Search results

FEW ACTS OF CONGRESS have had such profound effects as that sponsored by Senator Morrill of Vermont and signed by President Lincoln on 2nd July 1862, in the middle of the Civil War.

Through the study of leadership, the concept of leadership effectiveness and its importance has emerged. Effective leadership contributes to successful organizations (Amagoh, 2009; Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999). According to Gordon & Yukl (2004), because of constantly changing environments, it is important to continue research in the leadership and leadership effectiveness fields, especially when it comes to leadership in academia. Using Seiler and Pfister’s (2009) Dynamic Five-Factor Model of Leadership as the theoretical frame, a qualitative study of leadership effectiveness influencers of Agricultural and Extension Education department heads was completed. The research looked at both internal and external influential factors.

The importance of high value products as a component of United States agricultural output has increased significantly in recent years. Moreover, high value products as a percentage of U.S. agricultural exports have also risen (Burfisher and Missiaen, 1990). Given these trends, it is not surprising that agribusiness competitiveness has become a topic of much discussion in both the popular press and in academic literature. Its importance is also evidenced by initiatives set forth by the Western Regional Coordinating Committee on Agribusiness Research Emphasizing Competitiveness and the International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium symposium Competitiveness in International Food Markets. More recently, the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges' Board on Agriculture endorsed the Agricultural Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). This initiative calls on land‐grant universities to consider new paradigms for conducting research, extension, and teaching on the issue of U.S. agricultural competitiveness.

The Food Systems Leadership Institute (FSLI) is a 2-year leadership development program consisting of 3 intensive in-person immersion retreats, and a robust and customizable distance-based program. Participants come primarily from land-grant and public universities and learn about personal, organizational and system leadership with a focus on food systems as an organizing theme. For this study, program graduates from FSLI Cohorts 4-6 (n=60) were asked to complete an online retrospective pre- and post-test of skill competency and skill use for 20 competencies addressed in the program, with 47 (78%) completing the survey. Data indicate participants’ ratings of skill competency increased significantly across all 20 targeted areas.Participants further noted that they used these skills more after completing the program as compared to prior to the Fellowship training. Data suggest the FSLI model of leadership development can have a significant impact on participants’ perceived skill level in and use of important skills in both personal and organizational leadership in academic and food system settings.

Ascertains the viability of adapting the American university‐based public service concept to countries of the former Soviet Union. Toward this end, a heuristic model is presented. The model for university‐based public service and outreach shows initial viability in the Ukrainian examples. While the range of administrative and societal problems facing the Ukraine and other countries of the former Soviet Union is formidable, it appears that university‐based public service activities can play a part in reform activities aimed at their amelioration.

The purpose of this paper is to undertake an inquiry into the way academic entrepreneurialism manifests itself in the changing discourses of the notion of “scholarship”. It particularly examines the contexts, rationales, definitions and implications of the discursive field of the “scholarship of application”. The global trend of academic entrepreneurialism profoundly affects the organisation of higher education institutions and academic life. Particularly, the form of scholarship has been undergoing subtle but constant transformation. The emergence of knowledge economies worldwide influences the practices and goals of traditional academy and illustrates commitment for fundamental knowledge and the new economies emphasise the results and impacts brought by applied knowledge. Alongside the “scholarship of discovery”, the “scholarship of application” is given attention.

By reviewing the related literature, this paper articulates the definitions and dimensions of the “scholarship of application”. In addition, the impacts brought about by the concerned academic and policy discourses will be discussed.

This paper finds that the emergence of the discursive field of the “scholarship of application” – as well as the discussions and actions in response to it – coincide with the intense neoliberal changes that affected traditional academia in the 1990s. It is argued that the emergence of and subsequent responses to the discursive field of the “scholarship of application” resulted in transforming purposes and practices of academic life. The discursive field of the “scholarship of application” also impacts on the concerned academic and policy discourses.

To sustain the advancement of the scholarship of application, this paper implies the need to develop practices, cultivate culture as well as formulate prestige and reward mechanisms inherent to the existing higher education systems.

This paper aims to measure and rigorously compare the perceptions of South Korean university social engagement between faculty and students, two definitive stakeholders identified by stakeholder theory – but considerably heterogeneous, to understand how South Korean campus embraces social engagement in practice. To that end, this study delves into the conceptual framework of university social engagement and selects a highly internationalized, research-oriented, four-year comprehensive South Korean university campus that has long sought to become engaged in communities as the research site.

Methodologically, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to identify the factor model that successfully fit the data of the study. Factorial invariance tests and latent mean analysis were then conducted to measure and strictly compare the between-group mean differences.

According to the findings, neither faculty nor students had positive perceptions of their institution’s social engagement in terms of leadership, participatory decision-making, curriculum and instruction, institutional supports and systemic mechanism. That is, two definitive stakeholders on campus similarly perceived that social engagement has not yet been institutionalized as a core value and therefore embraced in practice. Based on these findings, this study discussed several implications for university decision makers. Specifically, the institutionalization of and the need for authentic leadership in university social engagement were emphasized as a means to encourage and facilitate the delivery of practical, beneficial services to the public.

As with all studies, there are certain limitations that must be noted. The sample for this study represents the experiences and expectations of faculty and students at only one institution. Therefore, the experiences of individuals at this single university are not necessarily representative of all South Korean universities. In addition, given that the public service missions of South Korean universities emanated from Western thoughts (Duke, 2008; Ward, 2003), social engagement in the present study has been discussed and conceptualized according to the dominant Western scholarship.

As both faculty and students similarly perceived, participatory decision-making and systemic mechanism do not work properly, and therefore, social engagement as an institutional value cannot strongly take root on campus. Based on the scale used, this study identified communication and organizational supports as the likely issues that obstruct the institutionalization of social engagement. In relation to communication, Boyte and Hollander (1999) emphasize that it is important that stakeholders are well aware of the engaged effort of the institution. Then, the voices of stakeholders need to be acknowledged as valuable feedback so that university decision makers and stakeholders can discuss mutually important issues and concerns (Minnesota Higher Education Services Office, 2003). Furthermore, the relevant literature consistently contends that engaged effort can only be productive with continuous and systemic organizational supports (Boyte and Hollander, 1999; Holland, 1997; Minnesota Higher Education Services Office, 2003; Weerts and Sandmann, 2008). That is, the engaged work of teaching, research and service should be thoroughly assessed and reported to stakeholders on a regular basis. The implication in this study is that university decision makers should make greater effort to design and implement policies and regulations that enable organizational supports to continue.

For social engagement to be valued in practice, the relevant literature (Kellogg Commission, 1999; Garlick and Langworthy, 2008; Minnesota Higher Education Services Office, 2003; Peterson, 2009) advises that top institutional leaders need to encourage interdisciplinary scholarship that includes research, teaching and learning; develop incentives to encourage faculty involvement in engaged work; support engagement so that it is incorporated into the curriculum and instruction; and secure funding for engagement. The fundamental insight that these suggestions provide to university decision makers is crystal-clear: social engagement must be authentically prioritized in the decision-making process.

The quantitative and descriptive findings of the study seek to provide one further step toward the objective of establishing the groundwork for future research on university social engagement in Asian context. Further, replication studies with various Asian cases and research designs may results in tangible improvements to the theorization of Asian university social engagement.

This paper advances the notion that global leadership is a necessary component of undergraduate agricultural leadership. Within an existing leadership curriculum, the development of at least three new courses with innovative approaches to such a globalized curriculum is justified and outlined. These three classes include a course designed to increase awareness of global leadership issues, a cultural assimilation course designed to prepare students for an international experience, and a capstone seminar course. The program will require students to take the three classes being developed in addition to at least three other classes with an international or cultural emphasis as well as participate in an international experience during their undergraduate career. Upon completing the global agricultural leadership curriculum, students will be awarded an academic certificate.

The cultural differences between British and American managers observed while teaching applied psychology to classes of both nationalities are discussed. Each group was taught materials with a dominant cognitive and affective focus in university and management development courses. Two categories of differences are identified: personal perspectives and educational philosophy. Under personal perspectives, the influence of the future orientation of the Americans and the past orientation of the British are considered. These differences may account for the desire of subjective learning experiences on the part of the Americans and objective experiences for the British. The past and future orientation may also account for the interest in Freudian theories applied to management education in Britain and the humanistic school in America. It is concluded that the educational philosophies are very different, with the Americans having a very utilitarian view of education, dating back to the Land Grant colleges and the acceptance of part‐time students.

In interview format this paper provides an introduction to the US education system for the non‐American faculty member, focusing primarily on the university sector. Issues addressed include: key differences inherent in the US system (versus the majority of the world); the structure of education; the role of the individual states and that of the federal government; funding; accreditation; faculty assessment and promotion; and the practicalities of teaching for an American university.