how well we do it.
Yes: Tripartite Mission
5 I don't think the land-grant mission and preeminence are aligned. The land grant mission was originally more about access and making research have an impact. Preeminence seems to me to be more about how we compare nationally.
No
6 Probably not, honestly. Beyond the CALS, I'm not sure many of us recognize or know what land-grant missions entail. I don't know that they can't coexist, I just don't think many of us have thought about reconciling those two aspects.
Unknown if there is connection
7 Somewhat. UF's land-grant mission is to teach the next gen farmer, research in the area of ag sciences, and provide that research to the public. Many of the preeminence areas correlate to the land-grant mission. Whereas the land-grant mission tends to be local, preeminence has some global aspects that are different.
Possibly: Distinction between practical training and research
8 I feel that UF's role as a land-grant can only be improved by the preeminence distinction. The view and descriptors I have used above should, and are applied to our land-grant mission.
Overlapping Themes
9 There is no separation in my view the mission of a land-grant university and the University's aspirations to become one of the great Universities.
Yes: Tripartite Mission
92
Table 4-9. Round 2 Survey: Third question’s percentage breakdown
Reference Number Response Strongly
Disagree Somewhat Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree Theme
1 The preeminence program is being operationalized as focusing on elitism. The Land-grant mission serves teaching, research and outreach. The pre-eminence program initially focused on only research.
9.09% 9.09% 4.55% 36.36% 13.64% Overlapping Themes
2 The greater the university's success and status, the more effectively it can serve its land-grant mission of helping the citizens of Florida. Greater preeminence enhances UF's ability to attract the best and brightest faculty and students, which then leads to a better workforce, more resources flowing to the state, and a more attractive environment for high tech industry to locate in Florida.
0.00% 9.09% 4.55% 13.64% 45.45% Yes: Public Service
3 I'm concerned that the land-grant value of "educating the common man" is lost in our push to preeminence.
18.18% 13.64% 4.55% 36.36% 9.09% No
4 Preeminence refers to a level of distinction, and aligns with the land-grant mission in that the UF vision is to have preeminent university programs that address the land-grant mission. The mission is what we do, the vision of preeminence is how well we do it.
0.00% 4.55% 13.64% 13.64% 36.36% Yes: Tripartite Mission
5 I don't think the land-grant mission and preeminence are aligned. The land grant mission was originally more about access and making research have an impact. Preeminence seems to me to be more about how we compare nationally.
18.18% 18.18% 4.55% 27.27% 13.64% No
93
Table 4-9. Continued
Reference Number Response Strongly
Disagree Somewhat Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree Theme
6 Probably not, honestly. Beyond the CALS, I'm not sure many of us recognize or know what land-grant missions entail. I don't know that they can't coexist, I just don't think many of us have thought about reconciling those two aspects.
9.09% 18.18% 18.18% 22.73% 18.18% Unknown if there is connection
7 Somewhat. UF's land-grant mission is to teach the next gen farmer, research in the area of ag sciences, and provide that research to the public. Many of the preeminence areas correlate to the land-grant mission. Whereas the land-grant mission tends to be local, preeminence has some global aspects that are different.
9.09% 9.09% 13.64% 31.82% 9.09% Possibly: Distinction between practical training and research
8 I feel that UF's role as a land-grant can only be improved by the preeminence distinction. The view and descriptors I have used above should, and are applied to our land-grant mission.
4.55% 4.55% 13.64% 27.27% 27.27% Overlapping Themes
9 There is no separation in my view the mission of a land-grant university and the University's aspirations to become one of the great Universities.
4.55% 9.09% 9.09% 18.18% 31.82% Yes: Tripartite Mission
94
Table 4-10. Round 3 Survey: First question’s definitions and themes Definition Theme This is a program to identify parameters to raise
the scholarly profile of the University to be nationally and internationally recognized. The effort is to break away from the regional excellence thinking. This covers the scope of teaching, research and service. For IFAS, outreach is also a theme.
Ranking and Recognition
We are preeminent when we publish impactful research in high-quality journals, when we attract significant competitive grant funding, when we train the future generation of scientists in growing undergraduate and graduate programs, and when our work has a significant positive impact on livelihoods in FL, the US and internationally.
Research, Teaching, and Service
UF Preeminence is an effort to establish the University of Florida as a leading academic center of excellence defined by the quality of faculty and work performed at this institution.
Prestigious Faculty
Preeminence at UF means we have been recognized by our peers as one of the leading public universities in the nation. This designation shows that UF has some of the most impactful research, teaching, and outreach programs among our peer institutions.
Ranking and Recognition
95
Table 4-11. Round 3 Survey: First question’s percentage distribution
Definition Percentage response for 1
Percentage response for 2
Percentage response for 3
Percentage response for 4
This is a program to identify parameters to raise the scholarly profile of the University to be nationally and internationally recognized. The effort is to break away from the regional excellence thinking. This covers the scope of teaching, research and service. For IFAS, outreach is also a theme.
18.18% 18.18% 27.27% 36.36%
We are preeminent when we publish impactful research in high-quality journals, when we attract significant competitive grant funding, when we train the future generation of scientists in growing undergraduate and graduate programs, and when our work has a significant positive impact on livelihoods in FL, the US and internationally.
27.27% 27.27% 22.73% 22.73%
UF Preeminence is an effort to establish the University of Florida as a leading academic center of excellence defined by the quality of faculty and work performed at this institution.
18.18% 36.36% 27.27% 18.18%
Preeminence at UF means we have been recognized by our peers as one of the leading public universities in the nation. This designation shows that UF has some of the most impactful research, teaching, and outreach programs among our peer institutions.
36.36% 18.18% 22.73% 22.73%
Table 4-12. Round 3 Survey: Second question’s percentage distribution for UF descriptors
Descriptor Yes Percentages No Percentages Excellence 100.00% 0.00% Research 90.91% 9.09% Funding 59.09% 40.91% National/international recognition 95.45% 4.55% High-level research 63.64% 36.36% Impactful 90.91% 9.09% Outstanding 63.64% 36.36%
96
Table 4-13. Round 3 Survey: Third question’s percentage distribution for barriers to land-grant and preeminence relationship
Potential Barriers Percentage Response The two concepts address unrelated areas 11.11% There is too little known about preeminence to say with certainty 11.11% There is too little known about the land-grant mission to say with certainty 16.67% The two concepts might be mutually beneficial, but not inherently 30.56% The two concepts do relate, but it is difficult to articulate how at this time 22.22% Other 8.33%
97
Table 4-14. Round 2 Survey: First question’s themes mean scores Reference Number Response M
10 Preeminence at UF means we have been recognized by our peers as one of the leading public universities in the nation. This designation shows that UF has some of the most impactful research, teaching, and outreach programs among our peer institutions.
4.35
2 This is a program to identify parameters to raise the scholarly profile of the University to be nationally and internationally recognized. The effort is to break away from the regional excellence thinking. This covers the scope of teaching, research and service. For IFAS, outreach is also a theme.
4.31
6 UF Preeminence is an effort to establish the University of Florida as a leading academic center of excellence defined by the quality of faculty and work performed at this institution.
4.31
5 It refers to the superior level or distinction of the University of Florida as an institution of higher education. It also refers to the high quality of the university's teaching, research, and service programs.
4.27
4 We are preeminent when we publish impactful research in high-quality journals, when we attract significant competitive grant funding, when we train the future generation of scientists in growing undergraduate and graduate programs, and when our work has a significant positive impact on livelihoods in FL, the US and internationally.
4.23
1 The University of Florida is in a continuing process of achieving and maintaining preeminence in research, teaching and service to the broader community. We have a diverse and talented student body at all levels, being educated and trained by a highly capable and dedicated faculty with expertise in all areas of knowledge. Research taking place at the University of Florida is at the forefront of progress, as indicated by external funding and publication in leading journals and monograph series.
4.19
3 A national and international leader. Preparing students to be productive citizens locally and globally.
4.04
8 Preeminence is the recognition by peer institutions of an elite status is academia with nationally recognized faculty, students of high caliper and excellent physical resources.
4.00
7 A good program to identify prominent faculty that can elevate the overall quality of diverse research programs at the University.
3.42
9 The State of Florida and UF's effort to hire people who can meet important challenges. The people hired are positioned in areas of importance (obesity, biodiversity, climate change, etc.) and are also experts who can help increase the research dollars for the UF community.
3.31
98
Table 4-15. Round 2 Survey: Second question’s preeminence descriptors mean scores Reference Number Descriptor M
2 Research 4.62 4 National/international recognition 4.54 1 Excellence 4.50 6 High-level research 4.46 7 Impactful 4.35 8 Prestigious faculty 4.35
10 Outstanding 4.35 3 Funding 4.15 9 Public service 3.85 5 Comprehensive 3.81
99
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter Introduction
The ensuing sections will address the data collected during the course of the
study and will expand upon the findings presented in Chapter 4.
A discussion of the study’s implications and recommendations for future research
will ensue. The implications are based solely on the results from questions 1 and 2. The
invalidity of question 3, and its minor role in the study’s overarching purpose will be
discussed in detail in recommendation. Question 3 is therefore not taken into
consideration under the implications section of this chapter.
Discussion and Implications
As previously noted, this study was intended to ascertain data which could lead
to the development of a non-metric, working definition for UF’s preeminence. The
aspiration was a bold one. While this study may not have provided a word-for-word
working definition of UF preeminence, the data from questions 1 and 2 does provide the
foundations for a definition of UF’s preeminence.
Namely, this study would imply that there is a common language of UF’s
preeminence among the UF academic department chairs, one that can be used to
formulate a definition and a better understanding of UF’s preeminence. Furthermore,
given that this study produced data from what the Delphi method calls expert opinion, it
is reasonable to infer that similar implications could be drawn from research studies
querying other members of the UF community about the definition of UF’s preeminence.
These other groups could include students, deans, vice-presidents, and trustees.
100
At the onset of this study, the principal investigator felt that the Delphi method
would yield responses which, based on their similarities, would build consensus for a
singular definition of UF preeminence. After round 1, it was evident that this would not
be the case. Rather than working toward a word-for-word definition, clear themes
emerged in the responses and dictated the ensuing rounds of the data collection period.
While certain elements of the questions and their responses such as the
descriptors of preeminence may have advanced through the rounds on the merit of
repetition across responses, the majority of data, by virtue of its open-ended nature,
was organized and removed or advanced on the basis of thematic commonality.
Therefore, within the study’s context, academic department chairs, data would
suggest that UF’s preeminence can be defined as a term which is tantamount to UF’s
responsibilities of teaching, research, and service; the push toward augmenting
institutional ranking and recognition; and the recruitment of prestigious faculty.
Additionally, The terms excellence, research, funding, national/international recognition,
high-level research, impactful, and outstanding would round out some type of word-for-
word definition.
This assertion is of critical importance to this study’s theoretical perspective in
that it confirms that UF is moving toward a place of excellence in higher education as
isomorphism would suggest (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). However, as Chapter 2 noted,
it is vital for UF to consider its role as a transformative institution that is authentic in its
practice to positively and fundamentally impact its students and faculty.
The first step to achieving this was through self-exploration in trying to determine
the preeminent narrative that UF would seem to propagate throughout its community
101
(Avolio & Gardner, 2005). The sheer fact that there was consensus regarding elements
of UF’s preeminence is tremendously important in that it implies there is a greater sense
of institutional self-awareness at UF. Additionally, it implies that the ability to further
pursue institutional self-awareness is present amongst university administration.
Therefore, the study would seem to imply that University of Florida is in a prime
position to effectively combat the pitfalls of isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983)
while successfully charting a course to continue the quest for national hegemony while
continuing to successfully serve its key stakeholder groups, positively and
fundamentally impacting its students and faculty.
UF seems to have a history of taking pride in being a little different. As Chapter 2
noted, UF is often perceived as a public ivy. Moreover, it is the only public Top 10 public
university in the nation whose host town would be considered rural (or is not part of a
greater metropolitan area or a city whose designation is deeply rooted in national
history).
Additionally, the preeminence initiative would have UF, one of the largest
institutions in the nation, maintain a faculty ratio that is comparable to that of far smaller
public and private instructions; UF has accepted the challenge head-on through its
commitment to hiring 500 additional faculty in the coming years (Orlando, 2017).
All things considered, this study would imply that UF has a unique opportunity to
not only continue its growth as a preeminent university, but it also has the opportunity to
truly cement its institutional identity while combatting the dangers of a concept
(isomorphism), which other institutions may or may not consider in their own practice.
Furthermore, this sense of growing self-awareness with respect to preeminence is in the
102
unique position of occupying a space next an already well-established narrative of land-
grant tradition (Thelin, 2011; Seevers & Graham, 2012; Geiger, 2015).
While this study did not address the potential virtues associated with blending the
two narratives, the potential for far greater institutional self-understanding and finding
ways to leverage that sense of self-awareness and authentic practice in the context of
the land-grant mission and the preeminence initiative is certainly a valid pursuit in future
research endeavors.
Chapter 2 highlighted that preeminence seems to play the role of a unique
attribute within the UF community. While recent talks in the Florida legislature have
implied that preeminence initiative funding, where the notion of a preeminent UF began,
may no longer be in existence as more SUS institutions vie for preeminent fiduciary
support, it seems unlikely that the attributional role that preeminence plays in the UF
community will diminish.
In 2005, UF initiated a public relations campaign which centered on the notion of
the Gator Nation (Macdonald, 2006). This campaign aimed to further the university’s
image and aid in recruitment and advancement. The campaign has long since closed,
and it was successful in its endeavors. What is intriguing is that the term Gator Nation
never disappeared from the UF vernacular. For example, while becoming a Gator
usually resulted in someone saying “welcome to Gator Country in the 1980s and 1990s,
the Gator Nation campaign ensured the longevity of the phrase, welcome to the “Gator
Nation.” Indeed, Gator Nation is a part of the UF liturgy, more than likely, in such a way
that far exceeded UF relations’ initial intent.
103
This story is relevant in that the same special designation and sense of
reverence within the UF culture seems to be transpiring with preeminence. Since the
Florida Preeminence Initiative’s inception in 2013, thousands of first year UF students
have been instilled with a sense of the quest for top 10 (now top 5) status and the
preeminent endeavors of their alma mater.
As mentioned in Chapter 2, Florida seems to have modeled the other great
universities of the country in furthering its ranking, recognition, and reputation through
the preeminence initiative (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). This study’s results would
indicate that UF has indeed gained a new chapter in its narrative: one that seems to be
on its way to standing the test of time just as Gator Nation did.
The theoretical and practical implications aside, this study would indicate that UF
preeminence plays a unique and special role in the UF culture. Future research may
expand on this notion, but it is evident that there is indeed more to UF preeminence
than meets the eye.
Recommendations
As mentioned in Chapter 2, if the University of Florida is to fulfill its role as a
transformative institution which positively and fundamentally impacts its students and
faculty, special consideration must be given to the narratives which comprise its identity.
While this study seems to have achieved the outcome which it set, further research can
be and should be conducted with respect to ascertaining a non-metric, working
definition of UF preeminence.
While this study did address a key UF stakeholder group by surveying
department chairs, it will likely benefit the quest for a UF preeminence definition to
consider other populations in studies of this nature. Possible target populations include
104
UF deans and associate deans, students – perhaps as a part of the SERU survey –
vice-presidents across all of the major UF divisions, cabinet-level administration, and
special populations such as faculty emeriti, athletic association administration, and
members of the board of trustees.
Individual studies of the aforementioned populations could lead to a meta-
analysis of all relevant data and result in a more refined definition of UF preeminence.
Studies could incorporate consensus building methods as this study did, or, the
principal investigators in-question could identify new and more effective methods for
attaining their individual research goals in an effort to meet the needs outlined in
chapters 1 and 3 of this study.
Most researchers would agree that response rates are a central concern for
studies which use surveys to collect research data. This was a key concern throughout
this study. While this may be the nature of survey-based research today, special
consideration should be given to the recruitment and retention of survey participants in
ensuing studies of this nature. In this way, investigators can be ensured of the richness
and the diversity of the data collected.
As mentioned extensively in previous chapters, the land-grant mission and
preeminence would seem to serve as two narratives which comprise the University of
Florida’s identity. While this study’s participants were asked to identify and provide their
thoughts on the relationship between the two concepts, it seemed that consensus could
not be established with respect to this relationship. However, this was due to an error in
the survey instrument from question 3 within round 2. This error was not discovered
until after the data collection period concluded.
105
As such, the procedure taken to address the supposed lack of consensus was
both appropriate and effective. However, in light of the error, the results are invalid.
These results were still presented in this study as they may provide future researchers
with an idea of what actions to take if consensus is not actually found.
With respect to resolving the error in-question. Careful consideration should be
given to the nature of survey instrument structure and options within Qualtrics and any
other such survey distribution service. Additionally, it may be wise to develop a
safeguard for crosschecking instrumentation before distribution other than the
investigation team. If this can receive the appropriate IRB approval, it may go a long
way in maintaining the validity, effectiveness, and integrity of future studies (and their
questions) on this topic or related ones.
The error aside, the question about the relationship between the land-grant
mission and UF preeminence was never intended to serve as the basis for meeting this
study’s objective and fulfilling its purpose. Rather, it was an additional question which
was to provide useful insight on the coexistence of the land-grant narrative and the
preeminence narrative.
Realistically, the topic could indeed serve as its own subject of focus in a
research study. Perhaps, considering this study’s shortcomings with the question as
well as the stimulating nature and practical implications of the topic, the subject of
question 3 should be pursued in research independent of this study’s topic and aim. In
so doing, data regarding the relationship, along with any implications, could be far richer
and more fruitful in their application to the notion of furthering the University of Florida’s
institutional identity.
106
Chapter Summary
This chapter addressed the findings which were presented in chapter 4.
Conclusions would indicate that a pure definition of UF preeminence was not
ascertained, elements of a final definition were indeed identified.
Recommendations were made with respect to future research endeavors to
further the University of Florida’s identity. Furthermore, suggestions were made with
respect to conducting this type of research study in other contexts.
107
APPENDIX A UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD PROTOCOL
APPROVAL LETTER
108
109
APPENDIX B STUDY INFORMED CONSENT LETTER
110
APPENDIX C ROUND ONE SURVEY QUESTIONS
111
112
113
114
APPENDIX D ROUND TWO SURVEY QUESTIONS
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
APPENDIX E ROUND THREE SURVEY QUESTIONS
122
123
124
APPENDIX F UF ACADEMIC DEPARTMENTS CONTACTED FOR STUDY
Advertising Aging and Geriatric Research Agricultural and Biological Engineering Agricultural Education and Communication Agronomy Anatomy and Cell Biology Anesthesiology Anesthesiology and Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation Anesthesiology COMJ Animal Sciences Applied Physiology and Kinesiology Architecture and Fine Arts Library Astronomy Biobehavioral Nursing Science Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Biology Biomedical Engineering Biostatistics Chemical Engineering Chemistry Classics Clinical and Health Psychology Community Dentistry and Behavioral Science Community Health and Family Medicine Community Health and Family Medicine COMJ Comparative, Diagnostic and Population Medicine Computer and Information Science and Engineering Decision and Information Sciences Electrical and Computer Engineering Emergency Medicine Emergency Medicine COMJ Endodontics English Entomology and Nematology Environmental and Global Health Environmental Horticulture Epidemiology Experimental Pathology, Center for Immunology Family Law Family, Community and Health System Science
125
Family, Youth and Community Sciences. Finance, Insurance and Real Estate Florida Museum of Natural History Food and Resource Economics Food Science and Human Nutrition Geography Geological Sciences Health Education and Behavior Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics Health Services Research, Management and Policy History Horticultural Sciences Industrial and Systems Engineering Infectious Diseases and Immunology Insecticide Toxicology and Resistance Management Interior Design Journalism Landscape Architecture Languages, Literatures and Cultures Large Animal Clinical Sciences Library West Linguistics Marketing Marston Science Library Materials Science and Engineering Mathematics Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Medicinal Chemistry Medicine Microbiology and Cell Science Molecular Genetics and Microbiology Neurology Neurology COMJ Neuroscience Neurosurgery Neurosurgery COMJ Nursing Obstetrics and Gynecology Obstetrics and Gynecology COMJ Occupational Therapy Ophthalmology Ophthalmology COMJ
126
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery COMJ Oral Biology Orthodontics Orthopaedic Oncology Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation COMJ Otolaryngology Pathology and Laboratory Medicine COMJ Pediatric Dentistry Pediatrics Pediatrics COMJ Periodontology Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy Pharmaceutics Pharmacodynamics Pharmacology and Therapeutics Pharmacotherapy and Translational Research Philosophy Physical Therapy Physics Physiological Sciences Physiology and Functional Genomics Plant Pathology Political Science Psychiatry Psychology Public Relations Radiation Oncology Radiology Radiology COMJ Religion Restorative Dental Sciences Small Animal Clinical Sciences Sociology and Criminology and Law Soil and Water Sciences Spanish and Portuguese Studies Special in Area Studies Collection (UF Libraries) Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences Surgery Surgery COMJ Telecommunication Tourism, Recreation and Sport Management
127
UF Survey Research Center Urology Urology COMJ Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
128
LIST OF REFERENCES
Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (2009). Statistical methods for the social sciences. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
American Academy of Arts & Sciences. (2016a). Recommitting to Lincoln’s vision: An
educational compact for the 21st century. Cambridge: MA American Academy of Arts & Sciences. (2016b). Understanding the financial model.
Cambridge: MA Alchian, A. A. (1950). Uncertainty, evolution, and economic theory. Journal of Political
Economy, 58(3), 211-221. Association of American Universities. (n.d.a). How AAU makes a difference. Retrieved
from https://www.aau.edu/ Association of American Universities. (n.d.b). Our members. Retrieved from
https://www.aau.edu/who-we-are/our-members Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the
root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315-338. Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004).
Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 801-823.
Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2004). Authentic leadership: Theory
building for veritable sustained performance. Lincoln: Gallup Leadership Institute. Bakeman, J. (2016, October 3). A new dilemma for public universities: Performance or
preeminence?. Politico. Retrieved from http://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2016/09/a-new-dilemma-for-public-universities-performance-or-preeminence-106000
Barth, R. (1990) Improving schools from within (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass). Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 13(3), 26-
40. Bass, B. M. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of
Leadership Studies, 7(3), 18-40. Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational
leadership behavior. The leadership quarterly, 10(2), 181-217.
129
Bowman, R. F. (2002). The real work of department chair. The Clearing House, 75(3), 158-162.
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. London: SAGE Burns, J. M. (1978). Transactional and transformational leadership. In G. R. Hickman
(Ed.), Leading organizations: Perspectives for a new era. (133-134). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Coats, L. T. (2000). Interpersonal behavior and the community college department
chairperson. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 24, 773-783. Department of Homeland Security. (2013). What is a public university? What is a private
university?. Retrieved from https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov/2013/01/what-is-a-public-university-what-is-a-private-university
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited institutional
isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
The 1890 Land-Grant Universities. (n.d.). The Morrill acts of 1862 and 1890. Retrieved
from http://www.1890universities.org/history Fink, A., Kosecoff, J., Chassin, M., & Brook, R. H. (1984). Consensus methods:
characteristics and guidelines for use. American journal of public health, 74(9), 979-983.
The Florida Senate. (2013). CS/CS/SB 1076: K-20 Education. Retrieved from
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2013/1076/BillText/er/PDF Florida Board of Governors. (n.d.). About the state university system of Florida.
Retrieved from http://www.flbog.edu/about/ Florida Memory: State Library and Archives of Florida. (n.d.). Timeline. Retrieved from
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/10/ Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic
leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1120-1145. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.007
Geiger, R. L. (2015). The history of American higher education: Learning and culture
from the founding to World War II. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Glover, J. (2013, October 9). First preeminence funding to advance new research
frontiers. UF News. Retrieved from http://news.ufl.edu/archive/2013/10/first-preeminence-funding-to-advance-new-research-frontiers.html
130
Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational leadership, creativity, and
organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62(4), 461-473. Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of
instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of education, 33(3), 329-352.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic leadership: submission or
liberation?. The Executive, 6(2), 43-54. Jones, J., & Hunter, D. (1995). Consensus methods for medical and health services
research. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 311(7001), 376. Jung, D. I., Chow, C., & Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in
enhancing organizational innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. The leadership quarterly, 14(4-5), 525-544.
Kerr, N.A. (1987). The legacy: A centennial history of the state agricultural experiment
stations 1887-1987. Columbia, MO: Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Missouri.
Lambert, L. (2002) A framework for shared leadership, Educational Leadership, 59(8),
pp. 37–40. Land Grand. (n.d.) A source of empowerment. Retrieved from http://landgrant.ufl.edu/ Leithwood, K. (1992). The move toward transformational leadership, Educational
Leadership, 49(5), pp. 8–13. Library of Congress. (n.d.). Morrill act. Retrieved from
https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Morrill.html Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (2002). The Delphi method: Techniques and
applications (Vol. 18). Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Advanced Book Program.
Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership development. In K.S. Cameron,
J.E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 241-261). San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler.
Macdonald, L. (2006, July 18). UF revamps logo for its Gator Nation. The Gainesville
Sun. Retrieved from http://www.gainesville.com/news/20060718/uf-revamps-logo-for-its-gator-nationbr
131
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Chancellor. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chancellor
Mitchell, T. (2017. October 12). UF announces largest fundraising campaign in
university history. UF News. Retrieved from http://news.ufl.edu/articles/2017/10/uf-announces-largest-fundraising-campaign-in-university-history.php
Mulhere, K. (2015, April 10). When a formula doesn’t add up. Inside Higher Ed.
Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/04/10/some-gain-others-fall-floridas-performance-based-funding-system
National Research Council. (1995). Colleges of agriculture at the land grant universities:
A profile. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press. Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Online Sunshine: Florida Legislature. (2001). The 2001 Florida statues.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_Mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0240/Sec209.htm&StatuteYear=2001
Online Sunshine: Florida Legislature. (2017). The 2017 Florida statues. Retrieved from
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=1000-1099/1001/Sections/1001.706.html
Orlando, S. (2017, June 9). UF to hire 500 new faculty in major initiative. UF News.
Retrieved from http://news.ufl.edu/articles/2017/06/uf-to-hire-500-new-faculty-in-major-initiative.php
Powell, C. (2003). The Delphi technique: Myths and realities. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 41(4), 376-382. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02537.x Revello, S. (2013, August 26). University of Florida: Top 10 mission. Forward Florida.
Retrieved from http://forwardflorida.com/florida-education/the/ Ricoeur, P. (1992). Oneself as another, (K. Blamey, Trans.). Chicago7 University of
Chicago Press. Roberts, N. C. (1985). Transforming leadership: A process of collective action. Human
Relations, 38(11), 1023-1046. Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field methods,
15(1), 85-109. doi: 10.1177/1525822X02239569
132
Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (n.d.). Techniques to identify themes in qualitative data. Retrieved from http://www.analytictech.com/mb870/readings/ryan-bernard_techniques_to_identify_themes_in.htm
SACSCOC. (n.d.). The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on
Colleges. Retrieved from http://www.sacscoc.org/ Sadeghi, A., & Pihie, Z. A. L. (2012). Transformational leadership and its predictive
effects on leadership effectiveness. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(7). p. 186-197.
Seevers, B. & Graham, D. (2012). Education through Cooperative Extension. (3rd ed.).
Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas. Skulmoski, G. J., Hartman, F. T., & Krahn, J. (2007). The Delphi method for graduate
research. Journal of Information Technology Education, 6, p. 1-21. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. (2017).
Member and candidate list. Retrieved from http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/webmemlist.pdf
Sparrowe, R. T. (2005). Authentic leadership and the narrative self. The Leadership
Quarterly. State University System of Florida. (n.d.a). Promoting excellence in teaching, research,
and public service. Retrieved from http://www.flbog.edu/board/members/index.php
State University System of Florida. (n.d.b). State university system of Florida –
Universities. Retrieved from http://www.flbog.edu/universities/ State University System of Florida. (n.d.c). The office of the board of governors.
Retrieved from http://www.flbog.edu/board/office/index.php Thelin, J. R. (2011). A history of American higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press. UF Board of Trustees. (n.d.). About the board. Retrieved from
http://trustees.ufl.edu/about-the-board/ UF Preeminence. (n.d.). What is UF preeminence?. Retrieved from
http://ufpreeminence.org/what-is-uf-preeminence/ University of California, Irvine. (n.d.) The role of the department chair. Retrieved from
http://paid.uci.edu/chairs%20retreat%20files/B.%20Role%20Of%20the%20Department%20Chair.pdf
133
University of Florida. (n.d.a). Administration and mission statement. Retrieved from
https://catalog.ufl.edu/ugrad/current/uf-mission/Pages/home.aspx University of Florida. (n.d.b). Colleges. Retrieved from
http://www.ufl.edu/academics/colleges/ University of Florida. (n.d.c). Programs. Retrieved from
http://www.ufl.edu/academics/programs/ University of Florida Honors Program. (n.d.). 1853-1905: University of Florida’s
beginnings. Retrieved from http://www.honors.ufl.edu/about/uf-history/1853-1905/
U.S. News Staff. (2017, Sept. 7). 2018 Best colleges preview: Top 10 public
universities. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2017-09-07/2018-best-colleges-preview-top-10-public-universities
Van Ness, C. (2009). Florida's Sledd affair: Andrew Sledd and the fight for higher
education in Florida. The Florida Historical Quarterly, 87(3), 319-351. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organizations. (T Parsons,
Trans.). New York: Free Press. Williams, J. O. (2001). Academic department head as key university administrator.
Education, 112(2), 164-167 Winchester, D. (2015). UF preeminence advances as new hires are presented to board
of trustees. Retrieved from http://news.ufl.edu/archive/2015/06/uf-preeminence-advances-as-new-hires-are-presented-to-board-of-trustees.php
134
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Joshua Clayton “Clay” Hurdle was born in Gainesville, Florida. He grew up an
ardent Florida Gator fan amongst Georgia Bulldogs and Florida State Seminoles in
Valdosta, Georgia.
Mr. Hurdle has always worn a variety of hats with respect to his interests. In high
school he was an active volunteer in the community working with local schools to
improve child literacy rates and promote multilingualism through his bilingual reading
program. He also worked in local food banks to combat hunger.
In 2009, Mr. Hurdle attended his first 4-H meeting and swiftly fell in love with a
program which developed his leadership, communication, and critical thinking skills.
Mr. Hurdle was also a musician, playing piano and singing. He was a vocalist for
the Georgia 4-H performing arts group, Clovers and Company, singing across the state
of Georgia and the Southeast at 4-H, agricultural extension, and department of
education events and conferences.
In 2012, Mr. Hurdle began his undergraduate education at the University of
Florida in Gainesville, Florida. During this time, he served the campus in a variety of
ways.
Mr. Hurdle was a 2014 Preview Orientation Staffer, UF Honors Ambassador,
College of Agricultural and Life Sciences Ambassador, Student Government Academic
Affairs Executive Secretary, Chair of the Student Advisory Council for Undergraduate
Affairs, Reitz Scholar, resident assistant, and an associate traffic court justice.
Additionally, he served as the treasurer, vice-president, and president for UF
collegiate 4-H. He was also a member of the J. Wayne Reitz Union Board of Managers,
135
the University Curriculum Committee, the University General Education Committee, and
the University Commencement Committee.
By the conclusion of his undergraduate career, Mr. Hurdle graduated with two
degrees: a Bachelor of Science in agricultural education and communication (Summa
Cum Laude) and a Bachelor of Arts in Spanish (Cum Laude). Additionally, he
successfully graduated from the UF Honors Program and the College of Agricultural and
Life Sciences Honors Program, authoring an undergraduate thesis entitled: Identifying
the Correlation between Enhanced Levels of Self-Awareness and the Self-Held
Perceptions of Collaborative Social Interactions in High School Youth.
His proudest accomplishments from his undergraduate career included his
induction to the University of Florida Hall of Fame in 2016 and being tapped into Florida
Blue Key in 2016. Additionally, upon his graduation, he was bestowed a fall 2016 UF
Alumni Association Outstanding Leader Award.
Mr. Hurdle opted to continue his education at the University of Florida in 2017
and elected to purse a Master of Science in agricultural education and communication,
specializing in leadership development.
Mr. Hurdle continued his involvement where he participated as a member of
Florida Blue Key’s active chapter. Additionally, Mr. Hurdle was elected and served a full
term as a UF Student Government Senator, representing the graduate student
population. While in Senate, Mr. Hurdle authored five resolutions, worked as the Reitz
Union senatorial liaison, sat on the Code Revisions Ad Hoc Committee, sat on Rules
and Ethics Standing Committee, and served as the Rules and Ethics Standing
Committee Chairman.
136
Upon the completion of his master’s program, Mr. Hurdle plans to work toward a
Doctor of Philosophy in Spanish at the University of Florida. His career aspiration is to
work as a member of faculty and university administration. His ultimate goal is to serve
as the president of the University of Florida.