Search

Michael M. Crow became the 16th president of Arizona State University in July 2002, with the goal of transforming ASU into what he calls a "New American University"--an institution combining the highest levels of academic excellence, inclusiveness to a broad demographic, and maximum societal impact. His view included increasing graduate numbers, graduation rates, and freshman-retention rates while also expanding ethnic and economic diversity. Today, ASU has established more than a dozen new transdisciplinary schools and large-scale research initiatives and has nearly tripled research expenditures. President Crow attributes much of this success to the use of analytics. This article presents an interview with president Crow. In the interview, ASU President Crow talks about why the university moved toward using analytics, how ASU has implemented analytics, where there could be problems, and what he sees ahead. President Crow discusses how his institution is using analytics to increase graduate numbers, graduation rates, and freshman-retention rates while also expanding ethnic and economic diversity. (Contains 1 note.)

Colleges and universities negotiating their recovery from the most severe recession in nearly a century are currently implementing a welter of hastily devised measures aimed at reducing operating costs, becoming more efficient, and restoring a prior equilibrium. Administrators reacting to the downturn should not restrict their focus to the short term, fixating exclusively on cost cutting or reshuffling longstanding priorities. They should instead engage in comprehensive long-range planning that uncovers and fixes "design flaws" and advances new and differentiated models for the nation's colleges and universities. The reconceptualization of Arizona State University (ASU) is considered in this article as a case study of how one university has accomplished such a redesign. As president of ASU, the author has led an effort to reinvent the youngest major public research institution in the United States through a comprehensive "design process" that has included both an exhaustive reevaluation of their academic organization and operations and an effort to pioneer what they term the "New American University"--an egalitarian institution committed to academic excellence, access, and maximum societal impact.

What is most striking about the efforts of colleges and universities to recover from the repercussions of the global financial crisis is the extent to which many are determined to frame the moment as an opportunity. Much of the discourse surrounding the response of academic institutions to the recession, however, has been couched in the context of using this "opportunity" either to emerge as more efficient or to restore "normalcy." The author argues that more than just a restoration of "normalcy" is required on college campuses in the wake of the recent global economic crisis. Just as universities seek to expand knowledge and innovation on the academic side of the enterprise, it also is imperative that they seek comparable innovation in their own academic structures, practices, and operations. The author suggests that universities and colleges should seek to establish "institutional cultures of innovation". To achieve the ambitious objectives for educational attainment set by the Obama administration, the author contends that Americans must first build a higher-education infrastructure commensurate to the task. Colleges and universities need a new set of assumptions that encourage institutions to innovate and differentiate and become useful to their local communities, while at the same time seeking solutions to global challenges. As president of Arizona State University, the author describes how he has guided the task of pioneering the foundational model for the "New American University" and provides a summary of selected aspects of the reconceptualization of ASU.

In his career as a faculty member and academic administrator, the author has always focused on understanding, designing, and building knowledge organizations. He has been driven by a desire to understand the fundamental organizational forces--economic, political, and societal--within which academic institutions operate. His approach has been to act very much like an architect and, in many ways, a general contractor for new intellectual enterprises. He deliberately speaks of academic institutions in terms of "enterprise" because, since becoming the president of Arizona State University (ASU) in July 2002, he has been leading an effort to reconceptualize a large public university as an enterprise--agile, competitive, adaptable, and responsive to the changing needs of both the constituencies and global society alike. Instilling the spirit of enterprise into the institutional culture of a public university is only one of his objectives as the president of an emerging research institution. Predicated on excellence, access, and impact, the paradigm is conceptually framed as the "New American University" and he believes that it has relevance for public and private colleges and universities nationwide. Furthermore, he states that not every university is going to make it over the next hundred years. Those that do make it will be the ones that attack and defeat the virus of the agency by reconceptualizing themselves as enterprises: taking control of their identities; focusing on innovation, adaptation, and differentiation; assuming responsibility for their destinies; operating at an accelerated pace; and shifting to an investment model. (Contains 1 note.)

American universities confront unique challenges as they move into the twenty-first century. These include rapid population growth, demographic and economic changes on both global and regional levels, and the numerous local challenges that face today's communities. Modern universities must engage, and in turn be engaged by, their communities in order to improve civic life and the opportunities available to both individuals and institutions. Arizona State University has tried to develop a model of a New American University in response to today's expanding challenges and opportunities.

A discussion of the role of new technology in university outreach efforts begins by looking at the history of the university's direct scientific and technological contributions to society, from the 1300s through the evolution of the land-grant university. The potential for another significant change in the university's institutional role in society is examined. (MSE)

Some 122 university-based research and development (R&D) laboratories were examined to evaluate the extent to which they pursue generic/basic research goals. The study focused on structural, behavioral, and environmental variables affecting the nature of R&D products. Organizational characteristics that are most likely to stimulate commercializable products instead of basic research are identified. (Author/MLW)

The theory and practice of academic entrepreneurship, like many domains of public management, requires active recognition that context affects individual behavior. In this Viewpoint essay, the authors contend that the operational logic of a university affects the values and activities of actors within that university in ways that shape the broader entrepreneurial activities of the university. The authors describe a new entrepreneurial organizational logic, termed the "academic enterprise," and situate it in relation to the more established academy, bureaucratic, and market logics. The academic enterprise is inherently entrepreneurial in terms of the management of the university and its reliance on faculty and student entrepreneurship as a tool for broad‐scale social and economic transformation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This paper discusses the co-evolution of global and national knowledge networks. Particular attention is given to policy implications for American education; international competitiveness in math, science, and technology; and the shortcomings of American performance in these fields. The education and science policy decisions of the United States, India, and China are major determinants of each country''s ability to advance knowledge and enhance the well-being of major portions of the world''s population, with outcomes affecting not just residents in these countries but those beyond their borders as well. Each of these countries has its own historical and cultural education policy framework, yet there is considerable overlap among their knowledge production systems, as students and scholars increasingly participate in global knowledge networks. In turn, these interwoven networks help to shape national knowledge production systems. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]