Search

This dissertation study seeks to better understand two main ideas around institutional advancement in higher education: the knowledge and evidence that informs practice and the structures and systems that are set up for the sharing of this knowledge and evidence within and across these organizations. I use a conceptual framework based on organizational systems, learning, and culture theories along with the tenets of evidence-informed policy and practice (EIPP) to delve deeper into my research questions. These research questions include: (1) To what extent do advancement divisions value certain types of evidence and knowledge? (2) What types of evidence and knowledge do advancement divisions utilize to inform their practice and policies? (2a) What organizational practices and individual and organizational characteristics, if any, affect which knowledge guides the work of advancement organizations? (3) What organizational learning systems and structures are in place both within and outside advancement organizations that guide practice and internal policy making? (4) What sociodemographic and organizational characteristics, if any, show a relationship with systems and structures of knowledge management and mobilization of institutional advancement shops? I draw on an original data set that combines responses from survey methodology and data from the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) AMAtlas Data Miner and Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) (n=1,826). Using a combination of descriptive statistics, ordinal logistic regression (OLR), and linear regression, I add to the literature base on philanthropy in higher education and gain insight into my research questions. The field of institutional advancement is understudied and often relies on anecdotal evidence versus more theory-based understanding of how work is carried out (Drezner, 2011; Drezner & Huehls, 2014; Walton, 2019). These findings push the field's understanding of what knowledge, evidence, and learning systems and structures drive and guide the work of advancement. Advancement organizations value "all" types of knowledge and evidence in their work, including tacit, explicit, embedded, and research based. However, there is an incongruency between this valuing of all knowledge and evidence types and day-to-day practice. Practitioners are more likely to use and share tacit, explicit, embedded knowledge and evidence sources than research based. In addition to these findings, I find that advancement practitioners share knowledge and evidence using a multitude of different learning structures and systems both within their organization and across the broader field of institutional advancement. My study uses organizational theory and tenets of EIPP to highlight the ways that advancement practice can be further understood and improved. These improvements are critical to ensure that the field works towards a model of equity and inclusion for all alumni, donors, and stakeholders. In addition, with changing demographics and decreased alumni participation rates, the findings from my study are more important than ever to ensure the sustainability of these organizations for generations to come. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]

This study utilizes qualitative narrative inquiry methods to explore the cultural experiences in higher education of rural students from poor and working-class backgrounds. These explorations occurred through individually interviewing seven rural, poor and working-class student participants, conducting focus group interviews with all participants, and reading through journal entries written by each participant, all centered around their journeys to and through college. Drawing upon cumulative disadvantage theory and definitions of and theory around culture across psychology, sociology, and anthropology, this study engaged a cumulative disadvantage, culture-based framework -- "intertwining cultural flexibility", "cultural integration", and "cultural capital and wealth" -- to explicate the higher education experiences of students who held the dual and compounding identities of being both rural and poor or working-class. Through doing so, this study addresses: 1) how rural, poor and working-class students culturally experience -- both uniquely and collectively -- higher education; 2) how, if at all, rural, poor and working-class students transition into and navigate higher education institutional cultures; and 3) how, if at all, such cultural experiences, transitions, and navigations play a role in those students' higher education attainment. This study's findings included two components. First, a narrative was written about each student's experience coming from their rural, poor and working-class family and community into and through higher education. These narratives offered unique stories about the students' personal experiences in higher education, including their academic, co-curricular, social, and professional experiences. Second, paradigmatic analysis was conducted, highlighting shared themes across the narratives. Through explicating the narratives and themes through a cumulative disadvantage, culture-based framework, this study suggests that: 1) rural, poor and working-class students hold two disadvantaged identities and background factors of being both rural and poor or working-class, which are minoritized and marginalized by higher education institutions; 2) as students with these dual rural and poor and working-class identities and background factors experience, transition into, and navigate higher education, they traverse campus cultural contexts that feel different from and at odds with their rural, poor and working-class upbringings; 2) the cultural experiences for rural, poor and working-class students in college are complex, as these students engage in cultural flexibility and cultural integration, while also gaining cultural capital and utilizing cultural wealth; 3) such cultural processes can play a role in higher education attainment for rural, poor and working-class students, given that they utilize various cultural tools to find success in higher education all the way to completion of their degrees. This study concludes with implications for theory, research, and practice and policy. In particular, this study contributes to cumulative disadvantage and cultural theory, as well as future research ideas around how to study rural, poor and working-class students in higher education and the cultural experiences of other minoritized and marginalized student populations. Regarding practice and policy, I note the importance of higher education practitioners and policymakers recognizing and valuing rurality and social class, communicating higher education norms and processes to rural students from poor and working-class backgrounds, continuing outreach and support programs for rural, poor and working-class students, creating and fostering community for this population, and acknowledging the compounding and cumulative nature of rurality, social class, and additional social identities. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]

This qualitative, interpretive study examined the following three research questions: (a) How do lay leaders at Jesuit institutions of higher education understand Ignatian social justice? (b) What elements of Ignatian formation were most salient for lay leaders' personal and/or professional transformation? and (c) How do lay leaders at Jesuit institutions of higher education discern and act for social justice? The conceptual framework for this study considered Ignatian formation of lay leaders within Jesuit institutions of higher education through the connection of Ignatian social justice and the Ignatian Pedagogical Paradigm. Research paradigms of critical theory and critical hope were also used. Primary data collection was through interviews with 21 lay leaders at Jesuit colleges/universities in the United States. Additional data sources were personal and institutional mission-relevant documents provided by participants. Relevant themes for exploring lay leaders' understanding of Ignatian social justice were identified as (a) connecting "the service of faith" with the "promotion of justice," (b) building authentic community relationships, (c) uprooting and reconciling structures of injustice, and (d) showing personal and institutional integrity. Themes investigating elements of Ignatian formation most salient for lay leaders' personal and/or professional transformation included human environmental context and relationships of accompaniment in the context of "cura personalis" and "cura communis." Finally, themes identifying the ways in which lay leaders at Jesuit institutions of higher education discern and act for social justice included exhibiting traits of Ignatian leadership and mission traits of Jesuit institutions of higher education. Implications for theory and practice, study limitations, and recommendations for future research are also provided. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]