WASC Special Visit Research Proposal: Phase IA. WASC views the Administration at California State University, Stanislaus (CSUS) as primarily

Transcription

1 WASC Special Visit Research Proposal: Phase IA Statement of Purpose WASC views the Administration at California State University, Stanislaus (CSUS) as primarily responsible for fostering a climate of trust and for designing the initiative and circumstances that will provide for a resolution to the leadership and governance issues highlighted in the WASC letter (WASC Commission Action Letter, July 13, 2011). In this preliminary phase of the research, we are interested in identifying substantive actions that the CSUS Administration has encouraged or implemented this past year to foster a climate of trust in regard to shared governance and to provide for a resolution to the leadership and governance issues highlighted by WASC. Research Design, Sample and Data Collection In order to accomplish this component of the study, a two-pronged data collection strategy will be used. First, a 12 item Substantive Actions Inventory will be ed to key administrative leaders (n=6). This Inventory contains an anchor question followed by 11 open-ended prompts and is designed to provide the administrative leader with an opportunity to both identify and describe pertinent details regarding the various actions that have been used to provide a resolution to issues. Each administrative leader will receive an electronic copy of the inventory and an informed consent statement. Each participant will be contacted by a member of the Special Visit Research Team (SRVT) to ensure that he/she received the electronic communiqué and to answer any specific questions regarding this phase of the research process. The administrator will be instructed that he/she has one week to respond to the questions and to provide the SVRT with an electronic (PDF) document containing responses.

2 After submitting the inventory, each administrative leader will be asked to participate in a follow-up interview. The follow-up interview will be used as a strategy for ensuring that the participant has identified substantive actions and that the SVRT understands the substantive actions that have occurred in response to the WASC Substantive Action Letter (July 13,2011). These interviews will be conducted in person by the six members of the SVRT. The specific interview questions will be unique to each participant, focusing on clarification and ensuring that each participant s views are fully captured. Data Analysis The qualitative data provided by the participants will be organized by the SVRT into themes/categories in order to create an aggregate summation of actions encouraged or implemented by our Administration to address the issues posed by WASC. This composite response will be used in the second component (Phase IB) of the research study, which will focus on the campus community s views regarding the effectiveness of the administrative actions. Before data are collected regarding Phase IB of this research study, a separate protocol will be presented to the UIRB for approval. Protection of Human Subjects All data captured from this portion of the study will be presented in aggregate form. The intent of this portion of the study is not to ascribe responses to individual participants, but rather to document and describe the administrative response as a whole. As such, while the identities of the six administrative participants will be publicly known, their specific responses will be protected from inappropriate disclosure the identity of the participant and his or her responses will not be publicly linked. The members of the SVRT will be the only persons to have access to the administrator s individual responses to the Substantive Actions Inventory and the follow-up interview questions. While the key administrators will be informed that their participation in the study is voluntary, we believe that each participant will feel an urgency to participate, especially given the Special Visit in

3 September 2011, which is intended to ensure substantial progress related to the issues. In any event, we believe the risks associated with participation are minimal given the nature of the questions being posed, and in light of the intended purpose of this portion of the study.

4 Substantive Actions Inventory Please list all of substantive actions that you encouraged or implemented following the WASC Substantive Action Letter (July 13, 2011) to foster a climate of trust in regard to shared governance and to provide for a resolution to issues of leadership and governance. For each action, please answer the following: a) What was the action? b) What was the point or purpose of the action in the context of WASC s concerns? c) Describe how the action was implemented. d) Identify who was involved in implementing the action. e) For whom was the action intended? f) How was that person or group made aware of the action? g) When was the action implemented? h) Describe the current status of the action. i) What are the indicators of success of the action? j) Would you repeat this action? Why or why not? k) Is there anything else that is important for us to know about this action? After you have listed all of the actions, please indicate how important you think they were in helping to address the concerns raised by WASC. Begin by writing a 1 next to the action you consider most important. Write a 2 next to the action you consider second-most important, and so on until you have ranked all of the actions. If you regard two actions as equally important, please assign both of them the same number.

5 June 6, 2011 California State University, Stanislaus John Garcia Halyna Kornuta One University Circle Turlock, CA Institutional Review Board CSU Stanislaus One University Circle, MSR 250 Turlock, CA Telephone: (209) IRB BOARD MEMBERS Xun (Sunny) Liu, Ph.D., CHAIR Communication Studies Cathlin Davis, Ph.D. Liberal Studies John Garcia, Ph.D. Social Work Mark Grobner, Ph.D. Biology Carolyn Martin, Ph.D. Nursing Gregory Morris, Ph.D. Criminal Justice Dawn Poole, Ph.D. Advanced Studies Robin Ringstad, Ph.D. Social Work Vacant Community Representative Nancy Lewis Research & Sponsored Programs (non-voting) IRB Administration Wendy Smith, JD Campus Compliance Officer Dear John and Halyna, Re: Protocol # Congratulations. Your research has been designated Expedited and can be conducted as detailed in your research protocol, WASC special visit Research: Phase 1A Your approval to conduct research now expires June 6, If you anticipate that you will need more time to complete your research, please apply for renewal at least 30 days prior to the expiration date. If you have any questions regarding this designation, please contact Campus Compliance at (209) Please Note: Human subjects research liability protection from the university only covers IRBapproved research by faculty, students, and employees of CSU Stanislaus. If your employment or student status changes during the year or if you make changes to your methods, subject selection, or instrumentation, please discontinue your research and notify the IRB to obtain the appropriate clearances. If any research subject experiences a serious adverse or unexpected event during or following participation, please notify Campus Compliance immediately. Best regards, Sunny Liu, Ph.D., Chair CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, STANISLAUS Bakersfield Long Beach San Diego Channel Islands Los Angeles San Francisco Chico California Maritime Academy San Jose Dominguez Hills Monterey Bay San Luis Obispo Fresno Northridge San Marcos Fullerton Pomona Sonoma East Bay Sacramento Stanislaus Humboldt San Bernardino Office of the Chancellor