22 research outputs found
Clark Kerr oral history interview, California State Unversity Archives Oral History Project on the Origins of the California State University System, Phase II, 1995
No full textOral history interview with a primary focus on the origins of the California State University System and the 1960 master plan for California higher education.Transcripts and cassette tapes of oral history interviews with various individuals involved in the formation of the California State University system.CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY ARCHIVES
Oral History Project on the Origins of the CSU System, Phase II
CLARK KERR
GROWTH OF THE CSU SYSTEM
Interview Conducted by
Judson Grenier
February 22, 1995
Processed in cooperation with CSU Fullerton Oral History Program
1995
COPYRIGHT
This is a transcription of an interview conducted for the California State
University Archives under a grant from the Office of the Chancellor, CSU.
Scholars are welcome to utilize short excerpts from any of the transcriptions
without obtaining permission as long as proper credit is given to the
interviewee, interviewer, and the institution sponsoring the project. All uses
of this manuscript are covered by a legal agreement between the CSU
Archives and the interviewee. Therefore, scholars must obtain permission
from California State University Archives before making more extensive use
of the transcription and related materials.
None of these materials may be duplicated or reproduced by any party except
the California State University Archives. However, because it is the goal of
this project to preserve and make accessible significant documentation relevant
to the history of the State Colleges, copies of any unrestricted transcriptions
may be obtained at cost by writing to the CSU Systemwide Archivist at
California State University, Dominguez Hills, Carson, California 90747.
Copyright © 1995 by the Board of Trustees
of The California State University
PREFACE
The purpose of Phase II of the California State University Oral History
Project is to record and make available to researchers using the California
State University Archives the reminiscences of individuals who participated in
development of the CSU system.
Creation of the California State Colleges in 1961 united fifteen formerly
independent colleges into a single identifiable system, with its own Board of
Trustees and a Chancellor to serve as chief executive officer. Using a formula
that stressed systemwide planning in the allocation of resources and programs,
the California State Colleges sought to offer Californians quality higher
education at reasonable cost. Key to the success of the State Colleges was the
decision to implement a Master Plan adopted in 1960 that divided higher
education into three distinctly separate segments. The State Colleges were
mandated to emphasize undergraduate and master's level programs, while the
University of California campuses were to emphasize graduate education, and
the Community Colleges vocational training and college preparation.
The present California State University, starting from a base of fifteen
campuses and 95,000 students in 1961, has grown to where it provides a wide
variety of innovative programs to more than 320,000 students on 22 campuses.
It is the largest system of higher education in the United States and is known
as one of the strongest institutions of higher education in the country.
In September 1979, the Board of Trustees created the California State
University Historical Archives, to be housed on the Dominguez Hills campus.
Since its establishment, the Archives, as a systemwide project, has been
supported by the Chancellor's Office through the funding of a professional
archivist.
The Archives currently houses a collection of materials from a variety of
sources. These include the Chancellor's Office, the CSU Academic Senate,
and private individuals such as former Chancellor Glenn Dumke and former
Trustee Paul Spencer. Consequently, the Archives holds some personal
papers as well as official systemwide documents. As part of its collection
policy, the Archives also has a responsibility to gather individual recollections
and oral histories of the system.
Phase I of the CSU Oral History Project, conducted from 1986 to 1989, and
funded by the Chancellor's Office, covered the formation and early years of
CSU through 32 interviews with participants within and without the system.
These interviews, housed at the CSU Archives, have proven useful to research
in
into higher education in the 1950s and '60s. A major quality is their
standardized format, developed at the Oral History Program at CSU
Fullerton.
Phase II is an ongoing oral history project that is decentralized but
administered by the CSU Archives. Its intent is to assure that the
reminiscences of retiring chancellors, principal staff members, Academic
Senate chairs, Student Association presidents, trustees, and local campus
presidents be recorded as closely as possible to their retirement date and that
this be done routinely as a regularized process. Phase II also seeks
information on the growth of the CSU during two mid-decades, 1964-85.
The project has three long-range purposes. First, it will help to increase
interest in the history and accomplishments of the California State University.
Next, it will be a tool in aiding the acquisition of additional materials
concerning the System now in private hands. Finally, it will create needed
documentation for understanding the System’s historical role in state and
national education; many issues it has confronted have become matters of
national concern, such as meeting the needs of a multicultural student body
and finding adequate resources in a time of scarcity. Oral history can provide
background information on these developments that is not available in
bulletins, brochures, and minutes.
Funding for the project is provided by the Office of the Chancellor, Dr. Barry
Munitz. We thank the interviewee for generously giving of his time. We also
acknowledge the pioneering work of the CSU Fullerton Oral History Program
in providing a model. Transcribing was performed by Garnette Long, who in
the process contributed many wise editorial suggestions.
Lawrence B. de Graaf Tim Gregory
Judson A. Grenier Acting CSU Archivist
Project Co-directors
MEMBERS, CSU ARCHIVES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Judson A. Grenier
Donald R. Gerth
Harold Goldwhite
Tim Gregory
Betty J. Blackman
William D. Campbell
Lawrence B. de Graaf
Robert C. Detweiler
David E. Leveille
Gloria Lothrop
Barry Munitz
Lyn Olsson
John Pfau
Teena Stern
Helene Whitson
Samuel Wiley
IV
Dr. Clark Kerr, at the time he became President of the Umversi
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY ARCHIVES
ORAL HISTORY PROJECT ON THE
ORIGINS OF THE CSU SYSTEM
This interview of Dr. Clark Kerr, President Emeritus of the University of
California, took place at the University's Institute of Industrial Relations in
Berkeley on the afternoon of February 22, 1995. The interviewer is Judson
Grenier. Although part of Phase II of the CSU Oral History Project, its
principal focus is the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education.
JG: Let us start out with some biographical information. You were born
in a small town west of Philadelphia?
CK: Actually, I was born in a hospital in the county seat of Berks County,
Pennsylvania, which is about fifty miles west of Philadelphia, a little
north. We lived in a little village called Stony Creek— "crick," we
called it— we had a hillside farm. My father was a combination
teacher and farmer. On the hillside farm we raised chickens, fruit,
vegetables, and things like that. He'd take them into town when he
went in to school to teach, with a black bag over his shoulder, and sell
them in one of those old-fashioned stores. He'd get credit, and on the
way home he'd buy salt and sugar and things we needed. When I was
about ten we moved to a regular farm, a 140-acre farm, in what was
called the Oley Valley, which was east of Reading. That's where I
really consider my boyhood home to be. I was raised as a farm boy,
really, in both situations, but particularly there. I had my own team of
horses when I was fourteen years old.
JG: That's a responsibility.
CK: We still worked with horses. A neighbor had a tractor, but the farming
in that valley was done by horses.
JG: You had three sisters . . .
CK: I had three sisters, yes. They all went to Oberlin, and I went to
Swarthmore, the reason being this: My mother had very little
education— I think only to the sixth grade. But she became a rather
well-known milliner, making the old-fashioned hats— with broad brims
and flowers on them— to order. She was in the business of going from
store to store, and they'd put her in the front window, and some lady
would say, I want this or that, and she'd sit there making these things
KERR 2
while a small crowd gathered outside. So she made a fair amount of
money. Somehow— I never knew how, I wished I'd asked her— she
got the idea that all her children should get an education. So she
refused to marry my father— she put him off for five years— until she
saved enough money for schooling, which then resulted in my going to
Swarthmore and my three sisters to Oberlin.
JG: That's really something. Were you older than your sisters?
CK: Two were older and one was younger.
JG: And you were a Quaker family?
CK: No, we were not. We were in an area of eastern Pennsylvania where
there were lots of religions. About a mile from our farm there was a
Quaker meeting, so I knew Quakers from the very beginning. But on
the corner of our farm, which had once been part of the farm, there
was a combination church— one Sunday Lutheran, one Sunday
Reformed. My father was Reformed— we called it Dutch Reformed,
actually it was "Deutsch" Reformed, for German Reformed— and then
the church was Lutheran the other week. I went both weeks. My
mother was agnostic. But then I went to Swarthmore, which was a
Quaker school. By that time I was kind of fed up. The Reform
minister one week would talk about how the only way to get tp heaven
was through the Reformed church, and the Lutheran minister would
say the only way to heaven was the Lutheran church. And the
language was different— do you "trespass" or, what was the other
word?
JG: Be a "debtor"?
CK: It seemed to me there was a lot of quibbling going on. So when I got
to Swarthmore, after a couple of years I became a member of the
Swarthmore Friends Meeting. Incidentally, I spent three summers as
a "peace caravaner" for the American Friends Service Committee. We
were talking about joining the League of Nations and the World Court,
we were talking against the Smoot-Hawley isolationist tariff and against
rearmament at that time. So anyway, I became a member of the
Society of Friends at Swarthmore. Also, as a participant of the
American Friends Service committee I went once a week into north
Philadelphia to a black school and prepared breakfast for starving kids,
and I really mean starving. In those days there was a lot of extra food
around in somewhat damaged shape, and the Quakers would collect it.
KERR 3
They would collect apple butter— the top of the apple butter crock
tends to get dry after awhile and unsalable— we would use apple butter
and bread and week-old milk and things like that.
JG: That was in the depths of the Depression, too, wasn’t it?
CK: Yes, I was in the class of '32. Then a man by the name of Ruff, who
was a trainer for the teams at Swarthmore— I was involved in three
sports— was a lay preacher, and he took me around from one black
church to another on Sundays talking about the same things I did with
the Friends Service Committee, about peace and international goodwill.
JG: Now, after you got your degree from Swarthmore, you came out west
to go to Stanford?
CK: Well, I didn't come out to go to Stanford. I came out to be a peace
caravaner in California. I think that I was in the first activity of the
American Friends Service Committee on the West Coast. I was going
to go to Columbia for law school, where I’d been admitted, but I rather
liked California. I hadn’t seen San Francisco— I'd been in southern
California— so I came up, I wanted to see Stanford. I happened to get
there on registration day. So I thought, gee, maybe I’ll go to Stanford
for a year and then I'll go to Columbia. I had no application, nothing.
I had my Swarthmore transcripts which had been sent to me during the
summer. I got in the registration line, and I got to the head of it, and
I said I'd like to register. "Well, where are your papers?" "I don't have
any, but I have my Swarthmore transcript." The lady at the head of
the line said, "Over under that oak tree, sitting, is the registrar, whose
name is Mitchell— you go over and talk to him." So I went over and
said I'd like to register at Stanford and gave him my Swarthmore
transcript. He looked at it and said, "You're admitted." (laughter) So
much for bureaucracy.
JG: What field did you study at Stanford?
CK: Economics.
JG: And then you went on and spent two sessions over at the London
School of Economics?
CK: Well, I first went to Berkeley, briefly, because there was a professor at
Berkeley by the name of Paul Taylor, who married Dorothea Lange,
a photographer.
KERR 4
JG: I remember they collaborated.
CK: Taylor was interested in the Self-Help Cooperatives of the
Unemployed, groups of the unemployed— some were tailors, some
were barbers, some collected vegetables in the field and they'd trade
around. He was interested in that, and nobody was at Stanford, so I
went over there. But I barely got there when the cotton pickers strike
of 1933— the biggest agricultural strike in American history— broke
out. He was interested in that, and we later wrote a history of it.
President Roosevelt and Governor Jimmy Rolph appointed a
Commission to try to settle the strike, and Ira B. Cross, who was also
in economics at Berkeley, asked me to go along as their field agent.
So while they were holding their hearings in Visalia, I was out in the
field talking to people. The growers were offering 50 cents a pound
for picking cotton, and the strikers were asking 100, and I told the
commission privately that if they came up with 75 cents it would be
acceptable. Which it was, incidentally, to the Okies and Arkies, who
were there under the leadership of their lay preachers who came out
with them various Pentecostal sects. The Communists, who were
leading the Mexicans, turned it down, but they were in the minority at
that time it was mostly Okies and Arkies. So the strike was over.
There was a document, which I don't think Paul and I ever used
because we couldn't authenticate it, purportedly a directive from the
Communist Party saying: "Don't settle this strike. The workers in
America have to learn that you can't get anything from capitalism.
Prolong this strike as long as you can." But it died out once the Okies
and Arkies went to work.
JG: That's how you got involved with the University of California at
Berkeley program.
CK: Actually, I did register for some classes, but I was gone all the time in
the San Joaquin Valley. So then I worked for the state Relief
Administration for a little while. Then I went to Europe on an
American Friends Service Committee fellowship, and my wife and I
studied in Geneva and London at the London School of Economics.
Then I taught for a year at Antioch. I really only was a graduate
student here for two years, 1937-38 and 1938-39, and during those two
years I took all my examinations.
JG: So you got your Ph.D. in economics in 1939. And then, after teaching
at Stanford for a year, you went up to the University of Washington
and were there for five years?
KERR 5
CK: That's right, but mostly on a part-time basis because I was working for
the Office of Price Administration and the War Labor Board.
JG: I was intending to ask you how you could teach at the University of
Washington and be down here in San Francisco working for the War
Labor Board.
CK: Well, I was on leave most of the time. With the War Labor Board, at
a very early age, I was in charge of Wage Stabilization originally for
the eleven western states and Hawaii. Then I became vice chairman
when they started a War Labor Board in the Northwest— for Oregon,
Washington, and Alaska. That's how I got really very deeply into labor
relations, because we were settling all the strikes and keeping the labor
peace.
JG: You have an amazing career in arbitration, truly amazing.
CK: I've done a lot, yes.
JG: What brought you back to Berkeley after the war?
CK: Well, when the war was over, they were starting an Institute of
Industrial Relations here at Berkeley which was under the auspices of
Governor [Earl] Warren. I think he got the idea from Governor
[Thomas E.] Dewey in New York, who had started such an institute.
Before that time, in the late thirties, there had been lots and lots of
strikes and bitter battles, and they anticipated many industrial relations
problems and thought there had ought to be some unit in the
University looking at it. I think Warren also realized that the
University dealt with everybody in California except the trade unions.
And he advanced politically with trade union support. So anyway, this
Institute of Industrial Relations was being set up, and after canvassing
a lot of people, I got invited back to be the first director.
JG: You were the first director. So you helped build it from the ground
up?
CK: Right. I was the first employee.
JG: You must have a great paternal feeling about the Institute and its
success.
CK: Well, it's been fifty years.
KERR 6
JG: Then you became Chancellor of the University so early on— 1952.
CK: Yes, it was early, and it was all by accident. There was the oath
controversy— the major conflict between a faculty and its board during
the Joe McCarthy period, anywhere in the United States. There was
nothing equivalent to it. I got involved as a young faculty member.
Along the way there was an alumni committee under Steve Bechtel of
the Bechtel Corporation which came up with an alternative: if you
didn't want to sign the oath, you could go before the Committee on
Privilege and Tenure and state your reasons for not signing and satisfy
the committee that it was a matter of conscience and not a matter of
membership in the Communist Party. Actually, a Communist would
have signed immediately; they weren't about to catch a Communist that
way. Then I was on the Committee on Privilege and Tenure as its
junior member. So at a very early age, I got involved. And, it's a long
story, but the next year around, there was some faculty disenchantment
with the Committee on Privilege and Tenure, and they appointed a
new committee, of which they made me chairman and the only
continuing member.
Anyway, in the course of being on the Committee on Privilege and
Tenure, and then being made chairman at a very early age of their
reconstituted committee, I came to the attention of the faculty. I had
never been a dean, I had never been a department chairman, I had
never been head of an important Senate committee, except Privilege
and Tenure. Yet the faculty was asked for nominations, and I was
nominated to be the first Chancellor at Berkeley. And President
Sproul passed the nomination on to the Regents, and for some reason
I never understood, they accepted it. I think the reason they accepted
it was that they kind of wanted to make up with the faculty and accept
the faculty recommendation. Also they knew that Sproul was going to
run the Berkeley campus; it didn't make any difference whom they put
in. [Provost] Monroe Deutsch, you may remember, had been
seventeen years without any responsibilities, and they may have thought
I'd be another Monroe Deutsch. As it happened, fortunately or
unfortunately, I was not another Monroe Deutsch.
JG: I read somewhere that Mr. Sproul was asked why he didn't take the
title "Chancellor" and let the local campus executive be "President," and
he said something like, "I'll never give up the title of President of the
University of California."
CK: He was very strong on that.
KERR 7
JG: So you became Chancellor, and this was a very heady time in American
education, the mid-1950s. There were still some World War II
veterans on campus.
CK: There were some. We were getting ready for the population tidal
wave.
JG: The tidal wave was being anticipated. The McCarthyist thing was
coming to an end.
CK: Yes, but it came to an end slowly in California.
JG: Because of Senator Hugh Burns’s committee?
CK: Because we had to deal with Burns’s Un-American Activities
Committee.
JG: He kept hounding the University, didn't he?
CK: Right. Berkeley was expected to go down after the oath controversy.
We were blacklisted by the AAUP and the American Psychological
Association and others. But we made up our minds to go up. So
there was heavy recruiting in those days, particularly because right at
the end of World War II a lot of people were hired not very
carefully— they were called "warm bodies"— to teach the GIs. We
eliminated a lot of them. But we also were getting ready for the tidal
wave. I got involved as Chancellor in helping to recruit this faculty,
and during the time I was Chancellor about half the Berkeley faculty
got recruited to fill the new positions and those of the people who had
been dropped after the GI rush. Then we set our sights higher.
Berkeley and Michigan were the two best public institutions. We
began setting our sights on being compared to Harvard and Yale. And
when the 1964 ratings were announced, we got rated ahead of Harvard.
JG: So there was a lot going on.
CK: There was a lot going on. California was expanding rapidly. There
was a lot of money available. And I got involved in all of that.
JG: What kind of relations did you have with the state colleges when you
were Chancellor, before you became President?
KERR 8
CK: I had very little relations with them, although Sproul did ask me to
attend some sessions of the Liaison Committee so I knew what was
going on. There was one session where I
Dr. Thomas W. Cole Jr., Interviewed by Loretta Parham, August 19, 2012
No full textVideo interviews with a complementing monograph providing reflections of former presidents of Historically Black Colleges and Universities discussing leadership, mission, challenges, successes, and issues of race and education. Interviewer: Loretta Parham, CEO & Library Director, Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library. Interviewee: Dr. Thomas W.Cole Jr. President, West Virginia State College 1982-1986; President, Clark Atlanta University 1989-2002; Interim President, Interdenominational Theological Center 2009-2010
Service design : imperatives, processes and communication
Get PDFThis research was an investigation into the nature of new service design (NSD)
activity. The thesis researched literature on NSD and established limits of its
applicability. Also developed was NSD process and content theory outside such
limits.
The research was a multiple site case study. At the level of case-sites the study used
the interpretative approach called "explanation-building; " the development of
narratives that explained data using concepts from the literature review. The "crosscase"
analysis tested these theoretical concepts and allowed the emergence of new
empirical categories, and the development of new theoretical categories and
hypotheses.
Imperatives and stimuli for NSD were a mix of environmental pressure and pressure
to deploy resources. Demand-side pressure for variety and the propensity of the
resource-base to continually enhance capability mean that service organisations are
inevitably exposed to resource or market risk.
The organisational response should respect the nature and extent of risk exposure;
internal 'imbalances' between resource capability and market needs must be
redressed in the NSD response.
The applicability of "stage-gate" models of NSD is limited to those contexts where
the service is analogous to a manufactured good. In addition there are six other
contexts with corresponding process ideals.
Unless the outcome of the NSD process is holistic, implementation problems are the
result. Holistic NSDs include a strategic rationale, the proposed market offering,
process implications and structural or infrastructural resource implications.
The initial configuration of NSD communication devices is dependent on the nature
of the NSD process. If NSD is focussed on resource / process development then the
vernacular of NSD tends to be resource / process descriptions. If NSD addresses
exposure to market risk, then NSD constructs tend to be marketing devices. Thus
during the NSD process the NSD need not be holistic, by the end of the process it
should be
“It does not go as well as it could”: The Views of Melanesian Migrant Farm Workers of the Cultural, Economic and Social Benefits and Costs of Seasonal Work in New Zealand
No full textNew Zealand‟s Recognised Seasonal Employer Scheme (RSES), launched in 2007, is an example of international short-term labour migration schemes that have been developed to solve labour shortages in the destination countries, especially in the agricultural sector, and to contribute to the economic development of the labourers‟ home countries. A review of the literature identifies four main issues that have been investigated: the strengthening of the economic base of the labourers‟ home countries, how schemes contribute to adult farmer education and the transfer of technology and skills, links between migrant workers and other development strategies, and the economic and social costs of workers‟ participation in schemes. Much of this literature highlights benefits to both countries from such schemes but there are a small number of critics who question the costs of schemes to the labourers and their home countries. Little information is available on the workers‟ own views of the costs and benefits of schemes for them. This thesis focuses on the experiences of a group of labourers from Vanuatu who came to work in New Zealand under the RSES in 2009. It asks: What are the views of fly-in, fly-out (FIFO) Melanesian seasonal migrant farm workers on the cultural, economic, and social benefits and costs of working in New Zealand under the RSES? Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted in Bislama with 12 Vanuatu RSES workers in Northland in August 2009. Thematic analysis of the interview transcripts identified four benefits recognised by the interviewees: earning monetary income for family and community back home, gaining useful knowledge and skills that could be applied back home, personal satisfaction from the work, and personal experiences of a new country and society. Four costs recognised by the interviewees were also identified: difficult working conditions, earning less money than expected, lack of freedom and choice with respect to aspects of their time in New Zealand, and the emotional difficulties of missing home and family along with implications for gender roles of being away from home. The interviewees lacked information and understanding about a number of important aspects of the RSES, and there were no effective mechanisms for them to raise and solve the problems they were encountering. This thesis offers a number of policy recommendations that not only support the effective operation of such a scheme from the host country‟s perspective but also seeks to ensure that such schemes are of genuine value to the participating workers, their families and their home countries
Robert Wert oral history interview, Origins of The California State University, 1988
No full textOral history interview with a primary focus on the origins of the California State University System and the 1960 master plan for California higher education. Wert represented the independent or private institutions on the Master Plan Survey Team in 1959.Transcripts and cassette tapes of oral history interviews with various individuals involved in the formation of the California State University system.Origins of
The California State
University
Robert Wert
Interviewed
by
Judson A. Grenier
An Oral History Project
of the
Archives
California State University Archives
CSU Dominguez Hills
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY ARCHIVES
Oral History Pilot Project on the Origins of the CSU System
ROBERT WERT
CREATING THE MASTER PLAN:
AN INDEPENDENT COLLEGE PERSPECTIVE
Interview Conducted by
Judson A. Grenier
1988
Processed by CSU Fullerton Oral History Program
1989
COPYRIGHT
This is a transcription of an interview conducted for the
California State University Archives under a grant from the
Office of the Chancellor, CSU.
Scholars are welcome to utilize short excerpts from any of
the transcriptions without obtaining permission as long as
proper credit is given to the interviewee, interviewer, and the
institution sponsoring the project. All uses of this
manuscript are covered by a legal agreement between the CSU
Archives and the interviewee. Therefore, scholars must obtain
permission from California State University Archives before
making more extensive use of the transcription and related
materials.
None of these materials may be duplicated or reproduced by
any party except the California State University Archives.
However, because it is the goal of this project to preserve and
make accessible significant documentation relevant to the
history of the State Colleges, copies of any unrestricted
transcriptions may be obtained at cost by writing to the CSU
Systemwide Archivist at California State University, Dominguez
Hills, Carson, California, 90747.
Copyright © 1989 by the Board of Trustees
of The California State University
PREFACE
The purpose of this oral history pilot project is to
record and make available to researchers using the California
State University Archives the reminiscences of individuals who
participated in the creation of the California State Colleges
from 1959 to 1965.
The creation of the California State Colleges in 1961
united fifteen formerly independent colleges into a single,
identifiable system, with its own Board of Trustees and a
Chancellor to serve as chief executive officer. Using a
formula which stressed systemwide planning in the allocation of
resources and programs, The California State Colleges sought to
offer Californians quality higher education at reasonable
cost. The key to the success of the California State
University was the decision to adapt a plan, incorporated into
the Donahoe Higher Education Act of 1960, dividing higher
education into three distinctly separate segments. Under the
act, the California State Colleges were mandated to emphasize
undergraduate and master’s level programs, while the University
of California campuses were to emphasize graduate education,
and the California Community Colleges were to focus on
vocational training and college preparation.
The California State University, starting from a base of
fifteen campuses and 95,000 students in 1961, has grown to
where it now provides a wide variety of innovative programs to
more than 320,000 students on nineteen campuses. It is the
largest system of higher education in the United States and is
known as one of the strongest institutions of higher education
in the country.
In September 1979, the Board of Trustees created the
California State University and Colleges Historical Archives,
to be housed on the Dominguez Hills campus. Since its
establishment, the Archives, as a systemwide project, has been
jointly supported by the Chancellor’s Office and CSU Dominguez
Hills, through the funding of a professional archivist.
The Archives currently houses a collection of materials
received from a variety of sources. These include the
Chancellor’s Office, the CSU Academic Senate, and private
individuals who had previous dealings with the CSU, such as
former Chancellor Glenn Dumke, former Trustee Paul Spencer, and
others. Consequently, the Archives holds some personal papers
as well as official systemwide documents. As part of its
collection policy, the Archives also has a responsibility to
collect individual recollections and oral histories of the
early System and pre-System years.
m
Short-term goals of this oral history project are to make
available the recollections and reminiscences of former members
of the Board of Trustees, the State College-University of
California Liaison Committee, and the Master Plan Survey Team,
as well as other individuals who participated in the formation
of the California State Colleges from 1959 to 1965.
For the long run, the project has three purposes. First,
it will help to increase interest in the history and
accomplishments of the California State University. Next, it
will, hopefully, be a tool to aid in the acquisition of
additional materials concerning the System now in private
hands. Finally, it will serve as a model and learning device
to develop a more comprehensive oral history program. If the
pilot project is successful, as many interviews as possible
will be conducted under the expanded program with the System’s
retired trustees, former vice-chancellors and college
presidents, current senior management, state legislators, and
other important individuals who have been influential in the
growth and development of the state university.
Funding for the project is provided by the Office of Vice
Chancellor, Administration, Dr. Herbert L. Carter. We thank
the interviewee for generously giving of his time. We also
acknowledge the work of the Oral History Program at CSU
Fullerton for the use of its facilities in processing this
interview. Transcribing was performed by Shirley de Graaf,
proofreading and index by Lynn Finger, and final preparation by
Shirley de Graaf.
Lawrence B. de Graaf Jacquelyn K. Sundstrand
Judson A. Grenier CSU Archivist
Project Co-Directors
MEMBERS, CSU ARCHIVES ADVISORY BOARD
Betty Blackman
John Brownell
Mayer Chapman
Robert W. Cherny
Lawrence B. de Graaf
Glenn S. Dumke
Donald R. Gerth
Judson Grenier
Arthur Hall
Claudia H. Hampton
James Harris
Louis H. Heilbron
Donald B. Leiffer
Gloria Lothrop
Theodore Meriam
Carol J. Numrich
Morris Polan
W. Ann Reynolds
Phillip V. Sanchez
John Smart
Jacquelyn K. Sundstrand
IV
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY ARCHIVES
ORAL HISTORY PILOT PROJECT ON THE
ORIQINS OF THE CSU SYSTEM
This interview with Dr. Robert Wert [RW] was conducted at his
hone in San Raphael on June 23, 1988. Dr. Wert represented the
independent, or private institutions on the Master Plan Survey
Team in 1959. And subsequently he served as first chairman of
the Coordinating Council from 1960 to 1962. The interviewer is
Judson Grenier [JG].
JG: We usually like to start these interviews with a little
biographical material. I wonder if you could tell me
where you were born and reared.
RW: Yes, sure. I was born in a little place called Harrison,
Idaho, which was a lumbering town.
JG: Harrison?
RW: Yes, in the panhandle of Idaho on Lake Coeur d'Alene. I
moved to Spokane, Washington at about one year old and
grew up there. I went through Catholic elementary school
and Jesuit high school, two years of college there at
Gonzaga University, a Jesuit institution, and transferred
to Stanford, and graduated from Stanford in 1943.
JG: That was right during the war.
RW: Right during the war. I had been in a navy V-7 program
which allowed me to graduate before going to Midshipman
school. And after graduation I did go to Midshipman
school and was transferred out of the line navy to the
Naval Supply Corps and sent to the Harvard Business School
for a year, where we combined a full academic year's work
in business and the supply and disbursing work for the
navy. After that I went to sea on a destroyer escort, the
Ulvert M. Moore, E442, which I mention because it was
commanded by Franklin Roosevelt, Jr., the son of the
president of the United States. We were at sea about a
year in the Pacific, and the war then ended. I returned
to Spokane where I was in a family lumber business for
three years. After three years, for various reasons, my
wife and I decided to move back to Stanford, where I went
to graduate school. I finished up an M.B.A. in 1950. I
was one of the earlier Ph.D.s in higher education under
Dr. W. H. Cowley, with a Ph.D. in 1952. I went to work
immediately as assistant to the president at Stanford and
remained in that job for three years. The Carnegie
WERT 2
Corporation of New York, an educational foundation, aaked
me to join them, and 1 did so in 1954. We lived in
Connecticut and I worked in New York for five years,
having the general supervision of the Carnegie
Corporation’s Granting Program in the fields of higher
education and the improvement of undergraduate education.
After five years of incessant traveling, mostly in the
United States visiting college and university campuses, we
returned to Stanford, where I became Vice Provost and
Professor of Education. That was in 1959. Shortly after
returning to Stanford I was asked to become a member of
the Master Plan Team for Higher Education, and that brings
us up to the topic of the day.
JG: Could I back up and ask a few things? Did you by any
chance know Leo Cain when he was at Stanford?
RW: Yes. Not well, but I knew him.
JG: Did you have any opportunity while you were Vice-Provost
at Stanford to look into the operations of the state Board
of Education, or the state Department of Education?
RW: No, not really.
JG: So you had no prior experience with that operation?
RW: The only prior experience I had with Sacramento was that
very soon after we came back to California in 1959
Governor Brown appointed me a member of the State
Scholarship Commission. And 1 served on that commission
all during the Master Plan Team period. I resigned the
commission at the time I was appointed president of the
Coordinating Council for Higher Education because I
couldn’t hold two state offices at the same time.
JG: Why do you suppose Governor Brown appointed you to the
State Scholarship Commission?
RW: I really don’t know. The only inkling I have came from
Elinor Heller, a long-time Democratic National
Committeewoman from Atherton, who was a personal friend
of mine. And I know that Brown had checked thoroughly
with her. Now whether she or her husband, Ed Heller, then
a regent of the University, had put my name in to Brown I
don’t know.
JG: But it might have been?
RW: It might have been, yes.
WERT 3
JG: When did you first get wind that . . . well, as you know,
it was the legislature that asked the Liaison Committee
between the Board of Regents and the Board of Education to
set up this Master Plan Survey Team. Was there anything
in the wind in the field of higher education to indicate
that something like this was necessary?
RW: Yes, there was, indeed. The competition between the state
colleges and the University and the junior colleges— I use
the old-fashioned terms, 1 believe they were accurate
terms for the time— before the state legislature and the
governor’s office, and in general throughout the state,
was becoming nearly out of control. Every state college
was up in the legislature doing its own lobbying, the
University branches that existed then were doing the
same. The junior colleges were going up there in small
armies. It seemed very clear, even to those of us well on
the outside of the state systems, that we were approaching
nearly a state of anarchy, and that this unbridled,
unsupervised competition was going to be deleterious to
the health of the higher educational systems in the state
if something were not done. So that many of us who were
reasonably informed but outside the publie-supported
institutions, knew.
JG: Were the private institutions concerned about this
rivalry, that they might be affected by it as well?
RW: I don’t recall any grave concern. I think there was a
kind of a, well, not concern, but a general knowledge that
all was not well. The private institutions in those days,
I think, did not pay significant attention to the public
institutions.
JG: They weren’t surprised when a favored legislator could get
a state college established in a place like Turlock?
RW: Well, they may have been, but I didn’t hear much about it
if they were.
JG: Did you know Arthur Coons before?
RW: Yes, I had known Arthur when I worked at the Carnegie
Corporation. He came into our office every time he came
east. I was responsible for making either one, for sure,
or possibly two grants to Occidental College during the
five years I was at Carnegie. So both at the college, and
in New York I
somewhat.
did get to know Arthur. Not well, but
JG: Glenn Dumke
Carnegie.
also was at Occidental when you were with
WERT 4
RW: That * s correct. He was dean of the faculty then. And I
got to know Qlenn somewhat, too.
JQ: Do you think your Carnegie work helped acquaint you with
many of the educational leaders?
RW: No question. I did nothing but travel and go to
educational meetings. As you already know, I knew Clark
[Kerr], I knew Glenn Dumke. I had known Clark Kerr for
quite a few years.
JG: How did you meet Clark Kerr?
RW: Clark, as I remember, was on the board of the Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, which was
allied to the Carnegie Corporation. As president of the
University of California he was around our office quite a
bit. In any event, I knew Clark quite well by the time I
came to California.
JG: Were you a specialist in higher education?
RW: Yes, I was. You might be interested; my thesis was a
history of the reorganizations of Harvard University in
the nineteenth Century. The thesis was read not only in
the school of education at Stanford, but also by the
history department.
JG: Good. So you’d been interested in the organization of
higher education over three hundred years?
RW: That’s right.
JG: Did you know that there was a Master Plan Survey Team
being set up before you were called?
RW: No. I don’t believe I was aware of it. I have forgotten
now who originally got in touch with me, but I had always
surmised that Clark Kerr was the person probably behind it.
JG: Because you didn’t know Roy Simpson at that time?
RW: No. In any event, I have forgotten whether Clark or
someone else called me and asked me if I would be able to
serve. I checked with President [Wallace] Sterling at
Stanford, and Provost Terman, and they said, "Fine, no
problem." So when asked I said, "Great, I’ll serve. I’ll
be glad to."
JG: Who called you?
WERT 5
RW: I don't really remember who called me. If anybody did, I
think it was Clark, but I'm not positive.
JG: Was it understood that you were to represent the point of
view of the independent institutions?
RW: That's correct, I was to represent the private
institutions.
JG: Were you also to be kind of objective?
RW: No, I think that role came upon me, and I might say came
upon Arthur Coons, who was chairman, because we really
didn't have any access to Brown. And I always saw myself,
and I know Arthur saw himself, as being objective people,
listening to arguments from all sides but favoring no one
in particular, being opposed to no one in particular. And
inasmuch as we had nothing in particular to ask for, and
in view of our own backgrounds, it seemed a very
appropriate role to play at the time. And since, I might
say.
JG: In his book Arthur Coons said he told Kerr and Simpson
that he didn't want to be a representative of the private
institutions of higher education because he was going to
be chairman of the committee, and he thought he might have
to put forward his own Master Plan.
RW: In that he was absolutely correct. I think it would have
tainted his position as chairman, if he also represented
someone.
JG: But at that point the committee agreed unanimously that
you would be the person.
RW: I had forgotten that, that does recall it to me.
JG: So apparently you had widespread support across all the
segments.
RW: I'm glad of that. I might say just incidentally, that
Arthur and I did not press for anything on behalf of the
California state independent colleges until the last
meeting of the committee. I don't recall if either of us
ever asked for anything. We asked for an expansion of the
California State Scholarship Commission and a new
California state graduate fellowship program at the last
meeting of the Master Plan Committee. And both were
approved by our colleagues.
JG: Let me ask you about some of the other members of the
committee?
WERT 6
RW: Yes.
JG: Do you have any recollections of the segmental
representat ives?
RW: Oh, sure.
JG: The roles that they played.
RW: Yes.
JG: The community college representatives?
RW: Henry Tyler, of course, was looked upon by me, and I
assume the rest of the committee, as the representative of
the California Junior Colleges, and a member of the
committee just as Dumke was or McHenry was. The others, I
certainly remember all of them, sure.
JG: Did you consider Dean McHenry to be more or less Clark
Kerr’s spokesperson?
RW: I considered Dean to be a representative of the University
of California, and as such, the spokesperson for the
president of the University, or the Board of Regents, or
whomever he was representing from day to day.
JG: He told me that occasionally he had to make a phone call.
RW: He did occasionally. And then, of course, Dean has been
noted for many years of taking copious notes, all of which
he now tells me are in the Bancroft Library. Some day I
would like to go over and read them if I can decipher
them.
JG: And Glenn Dumke representing the state colleges. There
was also a specialist in higher education, Arthur Browne.
RW: Yes, I knew Arthur as well. I don’t know how the other
members of the committee perceived it, but it seemed to
me, I looked upon Arthur and Tom Holy from the University
of California as the staff people, and certainly not as
voting members of the committee. They were there at every
meeting. They certainly could be influential with their
bosses, so to speak, but I did not consider that they were
voting members of the committee as the rest of us were. I
just want to make that differentiation. It seemed to me
that was the way it was.
JG: Did you take votes?
RW: Not really. We didn’t have to.
WERT 7
JG: You reached a consensus most of the time?
RW: It was pretty clear what it was going to be, yes.
JG: Was Keith Sexton also a kind of staff person?
RW: Yes, Keith was there at every meeting, as I recall. He
was, of course, representing the legislature. And Dorothy
Donahoe was a primary legislator of higher education for
the legislature. Keith later on, of course, I put on as
chief of the staff of the Coordinating Council, so I knew
him well for years.
JG: Now you decided early-on that your meetings were not to be
open to the public. Do you think that was a wise decision?
RW: Yes.
JG: Why?
RW: I don’t think we could have accomplished what we did if we
had been in constant wrangling in public meetings. These
matters, in my opinion at the time and now even more, just
could not have been adjudicated as easily, or as well, in
public meetings as they could have in the kinds of
meetings we held, where there was a great amount of give
and take, and no posturing.
JG: To some extent, that is what James Madison said of the
Constitutional Convention.
RW: I understand, yes. I also understand the general view of
the state of California about open meetings, and I’m
certainly not opposed to that view when it comes to public
bodies. But I have never quite considered this plan the
public kind of work that it became later in front of the
legislature or in front of the Liaison Committee, where
the meetings were public.
JG: Occasionally you would have visitors, such as members of
the legislature or Governor Brown’s staff, or someone like
that?
RW: Sure. We just didn’t open it up to anybody who wanted to
come and argue. We were in the position of a working
committee. I think it’s a mistake even to think of the
Master Plan committee as the equivalent of a legislative
committee, which has to operate in public except for
personnel matters. We were not that. We were a working,
hard working I might add, committee due to make a report
to the public agencies of the state of California, where
WERT 8
all the debates and all of the open hearings and so on
could be held.
JG: Where did you usually meet?
RW: We met all over the state. It was a different place
nearly every meeting. We met at state college campuses,
university campuses, motels, airport hotels, in
Sacramento, everyplace.
JG: What about the role of technical committees? Did they
play a major role?
RW: The technical committees developed a great deal of factual
information. We had them, as you recall, in all sorts of
areas, ranging from the economics of higher education to
admissions, and so on. They developed a great deal of
information and data which we used during the course of
our own study, even though the technical reports were not
finished, as I recall, until well along in our
deliberations. But what we would do is get in touch with
the chairman of the committee, for example, Arnold Joyal,
then president of Fresno State, and the chairman of the
economics committee. If we had an economic question we
didn't know the answer to, and it seemed important, Arthur
Coons or somebody would get Joyal on the phone and say,
"Now have you come to this particular thing? What do you
think about it?" And he would get whatever opinion was
then available from Joyal on behalf of the committee. And
we would incorporate that thinking. But by and large, I
would say that mo
Meeting the needs of multi/biracial children in school and at home
Get PDFIncludes bibliographical references
Donald Leiffer oral history interview, "Executive Officer of the California State Colleges", 1980 and 1987
No full textLeiffer was a political science professor at San Diego State, worked for then governor Edmund "Pat" Brown and became the first executive officer of the newly formed State Colleges before the hiring of the first chancellor.Transcripts and cassette tapes of oral history interviews with various individuals involved in the formation of the California State University system.Origins of
The California State
University
Donald Leiffer
Interviewed
by
Judson A. Grenier
An Oral History Project
of the
Archives
UUU Archives
CSU, Dominguez Hills
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY ARCHIVES
Oral History Pilot Project on the Origins of the CSU System
DONALD LEIFFER
EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE COLLEGES
Interview Conducted by
Judson A. Grenier
1980 and 1987
Processed by CSU, Fullerton Oral History Program
March 1988
COPYRIGHT
This is a transcription of an interview conducted for the
California State University Archives under a grant from the
Office of the Chancellor, CSU.
Scholars are welcome to utilize short excerpts from any of
the transcriptions without obtaining permission as long as
proper credit is given to the interviewee, interviewer, and the
institution sponsoring the project. All uses of this
manuscript are covered by a legal agreement between the CSU
Archives and the interviewee. Therefore, scholars must obtain
permission from California State University Archives before
making more extensive use of the transcription and related
materials.
None of these materials may be duplicated or reproduced by
any party except the California State University Archives.
However, because it is the goal of this project to preserve and
make accessible significant documentation relevant to the
history of the State Colleges, copies of any unrestricted
transcriptions may be obtained at cost by writing to the CSU
Systemwide Archivist at California State University, Dominguez
Hills, Carson, California, 90747.
Copyright © 1987 by the Board of Trustees
of The California State University
PREFACE
The purpose of this oral history pilot project is to
record and make available to researchers using the California
State University Archives the reminiscences of individuals who
participated in the creation of the California State Colleges
from 1959 to 1965.
The creation of the California State Colleges in 1961
united fifteen formerly independent colleges into a single,
identifiable system, with its own Board of Trustees and a
Chancellor to serve as chief executive officer. Using a
formula which stressed systemwide planning in the allocation of
resources and programs, The California State Colleges sought to
offer Californians quality higher education at reasonable
cost. The key to the success of the California State
University was the decision to adapt a plan, incorporated into
the Donahoe Higher Education Act of 1960, dividing higher
education into three distinctly separate segments. Under the
act, the California State Colleges were mandated to emphasize
undergraduate and master’s level programs, while the University
of California campuses were to emphasize graduate education,
and the California Community Colleges were to focus on
vocational training and college preparation.
The California State University, starting from a base of
fifteen campuses and 95,000 students in 1961, has grown to
where it now provides a wide variety of innovative programs to
more than 300,000 students on nineteen campuses. It is the
largest system of higher education in the United States and is
known as one of the strongest institutions of higher education
in the country.
In September 1979, the Board of Trustees created the
California State University and Colleges Historical Archives,
to be housed on the Dominguez Hills campus. Since its
establishment, the Archives, as a systemwide project, has been
jointly supported by the Chancellor’s Office and CSU Dominguez
Hills, through the funding of a professional archivist.
The Archives currently houses a collection of materials
received from a variety of sources. These include the
Chancellor’s Office, the CSU Academic Senate, and private
individuals who had previous dealings with the CSU, such as
former Chancellor Glenn Dumke, former Trustee Paul Spencer, and
others. Consequently, the Archives holds some personal papers
as well as official systemwide documents. As part of its
collection policy, the Archives also has a responsibility to
collect individual recollections and oral histories of the
early System and pre-System years.
iii
Short-term goals of this oral history project are to make
available the recollections and reminiscences of former members
of the Board of Trustees, the State College—University of
California Liaison Committee, and the Master Plan Survey Team,
as well as other individuals who participated in the formation
of the California State Colleges from 1959 to 1965.
For the long run, the project has three purposes. First,
it will help to increase interest in the history and
accomplishments of the California State University. Next, it
will, hopefully, be a tool to aid in the acquisition of
additional materials concerning the System now in private
hands. Finally, it will serve as a model and learning device
to develop a more comprehensive oral history program. If the
pilot project is successful, as many interviews as possible
will be conducted under the expanded program with the System’s
retired trustees, former vice-chancellors and college
presidents, current senior management, state legislators, and
other important individuals who have been influential in the
growth and development of the state university.
Funding for the project is provided by the Office of Vice
Chancellor, Administration, Dr. Herbert L. Carter. We thank
the interviewee for generously giving of his time. We also
acknowledge the work of the Oral History Program at CSU
Fullerton for the use of its facilities in processing this
interview. Transcribing was performed by Shirley de Graaf,
final preparation, proofreading and index by Teryne Bell.
Lawrence B. de Graaf Jacquelyn K. Sundstrand
Judson A. Grenier CSU Archivist
Project Co-Directors
MEMBERS, CSU ARCHIVES ADVISORY BOARD
Betty Blackman
John Brownell
Mayer Chapman
Robert W. Cherny
Lawrence B. de Graaf
Glenn S. Dumke
Donald R. Gerth
Judson Grenier
Arthur Hall
Claudia H. Hampton
James Harris
Louis H. Heilbron
Donald B. Leiffer
Gloria Lothrop
Theodore Meriam
Carol J. Numrich
Morris Polan
W. Ann Reynolds
Phillip V. Sanchez
John Smart
Jacquelyn K. Sundstrand
IV
mmmm
ili
n B
» ■ »
i l l l l l l M l l i
I M b M
¡i¡i¡l¡iilli
-' .■-'•':">i«V:-:<':.v ^ : ' r :n < --;h : WêïÆm§0&kC;- "■*
imM
Hfl«
llip
DONALD LEIFFER
ca. 1960
iliifl
wSÊSÊm|||||1
IÄ # # ||Ì|P|ft§§ì;|
m m h u h i
&lK2
ib ib iii
PÄ M||äff|i■ ■ ■ pppplll
l l l l l l l
■Â
t t É
P;
§j
MÊÈÊ iiisiiiiiiliiili
8|
||
ij§§
W
WÊÊÊÊÊmmmmm. fml|5,500 dollars a year or better, we would accept it. If
it were below that, we would reject it. The offer did
come through for a full professorship at San Diego State
at the salary of 100 more
than the top salary paid to any state college president.
I felt this was a matter of importance, not from a
LEIFFER 7
personal point of view, but from the status of the office
that was being created, and that whoever held that office
had to be in a position vis-a-vis the state college
presidents who were a pretty independent group or he would
be ineffective in his role. This committee did not go
along with this thought at the time, and that concluded
it, and they held some other interviews.
We returned to San Diego, and my son enrolled as a
freshman at San Diego State, and I enrolled as a returning
alien in the faculty corps. I had a telephone call from
Lou [is H. ] Heilbron asking if I would come up for an
interview. I agreed to, but before I did, I talked with
my friend John Carr, who was not only a member of the
board, but was Director of Finance for the State of
California. I said that if this offer is given to me,
what kind of support will I get from the Department of
Finance, because I think it’s critical. And he said,
”What kind of support do you think you need?” I said,
HTwo things. One is that the amount allocated of
something like $250,000 for this office for a year is an
impossibly small item and we can not not operate. We
cannot have a central office, with the responsibility for
the administration of this program of this magnitude, with
that amount of money.” ”H
Identity commitment in the context of psychosis: a grounded theory study
Get PDFIn the context of psychosis, persons encounter problems in self-experience and in the ‘social predicament’ posed by psychiatric diagnosis and unwanted identities. This means they are concerned with self-viability: with how to ‘get
along with themselves’. The aim of this study was to develop a grounded theory of how persons deal with this concern of self-viability. Using the ‘classical version’ of grounded theory methodology, data were collected through interviews with eighteen persons with experience of psychosis and psychiatric treatment as well as through examination of eleven autobiographies authored by persons who also had first-hand experience of psychosis. Data were collected and analysed according to established grounded theory research procedures of open and selective coding, memo-writing, and theoretical sampling.
The essential theoretical discovery associated with this study is that identity commitment is fundamental to how persons deal with their concern for selfviability in the context of psychosis. This refers to a pattern of self-relation in which persons commit to and are committed by their self-conceptions. There are three modes of identity commitment. The first is keeping true (to) selfconceptions in which persons keep true to, and reproduce truths of, themselves. The second is struggling through with Me’s where persons endeavour to sustain or retrieve identities that are threatened or lost. And the third mode of identity commitment is engaging to identities that incorporates finding things in common with new identities and implication in binding self-attachments.
These patterns of truth-keeping, struggle and engagement can inform distinctive understandings of a range of issues in the context of psychosis. Resistance to psychiatric identification, entrapment by unwanted identities, ‘downward’ and ‘upward’ acceptance are particular examples of issues that identity commitment can elucidate. Furthermore, this concept merits further inquiry in the
substantive area of psychosis as well as wider fields
Knowledge-intensive firms : configuration or community?
Get PDFThis thesis is a study into the nature of knowledge-intensive firm defined here as
professional service firms providing tailored services to corporate clients and relying heavily
on the problem solving capacity of their employees. This thesis attempts to strike a balance
between a straightforward and overtly empirical piece of work which presupposes the
meaning of knowledge work and an abstract contribution which questions, explores and
attempts to reframe our understanding of the prevailing concept of knowledge work and of
the knowledge-intensive firm. Three exceptionally successful contemporary firms are
studied as potential exemplars of this seemingly new organisational form. The cases are
examined from three overlapping and integrated perspectives. First, a structure and design
perspective is adopted. The existing literature on the structure and design of these firms is
examined and developed into an ideal type (Weber, 1978) which is subsequently used in the
interviewing of employees. A more processual/contextual/alternative perspective on
knowledge work is then adopted and combined with the related concept of community is
applied to the study of the three cases. Finally, drawing on the historical case of early Irish
monasticism, a premodern knowledge-intensive institutional form, the sense of the
interrelationship between structure and community is elaborated upon and, along with some
peculiarly monastic angles, applied to the three cases. The overall conclusion is that
contemporary KIFs represent "plural forms" (Jeffrey, 1991) in the sense that they use
different internal and external control mechanism simultaneously for the same function.
While the operations of these firms are complex and unusual, the claim of a new paradigm
of management underpinning these firms is rejected
The securitisation of the United Kingdom's maritime infrastructure during the 'war on terror'
Get PDFThis thesis examines counter-terrorism efforts in relation to the United Kingdom's ports and harbours (its 'maritime infrastructure') in the context of the 'war on terror'. To do this the thesis utilises the Copenhagen School's securitisation theory as the analytical frameowrk through which a case study, focusing on developments in a five year period between 1 July 2004 and 30 June 2009 and utilising the cases of Felixstowe, Holyhead and Tilbury, is undertaken. The thesis argues that UK maritime infrastructure was securitised in the context of the macrosecuritisation of the 'civilised way of life', which were in a mutually reinforcing relationship. By reorienting emphasis towards the 'post-securitised environment' and on to examining what securitisations 'do' in practice, the thesis subsequently demonstrates the substantial impact of securitisation on the management of UK maritime infrastructure. More specifically it argues that a counter-terrorism security response was evident which constantly evolved, was layered and increasingly expansive in scope and that had a series of prominent, recurring features. The thread which ran through this response was the pursuit of increased power in relation to UK maritime infrastructure, undertaken by the British state and port owners in particular. The thesis concludes by noting how the key findings of the case study progressively demonstrate a greater level of complexity to the securitisation of UK maritime infrastructure than can at first be apparent
