Search results

This chapter presents the major components in framing a developmental model of wise organizing in the field of higher education that proceeds along an increasingly more just and responsible path. Our argument considers individual student development theories that lead one to greater competence for wise and socially responsible interactions and engagement in society, and aligns these individual processes with the organizational scholarship emphasizing how organizations enhance their capacities for wise and socially responsible conduct. After reviewing these arguments, we frame a set of research topics required for empirically identifying how universities can cultivate wisdom.

The United States is becoming more diverse, a trend that is reflected in institutions of higher education; college campuses are filled with various subgroups of “non-traditional students,” many of whom are students from marginalized populations. Throughout history, the United States denied access to education to students from historically marginalized backgrounds and while society promises access to students today, it is not provided equally; gaps in educational access and achievement among marginalized groups persist. Some of the fastest growing subgroups of our population are least likely to succeed in higher education, because they face barriers as they navigate the university experience. This chapter spotlights the key access and persistence-related challenges faced by students from six marginalized populations: African American/Black students, students with disabilities, Hispanic/Latinx students, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students, undocumented students, and student veterans.

Freire (2000) suggested that all teaching is political; social justice teaching is arguably deeply rooted in encouraging a transformative practice that reduces social inequities. The intersectional identities and realities experienced by classroom participants shape their knowledge of and perspectives on studies based in social justice and, therefore, educators should strive to create lessons that are not in conflict with the knowledge and perspectives of their students (Epstein, 2009). The authors explored how the Coady International Institute teaching staff – who were primarily engaged in leadership training with development practitioners from around the world – included the realities experienced by persons living with disabilities in the global South in their curriculum and classroom discussions. Their research focused on the teaching staff’s existing knowledge of disabled persons’ movements and lived realities in the global South and how their course content addressed those realities. A critical component of this work included content development and direction from persons living with disabilities who have experience in global development studies and in pedagogical design in adult learning contexts. This content, cocreated and/or compiled by individuals with lived experience, will be shared both internally and externally to Coady graduates working in organizations around the world.

This chapter offers a contemporary overview of philanthropy in education as an emerging research field. Although the education sector has traditionally been a popular recipient of philanthropic investment, the scale and scope of funding and policy involvement on the part of philanthropy are growing. In addition, and potentially amplified by COVID-19, big- and in particular tech-philanthropies are emerging as increasingly influential players in national, regional, and global educational contexts. This chapter describes how most existing education research on philanthropy is mainly US- and higher education-focused which has resulted in a narrow geographic and thematic scope whereby contemporary developments remain either overlooked or under-researched. It discusses venture philanthropy inside and outside of the United States, a greater diversity of geographic perspectives, and an increasing dependence of academia on philanthropic funding as emerging research areas that bear great potential to being explored further.

Analysts of modern-day sub-Saharan Africa have argued that its “neopatrimonial regimes,” descending from pre-colonial polities, translate badly to the scale of the nation-state and hinder democratic accountability. In this paper, I argue by contrast that the problem with today’s failed or failing states is that they are not patrimonial enough, if we understand patrimonialism in classic Weberian terms as a system based on traditions of reciprocal interdependence between rulers and citizens, and characterized by personal but malleable ruling networks. I make this argument by showing how the Asante Empire in the 18th and 19th centuries shifted from a working model, incorporating both patrimonial and bureaucratic forms of authority, to an exploitative one that reneged on its traditional commitments to the wider public. The cause of this shift was the expansion of exchange with European nations as a rival avenue to power and wealth. This problem continues today, where African rulers are incentivized by the demands of global banks, the United Nations, and G20 governments rather than internal authority traditions, thus limiting their ability to establish locally effective and publically accountable hybrids of patrimonial and bureaucratic governance.

Racial and ethnic diversity and the attendant challenges and benefits of multiculturalism in society are a worldwide phenomenon. As higher education is often the training ground for future social and political leaders, as well as the primary institution charged with the study of social problems, the educational benefits, and challenges of diversity in society are particularly relevant to institutions of higher learning. This chapter synthesizes the ongoing empirical research on the educational impact of racially and ethnically diverse university environments in a U.S. context and offers a framework of institutional practices based on that work to help administrators both respond to challenges and better harness-related benefits for all students.

Analyzing national statistical 2007 data from the U.S. Department of Education, this chapter examines the current status and trends concerning Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI) women in higher education by looking at their presence at key levels of the higher education pipeline. It considers their representation as doctoral degree holders, assistant professors, tenured professors, and college/university presidents. The findings demonstrate that AAPI women are underrepresented as faculty in contrast to the large and growing numbers of AAPI women students who make up the talent pool to the professoriate. Moreover, despite the in-roads AAPI women have made as faculty members, race and gender disparities still persist and grow as the rank increases. AAPI female faculty representation stalls very early on in the pipeline, namely, in being hired and at tenure, and continues to shrink as the pipeline advances. AAPI male and white female faculty may also face barriers to the top, but Asian American women faculty may experience them sooner. Consequently, the numbers of AAPI women full professors are small and as campus presidents they are miniscule. However, for white men, their representation increases as the pipeline advances.