Title: Carl Calkins, PhD, University of Missouri, Kansas City
1Research Design Workgroup
- Carl Calkins, PhD, University of Missouri, Kansas
City - Margaret Nygren, EdD, AUCD
2Workgroup Members
- Brent Askvig, North Dakota Center for Persons
with Disabilities, North Dakota - Carl Calkins, UMKC Institute for Human
Development, Missouri - Elisabeth Dykens, Vanderbilt Kennedy UCEDD,
Tennessee - Michael Gamel-McCormick, Center for Disabilities
Studies, Delaware - Gloria Krahn, Oregon Institute on Disability
Development, Oregon - Fred Orelove, Partnership for People with
Disabilities, Virginia - Sarah Rule, Center for Persons with Disabilities,
Utah - Zolinda Stoneman, Institute on Human Development
Disability, Georgia - Barbara Wheeler, USC UCEDD, California
3Purpose, Plan, and Intended Outcome
- Purpose of Workgroup To assist in the
development of a research design to explore how
universities are approaching the recruitment and
selection of new UCEDD directors - Plan
- Phase I Conduct a brief survey of the entire
network to provide initial data and to inform
phase II - Phase II Conduct in depth interviews of a small
cross-section UCEDD Directors and university
officials on issues of importance in hiring at
universities today - Intended Outcome we hope to inform the next
generation of leaders what credentials they might
develop, provide opportunities to develop
expertise in these areas, and to be better
prepared to supply search committees with
relevant information.
4Timeline Activities To Date
- September-October 2007
- Workgroup identified areas of interest and
discussed data gathering and analysis plan - November-December 2007
- Reviewed draft survey and suggested revisions
- Determined that a focus group of former Directors
and retiring Directors should be used to further
inform the development of Phase I II
questions. - January 2008
- Focus group held
- February 2008
- Survey modified in response to focus group
comments - March 2008
- UCEDD Directors surveyed Directors/Co-Directs of
44 UCEDDs responded, a 66 response rate - April 2008
- Initial results reviewed
- Next steps in data analysis identified
- Thematic areas for Phase II questions identified
- June 2008
- Presenting initial findings at ADD TA Institute
5Tools and Method
- Focus Group
- The focus group panel was held via a one-hour
conference call. The group participated in a
roundtable discussion directed by an experienced
moderator and observed by members of the
workgroup examining this issue and the ADD
project officer.. - Survey
- The survey included 8 quantitative questions, 2
qualitative questions, and 1 opportunity for
general comments. - The survey was organized into 2 sections
- First, addressing elements related to the current
directors position - Second, asking respondents to predict how a
search would be conducted for a new UCEDD
Director if undertaken today
6Focus Group
- All UCEDD Directors who had retired in the past
year or who had announced a plan to retire within
the next 6 months were invited to participate in
the focus group. - Of the 9 invited, 8 participated in the focus
group. - The purpose of the focus group interview panel
was two-fold, to - Gather feedback on a draft survey designed to
capture information from UCEDD Director/Co-Directo
rs on their current job responsibilities and to
gather their predictions on the candidate
qualifications and recruitment processes if a new
UCEDD Director/Co-Director were to be hired in
the near future. - Provide a forum for emeritus and near-emeritus
Directors to share their thoughts on the UCEDD
Director recruitment and transition processes.
7The Consensus of Focus Group Participants on the
UCEDD Director Recruitment and Transition
processes
- UCEDD Director recruitment processes are
determined by the university and often divorced
from those with knowledge of the UCEDD. - Variables that affect recruitment are tenure
status, perceived value of the UCEDD to the
university (size, project, or infrastructure),
processes for internal candidates to be
considered, opportunities to develop or mentor
junior staff to take on the role, and formal exit
strategies for retiring Directors. - Assuring that UCEDD Directors have credibility in
their university setting is essential to
navigating the system, securing resources, and
influencing processes that impact the UCEDD.
Credibility is conferred by tenure in some
settings, in other settings there are other
currencies that confer credibility and respect. - The diversity of the network makes it impossible
to have a one size fits all approach, but that it
may be possible to develop profiles or types of
UCEDDs for which candidate qualifications and
recruitment processes could be tailored.
8Consensus continued.
- Changes in UCEDD leadership may reflect or
provoke the universitys interest in change in
the qualifications of the next director or
intention to change the direction of the work of
the UCEDD. The search may be part of a dynamic
change that reconceptualizes the division of
labor of the UCEDD Director and any other hats
the current person wears. - Search committees need consultation to help them
understand what the skills the UCEDD needs in a
leader to be able to operate. - The search may take 9-12 months or longer.
- The UCEDD is likely to be at its most vulnerable
during the recruitment and transition processes,
as forces in the university may act to
appropriate UCEDD resources.
9Focus Group Recommendations
- Universities should engage in a self-study prior
to initiating the recruitment, that is, determine
its needs and set goals before it starts looking
for a new UCEDD Director. - UCEDD faculty and/or outgoing director should be
involved in the hiring of a new one. - AUCD, as an outside source that could not be
perceived as influencing the search, should
assist universities in the recruitment processes
by providing - Director job descriptions from other UCEDDs
- Consultation to help the search committee
understand what expertise is required to meet
UCEDD grant deliverables - A list of comparable UCEDDs, so that the search
committee might engage in informational
interviews with their Directors - Provide any profile information that might be
developed on UCEDD types. - ADD should not offer nor require that its staff
participate in the recruitment of new UCEDD
Directors.
10Initial Results of Survey Current UCEDD Director
Responsibilities
- Scope of Responsibility
- Most (60) both manage the day-to-day operations
and lead their UCEDD - Job Description
- Most have a current job description (79)
- Among those with a job description, 53 of those
descriptions were updated within the past 12
months 25 reported their job descriptions were
updated in the last 2-5 years - Tenure
- Given where their UCEDD was administratively
housed, 47 reported it was very important, 21
indicated it was somewhat important - Narrative comments strongly suggested that to be
successful, UCEDD Directors need to have
credibility within the host university, if not
through tenure, then through alternative
promotion schedules or other institutional
currency
11Initial Results of Survey Predictions on the
Necessary Qualifications and Recruitment Process
for a new UCEDD Director at the University
- Recruitment processes were predicted to very
likely entail - A national search (74)
- The consideration of internal candidates (63),
- Inclusion of UCEDD staff on the search committee
(64) - Inclusion of non-university staff such as CAC
members, community partners, etc. on the search
committee (64) - Respondents indicated that the use of a head
hunting firm was either not very likely (44) or
not likely at all (46) - Predictions on the likelihood of the current
directors inclusion on the search committee for
the next director was - 28.5 very likely
- 28.5 somewhat likely
- 24 not very likely
- 19 not likely at all
12Initial Results of Survey Predictions on the
Necessary Qualifications and Recruitment Process
for a new UCEDD Director at the University
- Qualifications identified as very likely to be
important - Capacity to bring in grants/revenue (91)
- Management/leadership credentials (86)
- Disability experience/expertise (82)
- Publication history (52)
- Community outreach/engagement experience (50)
- Tenurability (46)
- Qualifications identified as somewhat likely to
be important - Familiarity with UCEDDs (55)
- research (52)
- Teaching (44)
13Next Steps
- Further analysis of survey data
- The survey responses will be matched with data on
variables that might be relevant (administrative
location of the UCEDD university Carnegie
classification, land grant status, public/private
status). The resulting dataset will be examined
to determine what, if any, correlations may be
observed. - Begin Phase II
- Themes suggested by the survey and focus groups
will be used to gather data from in depth
interviews with a small cross section of UCEDD
Directors and University leaders - Report on findings at AUCD Annual Meeting