Exploring The Reciprocal Relationship Between A Comprehensive Living-Learning Program And

315 Pages·2017·1.9 MB·English

University of Vermont
ScholarWorks @ UVM
Graduate College Dissertations and Teses Dissertations and Teses
2017
Exploring Te Reciprocal Relationship Between A
Comprehensive Living-Learning Program And
Institutional Culture: A Narrative Inquiry Case
Study
Christopher Paul Marquart
University of Vermont
Follow this and additional works at: htps://scholarworks.uvm.edu/graddis
Part of the Higher Education Commons, and the Higher Education Administration Commons
Recommended Citation
Marquart, Christopher Paul, "Exploring Te Reciprocal Relationship Between A Comprehensive Living-Learning Program And
Institutional Culture: A Narrative Inquiry Case Study" (2017). Graduate College Dissertations and Teses. 736.
htps://scholarworks.uvm.edu/graddis/736
Tis Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations and Teses at ScholarWorks @ UVM. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Graduate College Dissertations and Teses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ UVM. For more information, please contact
EXPLORING THE RECIPROCAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A
COMPREHENSIVE LIVING-LEARNING PROGRAM
AND INSTITUTIONAL CULTURE:
A NARRATIVE INQUIRY CASE STUDY

A Dissertation Presented

by

Christopher P. Marquart

to

The Faculty of the Graduate College

of

The University of Vermont

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Education
Specializing in Educational Leadership & Policy Studies

May, 2017

Defense Date: March 10, 2017
Dissertation Examination Committee:

Deborah E. Hunter, Ph.D., Advisor
Stuart L. Whitney, Ed. D., RN, Chairperson
Jason C. Garvey, Ph.D.
Vijay Kanagala, Ph.D.
Cynthia J. Forehand, Ph.D., Dean of the Graduate College
ABSTRACT

Over the past 50 years, living-learning programs (LLPs) have emerged as a
dynamic curricular innovation in higher education. These programs are residentially
based, seeking to seamlessly integrate the classroom and residence hall environments and
blur the traditional boundaries between the academic and residential experiences for
students (Kuh, 1996; Inkelas & Soldner, 2012). However, efforts to implement LLPs at
some campuses have been met with resistance; this is not surprising, as institutions of
higher education are often charged in part with preserving cultural and social norms,
therefore making them naturally resistant to change (Shapiro & Levine, 1999). One of
the most common challenges facing colleges and universities that seek change is a
tendency for institutional culture dynamics to be potentially divisive and foster internal
conflict (Kuh & Whitt, 1988). Such conflict impacts faculty, students, and administrative
subcultures. Institutional partnerships that can overcome divisive cultural dynamics have
the potential to greatly enhance the campus climate (Nash et al., 2016).

This qualitative research study asks the overarching question, “How does
institutional culture influence the creation and development of an LLP and, in turn, can
an LLP reciprocally shape institutional culture?”

This case study examines the internal conflict and cultural implications related to
the founding of a comprehensive first-year residential college system at St. Lawrence
University – a small, private liberal arts institution in the Northeast. Utilizing Kuh’s &
Whitt’s (1988) Framework for Analyzing Culture in Higher Education, as well as
Schein’s (2004) Conceptual Model for Managed Culture Change, this study collected
data through historical document analysis, as well as narrative inquiry interviews
focusing on the artifacts, values, assumptions, and beliefs of the campus community. In-
depth interviews were conducted with faculty and administrators who played key roles in
the foundational years of this LLP, as well as with faculty who opposed the program.
The findings of this study demonstrate how preexisting cultural conditions heavily
influenced the creation and development of the LLP. This study also identifies the ways
in which several deeply entrenched cultural conditions changed, indicating this
comprehensive LLP fostered a relational capacity to facilitate institutional culture
change.
DEDICATION

To Wesley and Colby

The two of you are my inspiration.

At some point in each of your lives, you will have to ask yourselves the question,
“What does success look like for me?”

I hope this endeavor, and the story it tells, proves to be helpful in some small way for
each of you as you seek to find your answers.

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This long and rewarding journey would not have happened without the love and support
of my family. I would especially like to thank you, Emily, as you are my rock. I could
not have done this without your unyielding support. We made it. I would also like to
thank my parents, and Bob and Cathy, for all of your efforts and sacrifices throughout the
years.

I would like to acknowledge Larry Casey and Coach John Casserly, two very special
people from a much earlier time in my life. Each of you saw something in me at a time
when not many others did. Your faith empowered me, shaped my path in life, and
influenced my worldview in immeasurable ways. While much time has passed, please
know that I would not have even considered starting this journey were it not for both of
you and all you have done for me. Thank you.

This effort would not have been possible without the assistance and support of my
amazing colleagues from St. Lawrence. I owe a huge debt of gratitude and thanks to
President Bill Fox and Dean Val Lehr for consenting to this study. Jenny Hansen
deserves all of the credit for rounding up an impressive group of interview participants; I
have no doubt someone else will one day write a history of her career accomplishments.
I would also like to recognize the help of Debbie Bishop, Elaine White, Mark McMurray,
and Paul Haggett for digging up primary source documents for me, as well as the support
iii
of Joe Tolliver and the entire Residence Life team for enabling me the flexibility to
balance work commitments with this research effort.

Thank you to all of my interview participants for volunteering your time and sharing your
memories. This proved to be a story of transformation with passion for students and
learning at its core. I hope I was able to tell it in a holistic and accurate way that also
captures the essence of how special this period of time was for so many of you.

Finally, I would like to thank my advisor, Deb Hunter, for her warm support and
encouragement from day one. You supported me since before I was even accepted into
UVM, and have been there for me every step of the way. To my defense committee,
Vijay Kanagala, Jay Garvey, and Stuart Whitney, as well as Judith Aiken; each of you
have been so supportive and helpful throughout this process and I could not have done it
without you. Thank you!

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DEDICATION ................................................................................................................. ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................ iii
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
1.1. Statement of Problem ............................................................................................ 2
1.2. Significance of Study ............................................................................................. 4
1.3. Local Context......................................................................................................... 8
1.4. Purpose of Study .................................................................................................... 9
1.5. Research Questions .............................................................................................. 10
1.6. Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................ 11
1.7. Definition of Relevant Terms .............................................................................. 13
1.8. Background and Role of Researcher ................................................................... 14
1.9. Organization of Study .......................................................................................... 17
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................... 20
2.1. Theoretical Frameworks ...................................................................................... 22
2.1.1. Kuh & Whitt’s Framework for Analyzing Culture in Higher Education ....... 23
v
2.1.2. Schein’s Conceptual Model for Managed Culture Change ............................ 24
2.2. Institutional Culture ............................................................................................. 25
2.2.1. Student Cultures .............................................................................................. 26
2.2.2. The “Distinctive College” ............................................................................... 29
2.2.3. Expanding the Scope of Institutional Culture ................................................. 30
2.3. Organizational Change ........................................................................................ 32
2.4. A Historical Overview: Residential Liberal Arts Colleges & Culture ................ 38
2.4.1. European Influences ....................................................................................... 39
2.4.2. Colonial America ............................................................................................ 40
2.4.3. Antebellum Period .......................................................................................... 42
2.4.4. The Industrial Revolution & Educational Reform .......................................... 45
2.4.5. The Post-War Era ........................................................................................... 48
2.4.6. Academic Curriculum: The Evolving Definition of Scholarship ................... 52
2.4.7. Guiding Philosophies of the Student Affairs Profession ................................ 58
2.5. History of Living-Learning Programs ................................................................. 61
2.6. Living-Learning Programs................................................................................... 68
2.6.1. Foundational Research for LLPs .................................................................... 69
2.6.2. National Study of Living-Learning Programs ................................................ 74
2.6.3. Implementation of Learning Communities ..................................................... 77
2.7. Analysis of Literature .......................................................................................... 80
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 85
3.1. Research Questions .............................................................................................. 87
3.2. Research Paradigm .............................................................................................. 87
3.3. Value of Qualitative Methodology ...................................................................... 89
vi
3.4. Research Design .................................................................................................. 90
3.5. Setting .................................................................................................................. 92
3.6. Sample Population ............................................................................................... 94
3.7. Access to Site ....................................................................................................... 96
3.8. Instrumentation .................................................................................................... 97
3.9. Trustworthiness and Dependability ..................................................................... 97
3.10. Data Collection Procedures ............................................................................. 100
3.10. Data Analysis Procedures ................................................................................ 102
3.11. Ethical Considerations ..................................................................................... 107
3.12. Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................... 108
CHAPTER 4: INSTITUTIONAL SETTING .............................................................. 111
4.1. “A Candle in the Wilderness” Is Founded, 1856 ............................................... 112
4.2. The Early Years, 1858 – 1887 ........................................................................... 115
4.3. Campus Change and the “Epoch of Expansion,” 1888 – 1918 ......................... 121
4.4. Transformation into a Residential College, 1919 – 1939 .................................. 130
4.5. World War II and the Post-War Boom, 1940 – 1969 ........................................ 139
4.6. Student Activism and Emerging Concerns with Greek Life, 1969 – 1978 ....... 148
CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS ........................................................................................... 161
5.1. Data Description ............................................................................................. 162
vii
5.2. Research Question 1: Preexisting Culture Conditions....................................... 166
5.2.1. Student Culture ............................................................................................. 167
5.2.2. Faculty Culture ............................................................................................. 171
5.2.3. Administrative Culture ................................................................................. 173
5.2.4. The BASK Program ...................................................................................... 174
5.2.5. Committee on the Academic Environment ................................................... 176
5.2.6. The Beta House Fire and the Ad Hoc Report ............................................... 177
5.2.7. The “Flying Blue Max” ................................................................................ 180
5.2.8. The Departure of Van de Water .................................................................... 182
5.2.9. The Gulick White Paper ............................................................................... 183
5.2.10. East College and the Experimental Residential Colleges ........................... 186
5.2.11. Greek Debate Continues: Reciprocal Standards vs. CAGS ........................ 190
5.2.12. The Committee on Residential Life ............................................................ 195
5.3 Research Question 2: Reasons for a Residential College Model .................... 197
5.3.1. Reasons for a Residential Model .................................................................. 197
5.3.2. The Summer Study Group ............................................................................ 199
5.3.3. The 1986 Proposal for Calendar and Curriculum Change ............................ 200
5.4. Research Question 3: Implementation and Initial Development of FYP ....... 202
5.4.1. Implementation Efforts and “The Great Land Grab” ................................... 202
5.4.2. A Summer of Change ................................................................................... 205
5.4.3. The Pilot Year, 1987 - 1988 ......................................................................... 210
5.4.4. The FYP Expands ......................................................................................... 213
5.4.5. The Departure of Howison ........................................................................... 215
5.4.6. Assessment of the FYP ................................................................................. 216
5.4.7. The Spring 1992 Debate ............................................................................... 221
5.4.8. Cultural Perspectives of the FYP Debates .................................................... 224
5.4.9. A New First-Year Dean and Program Changes ............................................ 229
5.4.10. “REC 26” .................................................................................................... 233
5.4.11. The Final Stand: Cultural Backlash from Alumni Council ........................ 237
viii