The Third Transformation:
Universities into the Next Century

Susan M. Awbrey and David K. Scott

Leaders in all segments of our society are challenged by profound change. University administrators have become caught between society as represented by boards and educational constituencies demanding change (Scott, 1984) and tradition-bound university communities (Bok, 1986; Kerr, 1991). The challenge of integrating these two viewpoints to meet the needs of society and maintain the educational environment has become increasingly stressful. Society’s demand for change need not be interpreted simply as a condemnation of higher education but as a renewed awareness of higher education’s importance. "If the demands on higher education have increased, it is because the post-war expansion of the system has emphasized its great potential for producing cultural solidarity, stimulating progressive movement towards social emancipation and aiding economic development . . . If lay people are now determined to set their own agenda, it is because they believe that higher education is too important to be left to an inward academic caste." (Scott , 1984). Nevertheless, a "cottage industry" of books has become popular by criticizing universities for their lack of responsiveness and relevance. These books in general do not attempt to address the important task of bringing people together in a constructive way to develop a dialogue that leads to new solutions. Instead, they offer simplistic explanations of a very complex situation, where "prescription tends to preempt analysis" and "in place of evidence we get a species of disheveled anecdotalism, and a free-fire zone is created for eye-catching and sensationalist claims" (Oakley, 1992, p. 106). However, such books do contain elements to be pondered. They resonate with feelings in our universities that all is not well. Thoughtful university leadership will be required to ensure that a joint agenda for change creates academic excellence by addressing pressing societal demands in the age to come.

Bridging the gap between internal and external constituencies to create a sense of one community working toward a common mission is a difficult assignment under the best of circumstances. The rise of an interdependent global community, shifts in economic base, growth of the underclass, an increasingly diverse population (Gilley, 1991, p. 1-11) and other historic changes have eroded the trust of the American people in their institutions’ abilities to respond. This erosion of trust also includes the university. The reestablishment of trust and the transition to institutions that are poised to meet the challenges of a new century will require changes at the institutional level in the very norms by which organizations operate (Bellah, et al., 1991). While this paper focuses on leadership in American universities, we note in passing that these issues are common to institutions in many parts of the world. A major challenge is the replacement of selfishness with community and the move from a fragmented society to interconnectedness. As Clark Kerr reminds us: "the problems of universities assume different but related forms in Rome, Berlin, Paris, London, Tokyo, Calcutta, Madrid, Warsaw, Prague, Moscow, Peking, Buenos Aires; they are found wherever great universities with their concentrations of intellectuals come into contact with the surrounding industrial society, and, of almost equal importance, with their own myriad selves" (Kerr, 1991, p. 48).

The Rise of Pluralism

Universities are enmeshed in vast cultural change. We submit that it is to these broader patterns that the university must look if it is to move successfully into the next century as a strong, viable institution. But modern changes are not isolated incidents. They are part of history’s unfolding -- a long repetitive movement from unity to pluralism in which the desire for certainty and belonging has been in constant tension with the desire for individuality and specialization. During the past four centuries, the western mind has been subjected to events that have shattered belief in fixed invariants and from which a pluralistic view of the world has arisen. During the early 1500’s Copernicus produced his Commentariolus which espoused a heliocentric theory that irrevocably changed our view of the universe and our place within it (Tarnas, 1991, p. 454). At almost the same instant in history the Reformation "fragmented the religious unity of the Middle Ages and led to religious pluralism . . . [which] in turn fostered pluralism of other kinds, which [became] a permanent feature of culture by the end of the eighteenth century" (Rawls, 1993, p. xxii). Humankind was torn from the "cosmic womb" of certainty and set adrift in a new world. The genie had been released and the freedom to question and differ, once experienced, was not to be given up again even under duress. But this new freedom had its price. The burgeoning diversity of views set in motion by events of the sixteenth century and carried on over the next four hundred years led to a fragmentation that now touches every aspect of our society from religion to philosophy, from business practices to our most intimate lives.

This pattern of movement from unity to pluralism is evident throughout our modern culture, as the following examples help illustrate. After a long period of oppression, American society attempted to integrate its non-white members. The first phase of this integration took the form of providing equality through the submergence of differences into the dominant culture, an attempted return to unification. This phase has now been replaced by the pluralistic concept of multiculturalism in which difference is valued. However, multiculturalism has led to an equal but separate philosophy by many of the groups that society originally attempted to integrate (Berlin, 1993). This evolution from unity to pluralism can also be seen in the development of the American economy. As United States Secretary of Labor Robert Reich points out, the US economy moved from a national, ethnocentric approach to one of multinational corporations (Reich, 1991, p. 110). Even the realm of intimacy has not been immune from this process. The emergence of "plastic sexuality", sexuality freed from the needs of reproduction, led to a "democratizing of the interpersonal domain". Additionally, the dominant heterosexual relationship gave way to acceptance of a plurality of private lifestyles (Giddens, 1992, p. 2). A cacophony of viewpoints and choices bombards us every day in all aspects of our lives. However, it is at just this juncture that society has begun again to feel the pull of community and appears to be on the verge of its next transformation. This transformation may see multiculturalism move to transculturalism in which not only is difference celebrated but in which the dominant philosophy is equal and connected. It may be one in which a global economy will have replaced even multinational corporations (Reich, 1991, p. 110). This transition could lead to "confluent" personal relationships based on sexual and emotional equality (Giddens, 1992, p. 62). Some believe that the fragmentation and strife of the pluralistic stage could have been avoided. Perhaps, but only through such evolution has a new world view become possible. Unless one has a sense of self, it is not possible to enter authentically into social relationships as an equal, confident and respected partner. This applies equally to new trading partners entering the world market for the first time as it does to minorities and women. To enter fully into community a foundation of individual dignity and self-identity is first required.

Universities in Transition

So too, the university has moved through the stages of the homogeneous university to the fragmented multiversity and has now arrived at a new transition point. We believe the next transformation will be to the connected transversity (Scott & Awbrey, 1993a, p. 39). This new transversity will be multidimensionally connected not only within and across disciplines, but across cultural boundaries such as race, gender, and sexual orientation and across barriers to the broader society that separate it from secondary education, industry, government, and other higher education institutions around the country and around the world. But this transformation is built upon earlier stages. Initially isolating themselves from the external world, universities began as guilds of students and scholars with a strong sense of internal community. In the United States from the founding of Harvard to the mid-nineteenth century, institutions of higher learning focused on teaching. They were universities of single purpose and homogeneous student bodies. The first great transformation in this model can be traced to the Morrill Act of 1862 which created land grant universities in each of the States that would be dedicated to the idea of service and the furthering of practice particularly in the areas of agriculture and engineering. Harold Enarson (1989) has referred to this dramatic shift in emphasis as a novel idea which set forth that "public universities should contribute to the health, subsistence and comfort of all of the state’s people rather than to the prosperity, morality, religious piety and intellect of the individual, tuition-paying college goers". However, the concept of service as a part of the university’s mission did not have an easy birth. It was not until the creation of Agricultural Experiment Stations and the Cooperative Extension Service that the idea took hold and prospered in the United States (Scott & Awbrey, 1993b). By the turn of the century a second transformation was already beginning. This one having its roots not in American democracy but in the speculative Zeitgeist of 19th century Germany (Lyotard, 1984, pp. 32-34). It was the inclusion of the powerful research component in the university’s mission. This transformation gained prominence after World War II and completed the tripartite mission of the university that we know today. These two transformations were also the moving springs for the rise of the multiversity. Clark Kerr has described the multiversity as a pluralistic institution "in having several purposes, not one; in having several centers of power, not one; in serving different clienteles, not one. It worshipped no single God; it constituted no single, unified community. . . . It was marked by many visions of the Good, the True and the Beautiful" (Kerr, 1982). These vast institutions not only have difficulty in developing a sense of connectedness with their external environment but have lost their sense of internal cohesion. The proliferation of research centers and institutes, and the strong ties within disciplines across universities, rather than between disciplines within universities, have been the result of the uneasy alliance of the threefold mission. Daniel Alpert summarizes the phenomenon: "In recent years there has been a strong trend toward further organizational fragmentation -- often to the level of the individual professor. The process has been accelerated by several features . . . among them the continuing increase in specialization, the system of performance evaluation, and the contractual mechanisms for the federal support of academic research" (Alpert, 1993).

Democracy and Pluralism

Each transition within the university and within society has visited confusion and concern upon those who must understand and cope with it. Today we are faced with the fundamental question of how we can move from fragmented pluralism to a connected, transcultural society. John Rawls (1993) believes that the answer lies in what he calls overlapping consensus. Rawls states that "to see reasonable pluralism as a disaster is to see the exercise of reason under the conditions of freedom itself as a disaster" (p. xxiv) This "plurality of conflicting and incommensurable doctrines is seen as the characteristic work of practical reason over time under enduring free institutions" (p. 135). Overlapping consensus means that the underlying procedures of the society are essentials that all citizens as free and equal can endorse within their own differing comprehensive world views. Thus, while not agreeing on one religion, moral doctrine or philosophical viewpoint, the fundamental principle by which the society operates must be acceptable to all within their own views (p. 144). Rawls believes that this underlying political principle within a democratic society is the idea of justice as fairness (pp. 5-6). A second component of democracy must also be present. In addition to rights founded on justice it is necessary in a functioning democracy that members be accountable to each other (Etzioni, 1993). The ongoing dialogue about the balance of rights and responsibilities within a democratic society is itself a tribute to the basic structure that allows such hermeneutic conversation to take place without violence.

Rawls’ (1993) conception of the basic structure of a democratic society is justice as fairness. By endorsing this basic structure, citizens form a society in which they are connected by a fundamental principle while free to differ in their comprehensive doctrines. "Justice as fairness assumes . . . that the values of community are not only essential but realizable, first in the various associations that carry on their life within the framework of the basic structure, and second in those associations that extend across the boundaries of political societies, such as churches and scientific societies" (p 146). It is the preservation of pluralism that distinguishes this view from those in which community is founded on comprehensive doctrines of religion, morality, or a single philosophy. Transition appears both imminent and necessary to overcome the disconnection and separation within current society (Scott ,1984). This new transformation will be founded on the concept of community. However, if it is to encompass pluralism, it cannot be founded on a form of community based on any single comprehensive doctrine. Although there are differences in perspective (Sandel, 1982) this viewpoint is consistent with the communitarian view that debate rather than the use of coercion is the appropriate tool for building community (Etzioni, 1993).

The Third Transformation

Returning to the university, we find a profusion of voices heralding a third transformation in higher education (see, for example, Bok, 1990; Duderstadt, 1992; Palmer, 1992; Rhodes, 1990; Shapiro, 1991-92; Turner, 1986; Wilson, 1992). As the university approaches this transition from the fragmented multiversity to a new more connected transversity we must pause to consider the options for building this new commonwealth of learning. It is always attractive to contemplate a return to simpler times such as those of the unified university. This nostalgic desire is understandable in a world of fragmentation and change. However, nothing of value can be gained by discarding hard-won achievements. While in maturity we may long for the less complex time of childhood, nevertheless we are forced to recognize the importance of our subsequent experiences to the person we have become. So too, higher education can use and value the lessons of its first two transformations as it enters a new phase and moves from the traditional to the transitional and on to a transformational, connected-pluralistic vision. As Hannah Gray, former President of Chicago University concludes:

In the end, I think our university tradition, and its distinctive characteristics and goals, have served us well, but the next stage of their development will require that common purposes be institutionalized in ways that adjust to the realities and diversities created by our history and that accept as healthy a greater heterogeneity, while incorporating the objectives given life by the value of an academic environment at its best (Gray 1992).

If we cannot return to a prior state, where can we look for guidance as we begin this new transformation? First, it is important to recognize the place of democracy in the life of the university. Drawing on the works of John Dewey, philosopher Hillary Putnam (1992) has defined what he calls the epistemological justification of democracy. He writes: "Democracy is not just one form of social life among other workable forms of social life, it is the precondition for the full application of intelligence to the solution of social problems" (pp. 180-181). A democratic environment is seen as basic to the development and application of intellect. A similar view led Benjamin Barber (1992) to comment that the university does not have "a civic mission" but indeed "is a civic mission" (p. 222). As the embodiment of a democratic learning community, the university faces a question similar to that facing the American society as a whole. How can plurality be preserved while building a multidimensionally connected community? Lynton puts forth the view that the university and its surrounding society are parts of an eco-system with interconnected problems and solutions (Lynton, 1993). Thus, in preparing for the transformation from multiversity to transversity an identification of the university’s fundamental structure may be instructive.

In Rawls’ (1993) view the university is a purposive association or community functioning within society (p. 261). As such the university looks to the society to provide the basic structure that maintains a fair and equal background. The university incorporates democratic ideals and institutes safeguards of its own to insure justice but it is founded on a more restricted mission than the society in general. Nevertheless, even in its pluralistic state, the university too has an ethos that undergirds its mission, a set of principles shared by all members of the community. Perhaps the most fundamental principle can be stated as the free and open pursuit of inquiry that fosters the generation, transmission, and application of knowledge. Many consequences flow from this principle that impact every aspect of the university. To elucidate those things which are endorsed by the university community as basic principles of operation requires an awareness of the university as a community. The very act of applying critical inquiry to make our underlying principles explicit may lead to insight into the roots of our fragmentation. Until the ethos that guides the institution can be delineated, the attempt to form a connected transversity will elude us.

Because the third transformation of the university is dependent on maintaining the best of pluralism while at the same time developing a new sense of community and connectedness, it will require a reexamination of the comprehensive doctrines that undergird current higher education. The importance of developing an environment that fosters internal and external connections may require a revision of the knowledge-oriented inquiry principle upon which the university is currently founded. In meeting the challenges of a new age it may no longer be possible to concentrate solely on the generation, transmission, and application of knowledge. The next transformation may well replace the university’s knowledge focus with a focus on wisdom. As Nicholas Maxwell (1992) states: "We urgently need a new, more rigorous kind of inquiry that gives intellectual priority to the tasks of articulating our problems of living and proposing and critically assessing possible cooperative solutions. This new kind of inquiry would have as its basic aim to improve, not just knowledge, but also personal and global wisdom -- wisdom being understood to be the capacity to realize what is of value in life." He further states "A basic intellectual task of philosophy-of-wisdom inquiry is to help all of us imbue our personal and social lives with vividly imagined and criticized possible actions, so that we may discover, and perform where possible, those actions that enable us to realize what is of value -- happiness, health, sanity, friendship, love, freedom, justice, prosperity, democracy, creative endeavor, productive work -- all that is of value and that is compatible with or conducive to building a good world -- it being understood, of course that knowledge and understanding can in themselves be of value in life and that they are vital dimensions to almost everything else of value" (p. 205). This view is not an appeal to replace inquiry with the method of authority but to expand inquiry beyond the realm of knowledge and apply it also to the realm of values.

In reexamining the principle of knowledge-oriented inquiry within the university we must look to the past that has shaped our views for illumination of how this ethos evolved. At their inception universities were founded on the certainty of fixed invariants. This surety of certain truth later gave way to a paradigm in which the focus on immutable objects was replaced by the search for constant relations among changes (Dewey 1929/1988). The rise of the scientific method ushered in the age of modernism. Robert Cummings Neville (1992) notes that Francis Bacon is credited with first using the term modern but historians date the beginning of modernity from the scientific, political, and literary revolutions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Neville asserts that this early period of modernity gave rise to a number of developments in art, philosophy and other areas of which modernism, a nineteenth- and twentieth-century movement, was only one. Modernism is characterized by the positivist, empiricist, rational-logical model of modern science and inspired by individuals such as Russell, Carnap, Wittgenstein, and Husserl (p. 5-11). Although modernism was first hailed and welcomed, an unease gradually developed over elements seen as socially and spiritually destructive. Paulene Marie Rosenau (1992) outlines five causes for this disillusionment with modernism. They include: impatience with the dramatic results promised by modern science’s supporters, the attention focused on abuse and misuse of modern science, a discrepancy between the way modern science was meant to work in theory and the way it worked in practice -- not living up to its own formal standards, the trivializing of metaphysical dimensions of human existence, and the lack of ethical direction provided by science regarding the purposes to which knowledge is applied (p. 10). Beyond these concerns with modern science, we have noted the growing fragmentation of society which accelerated during the period of modernism. Following upon growing disillusionment with modernism, the post-modern movement, inspired by Nietzsche and Heidegger, arose. Post-modernism is not a simple, well-defined term but an adjective that covers a broad array of views. Rosenau (1992, p. 16) describes the way in which many writers refer to a split in the post-modern movement -- variously assigning parties to the dichotomy as skeptical and affirmative post-modernists (Rosenau), deconstructive and constructive post-modernists (Griffin), apocalyptic and visionary post-modernists (Graff), and neo-conservative and post-structural post-modernists (Foster ). Nevertheless, the post-modernists all present a major challenge to modern, analytic philosophy. Post-modernism "rejects epistemological claims, refutes methodological conventions, resists knowledge claims, obscures all versions of truth, and dismisses policy recommendations" (p 3). Even where there is "parody" and "farce", as in the writings of Derrida, they are "empty meaningless forms of gaiety that merely mark a period of waiting for catastrophe" (p. 15).

The post-modern response is designed to shock us into awareness of what has become the narrowness of modernism. An examination of how this movement is expressing itself within higher education may provide some insight into the fragmentation of the multiversity. However, it is not confrontation but community that we seek within the idea of the transversity. Nothing can now be gained by leveling criticism at the research culture or the energy and effort that its creation has called for. It is a part of our shared, lived past that has helped to form us. Indeed, "we should not neglect to mention the more subtle, less quantifiable, but nonetheless profound influence that science has upon society. We are a great nation which must value the culture that the success of science engenders. This success permeates society, generates self-confidence, inspires youth, creates a sense of endless frontiers of the human mind and of human aspirations" (Lederman, 1991).

Nevertheless, our dilemma again presents itself. How can we move from this rigid division of perspectives to a connected, transcultural community without losing what is of value in both perspectives? Neville’s earlier statement that modernism was only one development of modernity may hold a key. He believes that not all Western philosophy since Kant has developed into modernism and that there have been ways "around" modernism from the beginning:

Of particular importance is the development within the Peircean lineage of a concern for value in experience. The early modern conception of physics excluded the appreciation of value in its paradigms for knowledge, and the attempts to correct that appeared in the philosophies of aesthetics, taste, and common sense [Edwards, Emerson, Thoreau] . . . Moving down from Peirce are two tightly interwoven lines of descent. The first is the pragmatic tradition of James, Dewey, Mead, and others. The second is the adoptive lineage of Whitehead’s process philosophy . . . Like Peirce just before him, Whitehead went around modernism (Neville 1992, p. 18).

This "high road around modernism" may offer a reconnection and healing. Signs of such a new ethos are already emerging. As Richard Bernstein (1992) writes:

Scars from the wounds of these battles still remain, but there are encouraging signs of the emergence of a new ethos -- one which bears strong affinities with the ethos characteristic of the formative stages of the pragmatic movement. There are all sorts of crisscrossings and interweavings . . . These interweavings extend to the interplay of disciplines which not so long ago were taken to be quite distinct . . . Indeed, there is another emerging phenomenon that exhibits a new intellectual mood of fluidity and breaking down of boundaries. Throughout the country in our universities and colleges there has been an explosion of study and discussion groups that cluster about new constellations of texts and themes that cut across disciplines. What distinguishes these groups from older models of "interdisciplinary" discussions is that there is no longer the presumption of a distinctive disciplinary approach to a given problem -- as if there were a unique philosophic, literary or anthropological point of view. The intermingling and overlapping is much more radical where pursuing issues in one’s own field necessitates drawing upon the ways in which issues are explored in other fields of inquiry. It is almost as if there is a "counter-disciplinary" movement developing which no longer finds the disciplinary matrices that have shaped our academic departments helpful in dealing with intellectual problems. (pp. 334-335).

Bernstein (1992) goes on to describe this new ethos in terms of pluralism. He first comments that there are many types of pluralism into which we might degenerate: "there is a danger of a fragmenting pluralism where the centrifugal forces become so strong that we are only able to communicate with the small group that already shares our own biases, and no longer even experience the need to talk with others outside of this circle" (p. 335). There is also the threat of what Bernstein terms flabby pluralism where we borrow glibly from other orientations in a form of poaching. Then too, there is polemical pluralism in which pluralism becomes an ideological weapon to advance one’s own agenda. Further, he warns against defensive pluralism in which we merely pay lip service to other orientations while believing there is really nothing we can learn from them (pp. 335-336). How then can we maintain pluralism while building a connected learning community? For Bernstein the answer lies in what is best in the pragmatic tradition, an engaged fallibilistic pluralism which places new responsibilities on each of us for taking our own fallibility seriously (p. 336). He explains that however wedded we are to our own styles of thinking we must be willing to engage and listen to others without denying their otherness. There is a recognition, then, that conflict is unavoidable but the response that the pragmatists call for is a dialogical response where a reciprocal understanding does not necessarily preclude disagreement (p. 337). Bernstein concludes that we must seek what James called a "loosening of old landmarks" and develop an ethos based on mutual dialogic encounter.

The Western mind must be willing to open itself to a reality the nature of which could shatter its most established beliefs about itself and about the world. This is where the real act of heroism is going to be. A threshold must now be crossed, a threshold demanding a courageous act of faith, of imagination, of trust in a larger and more complex reality; a threshold, moreover, demanding an act of unflinching self-discernment . . . But I would also wish to affirm those who have valued and sustained the central Western tradition, for I believe that this tradition---the entire trajectory from the Greek epic poets and Hebrew prophets on, the long intellectual and spiritual struggle from Socrates and Plato and Paul and Augustine to Galileo and Descartes and Kant and Freud -- that this stupendous Western project should be seen as a necessary and noble part of a great dialectic, and not simply rejected as an imperialist-chauvinist plot. Not only has this tradition achieved that fundamental differentiation and autonomy of the human which alone could allow the possibility of a larger synthesis, it has also painstakingly prepared the way for its own self-transcendence. Moreover,this tradition possesses resources, left behind and cut off by its own Promethean advance, that we have scarcely begun to integrate -- and that, paradoxically, only the opening to the feminine will enable us to integrate (Tarnas, 1991, p. 444-445).

Implications for Leadership

Many immediate issues face higher education and much energy has been focused on short-term crisis. The Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (1992) cites five trends that will be of major concern to colleges and universities in the coming years. They include: growing domestic and international economic pressures, changing demographics of the world’s population, growing racial and cultural tension, scientific and technological advances, and the "American crisis of values" (p. vi). These matters are far from insignificant and demand attention. However, we have argued in this paper that solutions to the university issues arising from these trends will flow from the university’s successful passage through the third transformation from the fragmented multiversity to the multidimensionally connected transversity. Without consideration of the very ethos that underlies the university, the emergence of an institution able to meet the demands and needs of the new century will not occur. Further, we have asserted that this transformation is likely to change our knowledge-oriented inquiry paradigm into a wisdom-oriented paradigm, that welcomes pluralism of the engaged, fallible kind as part of a democratic learning community. Bringing about such change will not be the work of the faint-hearted. It will require changes in the very epistemological and ecological underpinnings of the institution and will demand courageous leadership. Administrators will be called upon to create an environment and infrastructure that facilitates community in new and unaccustomed ways. Still, it must be remembered that the first two transformations of American universities were not easily accomplished. Nevertheless, they have been eminently successful in the evolution of institutions that rose to the challenges of their age. We can find both hope and apprehension in the words of Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.: "The American identity will never be fixed and final; it will always be in the making. Changes in the population have always brought changes in the national ethos and will continue to do so; but not, one must hope, at the expense of national integration. The question America confronts as a pluralistic society is how to vindicate cherished cultures and traditions without breaking the bonds of cohesion--common ideals, common political institutions, common language, common culture, common fate--that hold the republic together" (Schlesinger 1992).

 

References

Alpert, D. (1993). Rethinking the challenges facing the American research university. Unpublished manuscript.

Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (1992). Trustees & troubled times in higher education (Report of the Higher Education Issues Panel). Washington, D.C.

Barber, B.R. (1992). An aristocracy of everyone: The politics of education and the future of America. New York: Ballantine Books.

Bellah, R.N., et al. (1991). The good society. New York: Vintage Books.

Berlin, E. (1993, April). Keynote address. Presented at Utilizing Diversity: Leadership Opportunities for the 21st Century, Rochester, MI.

Bernstein, R. (1992). The new constellation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bok, D. (1986). Higher education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

_____. (1990). Universities and the future of America. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Dewey, J. ([1929],1988). The quest for certainty. (J.A. Boydston, Ed.) Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Duderstadt, J. (1992, December 7). University Record. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Enarson, H. (1989). Revitalizing the land grant mission. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Publications.

Etzioni, A. (1993). The spirit of community. New York: Crown Publishers.

Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press

Gilley, J.W. (1991). Thinking about American higher education: The 1990s and beyond. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Gray, H. (1992). Some reflections on the commonwealth of learning. Presentation at American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting.

Kerr, C. (1982). The uses of the university. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

_____. (1991). The great transformation in higher education, 1960-1980. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Lederman, L. (1991). Science: The end of the frontier? (Report) Board of Directors of AAAS.

Lynton, E. (1993, January). Address. In AAHE Forum on Faculty Roles and Rewards. San Antonio, Texas.

Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (G. Bennington and B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Maxwell, N. (1992). What kind of inquiry can best help us create a good world? Science,Technology, & Human Values. 17 (2), 205-227.

Neville, R.C. (1992). The highroad around modernism. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Oakley, F. (1992). Community of learning: The American college and the liberal arts tradition. New York: Oxford University Press.

Palmer, P. (1992) Community and commitment in higher education. American Association of Higher Education Bulletin, 3.

Putnam, H. (1992). Renewing philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.

Reich, R.B. (1991). The work of nations. New York: Vintage Books.

Rhodes, F (1990). The new American university. 12th David Dodds Henry Lecture, University of Illinois.

Rosenau, P. M. (1992). Post-modernism and the social sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Sandel, M. (1982). Liberalism and the limits of justice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Shapiro, H. (1991, October) Functions and resources: The university of the 21st century. Symposium at University of Chicago Centennial.

Scott, D.K. & Awbrey, S.M. (July/August 1993a). Transforming scholarship. Change, 25(4), 38-43.

Scott, D.K.& Awbrey, S.M. (In press 1993b). Transforming the university. In Proceedings of the Conference on Women in Science and Engineering, Bloomington, IN: Committee on Institutional Cooperation.

Scott, P. (1984). Crisis of the university. London: Croom Helm.

Schlesinger, A. M., Jr. (1992) The disuniting of America: Reflections on a multicultural society. New York: W.W. Norton and Co.

Tarnas, R. (1991). The passion of the western mind. New York: Ballantine Books.

Turner, F. (1986, September). Design for a new academy. Harper’s Magazine, 47.

Wilson, L. (1992, February). Beyond conservation and liberation: The education of our aspirations. David Dodds Henry Lecture, University of Illinois.