The rise and fall of camelot: designing, implementing, and dismantling  (Page 4/16)

Characters

In order to appreciate the complexity of the story, it is important to understand the people involved and the various positions that influenced the program. This section includes brief sketches of two deans, four department heads, and multiple faculty members who have had significant impacts on the MSA program. The descriptions are brief but reference events that will be described in greater detail later in the chapter. The first three department heads served in the Department of Educational Leadership and Foundations (ELF). The department was dissolved as the result of a college reorganization in June, 2011.

Hierarchy. Dean 1 was a long-serving member of the university. He worked to build strong connections between local schools and the university and was visible and highly personable within the college. Dean 1 retired in the Spring of 2009. Dean 2’s arrival brought significant changes to the college. Dean 2 focused more on the college and less on networking with local schools. His emphasis was on bureaucratic hierarchy and chain of command evidenced by his tight control of the flow of information. Dean 2 also faced multiple years of extensive budget cuts. In 2011, he engineered a college reorganization that led to the dissolution of ELF and the placement of the MSA in the Department of Human Services.

Department Head 1 (DH1) had coordinated the MSA before becoming department head. She encouraged a departmental culture of democratic participation, collaboration, and an exploration of ideas. Department meetings encouraged faculty voice where honest discussion and debate were common. Consistent and open communication was important to DH1. All of the MSA faculty members, with the exception of Faculty Member A (FMA), were hired by DH1.

DH2 was hired through an external search when DH1 returned to faculty. DH2’s arrival coincided with the arrival of Dean 2 and so did not have the benefit of an experienced dean to help her adjustment. DH2 was very personable in one on one situations, but the flow of information and tenor of faculty meetings was quite different from previous years. DH2 did not send out weekly newsletters with key information. She did not seek input on the faculty meeting agendas and ran them more as informational sessions. A significantly symbolic difference was DH2s use of ‘I’ and ‘my’ when talking about decisions and the department, as in, “I decided to do this for my department.” The faculty had been used to the “we” and “our” words form DH1. Additionally, the department was one of the most complex on campus with an array of undergraduate, graduate and doctoral programs. The department also provided multiple service courses for other programs within the college. Program revisioning occurring in the college for both the MSA and teacher education programs added to the complexity. DH2 came into a difficult set of circumstances, made some changes to the departmental culture, which she may have been unaware of, with the result that her “fit” in the department did not seem right to many of the departmental faculty. DH2 resigned from being the department head at the conclusion her first year and returned to faculty in another department.