<%BANNER%>

Organizational Learning in a Community College


PAGE 1

1 ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING IN A COMMUNITY COLLEGE By KARL DAWSON A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Karl Dawson

PAGE 3

3 For my father, who would have been proud to see me earn this degree

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my committee chair, Dr. Linda Behar-Horenstein for her patience and guidance through the challenging but rewarding pro cess of writing this diss ertation. I would also like to thank other members of my committee, Drs. Dale Campbell, Linda Hagedorn and Mirka Koro-Ljungberg for their guidance and support. Drs. Phil Clark, Larry Tyree and Tom Oakland assisted in the early stages of this study a nd I wish to thank them. I will long remember the support of faculty, staff and my fellow students in the Department of Educational Administration and Policy. I would also like to than k those who helped me to gain access to the research site and the participants of this study who shared with me so openly. I am very grateful to family and friends w ho so enthusiastically supported me during my study. My mother Yvonne, sister Lorna, brothe r Kenneth and aunt Ena were particularly supportive. My daughters, Karla an d Kylah sang to me to encourage me during dark hours of dissertation writing for which I am thankful. My wife Lucia, was my coach, cheerleader, personal assistant and friend and I do not think that I could have done this without her. Foremost, I would like to thank God for n ever leaving me nor forsaking me in this most challenging undertaking of my life.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TERMS.................................................................................................................. ...........8 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ..............9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................10 Statement of the Problem....................................................................................................... .15 Purpose Statement.............................................................................................................. ....16 Significance of the Study...................................................................................................... ..17 Limitations of the Study....................................................................................................... ..18 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE.................................................................................................19 Organizational Learning........................................................................................................ .19 Types of Organizational Learning..........................................................................................22 Stages of Organizational Learning.........................................................................................23 Facilitators of Organizational Learning..................................................................................25 Stimuli for Learning........................................................................................................25 Psychological Safety.......................................................................................................26 Structure...................................................................................................................... ....27 Skill.......................................................................................................................... ........27 Leadership..................................................................................................................... ..29 Factors Inhibiting Orga nizational Learning............................................................................30 Lack of Psychological Safety..........................................................................................31 Improper Structure and Communication Issues..............................................................32 Defensive Routines..........................................................................................................33 The Nature of Knowledge...............................................................................................34 The Community College Setting............................................................................................34 Summary........................................................................................................................ .........39 3 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................41 Qualitative Research........................................................................................................... ....41 Theoretical Perspective........................................................................................................ ...42 Research Design................................................................................................................ .....43 Population and Setting......................................................................................................... ...45 Participants................................................................................................................... ...46 Access and Entry.............................................................................................................47 Data Collection................................................................................................................ .......48 Data Analysis.................................................................................................................. ........51

PAGE 6

6 Validity and Reliability....................................................................................................... ....53 Subjectivity................................................................................................................... ..........55 4 RESULTS........................................................................................................................ .......58 Stimuli for Learning........................................................................................................... ....58 Mission........................................................................................................................ ....59 Meeting Student Needs....................................................................................................61 Reputation..................................................................................................................... ...62 Senior Administrations Encouragement........................................................................63 External Stimuli...............................................................................................................64 Knowledge Sources.............................................................................................................. ..64 External Sources..............................................................................................................65 Internal Sources...............................................................................................................66 Learning Processes............................................................................................................. ....70 Dissemination of Knowledge/Learni ng throughout the Organization....................................72 Other Influences on Or ganizational Learning........................................................................73 Tolerance for Failed Initiatives and Experimentation.....................................................73 Support from Senior Administrators...............................................................................75 Availability of Numerous Discussion Forums................................................................76 Organizational Structure..................................................................................................77 Relationships.................................................................................................................. .78 High-quality Faculty........................................................................................................79 Leadership..................................................................................................................... ..80 Big Picture/Systems Thinking.........................................................................................82 Positioning Analysis........................................................................................................... ....84 Sarah.......................................................................................................................... ......84 Jane........................................................................................................................... .......85 Frank.......................................................................................................................... ......86 Lorna.......................................................................................................................... ......86 Yvonne......................................................................................................................... ...87 Mike........................................................................................................................... ......87 The Researcher................................................................................................................87 Summary........................................................................................................................ .........88 5 CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................... ..91 Stages and Types of Or ganizational Learning........................................................................91 Influences on Organizational Learning..................................................................................93 Morally Appealing Mission.............................................................................................93 Trust.......................................................................................................................... .......94 Communication...............................................................................................................96 Leadership..................................................................................................................... ..96 Big Picture/Systems Thinking.........................................................................................97 Theoretical Implications....................................................................................................... ..99 Recommendations for Further Study....................................................................................102

PAGE 7

7 APPENDIX A INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL..........................................................104 B INTERVIEW CHECKLIST AND LAY SUMMARY.........................................................106 C SAMPLE INFORMED CONSENT.....................................................................................107 D INTERVIEW GUIDE...........................................................................................................109 E SAMPLE USE OF STANZAS AS ANALYTICAL STEP..................................................110 F SAMPLE USE OF LABOV AND WALETZ KEYS NARRATIVE FRAMEWORK.......112 G PILOT STUDY OF ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING IN A COMMUNITY COLLEGE........................................................................................................................ ....114 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................127 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................133

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TERMS Espoused theories refer to underlying assumptions and valu es that individuals claim guide their actions but in reality this is not often the case (Argyris, 1978). Learning organization refers to a setting wher e high learning capacity is evident and exploited. Organizational culture refers to the shared basic, tacit assumptions held by people in a setting about how things are or ought to be. These assumptions determ ine their perceptions, thoughts, feelings and to an extent, thei r overt behavior (Schein, 1997). Organizational learning refers to the study of if and how organizations learn and to a process where errors are detected and corrected, insights and knowledge are generated, reflection of past events and practice inform future practice, a nd behavior is changed through the process of information gathering and meaning making. In sights and knowledge may begin with the individual but must move via groups to the organi zation at large to fit th is construct (Argyris & Schn, 1978; Kezar, 2005; Scribner, Cockrell, Cockrell & Valentine, 1999). Organizational learning capacity refers to the level of effectiveness and efficiency demonstrated when making the changes needed to ad just to the actual or potential changes in the internal or external enviro nment (Dibella & Nevis, 1998). Organizational memory refers to how an institution retain s what it has learned and discards what is deemed to be of no value (Huber, 1991). Theories-in-use or mental models refer to underlying assumptions or master programs that guide the actions of individua ls. (Argyris, 1978; Senge, 1990). Transformational leadership refers to a form of behavior where persons of influence focus on individuals potential to satisfy needs of se lf-fulfillment in the process of organizational performance (Burns, 1978).

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING IN A COMMUNITY COLLEGE By Karl Dawson May 2007 Chair: Linda Behar-Horenstein Major: Higher Education Administration My study examined organizati onal learning in a community college, how learning took place and what influenced it. There were indicat ors of high capacity for learning at the school. There was evidence of effectiveness in knowle dge generation, dissemination and utilization. Organizational learning at the co llege was influenced largely by its mission, the level of trust, ample and effective communication channels, lead ership, and a capacity for big picture/systems thinking. My qualitative study included six memb ers of faculty and staff who joined me to produce the data through multiple interviews. Narr ative analysis was used to examine the data. One administrative and one non-administrative employee were chosen from each of the Associate of Arts, Associates of Science a nd Student Services Divisions for my study. Additional studies are recommended to further understand the quality of other learning processes at the college.

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Higher education institutions in America are facing numerous challenges that, in some cases, threaten their very survival (Guski n & Marcy, 2003; Kezar, 2005a). Guskin and Marcy (2003) argue that the primary problems are financ ial in nature, and are long-term rather than short-term. Guskin and Marcy (2003) suggest th at the financial problems can be traced to an eroding tax base and a rapid rise in health costs. They contend th at major structural changes in the sector will be needed for continued success. Tr aditional higher education institutions need to undergo transformation that is aimed at increas ing affordability, efficiency, and responsiveness to students or they may lose clients to other providers (Eckel, Hill, & Green, 1998; Kezar, 2001). Higher education institutions must also respond to threats to their survival, such as, public pressure for educational and financial accounta bility; the need to contain costs to ensure continued access; the impact of technology; and the pr oliferation of comp eting delivery modes such as, distance education, corporate universitie s, and transnational de livery (Eckel, Green & Hill, 2001). Community colleges are facing many of the same challenges that impact the entire higher education sector. The mission of community colleges is expanding (Ayers, 2005) and the demand for services are at an all time high (Bog gs, 2004). Increased need for service is fuelled by Baby Boomers whose children have reached colle ge age, an increased demand for community college education among immigrants, and the incr ease in the number of high school graduates who now attend college (Boggs, 2004). There ar e around 1200 regionally accredited community colleges, which represent the largest sector in higher education (Boggs, 2004). Boggs (2004) reports that forty-five percent or 6.5 million of all undergraduates are enrolled in community colleges. He added that when non-credit course s are included, the num ber served per year

PAGE 11

11 increases to 11.5 million students. The presiden t and CEO of the American Association of Community Colleges, George Boggs, summarized the challenges when he said, In the past three years, student enrollment ha s escalated, and college leaders have struggled to meet demand in the face of steep state budg et cuts, limited facilities, faculty turnover, rising technology costs, and increasing numbers of student s who need remedial work before they can take coll ege-level classes (p. 8). Some researchers argue that community colle ges are currently opera ting in a post-modern setting that features fragment ation within, and a constantly changing external environment (Ayers, 2005; Bergquist, 1998). In recent decades, orga nizations in other sectors have had to deal with change. Different strategies and approaches have been utili zed with varying success. These include reengineering, knowledge management learning organizations, and total quality management (Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, Roth, & Smith, 1999). Higher education has also tried strategies to enhance organizational perf ormance such as strategic planning, benchmarking, Total Quality Management, and business proc ess reengineering (Birnbaum, 2000). Birnbaum refers to these efforts as management fads. The lens and practice of or ganizational learning has been proffered as a tool for analyzing and improving institutional performance and as a mechanism for studying if and how organizations learn. Kezar (2005) holds that organizational learning is not a fad but is rooted in years of continuous research. While there is not a widely accepted definition of organizational learning, a synthesis of the works by leading writers on the subject reveals certain themes. Organizational learning involves reflecting on past action and considering anticipated challenges. Ultimately it results in change to practices or routines (Argyris, 1993; Ellstrm, 2003). Argyris (1993) stresses that only when new action has taken place has learning oc curred. Organizational learning may begin with an individual or the collective ou tput of a group but it must spr ead beyond that initial unit or individual to be considered truly organizational in nature (Dibella & Nevis, 1998; Vera &

PAGE 12

12 Crossan, 2004). Organizational learning includes taking initiatives and trying experimentation that will lead to new knowledge that will then be disseminated throughout the organization (Silins & Mulford, 2002). The more significant and sustainable forms of organizational learning require that members of the organization examin e the basic underlying assumptions or mental models related to the organization and its functi ons, and utilize what is discovered to guide action (Argyris & Schn, 1978; Senge, 1990). Learning is not restricted to special organizations but is widely found across the spectrum of organizational types (Dibella & Nevis, 1998). Senge et al. (1999) agree with this sentiment and state, All organizations learn in the sens e of adapting as the world around them changes. But some organizations are faster and more effective learners. The key is to see learning as inseparable from work (p. 24). They contrast this integration with work, and the continuous nature of learning with training, which, they suggest, is typically episodic and takes place outside of the normal work context. The capacity for organizational learning va ries among institutional settings and is dependent on the presence or absence of factors th at facilitate or inhibit the process (Dibella & Nevis, 1998). Some of the factors that promote or ganizational learning in e ducational institutions are decentralization (as opposed to hierarchy); trust between employees and managers; new information systems; incentives and rewards; a cu lture of people who are in terested in learning; open communications; information sh aring; staff development and tr aining; and the existence of inquiry units (Kezar (2005). Learning in an or ganization takes place when individuals and groups are committed to experimenting with finding better ways of doing things. There are also factors that restrain organizational learning. When erro rs due to innovation a nd experimentation are severely punished in organizations, a psychologi cal environment that discourages innovations

PAGE 13

13 and restrains organizational le arning occurs (Schein, 1993a). Organizations that are not structured to facilitate communication and reward group produc tivity will find it difficult to learn at a high rate (Senge, 1999). The concept of organizational learning originat ed in the business sect or but is increasingly applied in other sectors, such as K-12 educati on. The success of organizational learning that is directed at institutional improvements has been observed in companies including Ford Motor Companys Electrical and Fuel Handling Division, Royal Dutch/Shell group of companies, Harley-Davidson, British Petroleum, and Xerox (S enge, et al., 1999). At Ford, the division made $150 million dollars in 1996 after losing $50 million just five years earlier. They attributed their success to the development of learning capacity (Senge, et al., 1999). Similar stories of the impact of organizational learning are also beginning in education. In a large-scale study in the K12 education sector in Australia, Mulford a nd Silins (2003) found that organizational learning had a positive impact on schools central func tion, teaching and learning, and it facilitated desired student achievement. Re sults such as these hold promise for the effective use of organizational learning in other organizati onal settings, such as higher education. Organizational learning has th e potential for sustaining or ganizational effectiveness because it results in the development of a l earning culture (Silins & Mulford, 2002). Schein (2004) identifies ten features of a learning cu lture, namely, (a) a proactivity assumption, (b) commitment to learning to l earn, (c) positive assumptions about human nature, (d) the assumption that the environment can be dominat ed, (e) commitment to truth through pragmatism and inquiry, (f) an orientation to ward the future, (g) a commitment to full and open task-relevant communication, (h) a commitment to diversity, (i) a commitment to sy stemic thinking, and (j) a commitment to cultural analysis for understanding and improving the world.

PAGE 14

14 Efforts directed towards improving organizatio nal performance are most effective when the approach has been tested in the particular setting and adjustments have been made for the context (Birnbaum, 1988; Evers, 2000; Kezar, 2 005). Organizations in manufacturing and retail, professions and non-profits, are su fficiently different such that they merit the development of unique models to deal with change (Kezar, 2001). Non-profit organizations, for instance, typically do not go through the st ages of maturity often associ ated with most profit-driven organizations (Kezar, 2001). To understand the na ture and effectiveness of organizational learning in for-profit businesses Dibella & Nevi s (1998) developed an a ssessment tool; however, they found it necessary to make modifications to the instrument when assessing organizational learning in health car e and in education. As a sector, higher education possesses featur es that distinguish it from other sectors. These distinctions must be taken into account wh en examining issues of organizational behavior and performance among such inst itutions (Kezar, 2001). From a synthesis of the literature, Kezar (2001) identifies these features as interd ependence, status as an institution, loosely coupled systems, organized anarchical d ecision making, and shared governance. These distinguishing features result in a culture that determines how those operations conduct their affairs (Bergquist, 1992; Birnbaum 1988; Kezar, 2001). Bergquist cl assified cultures within the academy as collegial, managerial, developmental, and negotiating culture, while Birnbaum when examining decision making in higher education institutions categorized them as collegial, political, bureaucratic, and anarchical. As a sub-sector, community colleges possess cert ain characteristics that further distinguish them. In comparison to other type s of higher education instituti ons, community colleges tend to be more bureaucratic in thei r decision-making (Kezar, 2001). She argues that community

PAGE 15

15 colleges are becoming more market-driven and en trepreneurial while maintaining some aspects of traditional higher ed ucation. Levin (1997) agrees and sugg ests that the four cultures found on community college campuses are traditional cultur e (academic), service culture, hierarchical culture, and the business culture. Levin (2005) later contends that community college missions are now geared primarily at satisfyin g the needs of the economic community. Much of the research to date on organizationa l learning comes from the field of business, where the concept originated. Cont ributions to the field from Se nge (1990), Senge, et al. (1999), Argyris (1993) and Dibella and Nevis (1998) typify the focus on large for-profit corporations. The K-12 sector has also embraced the concept to some extent, as evidenced by the increase in studies of organizational learning in that environment. Large-scal e studies utilizing qualitative (Leithwood, Leonard & Sharratt, 1998) and quantitative methods (S ilins & Mulford, 2002) conducted in the K-12 sector yiel ded a greater understa nding of the concept and its effects in those settings. Higher education has been slow to embrace the potential utility of organizational learning for improving organizational effectiv eness (Kezar, 2005). Community colleges do not differ much from the rest of higher education in this regard. A search through multiple databases for studies involving organizationa l learning in community colleges yields very little research. However, the selection of organizational le arning as the theme for the Fall 2005 issue of New Directions for Higher Education signals its emergence as a signi ficant topic in the sector. Statement of the Problem Community colleges are faced w ith the challenge of adapti ng to an environment that demands a response to, change in student demand and preparedness, sources and availability of funds and evolving missions and culture (Boggs 2004). How these challenges are met could determine the survival of th ese institutions (Guskin, 2003).

PAGE 16

16 In the search for greater efficiency and effectiveness, higher education has employed numerous strategies, drawn primarily from the business sector. Many of these strategies have been short-lived and yielded little success (Birnbaum, 2000). Organiza tional learning is an approach to the conduct of orga nizational activities centered around action that is based largely on reflection of past events (A rgyris, 1978). Organizational learni ng has been employed in fields such as business and education with some de gree of success. Higher e ducation, and community colleges in particular have made limited use of the approach (Kezar, 2005). Approaches to improving organizations are best studied in their specific se ttings (Evers, 2000). Community colleges exhibit distinct cultures that merit the examination of the phenomena in that specified setting. Researchers have examined organizational learni ng in various settings and have surmised that the phenomenon is best studied in the settin g in which it will be applied (Dibella & Nevis, 1978). There has been little theore tical explanation proposed about how organizations learn in the distinctive setting of higher education institutions in genera l and in the community colleges in particular. An understanding of how a particular community college learns as an organization as well as the factors that promot e or inhibit this learning will prove beneficial to those who seek to improve the performance of such organiza tions. The findings from the study are likely to provide a greater understanding of organizational learning within a community college setting. The proposed sample will be drawn from varying levels in the organization rather than the senior leader-centered studies as has been observed in the business sector. Purpose Statement The purpose of this study was to explore the na ture of organizational learning and how it is facilitated or inhibited at the identified comm unity college. Narrative analysis was used to

PAGE 17

17 analyze information gained in in terviews from a sample of participants drawn from among the faculty and staff. The ques tions investigated were: How do members of a college community construct organi zational learning? Sub-questions: 1. How do members of a college community de scribe facilitators of organizational learning? 2. How do members of a college community de scribe inhibitors of organizational learning? Significance of the Study My study will contribute to the development of organizational learning theory in general, and particularly as it occurs in the community co llege environment. Issues such as the stimulus, agent, nature and influences on organizational learning are still contested in the literature. Additionally, the findings will provide insight into how organizational learning is manifested in the community college. Research specifically about organizational lear ning in community colleges is scant. Studies that have been conducted in business and th e K-12 education sector give insight into organizational learning. However, re searchers have suggested that or ganizational behavior is best studied in relation to the part icular context in which it will apply. Dibella and Nevis (1998) identified factors associated with organizationa l learning yet they cauti on that those variables may differ across industries. In light of the challenges faced by commun ity colleges which are brought on by increased demands for accountability, efficiency and dema nd for services, the use of organizational learning as a tool for analysis and improvement may become vital for administrators, faculty, and staff of these institutions. My study will enab le community college faculty and staff to

PAGE 18

18 understand how their own organizati ons learn and the role that a learning culture plays in sustaining continuous impr ovement efforts. Limitations of the Study 1. While the insights that may emerge from th is study are likely to provide a greater understanding of the subject matter, because each site is unique and each individual constructs reality differently, generali zations are eschewed (Morrow, 2005). 2. Given that individuals, orga nizations, and organizational behavior are dynamic and temporal, these findings may be diff erent in another time frame. 3. Caution must be exercised when comparing th e results of this study to other studies on organizational learning because the definiti on of the term organizational learning is disputed in literature. 4. The results of the data relied heavily on the interviewees knowledge of the situation and their willingness to share their views, as we ll as the interviewers skill in the interview process. The findings in this study were sh aped by the nature of the interviewer interviewee interaction. Differi ng levels of rapport between researcher and participants could result in varying pr oduction of interview data. 5. The discussions in the interview were limite d to the concept of organizational learning and its influences, not other construc ts in organizational behavior. 6. The study utilized participants who were at mi ddle levels in the or ganization. Individuals at other levels in the organization ma y view the same phenomena differently. 7. The results of this study represent the socially constructed view of the researcher, not the participants, although the particip ants were also co-authors of his construction of reality.

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE In this study, the researcher pr oposes to investigate the nature of organizational learning in community colleges and the factors that facilitate or impede it. This chapter provides a review of the literature on organi zational learning and the relevant aspects of the community college environment. The following sub-sections compri se the review of research on organizational learning, types and stages of organizationa l learning, factors prom oting and inhibiting organizational learning, and an overview of the research on the community college organizational environment. Organizational Learning Organizational learning is the de tection and correction of erro r (Argyris, 1993). Learning is thought to have occurred when the outcome of intended action matc hes that intention. Organizational learning, as Argyris asserte d, is based upon the successful application of strategies, not simply upon the discovery of a pr oblem or invention of a new solution. Errors must be attributed to strategies and assumptions and new strategies must be chosen and tested for success. When individuals note the success of particular strategies, they use them in situations again in the future and thus learning can be said to have taken place (Argyris, 1993; Schein, 1993a). Argyris description of the proc ess implies action and re view. Rowe and Boyle (2005) provide a more comprehensive interpreta tion. They described orga nizational learning as an iterative process of action a nd reflection that results in the modification of an organizations actions. Vera and Crossan (2004) suggest that organizational learning is the process of change in thought and action both individual and shared embedded in and affected by the institutions of the organization p. 224. Ellstrm (2003) descri bes organizational learning as changes in

PAGE 20

20 organizational practices (includi ng routines and procedures, stru ctures, technologies, systems, etc.) that are mediated thr ough the kind of human thought, acti on, and interaction that is commonly called learning, but is also referred to as knowledg e creation, inquiry or problem solving (24). Franzs (2003) definition illuminates the or ganizations need to become capable of surviving under changing or unstable envir onmental conditions th rough purposeful and intentional learning which transforms the abili ty of the organization to face the future successfully. Ellstrm (2003) describes organizationa l learning as intentional but points out that it is possible that only after reflection, or as a reconstruction used to jus tify action to oneself or others, that those intentions are discovered. Dibella and Nevis (1998) define organizational learning as the capacity or processes within an organization to maintain or improve performances based on experience (p.28). They main tain the view that all organizations learn, but it is the efficiency and eff ectiveness of that learning that often distinguishes it from one organization from another. From the preceding discussion, there seems to be some agreement that a change in the chosen activities of an organiza tion, brought about by internal or ex ternal stimuli, are hallmarks of organizational learning. Two further themes in dicate that organizational learning is intentional in nature and leads to improveme nt. Hubers (1991) definition suppor ts some of these assertions while calling others into question. Huber states, An entity learns if, through its processing of information, the range of potential behaviors is changed (p. 89). To support his definition he suggests that learning does not need to be conscious or intentional; it may not necessarily lead to increased effectiveness, as bad habits may be learned; and while it may impact thought and viewpoints, it does not nece ssarily change behavior.

PAGE 21

21 There is an additional question of agency. Who learns? Is it the individual or the organization? Ellstrm (2003) suggests that indi vidual learning is necessary though not sufficient for organizational learning to occur. The indivi dual mediates between the stimuli from the organizations environment that creates the n eed for change, and the actual changes in organizational practices. Argyris (1 978) contends that actions n eeded to produce learning are not taken by organizations but by individuals acting as agents of the organization. The learning becomes organizational when it is embedded into organizational memory and becomes a part of the shared theory-in-use that will determine how workers act in the future. Vera and Crossan (2004) indicate that the change in thought and ac tion that characterizes or ganizational learning is both individual and shared. They posit that orga nizational learning takes place at three levels, individual, group and organizati onal. Senge (1990) identified fi ve disciplines necessary for organizational learning and he makes a distinctio n between learning at different levels. One of the disciplines, personal mastery, operates at the level of the indi vidual, while others such as team learning and shared vision, ope rate at the level of the group. Other researchers focus on the collective aspect of organizational learni ng, in some cases at the exclusion of the individual. Researchers posit that while collective learning involves individual learning it is more than the sum of individual lear ning (Leithwood et al. 1998, Lam & Punch, 2001). Dibella and Nevis (19 98) argue that organizational le arning is not about learning as individuals, but learning as groups. They claim th at the learning that occu rs in an individual is different from the patterned learning that occurs in groups; patterns that may continue even after individual members of the group have left (Lam & Punch, 2001). Group property, they believe, includes both what is learned and how it is lear ned. Others speak of the collective mind, which is external to individuals and discernable by pa tterns of group behavi or (Lam and Punch, 2001;

PAGE 22

22 Leithwood et al., 1998). Group memb ers behavior are interdepende nt. In a process of mutual adaptation, group members may deal with change by altering their normal contribution to the group or recruiting others with sk ills that can contribute to de aling with the new situation. A synergistic effect is often produced (Lam & Punch, 2001). The focus on the collective processes is supported by writers who suggest that organiza tional learning is socia lly constructed (Kruse, 2003; Imants, 2003). Types of Organizational Learning Even when researchers agree that organizationa l learning does indeed take place, there are those who consider it significant to distinguish between the type and quality of that learning. Argyris (1978) contends that lear ning is the detection and correction of error and it is the process of determining the new strategy for action that di stinguishes the quality of learning. He describes single-loop learning as responses by members of the organiza tion to internal a nd external stimuli that maintain the central features of the organi zations theory-in-use. Wh en a response to a given stimulus involves inquiry into organizational norms and strategies and the assumptions that support them, double-loop learning is said to have taken place. Argyris also identifies a third mode of learning, deutero-learning (second-order learning), whic h reflectively examines how learning takes place in the organization. Ellstrm (2003) uses the terms adaptive lear ning and developmental learning to distinguish between types of learning. The terms relate to Argyris single and double-loop learning respectively. He makes this di stinction when analyzing the character of the work/learning situation. He identifies the type of learning according to the level of control that the worker/learner has in determining the nature of th e task, the methods or pr ocedures to be used and the results to be achieved. Ellstrm states that at the adaptive learning sub-level of reproductive learning, the worker/learner has the desired ta sks, methods and results determined

PAGE 23

23 for him/her. Another adaptive sub-level of learning, productive learning: type I increases slightly in complexity in that the desired results are no t given. At the level of developmental learning, there are also sub-levels. At the sub-level termed productive learning: type II, tasks are given but methods and results are not and at the highest stage of autonomy, creativ e learning, the tasks, methods and results are determined by the worker /learner. The range of organizational learning spans from routine (automatic) or reproductive learning that deals adeq uately with routine problems to creative learning wher ein the worker/learner(s) must transform existing ideologies, routines, structures, and pract ices through reflection. Interes tingly, while both Ellstrm and Argyris differentiate between levels of quality in the categories of learning, they both indicate that all types of learning are re quired in organizations because of the variety in organizational tasks. Stages of Organizational Learning Several writers have found it useful to analyze organizational learning through the identification of stages in th e process. Huber (19 91) identified four or ganizational learning processes as knowledge acquisition, information distribution, information interpretation, and organizational memory. Dibella a nd Nevis (1998) describe the pro cess of organizational learning as a cycle that includes the ac quisition, dissemination, and utili zation of knowledge. They argue that this organizational cycle is in all organi zations but there is variance in the manner and degree to which they are carried out from organization to organization. Crossan, Lane and White (1999) developed the 4I Framework of Organizational Learning. The model demonstrates their posi tion that organizational learning is a process that takes place at the individual, group and organizational levels. Intuiting occurs in an individuals mind at a subconscious level and is the start of the process. At the next level, interpreting involves sharing the conscious elements of the indi vidual learning at the group level. Integrating navigates to the

PAGE 24

24 level of the whole organization af ter collective understanding at the group level is changed. The learning is then incorporated across the organi zation by embedding it in its systems, structures, routines, and practices. This stage is institutionalizing The model also addresses learning flow. Feed-forward learning flow refers to the de gree to which individual learning converts into learning at the group level, then organizational level a nd feed-back learning fl ow refers to the degree that organizationally embedded lear ning affects individua l and group learning. As mentioned earlier, Dibella and Nevis (1998) suggest that the product of the organizational learning process may stay with the organization even after the departure of those initially involved in the learning. Others main tain that organizational learning has only truly taken place when the strategies, routines, and practic es have been affected on a long-term basis (Argyris, 1978; Vera & Crossan, 2004). What is re tained is the focus of some researchers who investigate organizational memory. Kruse (2003) suggests that knowledge acquisition, retention, and retrieval are key features in the discussion of organizational memory. She also mentions that how memory is put in the servi ce of achieving organizational goals is central to the discussion. Organizational knowledge may be retained as writ ten manuals, policies, files, and records or through individuals in the form of organizati onal cultural patterns, values, and beliefs. Knowledge is retained selectiv ely. When and how knowledge is re trieved, is based in part on how it is stored and the recognition by organizati onal members of its utility in a given situation. If lasting structures in which to house the info rmation learned are not created, lessons learned from the past may not be available should such situations arise again. La m (2002) declares that the product of the organizational learning process should be transformed into official records such as administrative policy manuals to en sure relative permanency.

PAGE 25

25 The literature on type and quality of organi zational learning makes a distinction between learning that results from the examination of underlying assumptions an d that which does not. The former is generally viewed as superior and leading to more sustainable actions. Research on stages of organizational learni ng has explored how information is created, disseminated and retained in organizations. Efficiency and effectiv eness in these processes distinguish the learning capability of organizations. Facilitators of Organizational Learning Organizational learning takes place in all orga nizations, though there may be variance in type and degree (Dibella and Nevi s, Leithwood, et al., 1998). This variance is due to influences, which occur both inside and out side organizations. Some infl uences advance organizational learning and others inhibit it. In this section, factors that faci litate organizational learning such as motivations or stimuli for learning, psychological safety, structure, skill, and leadership are described. The following overview is drawn primar ily from national and in ternational studies in the K-12 sector including administration extern al to the school, and the business sector. Stimuli for Learning Stimuli for learning can be internal or exte rnal to the organization. When the stimulus comes from within the organiza tion, it may originate within in dividuals or from collective processes of the organization. Senge et al., (1999) identifies aspira tion as facilitating organizational learning. This aspiration is relate d to two learning discip lines, personal mastery and building shared vision (Senge, 1990). Pers onal mastery involves individuals determining what they truly aspire to while making an honest assessment of their curr ent reality. Management of this creative tension can help build learning capacity. Di bella and Nevis (1998) describe this as the performance gap and indicate that in the examination of orga nizational learning, the

PAGE 26

26 perception of this gap must be a shared one. Th e process of building a shared vision also often leads to a motivation for organi zational learning (Senge, 1990). External stimuli for organizational learning ma y be sought by the organization or imposed from outside. In the world of business in particul ar, the extent to which organizations scan their environment for best practices and opportunitie s is a facilitator of organizational learning (Dibella & Nevis, 1998). The prac tice of benchmarking and networ king also serve as external stimuli for learning (Fischer, 2003) In education, organizations also voluntarily look to their environment for ideas but the mandate to learn is often made at the supervising level outside of the school (Leithw ood, et al., 1998). Psychological Safety Even when individuals or groups in organizatio ns are motivated to le arn, a psychologically safe environment must be created for such learning to be pursued (Schein, 1993a). This safety is largely determined by the organizational culture. Culture is identified as a factor that could facilitate organizational l earning (Lam, 2002; Leithwood, 1998) Dibella and Nevis (1998) suggest that how learning takes place in an organization is largely determined by the organizations culture. They found that a climate of openness is among the factors that facilitate organizational learning. Organiza tional learning require s tolerance within the organization to take risks, to experiment, and to experience possible mistakes (Goh & Richards, 1997; Mulford & Silins, 2003; McGill & Slocum 1993). Dibella and Ne vis (1998) identify a similar factor but termed it organizational curiosity. They also f ound that organizational le arning is facilitated when multiple advocates for ideas are encouraged at all levels of the or ganization and there is operational variety openness to varied wa ys in doing things. Key requirements for a psychologically safe environment for organiza tional learning include (a) opportunities for training and practice, (b) support and encouragem ent to overcome fears as sociated with making

PAGE 27

27 errors, (c) coaching and rewards for efforts in th e right direction, (d) norms that legitimize the making of errors, and (e) norms that reward i nnovative thinking and experimentation (Schein, 1993a). Structure Organizations can optimize lear ning when work is structured to allow the generation and sharing of knowledge and experi ence (Fischer, 2003) and when human resource practices that encourage this sharing are pursued (McGill & Slocum, 1993). Opportunities for teamwork and group problem solving facilitate organizational l earning and there should also be a means of transferring the knowledge (Goh & Richards, 1997; McGill & Sl ocum, 1993). Studies in the field of education indicate that if work is structured to allo w time for interaction, then the likelihood of organizational learning increase s (Collinson & Cook, 2004; Leithwood et al.. 1998; Lam & Punch 2001). As working and learning in groups is advocat ed, reward systems must be adjusted to recognize the resulting collective productivity (Goh & Richards, 1997; McGill & Slocum 1993; Senge et al., 1999). The propensity for organiza tional learning is enhanced with increased complexity of tasks and the degree of autonomy that workers have in determining the tasks, methods and appropriate results (Fischer, 2003; Ellstrm, 2003). The practice of giving immediate feedback is also associated with facilitating organizational learning (Fischer, 2003; Ellstrm, 2003). Organizational learning is also widely linke d with provision of adequate learning resources and ongoing professional deve lopment (Mulford & Silins, 2003; Dibella & Nevis, 1998; Ellstrm, 2003; Leithwood, et. al, 1998). Skill One cause for variability in organizational lear ning capacity is the skills available to the organization. A critical factor that facilitates or ganizational learning is th e ability of individuals

PAGE 28

28 to understand the interdependence of actions in side and outside the or ganization (Dibella & Nevis, 1998; Senge, 1990; Tannenbaum, 1997). Senge (1990) utilized the term systems thinking to describe this. Researchers have suggested that a central aspect of organizational learning is the ability to examine, and change if necessar y, the underlying taken-for-granted beliefs, perceptions, thoughts, feelings, a nd assumptions that guide peoples actions in organizations. Senge (1990) called these mental models and suggest that they are often unknown to the people who hold them, hence making them even more diffi cult to change. He suggests that balancing of inquiry into the positions of others and advocating your own, are skills that promote the identification of mental models which in turn may lead to organizational learning. He also identifies the ability to dialogue as facilitating shared learning. Isaacs (1999) identifies the four basic components of dialogue as listening, re specting, suspending, and voicing. Schein (1993b) concludes that dialogue is a firs t step in organizational learning because the evolution of new shared mental models that cut across the subcultu res of the organization re quire a change in the cultural rules about communicati on and interaction; this chan ge is made possible through dialogue. Argyris & Schn (1978) identified two master programs or theories-in-use that people employ to guide their actions both within and out side organizations, name ly, Model I and Model II. Model I inhibits organizational learning and will be examined in that section of the review but Model II promotes it and will be examined now. Model II theory-in-use is guided by the values of valid information, informed choice, and the mon itoring of the execution of that choice in order to detect and correct error. Wh ile both models feature advocati ng, evaluating, and attribution as their most prominent behaviors, Model II is di stinguished by the search for valid information through the use of action strategi es that show how the actors who are involved reach their

PAGE 29

29 evaluations or attributions Within this model, actors inquire in to the evaluations and attributions of others and encourage others to reciprocate. Embarrassment a nd threat, avoided at all costs drives under Model I thinking, are engaged as o pposed to being by-passed and concealed. The ability to balance inquiry and advocacy, unearth mental models, and to view organizational events in a systemic way are skills that o ccur in organizations when purposely developed. Leadership Schein (1993b) reported that, organizational learning is no t possible unless some learning first takes place in the executive subculture. I do not see how learning at that or any other level of the organization can take place un less the executive subculture first recognizes itself as a subculture in need of analysis (p. 50). Senge (1990) recognizes the impo rtance of leaders in facilitating organizational learning. He points out that they are expected to play non-traditional roles such as designers (of learning practices), stewards, and teachers in order to help the organization develop their capacity to understand complexity, clarify vision, and improve shared mental models key tenets of organizational learning. Leaders are critical to th e creation of a climate co nducive to collaboration and experimentation (Goh & Richards, 1997). They largely determine the level of psychological safety. Dibella and Nevis (1998) cla im that leadership is just one of the factors th at facilitates organizational learning. Frydman, Wilson and Wyer (2000) identified charac teristics of leaders of organizational learning. Such leaders are pragmatic visionaries, values-centered, master strategists and tacticians, skill ed at the devolution of power, stewards of learning, learners themselves and are willing to take different paths to their goal of developing a learning culture. Transformational leadership has been found to be associated with or ganizational learning in schools. Leithwood et al., (1998) found evidence that transformational leadership positively impacted organizational learning in a study that drew its sample from elementary and secondary

PAGE 30

30 schools. Burns (1978) stated that the transf orming leader looks for potential motives in followers, seeks to satisfy higher needs, and enga ges the full person of the follower (p.4). This, he says, results in a relationship of mutual stimulation and eleva tion that converts followers into leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents . (p.4) Transformational leadership practices call leaders to work with others and to enable ot hers to perform. This can be contrasted with leadership practices that focus on power and control (Silins & Mulford, 2002). Leithwood et al. (1998) identified eight dimensions of transformation leadership that foster organizational learning. The dimens ions include (a) identifies and articulates a vision, (b) fosters the acceptance of group goals, (c) conveys high performance expectations, (d) provides appropriate models, (e) provides individual support, (f) provides intellectual stimulation, (g) builds a productive school culture and (h) helps structure the school to enhance participation in decision making. They also found that school cu lture and the district (supervising body) were found to have the greatest influences on organi zational learning proce sses. Transformational leadership practices were also found to be an in dicator of organizational learning capacity in an Australian K-12 study (Silins & Mulford, 2002). Transa ctional leadership is often viewed as the opposite to transformational leader ship and unfavorable to organi zational learning. Transactional leaders tend to approach followers with a strate gy of exchanging one thing for another (Burns, 1978). Vera & Crossan (2004), however, found trans actional leadership to be facilitative to feedback learning when environments are stable and firms are performing well. Transactional learning will positively benefit feedback and feed-forward learning when firms are in stages of growth and maturity (Vera & Crossan, 2004) Factors Inhibiting Orga nizational Learning Successful organizational learning depends on removing restraints to organizational learning as well as promoting fact ors that encourage it. In a study of reasons why teachers do not

PAGE 31

31 share information, Collinson and Cook (2004), argued that removing restraints is likely to yield more immediate success than trying to enable motivating factors, becau se motivating factors involve teachers norms, values, and beliefs and require lengthier strategies to make meaningful impact. Factors identified that promote organiza tional learning are on a continuum, and as such, the lack of those factors often constitute rest raints to learning. For example, a lack of psychological safety, stimuli, or skill will impede learning. Specific aspects of these factors as well as others will be examined in this revi ew of inhibitors to organizational learning. Lack of Psychological Safety Many people in organizations do no t take the risk associated w ith learning because of past organizational responses to mistakes and failu re (Rowe & Boyle, 2005; Schein, 1993a). Schein suggests that this is related to learned anxiety and emotional c onditioning. Schein argues that while emotional conditioning which determines behavior is associated with rewards and punishment, the avoidance behavior learned through punishment is more stable than behavior learned through reward. Avoidance behavior also discourages tr ial and error learning. Schein also posits that an understanding of what he terms Anxiety 1 a nd Anxiety 2 helps in examining such behavior. He defines Anxiety 1 as the feelin gs that arise when individuals are unwilling or unable to learn something new because it appears di fficult or disruptive. A nxiety 2 is defined as the feelings of fear, shame or guilt associated with not learning anything new. He suggests that Anxiety 2 must be greater than Anxiety I in or der to minimize Anxiety 1 as an inhibitor to learning. Risk taking and experime ntation are essential to organi zational learning and hence the inability to reduce Anxiety I greatly affects psyc hological safety. As noted earlier, leaders play a very important role in determining th e climate for organizational learning. Fear concerning the impact of social compar ison can also impede organizational learning practices. In a study conducted am ong seven school districts, Rusc h (2005) found that the fear of

PAGE 32

32 competition between schools served as a restrain t to district administrators facilitation of organizational learning. Fear was related to the avoidance of possible em barrassment for some school administrators. The significance of embarra ssment avoidance will be discussed in the section on defensive routines. Improper Structure and Communication Issues The flow of information is critical to learning organizations (Senge, 1990). Knowledge must be moved across organizational borders in order to build a co llective organizational intelligence (Senge et al., 1999). Collinson and C ook (2004) found that the factors restraining the dissemination of information in the studied schoo ls related primarily to how the school day was structured and to the amount of time available fo r teachers to interact Rowe and Boyle (2005) found that communication patterns based on a hier archical structure th at did not require accountability of staff members for their individual or group communication practices also inhibited learning. This was further exacerbated by the failure of those involved to recognize those patterns. Schein (1997) identifies th ree cultures existing in many large business organizations: operator, executive, and engine ering. These cultures are associated with production, finance and strategy, an d research and design, respectiv ely. He suggests that these cultures are rooted in distinct backgrounds, particularly educ ation and training, which those members of the respectiv e cultures share. This results in a unique social language, although they may all be speaking in the same native tongue. This makes communication difficult and inhibits learning. The failure to reward group productivity is a nother constraint to organizational learning. Senge et al. (1999) found that ev en when organizations espoused the importance of collective learning, rewards and accountability system s were still individually based.

PAGE 33

33 Defensive Routines Organizational defensive routines are descri bed by Argyris (1994) as all the policies, practices, and actions that prev ent human beings from having to experience embarrassment or threat and, at the same time, prevent them from examining the nature of that embarrassment or threat (p. 81). Argyris posits th at this defensive reasoning resu lts from the master program, Model I theory-in-use. People operating with the Model I theory-in-use will seek to (a) achieve their intended purpose, (b) maximize winning and minimize losing, (c ) suppress negative feelings and behave according to what they cons ider to be rational. These values will lead individuals to craft their positions, evaluations and attributions in ways that inhibit inquiry into them and tests of them with others logic (52). Th ese strategies typically re sult in defensiveness, misunderstanding, and self-fulfilling and self-sealing processes. Argyr is suggests that individuals utilizing the Model I theory-in-use cannot help bu t bring it with them to organizations and that most people in organizations ope rate from a Model I framework. The prevalence of Model I in organizations results in what he termed organizational limitedlearning systems. Interestingly, Argyris found Model I theory-in-use to be existent in cultures as varied as in North America, Europe, South America, Africa, and the Far East. This theory-in-use was also evident across age groups (as young as twelve), socio-economic status, educational levels, gender or ethnic identity. These routines are evident across a range of organizational types such as business, government, and education. Argyris (1993) identifies some of th ese routines as outright lying and deception, conducting meetings in a manner th at discourages reexamination and rethinking, referring undesired proposed innovations to other groups with the hope of them losing momentum along the way and manipulating meeti ng agendas and minutes. Face-saving is a routine that requires collusion on the part of the parties involv ed. The person allowing the other

PAGE 34

34 to save face typically makes a statement that is untrue while the person who will avoid the embarrassment colludes by acting as if the statement is true. The Nature of Knowledge Another constraint to organi zational learning is the nature of knowledge. Nonaka (1991) categorizes knowledge as tacit or explicit. Knowledge that is fo rmal and systematic and hence easily communicated is said to be explicit. While referring to the work of Polanyi (1969), he states that knowledge, and skills based in knowle dge that individuals po ssess but is not easily expressed, is termed tacit knowledge. He gives an example of a baker who may be highly skilled at his craft but unable to transfer all the knowledge needed about how to produce a certain product, to a given standard, ev en though he may convey much of the needed information in a detailed recipe. Tacit knowledge is also rooted in mental models, beliefs and perspectives that are themselves taken-for-granted and hence difficult to surface. T acit knowledge is integral in organizational functions and is difficult to transfer, thus hind ering organizational learning. The Community College Setting The community college is an American inst itution whose historical roots trace back to principles of access and skills development, advocated by former American president and educator Thomas Jefferson (Boone, 1997). Subseque nt initiatives by Pres ident Andrew Jackson, that later affected funding, and the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890 helped focus attention on technical skills, and are landmarks in the instit utions historical land scape (Boone, 1997). Junior colleges emerged around the turn of the 20th century, often as an extension of the high school system, with the aim of preparing students for co llege and providing up to the first two years of the college curriculum (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). The term community college did not actually become popular until its use in the Presid ents Commission on Higher Education in 1947 (Boone, 1997).

PAGE 35

35 The typical community college mission goals ar e usually grouped as, the preparation of students for academic transfer, vocational-tec hnical education, continuing education, and developmental education, and community se rvice (Cohen & Brawer, 2003; Bragg, 2001). Missions of community colleges are expanding and becoming increasingly comprehensive (Bragg, 2001). Levin (2005) argues that the community college has strayed from its earlier mission of meeting the needs of th e entire community to a more na rrow focus that addresses the needs of the economic sector. The ability to re spond rapidly to workforce training needs is considered to be a strength of community colleges (Boone, 1997; Boggs, 2004). Levin, however, contends that the shift to an economic focus has resulted in an incr eased emphasis on training and development, away from liberal arts and transf er curricula. The community college environment and culture is influenced by the traditions of the entire higher education sector and increasingly by the business sector. Schein (2004) defines culture as: a pattern of shared basic assumptions that wa s learned by a group as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integr ation, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be ta ught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in rela tion to those problems. (p. 17) An institutions culture determines how its members deal with external forces and internal pressures (Smart, Kuh & Tierney, 1997). A large organization may have an overarching culture but subcultures will likely form around work uni ts or occupational communities and may exert very powerful influences on how people beha ve in organizations (Schein, 2004). Higher education institutions typically feature more than one institutional culture, though there is usually a dominant one (Bergquist, 1992, Levin, 1997). Subc ultures within a comm unity college view aspects of organizational life differently (Ayers, 2005). Kezar (2001) found among higher

PAGE 36

36 educational institutions, there we re broadly held values, as well as values associated with subgroups. In examining higher education, Bergquist (1992) identified four cultures of the academy as collegial, managerial, developmental, and negotia ting. The collegial culture is characterized by values surrounding faculty disciplines, faculty research and scholarshi p, rationality and quasipolitical faculty governance processes, and the placement of highest priority on the generation, interpretation and disseminati on of knowledge in the institut ions mission. The managerial culture is characterized by clear organizational structure, cl early defined goals and accountability for achieving those goals. The developmental cu lture is characterized by high value on the personal and professional growth and developm ent of all members of the institutional community, including students. Th e negotiating culture is charac terized by the distribution of organizational resources according to equitable an d egalitarian policies. Within this culture, confrontation and fair bargaining between stakeholders such as administration, faculty, and staff is expected and welcomed. Bergqui sts classifications correlate closely with Birnbaums (1988) who described higher education ins titutions as collegial, bureaucra tic, anarchical, and political in nature. The main exception is the anarchical in stitution which focuses on the value of gaining consensus in a context that is not very rational, organi zed or clearly structured. While much of the foregoing discussion focu sed on all of higher education, including community colleges, Levin (1997) specifically exam ines the culture of community colleges. He views community college culture from two persp ectives. First, it fulfils a functional purpose, affecting official structure and modes of operatio n for dealing with the organizations challenge. Second, organizations are themselves cultures, constructed through the symbols and behaviors of organizational members, and not necessarily ra tional, purposeful, or even functional (p.16).

PAGE 37

37 He also suggests that there are multiple cultures within community colleges that are a by-product of the college community members differing unde rstanding and interpreta tion of organizational life. He identified four cultures of the community college as traditional, service, hierarchical, and business. The traditional culture is characterized by a focus on the intellectual and cognitive development of students and access to educati onal opportunities for university transfer or employment purposes. This culture, he contends, is modeled after that found in many universities and features such aspects as peer judgment and scholarship and focuses on the interests and values of faculty. Decisions in this culture re garding issues such as governance, instructional organization and programming are centered arou nd academic students, academic faculty and academic life. Furthermore, academic faculty are viewed as having a greater position of influence and significance than their occupationa l and vocational colleagues. Academic faculty dominate this culture and focus attention on cu rriculum and instruction from the academic perspective, largely at the ex clusion of other aspects of or ganizational life (Levin, 1997). The service culture in community colleges is characterized by a focus on the improvement of the clientele, the students. This culture may view improvement as evident in university transfer rates, institutio nal student retention rates, social e quity or quality of learning. Members of the college community, who view meeting st udents developmental needs as of foremost importance, typically support and su stain this culture. They view the colleges mission in social service terms with the aim of improving the lives of individuals and consequently, society as a whole. Administrators in this culture include the imme diate community as part of their service area and expand the mission of the institution to meet identified needs. Student services personnel and some faculty drive this culture in community colleges.

PAGE 38

38 The hierarchical culture in community college s focuses around leadership and particularly the role of president or chief executive officer. Th e culture evolved from early conceptions of the community college serving as a vehicle for so cial transformation and the achievement of democratic values such as equality and indi viduality mobility through education. This view portrayed the community college as having a mo ral purpose whereby the leader was seen as responsible for ensuring that th is purpose is achieved. This cu lture also adheres to rational systems of organization. Thus, the culture, c oupled moral and bureaucratic components. The resulting culture positions the president as embodying the moral purpose of the institution and hence responsible for articulating mission, vision, and values, and as having firm control of a rational organization. This culture may result in administratively dominated institutions and even autocratic presidents (Levin, 1997). The impetus for developing the business cultur e in community colleges came partly from external demands for competitiveness, workfor ce training and the adopti on of entrepreneurial approach to conducting their affa irs. The training function, in particular, brought the community college in close contact with for-profit busin ess operations which led to colleges embracing operational styles associated with the busine ss world. Efficiency, innovativeness, customer service and paying attention to employee relations are features of the business culture in community colleges. There is extreme sensitivity to the market in decision making and college growth is focused on more programs, buildi ngs, and increasing the number of students. Characteristics of this culture are its flexibility and speed in getting the educational product to the market. Traditional higher education decision making models such as faculty committees or senates are not valued.

PAGE 39

39 There are other indications that higher education is increasingly influenced by the business sector culture. Birnbaum (2000) has described the introduction and subsequent abandonment of academic management fads that originate in government or business and adopted by higher education institutions. Higher education has ut ilized popular innovations such as Planning Programming Budgeting Systems (PPBS), Mana gement by Objectives (MBO), Strategic Planning (SP), Total Quality Management (TQM), Business Process Ree ngineering (BPE), and Benchmarking. The pressure brought on higher educa tion institutions to become more effective and efficient has led to the diffusing of these stra tegies into the sector, though most times, with limited success. Another argument for the pervas iveness of the business culture in higher education comes from Levin (2005). He contends that the primary focus of community colleges is to meet the needs of the bus iness community. Much effort is focused on providing graduates who are appropriately trained for industry or by providing relevant traini ng for individuals who are already employed. In additi on to the mission shift, community colleges are also adopting business-oriented institutional va lues. Levin contends that comm unity colleges are shifting from a culture of soft managerialism based on coll egiality and professiona l consensus to one of hard managerialism based on contractual relati ons and autocratic control. Community colleges are also moving toward a market-driven and entrep reneurial orientation in response to contextual factors such as technological advances, dist ance education, and cost constraints (Kezar, 2001). Summary This chapter began with a review of organizatio nal learning as well as factors that facilitate or inhibit its advancement in organizations. As pects of the community college environment as they relate to this study were also examined. Lite rature on organizational l earning is rich in terms of the theoretical positions, however it is weaker in the area of empirical studies. Writers from the field of education have based their work on empirical studies, while writers from

PAGE 40

40 management and organizational studies have mixed their anecdotal experiences with welldesigned studies. Organizational beha vior researchers have taken a le ad in developing theories in the field, though not always based on planned investigative studies. While multiple cultures may exist in community colleges, an organization is often defined by a dominant culture. Culture dictates how things are done on the campus and it is determined by what members of the community deem to be of value. Traditional academic values, associated with higher education, and entrep reneurial, market-driven values associated with the business sector, are two of the primary influences on comm unity college culture. The value of seeking to develop individuals for their own good is also in fluential. This combination results in a unique organizational culture that may cau se differences in the nature of organizational learning, and the factors that facilitate or inhibit it, in community colleges as opposed to other sectors. This study will provide an evidence-based understanding of how one group of community college faculty and staff view the factors that promote and in hibit organizational lear ning in their institution.

PAGE 41

41 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The purpose of this study was to provide a greater understanding of how organizational learning is manifested in a community colle ge setting. The research questions were How do members of a college community construct organi zational learning? Sub-questions 1. How do members of a college community de scribe facilitators of organizational learning? 2. How do members of a college community de scribe inhibitors of organizational learning? The purpose of this chapter is to describe how this study was conducted. The chapter begins with a discussion on qualita tive research, the theoretical perspective for the study and the methodology, followed by a discussion of the partic ipants and setting. The chapter concludes with a description of the data collection, data analysis and an examination of issues surrounding validity, and researcher subjectivity. Qualitative Research Qualitative research design is typically utilized when littl e is known about a problem or when a detailed understanding of a central pheno menon is required (Creswell, 2005). Denzin and Lincoln (2005) offer the following definition, Qualitative research is a situated activity that locates the observer in the world. It consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that makes the world visible. These practices transform the world. They turn the world into a series of representa tions, including field notes, interviews, conversations, photogra phs, recordings, and memos to self. qualitative research involves an interpretativ e, naturalistic approach to the world. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them (p. 3) Qualitative research is broadly characterized by (a) an investigation in natural settings rather than those that are contri ved; (b) a focus on participants pe rspectives; (c) the researcher as

PAGE 42

42 the data gathering instrumen t; (d) extended firsthand engage ment; (e) an emphasis on the centrality of meaning; (f) sensitivity to wholenes s and complexity; (g) subjectivity; (h) emergent design; (i) inductive data analysis ; and (j) reflexivity (Hatch, 2002). As the research instrument, the researcher engages w ith other participants to render th e results of the study (Glesne, 1999). This approach is appropriate because it may illustrate the contribution of organizational learning to the community college setting. Theoretical Perspective The questions in this study were addressed from the social constructionist perspective, that is epistemologically rooted in constructionism. Th is perspective holds that the world is socially constructed, complex, and ever-changing (Glesn e, 1999). Berger and Luckman (1966) point out that conversation plays a central role in the determining, maintaining and changing of reality. Language is the primary mechanism through which reality is constructed socially during human activities (Berger and Luckman, 1966) Researchers in this paradigm join with participants in constructing a view of the world around them. Th is assumption of joint pursuit of understanding brings with it certain implic ations. Gergen (2002) states, T he terms and forms by which we achieve understanding of the world and ourselves ar e socially derived prod ucts of historically and culturally situated interchanges among people (p. 7). Each participant in the research activity br ings with them experi ences and understandings that will clash at the point of contact to produce new meaning. The meaning does not simply reside within the interviewee, it is construc ted at the time of the interaction (Holstein & Gubrium, 2003). Gergens statement also draws attention to the socializing nature of human interaction within a given c ontext. The context provides a boundary for shared, socially constructed meanings. The individua ls identity in the context is constructed and re-constructed in relation to others (Gergen, 2002).

PAGE 43

43 The complexity of meaning-making in the so cial construction interview situation is magnified when considering that participants in an interview may speak from different subjectivities and voices during th e course of one conversation, and that their view of the interviewer during the encounter may also change and impact what is produced (Holstein & Gubrium, 2003). For example, during an intervie w, an individual may shift from speaking as a loyal employee to a prospective pensioner concerned about the fu ture. These positions taken at varying points in the conversation may impact the perspective of the interviewee and the meaning produced. To engage in producing meaning, the research er spends extended time in the environment or in contact with the study participants (G lesne, 1999). The research er collaborates with research participants in constructing the subjec tive reality being examined; that relationship is central to the research pro cess (Hatch, 2002; Ponterotto, 2005 ). From this perspective, researchers may engage a limited number of partic ipants for an extended period of time in the search of multiple meanings. The extended exposure to research participants results in the values and lived experiences of the re searcher having a great impact on the co-construction of meaning. These values should be acknowledged and descri bed, as constructivists view attempts to eliminate researcher values entirely as futile (P onterotto, 2005). There is no search for a single generalizable truth but the ri gor of the study is measured more by adherence to methodology and thick descripti on (Ponterotto, 2005). Research Design Narrative compilation through interviews and thei r subsequent analysis formed the core of this research study. Narrative rese arch designs feature the collecti on of stories about the lives of individuals, the production of narra tives that chronicle their expe riences and an exploration of

PAGE 44

44 the meaning of those experiences (Creswell, 200 5). Freeman (2004) contends that narratives pervade life, and human life is itself, narratively structured (Freeman, 2004). He states: Human action consists of events that are, essentially, episo des in the making that is, events that will become episodes, retroactively, by virtue of their interrelationship with other events, both antecedent and subsequent, as well as with those endings that will ultimately serve to transfigure them into the stuff of narrative. In a distinct sense, one often does not know what is happening until the mome nt is past, until it can be located within some broader constellation of events, read fo r its significance in some larger whole (p. 64). Labov and Waletzkey (1967) posit that narrat ives are essentially stories with a chronological aspect that possess a particular basic structure. Th e structure, according to them, includes an orientation clause, complicating action, evaluation, reso lution, and coda and each has its specific function in the na rrative. Chandler, Lalonde, & Te ucher (2004) on the other hand, report many conceptions of narratives that do not in clude such structures. Analytic insight from narratives can be gained not only from what is said but more so, how it is structured by the teller. The temporal order of events determines the plot and in turn the power of the narrative, even more than its truth or falsity (Czarniawska, 1997) Riessman (1993) surmised that most scholars treat narratives as discrete units, with clea r beginnings and endings, as detachable from the surrounding discourse rather than as situated events (p. 17). A pilot study was conducted which aided research design choices and the devel opment of interview questions (Appendix G). The analysis of the narratives also included studying how participants position themselves when relating about their activitie s in the organization. Bamberg ( 2004) describes an analysis of positioning where individuals are seen as not merely choosing positions based on available discourses or master narratives but as being involved in th e construction of positions during conversation. He suggests three levels of Pos itioning Analysis. At Positioning Analysis Level I the design of characters in the story are exam ined to determine the identity claims or positioning of the teller. Level II is concerned with the interactional means for building the story.

PAGE 45

45 At Level III a view is sought of how speakers and a udiences establish par ticular notions of selves. Participants in talk take positions in relation to the discourses in which they are positioned. The community college environment e xhibits multiple cultures (Levin, 1997) and how individuals position themselves ma y lead to their act ion or inaction. Narrative design was chosen for this study, because, through the interview process, accounts were elicited about how lear ning takes place in the organization I anticipated that in obtaining information about communication fl ow, experimentation norms and quality of interactions in the organizati on, and stories about the generati on of solutions to problems and challenges, the narratives necessary for analys is would be produced. According to Czarniawska (1998) some of the ways that narratives enter organizational studies is through organizational research that is written as stories from the field, collections of or ganizational stories, and research that views organizati onal life as story making. Population and Setting The setting for this study was a community co llege in the southeastern United States. The assertion that all organizations learn (Dibella & Nevis, 1998) suggests that any community college could be selected for this study. Learni ng capacity, however, differs among organizations (Senge, et al., 1999) and hence it was beneficial to study a comm unity college that has moved along that path, or at least expre ssed interest in developing that cap acity. From this perspective, I pursued an extreme case sample as opposed to a typical sample, from among sampling strategies outlined by Creswell (2005). Information from the schools website, such as mission and values statements and strategic plans, statements by th e President and the reputation of the institution were used to gauge their level of commitment to organizational learning. In selecting the site, I utilized resources such as recommendati ons from experts in the field as well as publications that hi ghlight efforts of community co lleges at improvement. Advice was

PAGE 46

46 sought from Dr. Dale Campbell, UF Professor and convener of the annual Community College Futures Assembly and Dr. Larry Tyree, former Director of the National Alliance for Community and Technical Colleges. I also contacted Dr. Ge rardo de los Santos, President and CEO of the League for Innovation in Community Colleges for his recommendations of institutions. I perused the Learning Abstracts, a public ation of the League for Innovati on in Community Colleges, that describes notable initiatives unde rtaken by community colleges and other similar publications. Participants Given the aim of exploring or ganizational learning in a community college setting, I employed purposeful sampling to identify six pa rticipants for this study. Multiple interviews were conducted with each individual to produce the meaning possible with prolonged contact. A pool of candidates was sought with the aid of offi cers of the institution. In some cases I asked for referral from individuals who were initially referred to me. In so doing, there was no one at the institution who knew who all of the study particip ants were. This improved the probability of anonymity. In quantitative studies, genera lization is often a goal, whic h leads to a need for random samples. Qualitative researchers typically and pur posely select participants with the potential for giving rich data that would lead to a deep understanding of the phenomena under study (Creswell, 2005). In selecting pa rticipants for this study, I was gui ded by strategies for selecting research sites and participants that have been outlined by Creswell (2005), based in part on recommendations of other methodologists. I em ployed, to some extent, maximum variation sampling. This type of sampling cuts across some range of variation (C reswell, 2005). In this study, this took the form of selecting faculty a nd administrators from the college preparation division, workforce training division and student services. Two par ticipants were selected from each area. In each area one participant had superv isory responsibility and the other did not.

PAGE 47

47 I also sought variation in the sample according to gender and length of service as both of these variables may influence viewpoints. As re cent hires may not have experienced enough to contribute to the study, only employees with at least two years of serv ice were considered. Experience with decision-making and problem so lving at the institution was also considered when selecting participants. There were four women and two men in the study. Both men were among the members of administration in the study. One member of the study was at the College for more than twenty years while another was there for just three. The other four par ticipants ranged between seven and ten years. There were four Anglo-Americans in the study and two from other ethnic groups. Access and Entry Access in qualitative research studies is a process that goes beyond initial consent to conduct the study, to insuring that the desired in dividuals are willing to participate throughout the study and that the required doc umentation or observation points are made available (Glesne, 1999). Gatekeepers, the individuals from whom a researcher obtains consent, must be identified and convinced of the importance and relevance of the study (Glesn e, 1999). In an effort to establish personal contact at the chosen inst itution, I enlisted the support of my committee members who were familiar with community college leaders in the area under consideration. I was able to establish contact with a senior official who referred me to others in the organization. I believe that the support of th at individual was critical in th e level of cooperation shown. In some cases, a chain was formed that led to fu rther referrals. After initial contact, all communications were directly with the part icipants. Having the s upport of a key senior administrative leader and access to someone who c ould act as liaison officer was critical to the selection of the research site. Hatch (2002) concludes that ultima tely the partic ipants are the

PAGE 48

48 gatekeepers because their degree of involveme nt will determine what is produced in the interview. Establishing rapport is another cr itical factor that contributes to sustaining access. The term rapport speaks to the ef fectiveness of field relations (Gle sne, 1999). She describes rapport as a distance-reducing, anxiety-quieting, trust-building mechanism that primarily serves the interest of the researcher (p. 96). In seeking to establis h rapport in the selected research setting I paid close attention to norms and other indicators of culture, and adjusted enough to make the participants comfortable, while tr ying to ensure that I do not s eem less than authentic. Following suggestions from Glesne (1999), I was mindful of the difference between building rapport and establishing friendships. Pseudonyms were utilized to ensure the anonymity of the participants and the research site with the hope that it woul d increased participants willingness to participate fully. Data Collection The primary source of data for this study was the participants accounts of their experiences and their views c oncerning the relevant topics as elicited thro ugh interviews. Relevant organizational documents were collected but given the preeminence of the story as told by participants, they were used primarily for co ntextual purposes and to aid in the development of rapport, building conversation and obtai ning responses to interview questions. Prior to engaging in fieldwork, permission wa s sought and granted from the Universitys Internal Review Board to conduct the study (Appe ndix A). Participants we re read a lay summary prior to beginning the interviews (Appendix B). A checklist was also utilized to ensure that all necessary steps were taken before, during and after the interview (Appendix B). Participants were given the opportunity to read and sign the approved informed consent form (Appendix C).

PAGE 49

49 Interviews were the main source of data for this study. I adopted the approach of Holstein and Gubrium (2003) where the interview is being reconceptualized as an occasion for purposefully animated participants to construct (their emphasis) versions of reality interactionally rather than me rely purveying data (p. 14). Semi-structured interviews were conducted using open-ended questions (Appendix D). Less structure tends to give participants more control during the interview (Riessman, 1993), thus encouraging free and open expression within the scope of the research. Where narratives are sought, giving the participants latitude to tell things based on their experience is critical. While working within the confines of Institutional Review Board requirements for the submission of primary questions, I sought to engage participants in interv iews that approximated conversations. Stage and Mattson (2003) sugge st that, conversations are based on common understanding and are marked by a lack of explicit purpose, avoi dance of repetition, balanced turn taking, use of abbreviation, occurrences of pa uses, expressed interest, and curious ignorance by both parties (p. 99). The ge neral approach advocated by the aforementioned authors was followed and I think it enhanced the co-construction of the data. Other strategies that Stage and Mattson suggest are (a) pause to re flect and prepare, (b) pay atten tion to context and (c) balance turn taking through reciprocal part icipation, and they were integrat ed in the interviews of this study. These were followed to a degree (see Limitations). In this study, multiple rounds of interviews we re conducted with each participant. I moved along a path from grand-tour or contextual questi ons to more detail-oriented mini-tour questions (Spradley, 1979). Multiple interviews with preliminary analysis in between allowed me to offer participants the opportunity to reflect on themes emerging from earlier interviews during later interviews. The invitation to interviewees to refl ect on what is produced is consistent with the

PAGE 50

50 shift in the perception am ong some researchers of interviewees as subjects to interviewees as coparticipants or collaborators (Holstein & Gubrium, 2003). The ex istence of varying backgrounds and experiences of all research participants is important to be aware of given that, interview participants interpre t their experiences through socially cons tructed roles that have been created based on assumed identities within specifi c groups and disciplines (Gubrium & KoroLjungberg, 2005, p. 691). These experiences help dete rmine the borders which must at times be negotiated in the social constructionist inte rview (Gubrium & Koro-Ljungberg, 2005). Multiple interviews may give the researcher en ough opportunity to help participants challenge the concept of the passive interviewee that is cu rrently more typical of interview experiences. The number of interviews was guided by the degr ee to which additional in sight was produced at each round of interviews. Most participants were interviewed three times with the exception of one who was interviewed four times. The final in terview was typically shorter than earlier ones and involved member checking. Six participants were selected for this study. After the first round of interviews, data was roughly transcribed and preliminarily analyzed. Th is analysis served to inform the second round of interviews. A similar process followed s ubsequent interviews. Each interview took approximately one hour. I utilized practical advice from Creswell (2005) while condu cting the interviews, namely, (a) take brief notes during the in terview; (b) obtain permission and audio tape the interview; (c) locate a quiet and suitable place for the interview; (d) have a general plan for the interview while leaving room to be flexible; (e) use probes or follow-up questions to obtain additional information; and (f) be courteous and profession al throughout and particular ly at the end of the

PAGE 51

51 interview. All interv iews were conducted in the offices of the participants and that proved to be a good venue with very little interrup tion and the assurance of privacy. Conducting multiple rounds of interviews aided in the building of rapport, and I believe, the production of more insightful da ta by participants. All interv iews were one-on-one. Creswell (2005) notes that one-on-one interviews are best suited for participants who are articulate and comfortable sharing the desired information. All participants fitted that description, though the level of rapport established varied among indivi duals and this likely impacted how much each participant was were willing to share with me. Data Analysis I used narrative analysis, as outlined by Ri essman (1993), and positioning analysis as outlined by Bamberg (2004), to analyze the data Riessman (1993) describes the three major steps in the narrative research process as telling, transcribing and analyzing. Telling involves the careful attention to data colle ction through interviews as outli ned above. Transcribing involves converting the interviewees words to text but in narrative work, decisions are made at this stage that are largely analytical in nature (Riessman, 1993). These deci sions include determining when a narrative begins and ends and whether the re-t ranscription of the data should be done according to a particular framework. Two possible strategies for data reduction and interpretation are reduction to core narratives and analysis of poetic structures (Riessman, 1993). The core narrative is derived from a longer portion of the text and may be constructed around a framework such as Labov and Waletzkeys (1967), briefly outlined earlier. Care should be taken to analyze the narrative for structure and not simply for content (Riessman, 1993). The steps for analysis in this study were as follows:

PAGE 52

52 1. Produced a rough transcription of the interv iew data. This transcription focused on capturing all the spoken words and other easily notable features of the conversation such as laughter and very long pauses. 2. Conducted inductive data analysis on this data with the primary purpose being to inform the generation of questions for the ensuing r ound of interviews and to begin the search for themes. The data was analyzed to produce open codes. This step was an important opportunity for the researcher to become fam iliar with the data as seen on the written page. The search for themes was also critic al because components of the answer to the research questions began to emerge from the themes. 3. Conducted further rounds of interviews as outlined above, with preliminary analysis taking place after each around and more importa ntly, prior to the succeeding round of interviews. 4. Produced in-depth re-transcription of the portions of the interview data deemed central to the study. In these transcriptions closer attention was paid to pauses, voice inflections, non-verbal sounds and any other interaction be tween the interviewer and the participants in order to gain the greatest representati on of meaning. At this stage the data was organized into stanzas using phrases and pauses to determine the length of the line (Gee, 1999). Stanzas were labeled according to their topic or theme (Appendix E). This proved to be a very useful analytical step. 5. Reviewed the interview talk with particular attention to narratives. 6. Checked data for suitability of Labovs or other framework and applied where possible (Appendix F). Labov and Waletzkey (1967) sugge st that all narratives comprise an abstract, orientation, complicating action, ev aluation and resolution and that there is much meaning to be found in the way the narra tive is structured. In this study, particular attention was paid to evaluative statements In some cases, statements that seemed evaluative in nature were identified even when other components of the narrative were not easily determined. 7. Searched for interpretive insights in the stru cture of the narrative s. At this stage, positional analysis was utilized to determin e how individuals place themselves within existing discourses in the instit ution, and how existing discours es shaped the talk of the individuals (Bamberg, 2004). The result of the positional analysis was examined to see how it relates to how people act or fail to act in situations that could produce organizational learning. 8. Searched for themes within and across narratives. This step brought focus to how individuals view themselves and their own situation and how those views relate to organizational learning in the institution. It also identified the recurrence of themes among the views of individuals sharing different perspectiv es across the campus.

PAGE 53

53 9. Produced the narrative report. The report wa s structures along thematic lines and included counter-narratives to th e most frequently articulated views. In representing the findings care was taken to ensure that the context in which the meaning was produced was conveyed in order to allow the reader great insight as to why th e particular talk was produced. Validity and Reliability Rigor is required to ensure the worth and ut ility of research (Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson & Spiers, 2002). The judgment of the validity of a research project lies ultimately with the audience; hence, researchers must follow the guid elines of the traditi ons of the particular perspective and paradigm and document the pro cess in order to gain the confidence of the audience. In seeking a distinction between more objectively obtained data, some qualitative researchers tend to speak of the trustworthiness of the data when the issu e of validity is raised (Glesne, 1999). With reference to Lincoln a nd Gubas work, Creswell (2005) suggests that prolonged engagement at the rese arch site, alertness to resear cher biases, member checking, external audit, and identifying and reporting limitations enhance th e trustworthiness of the data and the validity of the research product. Morse et al. (2002) warn that many strategies for insuring validity, such as member checking and ex ternal audit, end up as post-hoc evaluation whether by design or by practice. This post-hoc evaluation, they argue, us ually is too late to affect the study. They advocate strategies that focus on research design and adjustments during the research process. They suggest that the investigator needs to be responsive to the effects of choices in the research process a nd their interactio n with the actual research situation. They state: Lack of responsiveness of the investigator may be due to lack of knowledge, overly adhering to instructions rather that listening to data, the inability to ab stract, synthesize or move beyond the technicalities of data coding, working deductively (implicitly or explicitly) from previously held assumptions or a theoretical framework, or following instructions in a rote fashi on rather than using them stra tegically in decision making. (p. 12) Morse et al. (2002) advocates methodological co herence suitability of components of the method to the research questions, appropriate sampling, and collecti ng and analyzing data

PAGE 54

54 concurrently among strategies to improve validi ty. In reviewing, the c ontributions of other authors on validity, Morrow (2005) pointed to fairne ss or solicitation of multiple constructions as well as various levels of authenticity as n eeded for validity of researched based in constructivism. Continuing advice to constructivists she suggests that va lidity should also be assessed by the extent to which participant m eanings are understood and the level of mutual construction of meaning between researcher and participants. Particular attention was paid to member ch ecking given its significance as a means to validity in social constructionist studies. Par ticipants were given the opportunity to check interview data for accuracy and to comment on the emerging themes that I identified from the interviews. Participants were also offered the opportunity to be i nvolved in further data analysis steps such as coding and theme identification but while some were enthusia stic at the prospect, their schedules did not allow. Feedback at member checki ng indicated a high degree of satisfaction with accuracy and identification of themes. In this study, I brought an awareness of the issues outlined above and employed the following strategies to ensure validity. 1. Ensured prolonged engagement with participants through multiple interviews with key informants. 2. Conducted a peer and supervisor review of methods, procedures, and findings throughout the study. 3. Conducted member checking to determine th e accuracy of initial transcripts and participants views on how they have been represented in later summaries 4. Triangulated data through the use of multiple interviews with ea ch participant and through multiple perspectives that co ntributed to the collective story. 5. Provided rich, thick description. 6. Maintained methodological coherence.

PAGE 55

55 7. Ensured appropriate sampling. 8. Collected and analyzed data concurrently. 9. Provided a clear statement re garding researcher bias. 10. Adhered to methodological standards. Subjectivity In qualitative research, the researcher is often the rese arch instrument (Burck, 2005). The researcher conducts interviews, makes observati ons, and reviews documentation in pursuit of answers to the research questions. Disclosure of information about the researcher, assists the audience in understanding decisions taken whil e conducting the research and aids them in determining the confidence they will have in the findings. My competence to conduct this study was based largely on in-depth study of the methodology and experience as a researcher in gra duate research methods courses and extensive reading of relevant literature I had experience in interviewing, which is the primary data collection method for the study. I conducted a pi lot study for the dissertation, which yielded lessons that guided th is study (Appendix G). A constant awareness of the role of subjectiv ity in this research approach was vital. Subjectivity, once viewed only as an element to be eliminated or reduced in research, is now seen as holding some benefits (Glesne, 1999) It makes you aware of who you are as a researcher your needs, interests, beliefs, attitudes, and values. This awareness also allows the researcher to monitor ways that their own subj ectivity may distort the research. Glesne (1999) indicates that being attuned to your emotions helps in knowing when your subjectivities are engaged. This realization presents an opportunity to look into your assumptions as opposed to trying to suppress your feelings.

PAGE 56

56 My approach to research is constructivist. I believe that meaning is situated and that the varied experiences of individua ls result in them deriving different meaning from the same phenomena. I think that is partic ularly true in the study of or ganizational behavior. There are some activities in organizations that are widely accepted as described in particular ways, and as having particular features, but even in those cases, the ab ility of the individual to derive meaning is critical. In investig ating organizational behavior I am not motivated by a search for truth. However, I am interested in understanding the underlying assumptions that drive individual behaviors which may be, and often is, different fr om the values that individuals espouse. In the research process, I took care to analyze the meaning that is produced in the data collecting situation and not what I think that participants really mean. Given the issue of hard-to-surface assumptions and values, I believe that investigati on into organizational behavior must always be prolonged, whether through intervie ws, observations or some combination of both, in order to help the participants describe the deepest meanings possible. My training in leadership and management ro les both helped and hindered my capacity to investigate educational organizations such as community colleges. Th rough my training and experience, I have become aware of some of the issues facing organizations, which has guided me to this investigation. On the other hand, my experience may have caused me to hold certain assumptions, of which I might not have been awar e. Preparation for leadership is largely about finding what works and preparing to practice it. For me, what works includes tendencies towards servant leadersh ip, participatory leader ship style, a focus on continuous improvement and the practice of reflection on the individual, group and organiza tional levels. I hope that my awareness of these views helped me to bracket them.

PAGE 57

57 I selected this topic for investigation because of my long-held interest in organizational performance, with particular focus on commun ity colleges. I have worked for 12 years in a community college in my native Caribbean coun try and have held mid and upper level faculty and administrative positions. I am keenly interested in leadersh ip and organizational culture. I have held leadership positions as a student, in the community and in the workplace. Additionally, I have read extensively in this area. My tende ncy towards being active in organizations probably results from being raised in a Christian househol d and being taught to make a difference in any situation to which my life may lead. These experi ences have left me with certain views about what is good for organizations, what effec tive leadership is, th e need for continuous improvement, and the importance of treating ever yone with respect and di gnity. I took care to ensure that my views did attract me toward a partic ular type of participant or cause me to listen for a particular viewpoint in the interview proces s. Informants who can assist in answering the research questions were sought regardless of my initial impression of th eir points of view. In short, I tried to listen to what was shared rath er than super-impose my own values. I utilized memos to help bracket my views. The use of me mos-to-self assists the researcher in reflecting and examining his/her own feelings (G lesne, 1999; Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

PAGE 58

58 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The purpose of this study was to describe organizational learning processes at a community college and what factors influenced it as perceived by selected members of the college community. Participants were interviewed and the data analyzed using narrative analysis, resulting in the identification of themes. Lakesi de Community College was chosen for this study partially because of its reputation for innovativene ss, an indicator of a high capacity for learning. Many of the findings supported the reputation. Th e findings showed that the stimulus for organizational learning was strong and that it was influenced by in ternal and external factors. The generation of knowledge that led to their or ganizational learning was an active process at Lakeside that also drew on ex ternal and internal sources. There were ample mechanisms promoting the spread of information and desired practices in the organizat ion. Other factors such as leadership and the availability of high-quality faculty positively influenced organizational learning. The findings of the study presented in this chapter are a form of a narrative report, a collective narrative of th e participants that highlights the th emes. Where counter narratives were produced, they are also presented in the relativ e segments of the findings. At the end of the chapter, a summary of the findings in light of the speci fic research question and sub-questions is presented. Stimuli for Learning Results of the study indicated that there were numerous stimuli for learning at Lakeside Community College. Identifying the particular stimuli was necessary to understand why Lakeside Community College was driven to learning and organizational improvement. The mission of the college was mentioned most ofte n as a stimulus and it seemed to have an

PAGE 59

59 overarching impact. Meeting students needs is cl osely associated with mission but is discussed under a separate heading because of its prominen ce within participants comments. Other stimuli included maintaining reputation, encouragement from senior administration and external stimuli. A discussion of these stimuli follows. Mission The study participants indicated that Lakesi de Community College was driven towards learning, improvement and innovation. One of th e primary stimuli is the mission. Lakesides mission is Adding value to the lives of our students and enriching our community. Participants comments suggested a strong belie f that the mission is the right one for the institution. Of the mission, Sarah sa id, Id say that this is our core, thats our centerpiece and everything stems, comes from that. The institutions mission seemed to be at th e forefront of individuals minds as they conducted their everyday affairs, rather than some document that was tucked away in the recesses of the minds of the members of the organization. According to participants, they frequently referred to the mission when seeking guidance in decision making. Sarah stressed the centrality of the mission in this way: I think at the moment people l ook at it in the context of the college mission and they say, Ok, lets start with that. Let s put aside everything personal a nd look at it. Is it meeting student needs? Bottom line, th ats the question. Then its eas ier for people to look at things objectively. Rather than, Do we want it? Is it good for us? Is it good for the students? And I think that questio n tends to give a lot of clarit y to a lot of things that are done. The data showed that there seemed to be a high degree of congruence between institutional goals and values, and personal goals and values of the participants. Some of the goals and values identified were not necessarily associated with th is institution alone but with what was seen as the more broad and generic mission of community co lleges. Values such as taking students from

PAGE 60

60 where they are and commitment to access are typi cally associated with community colleges and participants indicated their presence at Lakesi de. The nexus between institutional goals and the personal goals and values of Lakeside team memb ers seems to lead to a zealous pursuit of the colleges mission and a drive to learn in order to help achieve that end. Frank commented: so I had this opportunity to st art working in the community co llege system and thats when I began to learn about it. Became pretty much immediately enamored with the concept of the second chance idea, the open door policy, all those things were very attractive to me. Seemed to fit well with my way of thinking. The match between institutional and personal va lues seemed to influence Franks overall assessment of the workplace. He continued, Lakeside is a pretty nice pl ace to work. You feel as though youre part of something good. Youre not just working for somebody. As I sa id, I feel like Im working for the good of the institution, Im part of this. Most participants commented that the community college students themselves, as opposed to students in other parts of the college system, proved to be a powerful dr iver of the facultys and staffs desire to innovate and learn. They described the co mmunity college students as more mature, purpose-driven, responsible and bringing mo re to the classroom settings by virtue of their lives experiences. While r ecalling the beginning of their work at a community college, several participants expressed that they were su rprised at the breadth of the institutions mission, the rich mix of students and the degree to whic h they felt they were making a difference in the lives of individuals. Jane liked the students and said that the the students were there because theyd chosen to be there and that they we re interested in what they were doing. Yvonne expressed a similar affinity for community colleg e students especially when considered relative to other students with whom she had experience. She said: and comparing the two I actually liked teaching at the community college better. So I kind of focused on it. I liked the mix of students, the different ages, the di fferent goals. I really enjoyed them better than the strict 18-year ol d college freshman when theyre in a major university.

PAGE 61

61 Sarahs drive towards working to achieve the institutions mission came out of a sense of obligation. Lakeside College community members viewed their mission to improve lives as extending to the entire community not simply those who came to the campus for courses. Sarah took the view that individuals such as herself w ho have benefited from education are obligated to help others. She said: Because we are the more fortunate. We are in a position to, to be (excellent?). Were in a position to and its our responsibil ity as individuals and as pr ofessionals in the community, in the college community to addres s that population, their needs too. Meeting Student Needs Participants also reported that meeting student needs was a driving force in the organization. They viewed learning as an effort s to meet students needs. Many of the campus activities were focused on identifying stude nt needs and determining the changes in organizational practices needed to meet those ne eds. Participants discussed a recent Title III grant and ongoing measurement initiatives as st imuli for organizational learning. Sarah said surveys and research work that we have here within the College suggest that some changes need to be brought about. Mike described severa l initiatives in Student Services over recent years, such as the introduction of legal services a nd evening services that were a result of efforts to meet identified student needs. Mike describe d the Colleges effort to meet student needs. because in this setting we really do take st udents and people where they are and help them get to where they want to be. We accomm odate their needs, whether its scheduling, whether its, whether they go full-time or pa rttime, were more responsive to their learning styles than perhaps the SUS system and four year schools are. This sentiment is clearly supported by Lornas ex pression of the sentiment that, Well, I think most things that we do he re are guided by a real de sire to serve people.

PAGE 62

62 Reputation Another stimulus for learning that participants articulated was the desire to maintain the institutions reputation for innova tiveness. There appears to be a common discourse on campus focused on Lakesides reputation as an innovative institution. At th e center of the di scourse is the Lakesides involvement as a founding member of the League for Innovations in Community Colleges. They have been recognized numerous times for innovative practices. Participants reported a strong desire of the in stitution to maintain that reputa tion. Mike said, Were one of 19 community colleges that are part of the L eague for Innovation. Were very proud of that and the fact that were proud of how that affects the culture here . Illuminating the consistency of views on this topic at Lakeside, Yvonne reported, We have a reputation and we are one of the great innovators in the League we kind of have a reputation to maintain, so that drives some of it. When asked about the stimuli for learning and innovation at Lakeside, Lorna identified reputation as one stimulus, though she thought ther e were others that were nobler. She said: I also think that theres pres tige associated with being pa rt of the League of Innovation. And I think theres sort of br agging rights, Look at our f aculty who are doing this, this, this and this. So I think that those things drive it and those are less than Those arent the best reasons of course. In addition to the national re putation, most participants de scribed Lakeside as keen on maintaining its reputation as one of the leading state community colleges. The prospect of reporting evidence of this leadership at stat e conferences and publica tions drove community college members to create initiatives that were worth telling about. Yvonne spoke to the prevailing organizational attitude when she said, and were real proud of being like one of the first in the state to do someth ing. So I think that does probabl y drive some of our innovation. Jane and Sarah demonstrated this attitude in separate comments. Sarah bragged about the range

PAGE 63

63 and quality of services offered to students when she said, because the kinds of things we do at the community college level, you wont find th em (everywhere) one, max two (community colleges) in the entire state. In her partic ular area of instructio n, Jane pointed out: We really are way ahead of a lot of the othe r community colleges in the state as far as making sure that we are turning out students that are ready to meet the global marketplace as opposed to just their own areas of residence. Senior Administrations Encouragement Participants also indicated that senior admi nistrators were integr al in stimulating and facilitating organizational learning. Through interac tion with participants it became evident that there was a discourse at Lakesi de surrounding innovation. This discou rse was driven in large part by senior administrators. In a ddition to supporting conference attendance, providing forums for the discussion of new ideas, and adapting the orga nizational structure to facilitate learning, the leadership of the college articulated the valu e of learning and innovati on at Lakeside. Yvonne viewed the administrations attitude to improve and innovate as really positive. She said, They are always looking for ways to improve a nd innovate. Jane explained that some of their drive for innovation came out of necessity because of resources. She commented, As our numbers (students) have grown and our facilities arent growing, weve been asked to come up with new and innovative ways of handling more students with the same amount of time. The overall attitude toward innova tion at Lakeside seemed to be rooted in the institutions history and culture but this was al so a priority of the current lead ership. Mike stated that the culture of the in stitution even when the doors opened in the 1960s was one of innovation and creativity. Much of the current enthusiasm fo r innovation was attributed to the President who made it a priority and his willingness to use resour ces to support it. Speaking of this input Mike said, The current president, of course is also very focused on change and improvement so and that top down works its way through the institution. The Presidents establishment of a senior

PAGE 64

64 office charged with leading innova tion at the institution soon af ter his arrival, signaled to members of the college community the important role that innovation wo uld play during his tenure. Jane described the energy towards improvement and innovation in this way, I thinks its a blend, that weve got a President who is interest ed in that and weve got faculty and staff that share that interest and so that comes together to be a driving force. External Stimuli The results pointed to the presence of some external stimuli driving the institutions focus. In some instances, the college purposely looked outside and for others it was required to do so. Participants shared that Lakeside was c onstantly scanning the environment for new ideas that could further the institutions mission, or for information that could guide an idea in the early stages of development. Information about wh at other schools were doing also served as a catalyst for learning at the inst itution and as a source for new initiatives. Some participants voiced the administration in general, and the President and Vice-President for Academic Affairs in particular, as encouraging them to become awar e of new trends and practices in other colleges. Lakeside was also constrained to make changes to the practices, procedures and routines of the organization because of the requirements of outs ide agencies. In some cases, state and federal agencies as well as institution and program accr editing bodies determined changes that should be made within the organization. Lorna stated: My previous experience showed me th at many things that go on here, I know are driven by outside agency requirements and for us to be able to get accreditation or funding and I think that thats part of the drive for innovation. Knowledge Sources The initiatives which result in practice-based or ganizational changes, th at is, organizational learning, begin with some source. Given the high drive for learning in the organization,

PAGE 65

65 participants identified several sources for new id eas and initiatives. These sources were external and internal. The search for knowledge sources a nd solutions stems from the desire to improve. Frank captured the sentiment in this way: Theres this atmosphere, as I said, has existed from the colleges inception that its good to look around. You got to be open to the possibi lities just because, and Im, I guess I should back up a little and say that it s not that everyone is, were not just looking to change all the time. And there is sometimes the attitude that if aint broke dont fix it. Things are going well, reasonably well. But, as I said, there has been this atmosphere that even when things are going well, they can go better be cause we havent arrived yet. External Sources Several external knowledge sources were ci ted. Conferences were most frequent. The participants identified information from formal conference presentations as well as networking opportunities at such meetings as useful knowle dge sources. Faculty pr esentations during the faculty-search processes were also cited as a su pply of new ideas. Individuals who engaged in something of interest to the college were re gularly brought in to sh are their experience and insight. These presentations were a source of new practices. The presentations were made in varying forums such as, faculty colloquiums and Coordinating Counc il meeting. Additionally, proceedings from events hosted by the League fo r Innovation were also us eful for initiating new practices. Sarah talked about the practice of looking outside at Lakeside and said: We have a lot of people who are visionaries, who go outside and look at what they see and if they find a model that seems to be worki ng there theyll bring it in, and say, There is something that worked. Why dont we try it out? Jane spoke of the continuous encouragement to look around by one of the senior administrators. when our vice president has a project that she wants us to be working on like the weekend college program that were getting ready to bring up. She has all of us on the phone calling, looking at websites and finding people, other groups that look like us and then getting them on the phone and asking questi ons about what worke d, what didnt work. What kinds of results theyre having, if they could do it all over again, what would they do differently.

PAGE 66

66 Lakeside Community College members also expo sed themselves to the relevant literature concerning their field. The academic vice-president sent a weekly e-mail message to faculty and this frequently included links to articles that had implications for pract ice at Lakeside. Lorna summed up the general attitude to sourcing new in formation at Lakeside Community College in this way: It seems as though its just a network of wherever anybody gets any information or finds out how other people are doing things or comes up with an idea thats a little bit different and then pursues it, that seems to me how mainly that happens here. Internal Sources Of equal importance to organizational learni ng at Lakeside Commun ity College was the knowledge generated internally. Forums for disc ussion at Lakeside generated ideas as the campus community grappled with issues of c oncern. Brain-storming sessions were common in these forums, as solution to problems were sought or as the institution sought to take advantage of opportunities. The ideas generated in such se ttings were enhanced by the cross-functional nature of some forums. Additi onally, the practice of promoti ng and transferring individual to different functional areas resulted in the availability of many i ndividuals in the organization who had wide experience in many aspects of the opera tion. The wide experience of such individuals in the organization enriched discussions. They could easily see how func tions inter-related and better predict what solu tions were viable. Lakesides culture allowed for, and encouraged the generation of ideas from a variety of internal sources. Mike attributed a number of initiatives in his area to contributions from throughout the organization. He said, a lot of the st uff weve added here has percolated straight up either from the student body or staff member s or other staff members at the institution. Theyve grown out of the environment here.

PAGE 67

67 Lakeside also gathered information in a system atic fashion that led to changes in practices at the institution. Participants re ferred to surveying students extens ively as part of a Title III project that in some cases yielded results that were not expected. Administrato rs used that data to make changes to relevant policies. Faculty survey s were also a significant source of feedback on services provided by the institution. Faculty and staff in various departments rated the performance of other departments and this inform ation was used to guide improvement efforts. Lorna reported: There are surveys that go out, evaluations that go out that people are asked to complete that assess how different units, differe nt areas are serving the campus and so they look for each individual to assess the institution as a whole. Participants mentioned several means of gath ering feedback about various aspects of the operation. Lorna mentioned unit assessment surveys, student assessment of the institution, and faculty assessment of College serv ices as sources of information that led to the development of new practices at Lakeside. She also described the significance of information provided by the academic information technology unit as well as in formation generated through trial-and-error in the classroom. Participants also emphasized the importance of evidence related to performance. Mike reported that in addition to measures related to student and teacher performance, there were reports that evaluated events a nd projects, and student organizations and their advisors. Even the athletics teams were measured by their wins an d losses in addition to the academic performance of the student athletes. Frank captured the institutionalized nature of the information gathering in the following statement and gave an example of how it impacted one aspect of his work. I think weve always had the attitude but I think now were doing something about it. Whats that called? I think the term they use is culture of evidence. We do have a system in place. Institutionally we have an area of institutional research. That has probably existed

PAGE 68

68 within the college but getting access to it has not always been very easy. We have Crystal Reports now, which is a, I guess I call it software, a mechanism to capture, to take all this data and create reports and make it available to the pe ople who need to see it so that we can determine those sorts of things, what is being effective, what you know, what has been effective or how effective have the things weve been doing been as well as, since we already have this culture of trying to do things better, becau se we know, we dont have all of our students being successful Sometimes y ou dont even realize, I mean a little thing that occurred or that I became aware of the ot her day was the retenti on rate in one of the classes or courses that we teach, which typi cally I would not have thought would have had that high of a dropout rate, then suddenly real izing that it is and then looking for reasons and then hopefully now trying to resolve that issue. But again, the system Crystal Reports enables us to be able to do that sort of thing. The President and senior administration encour aged the giving of feedback throughout the institution. Participants reported that cam pus forums typically allowed for two-way communication. They also spoke about the Presid ents invitation for ques tions and comments at faculty convocations at the beginning of th e year when hundreds of faculty members were present, as an example of the Presidents commitment to the open forum. Jane commented: There are not many things we do, in fact I cant think of anything that Iv e been to that is a one-way information being given. Even our Pr esident when he pulls everybody together like at the beginning of the year when he fi nds out what the budget is going to look like, even then he does open forum. To where he presents the information but open forum allows anybody to ask him any question righ t then and there. And sometimes youd be very surprised at the questions faculty will ask a president in an open forum. Sometimes they put him really on the spot and hold his feet to the fire. But no, two way communication is definitely something that takes place. Other administrators followed the Presid ents lead and sought feedback at every opportunity. One participant, however, questioned the genuineness of the requests for feedback. She felt that although feedback was requested, the administration real ly wanted to hear a certain type of feedback that reinforced what they we re doing. Of the entire process she said, I dont have a sense that theres any kind of institutio nal follow-up, of gathering of assessments. Even though I know, we do post-assessments. We do a ssessments post-projects. I dont have a sense that much happens with that.

PAGE 69

69 The President also encouraged the giving of feedback and raising issues in less formal settings. He personally solicited feedback from students in the form of periodic coffee chats. These events were designed to allow students dir ect contact with the President in a very casual setting. While all participants reporte d that there were ample oppor tunities to give input on campus, the two faculty members in the study questio ned the usefulness of the exercise at times. They had concerns about what happens with their i nput and that of others similar to them after it is made. Interestingly, they voiced their concer n at two different levels. Lorna felt confident about the impact of comments or feedback ma de at the departmental level while she was skeptical about input made at the college leve l. Conversely, Yvonne had little confidence that input made at the departmental level would be acted upon but felt that college-wide mechanism offered much more hope in that regard. Describi ng her frustrations a bout making input at the departmental level Yvonne said: And Ill still give my opinion but I also have no, no delusions that anything is going to come from it. Because things that Ive said have always been ignored in the past and I think everybody notices the same thing. Continuing to speak of the department she sa id, In our little area, I think nobody is very comfortable criticizing. Do a lo t of talking among ourselves but I really dont th ink that anybody is Well ask some questions but never push it. She contrasted her department with the Senate where she said the people are incredibly comfor table making input to co nversations related to the work and operation of the in stitution. She added, The y critique, they question, they put the President on the spot, they put anybody on the spot. Lorna expressed doubt about the genuine desi re for input in decision-making and policyshaping or whether it was primarily a cosmetic exercise. She commented, (when) the initiative

PAGE 70

70 is going forward, they view the feedback not as so mething that is going to shape the project but just as a release valve to, Yes, well listen to you but then nothings going to change. Learning Processes Numerous processes on campus that promot ed learning were reported. Many of the standard discussion forums on campus were re ported as sessions wh ere learning took place. Some participants found off-campus retreats to be very useful learning sites as opportunities for reflection were provided at these sessions. Th ey also cited the grea ter tendency for open conversations in those settings and how they c ontributed towards learning. Sarah conveyed her experience at a departmental retr eat as very gratifying and spoke of the challengi ng yet fruitful conversations that took place. She commented: or even in the context of certa in professional discussions that can come out and if theyre at point where, unless you address it nothings going to move. If its bringing about certain emotions that have to be addressed it is bett er to address it and Im glad that we all did. I know even though there were times when it got, it was hot, but just trying to stay through it and follow up with some of the things that we learned from it, I think brought about a different energy and makes us more producti ve, it makes us stronger as a team. Jane also felt that the types of in-depth di scussion needed for learning were taking place within the organization. When aske d she said, I say today that th ey dig deep into problem areas. We get into some real discussions, especially wh en we get away and we do the retreat types of activities. Sarah provided an example of the learni ng conversational skills evident among some members of the organization. In this example she demonstrated the skill of balancing advocacy and inquiry and in particular th e willingness to invite others to inquire about her feelings. She commented: and expressed it more in terms of, I felt this way. These are the responses that came up and I wondered why it was coming up and I wanted to express it to you but I also want to understand and these are some ways that I feel that that could be dealt with. And so we were able to have an hon est discussion about it.

PAGE 71

71 Most participants felt that individuals on cam pus were able to have the conversations needed to enhance organizational learning. They re ported an appropriate leve l of skill in raising difficult issues and engaging in di scussions on them. Mike described one such strategy as well as the alternative. So I think if it is couched as an idea or as a suggestion its going to go. You know somebody who is agitated in their complain t about something is going to make somebody defensive and then people end up justifying themse lves rather than listening to suggestions. Mike also spoke about the individual skill level needed in communication even in a supportive culture. He commented, Even though I think the campus environment and climate can favorably influence that to some degree. Ju st because youre in the culture doesnt mean you have the skill set to communicate eff ectively and non-confrontationally. An integral part of the or ganizational learning process at Lakeside Community College was the use of pilots to try out new practices. A pilot typically involves a s caled-down version of an initiative where fewer resources are committe d. The pilot itself has minimal organizational impact, which is particularly important if it fails. Pilots involved the utili zation of some resources and it offered a more accurate prediction of the su ccess of an initiative than projections based on gut feeling or the experiences of others. Du ring and after the pilot phase of an initiative attention was paid to feedback and results and that determined whether the initiative would continue at a greater scale. Jane made this comment about pilots at Lakeside. We just have this process to where we do what we call pilots (Chuckl es). And when we are piloting something we recognize the fact that it may not always work and you would find a lot of pilots. Weve piloted different ways to load faculty, they havent worked. Some of them were extremely expensive. We come back we regroup. So you would find the word pilot used a lot at Lakeside. A nd thats kind of how we denote that something is strictly an experiment and that theres not hing magic about experiments. Collaborative efforts on campus also aided in th e organizational learni ng process. Lakeside utilized cross-functional teams regularly in creating solutions to problems and in guiding the

PAGE 72

72 execution of resulting practices. Varying persp ectives, experiences and skill-sets among the individuals who particip ated in such sessions increased the richness of discussions. Their perspectives helped to foster multiple ideas in which the possible systemic effect of initiatives could be projected. Dissemination of Knowledge/Learning throughout the Organization Lakeside Community College actively promoted the sharing of information and practices throughout the organization. Various forums were utilized to present to faculty members practices that were successful in a particular unit or classroom. Faculty made presentations at best practice sessions about stra tegies that they had tried an d found to be useful. Informal sessions such as brown bag lunc hes were also arranged to a llow faculty to share information and experiences. The Colleges Professional Day ac tivity was also identified as a forum where theres an opportunity to present something like that (innovative practice). Forums such as those just described were also used to disseminate knowledge gained from various sources including conference attendance, classroom experien ce and reading of relevant literature. Jane offered this comment to describe how informa tion is spread at Lake side Community College. We several times a year have sessions to wh ere we share best practices. So peers from throughout the college are sele cted because we know theyre doing something thats different, new and innovative and theyre as ked to share that. We have faculty colloquiums, once a quarter at least, where we share new practices or bring in speakers that are doing something thats innova tive so there is a lot of oppo rtunities for faculty to get excited about something and then there is al ways the support there for when they do get excited. As with the generation of know ledge, collaborations across cam pus also proved critical in spreading knowledge and practices across campus. Collaborative efforts, both interdepartmental and intradepartmental, brought individuals together for specific purposes but often, serendipitously, proved to be an ideal site for the exchange of ideas a nd sharing of practices beyond the initial focus of the session. The formal and the informal interac tion, such as catching

PAGE 73

73 up in those settings provided an opportunity for members of the college community to find out about new practices in various departments. Many examples of departments or units lear ning from each other were presented. Through the course of everyday interacti on individuals in departments lear ned what others were doing and adapted them to their department when they t hought it would be benefici al. Mike provided an account of such learning a nd its reciprocal nature. One, and its not that this is particularly novel, but we purchased, shortl y, five years ago, we purchased software, computers and a large pr inter that can print poster size paper in color. But anyhow, we made that expenditure because we understood that communication on this type of campus is challenging. An 8 1/2 X 11 black and white flyers, even on brightly colored paper is just completely lost in the blizzard on the bulletin boards. So we bought ten A-frames that hold 24 X 36 inch posters. We bought the software and equipment to make our own posters and we employed a graphic design student intern from our graphic design program, so now we have (holds flyer) th is is an 8 1/2 11 example of what we printed last week in 24 X 36. But we can add logos, we do, I mean this is effective but were a lot more complex than even that little example there. But we began doing that and pretty quickly othe r folks including our campus own marketing group said, Wow! Good idea. Where did you ge t this stuff? We told them, you know. What have you liked? Whats been the pr oblems? And then they went and they purchased a piece of equipment that is probably next generation, even better than ours. So theyre able to do that. They in turn starte d putting some feather ba nners on campus, which are these posts that stick in the ground Y ou know and the text usually goes vertically, and you know it might say event today, or wh atever. They began using some of those and we said, Oh, great idea. So we got some in our colors and in our, you know, and that happened. Other Influences on Organizational Learning Thus far, stimuli for organizational lear ning, sources of knowledge and means of knowledge and practice transmittal have been examin ed. The discussion now turns to factors that do not fit in the above mentione d categories but through their pres ence or absence influence the learning capacity of an organization. These fact ors may be categorized as environmental. Tolerance for Failed Initiatives and Experimentation The findings of the study indicate strong s upport for experimentation and a high tolerance for failure at Lakeside Community College. Ad ministrators encouraged faculty to try new

PAGE 74

74 approaches in the classroom. Staff and facu lty were supported in the development of any initiative that might benefit st udents and further the mission of the institution. Furthermore, when new initiatives were launched, whether by offi cial pilot projects or otherwise, there was clear communication that failure was a part of the learning process and was to be tolerated in the process of improving the institution. Yvonne felt that the atmosphere at Lakeside allowed faculty to present new initiatives aimed at improvement even if prior attempts failed. When asked about it she said, No, I think we have a great a ttitude to that. I really do be cause, weve had so many failed ideas and people keep comi ng up with more (laughs) KD (laughs) LR: No, Im serious, I really mean it, now th at I think about it. Its like, well well try this and if it doesnt work well try something else and if it doesnt work well try something else and there is really not much finger pointing like S o and so said this would be the answer to our problems, what an idiot he was. We dont really do that, we just like, we tried and maybe we needed to fix some part of it or maybe just toss it all out or whatever. Sometimes maybe we dont identify quickly en ough that an idea is failing but theres really no, no reason to ever penalize. Mike expressed a similar sentiment when he said: I dont see people having heavy duty regrets about their failed experiments, you dont see people publicly criti cized or rolling their eyes over something that was a failed effort. Lornas view on the attitude towards experime ntation was different than the views of others. She agreed that experime ntation and innovation were encour aged at Lakeside but differed in her view of the end of a failed experime nt. She felt that failed experiments died quiet deaths never to be mentioned again. She suggested that in such instances the opportunity is lost for learning from error. She related, My sense is the attitude towards the failed experiment, here, its kind of, Lets just ignore it. Lets pretend it didnt happen. Lorna then related an episode that helped lead her to the view she currently holds. She told of a well-intentioned program that was put in pl ace for faculty. The program was not suitable for

PAGE 75

75 many faculty members and was eventually discon tinued. She concluded her narrative with her evaluation of how such situations are dealt with at Lakeside. and then it just, no ever said anything more a bout it. It just went aw ay. And I realized, and then I saw it happen again and again and agai n. Things are going in a wrong direction, people finally say something about it, get fed up enough about it. Administration never really apologizes (chuckles), ne ver explains it. It just stops. Support from Senior Administrators The research findings showed that the seni or administration of Lakeside Community College supported activities l eading to organizational learni ng. Administrators regularly advocated being innovative, seeking new knowle dge, giving feedback and the sharing of information among members of the college comm unity. Several participants spoke to these points. As a member of faculty, Lorn a felt confident that the suppor t would be there for her and other faculty who were innovativ e in their work. She said: And thats part of why many projects for i nnovations get advanced here is that the institution isrelatively eager to support faculty in their out side endeavors recognizing the way that it can benefit the institutionthose sorts of interests outsi de the classroom or people wanting to do things a little differently. She added: They take chances on people here I think a nd sort of say, Well th at sounds interesting, where will you go with it? It seems they w ill often open up avenues, offer people support where they can and then people turn around a nd end up with an ini tiative that really benefits the college. Lorna also commented in a very personal way when she said, But I do have a sense that people want to support me in what I do and want to help me to do what I do even better. Jane expressed a similar sentiment when she said, So th ere is a lot of opportuniti es for faculty to get excited about something and then there is always the support there for when they get excited.

PAGE 76

76 Availability of Numerous Discussion Forums The administration was also responsible for setting up various forums that facilitated sharing information in the college community and adapting the organizationa l structure to ensure that discussion forums included the holders of posts that were needed to ensure optimal effectiveness. They ensured that the right people were at the discussion ta ble. As noted earlier, there were numerous opportunities for the sharin g of ideas around campus. These include Senate meetings, Senate sub-committee meetings, depa rtmental and unit meetings, best-practice sessions, brown-bag lunches, e-mail exchanges, faculty and staff retreats, and administrative meetings such as Coordinating Coun cil and Academic Heads meetings. Participants viewed the College Senate as on e of the most significant discussion forums on campus as it gave faculty and staff an opportunity to be involved in th e shared governance of the campus. Participants described the Senate as being effective, respected by senior administration and structured in a way to recei ve input from those f aculty and staff members who wish to give it. Through the Senate, relevant members of the college were able to affect the changes in routines and practi ces on campus. Yvonne spoke to its representative structure when she said, We have I think two or three member s from each area on campus. Its a commitment that people take real seriously. She adde d, And you have committees (of the Senate) that actually do what theyre suppose to do. While participants spoke of the Senates effec tiveness, some also thought that it slowed the rate of change on some occasions. Jane said, I would say, yes, they are extremely open. Maybe sometimes so open that were slowed in getting bus iness done because there is so much listening taking place. Yvonne, who has been personally involved with the Senate supported Janes statement. She commented:

PAGE 77

77 On the negative side, sometimes things, innovati ons or change or new ideas are put off for a while because we (the Senate) say, Well, we dont know, we have to think about that. The Senate says, Give us another month, let us form a committee, let us look into it and it just sort of slows the whole process down. Organizational Structure According to participants, there have been pur poseful steps taken rela ting to the structure of the organization that have had a positiv e effect on how learni ng takes place in the organization. The high quality of discussion on campus has benefited from decisions taken by administration to ensure inter action between particular groups or officers. Human resources policies that featured cross-trai ning and cross-function promotions also contributed to individuals having a greater sense of the whole institution. Both heads of academic departments who were involved in the study emphasized the impact of the reorganization of the academic de partment from two divisions with two different leaders to one unit under th e Vice-president of Academic Affa irs. Previously, the liberal arts division and the technical division had distinct heads where the de partment chairs or directors reported. Under the new structure, collaboration, shari ng of resources and mutual understanding all increased, which has facilita ted organizational learning. When asked about this impact Frank replied: Yes, emphatically, because this has definitely fostered (3.0) interchange and communication, much more so and I think for the better certainly, between the two different areas. So its definitely I mean knowing what they need Because we serve one another, really. As I sa id, its been very positive. Jane had this to say about the new structure. Back a few years ago when the President made a transition where he brought all the departments, academic departments under one vice-presidentwe used towe were actually divided out to two divi sions. And he eliminated the two division concept a couple years ago to where we all sit now at the same table and I think that has truly promoted a lot more collaborationas a result we have fewer la yers and we all get together and talk a lot more as a result of that.

PAGE 78

78 A noteworthy initiative of the administration to promote interaction, which has been in place for many years, is the physical location of faculty members in interdisciplinary work spaces. Faculty work areas are located in vari ous buildings across campus. Each unit may house between six and ten faculty offices and the individuals assigned to those offices may come from a range of disciplines as opposed to the more typical arrangement where academic departments faculty are grouped together. Each unit also includes a common lounge area which further facilitates faculty engaging each other in discussi ons. Most participants praised the concept and design of the interdisciplinary units, even when they did not actually work in that type environment, as was the case with one depart ment chair and one faculty member. Frank, who worked in such a unit reported: The structure of our buildings was inte nded, and the way that were housed in interdisciplinary units, to have a continual exchange of ideas and a mixing of people so that you know, hopefully its to move forwar d. Having had the opportunity to interact and have exchange with faculty from so many va rying disciplines, as I said its just a very wholesome thing. And I think that enhances the ability to be able to change. Lornas reflection on her experience in an in terdisciplinary unit was not as positive. She stated, Its a lovely idea (hint of sarcasm detected) and I will also say that I think it works in some units. She later added, I ts a wonderful idea about the in terdisciplinary units but it has not worked beautifully for me. She reported much better working re lationships with her disciplinary peers who were spread across the campus. Relationships An important feature that favors communication, and as a result organizational learning at Lakeside is the positive relati onships between various indivi duals on campus. While identifying this feature, participants attributed the devel opment of these relationships to several reasons. Low turnover among the staff meant that there we re many longtime employees at Lakeside who had opportunities through the years to build rela tionships. Frank pointed out that people that

PAGE 79

79 come to Lakeside (to work) generally tend to stay. Due to the relatively small size of the population in the area in which the campus is si tuated many individuals are known to each other as spouses, siblings, neighbors and friends away from campus and the college benefits from those relationships in the workplace. Mike spoke of the relative casua l nature of interaction at Lakeside when compared to a four-year institution at which he had worked. He said: but here Im a lot more in a position to say, Hey Jim, rather than Dr. Johnson. And again its not that were so small here that you can attribute it all to that. I think some of it is the culture here. The administrations practice of promoting and transferring employees across functional areas meant that numerous employees not only u nderstood several functions on campus but also knew employees in several functional areas. Th e tendency to approach issues using interdepartmental groups also brought individuals together and facilitated th e building of relationships. How members of the college community relate d to each other was also affected by the strong commitment to the institutions mission and priorities across campus. College faculty and staff were willing to set aside any personal differe nces and work together with whomever to help achieve organizational objectives. The building of relationships resu lted in a high degree of trust and comfort among many individuals as they worked together on campus. High-quality Faculty Participants felt that the facu lty at Lakeside Community College was a very talented group. They attributed this in large part to the presen ce of a major and reputed university in the same area. Trailing spouses of professors at the univer sity and graduates who de sired to remain in the area contributed greatly to a strong applicant poo l whenever faculty jobs were advertised. The high quality of faculty and the zeal they brought to the campus facilitated the creative and

PAGE 80

80 innovative spirit at Lakeside. Lorna compared th em to the faculty at another community college where she had recently worked and found Lakesides faculty to be far superior. She said, I think that the faculty here are just, theyre smart creative people. Sh e commented further about some faculty members. These are people who are sc holars which I think is rare to find at the community college. Mike emphasized the availability of quality faculty and said, I th ink weve had the good fortune of having an amazing candidate pool for this institution and part of that is our proximity (to) a very well educated and open-minded tow n. He also believed that the pool allowed greater latitude in choosing faculty ba sed on a range of attributes. He said: Some of them are spouses of pe ople at the University, so we have this incredible pool of candidates. So that allows us to choose people who are not only proficient in their discipline but also have the attitude we like. Leadership The findings from the interviews pointed out th at leadership at various levels within the institution was a contributing factor to organi zational learning. The President of Lakeside Community College was the source of several new initiatives. One res pondent involved in senior-level discussions pointed out that the presidential initi atives came about as a result of input from various college forums. The president was also described as f acilitating new ideas to the campus. Coordinating Council Meeting, which is convened monthly by the President, often took the form of brainstorming sessions on various issues or a presentation by an invited guest on a topic related to a new initiative being consid ered or under way. In this way, the President contributed to the generation of new knowle dge, its refinement and adaptation, and its dissemination throughout the organization. Jane credited the President with starting ma ny initiatives and creating the structure and atmosphere to sustain learning. She commented that he tried to reinforce an environment of

PAGE 81

81 shared governance and that in th e interest of better communication he brought all the academic departments under one vice-president. When as ked about the stimulus for innovation on campus, she commented that: I think our President had a lot to do with it. I really do. He started that department when he got here. He developed several initiatives that he was extremely interested in, one of them was the internationalization of our college, ou r faculty and students. Another one was our partnerships within the comm unity to make sure that ev erybody has the same, um, same opportunities to go to school and to l earn and to advan ce through careers. Mike commented about the impact of senior leadership on activities in the organization. He mentioned the focus of the previous presid ent on improvement and innovation. He also said, The current president of course is also very focused on change and improvement so that to down works its way through the institution. Si milarly Sarah said, and the moment the leadership takes an interest something then it trickles down to all the departments because every department is charged to do some thing about it, address it. Yvonne like all other participants mentioned the initiatives or priorities articulated by the president regularly. She said, I dont want to sound like a Pollya nna and say hes wonderful, but hes impressed me a lot. He is willing to take risks. She added, I think he is very driven for improvement. Frank pointed to the role that the President plays in setting the tone for the openness that pervades the campus. He said, And then of course there are, the President leaves his door open. Theres an atmosphere, as I said, here, of an openness and its not Anybody can feel free to go and talk to anybody and interact. The interviews also revealed that the Vi ce-President of Academic Affairs played a significant role in facilitating organizational learning. The Vice-President joined with the president in encouraging innovati on and curiosity about new pract ices throughout the institution. The Vice President supported the introduction of new knowledge in the organization by

PAGE 82

82 disseminating articles in her weekly email update that was distributed to all faculty. She invited feedback and if needed, furthe r investigation was conducted on the ideas presented in those articles. Jane spoke extensively of the impact of the A cademic Vice-President. She felt that a lot of her effectiveness was related to her personal attr ibutes and style as a leader. She commented: And all of that has to do w ith the Vice-President we now have. She comes from an amazing background and she has a business degr ee as well and she also knows how to facilitate in her role as opposed to direct ing and managing and it just opened a lot of conversation that takes place. She continued: She has made all the difference in the world in our jobs in the last two years She doesnt micro-manage and shes just brilliant! She rea lly has in the last c ouple of years been a primary reason that a lot of these co llaborative types of efforts are going on. Other respondents in the study ha d varying experiences with leaders of their units in the institution. Mike pointed out that even in a institution wher e there is generally good leadership practices, they are not n ecessarily distributed th roughout the organization. He said, Just because youre in that culture doesnt mean you have the skill set to communicate effectively and nonconfrontationally. Yvonne, as discussed earlier, was very impresse d with the leadership of the President but had a nearly opposite view concerning the leader of her unit. She suggested that her unit lacked a leader who could see the forest from the trees and who could put pieces together and see what change is needed. Big Picture/Systems Thinking An analysis of the interviews revealed that there was a strong apprec iation of how various activities at Lakeside fit into th e big picture. Participants co mments suggested that there was unity of purpose at Lakeside. The strong, unive rsal commitment to the institutions mission

PAGE 83

83 seemed to be a key contributing factor in this regard. The mission was not simply the institutions mission, it was our mission. The feeling of responsib ility for servicing students needs seemed to go beyond the ac tivities of the immediate unit to whether needs were being met in the College as a whole. Individuals were asked to comment on services outside of their functional area and given opportunity to serve on co mmittees related to activ ities outside of their primary assignment. Mike compared his experi ence at Lakeside with that at a four-year university where he had worked and said, I have an opportunity to have br oader interests in the educational process and to have perhaps a better comprehension of the big picture because of my involvement thats a little broader. The sense of commitment to one main goal also seemed to manifest it self in the lack of competition between units. Particip ants described units as striving for effectiveness as opposed to simply being better than their internal uni t peer. Franks comment seemed to represent the views of other participants. but as Ive said Ive found that some of institutions Ive worked in the past it wasnt subjugated enough. You felt like you had to be in competition for students, for attention, for money, for everything. And I think we do a very good job of that here, not being in competition. You know, theyre not my students theyre our students. You know studentsWe work in conjunction, I mean we have, the math department is providing prerequisites for the chemistry and biology and bu siness. And we all need to work in this together. We all have a part to pl ay in the whole scheme of things. Mike also spoke of this lack of competition on campus when he spoke of sharing ideas and best practices around campus. He said, people dont try and keep it for themselves because they want to make sure they got credit for it, you see what Im saying. People are mo re excited about sharing a good idea or a good best practice than they are abou t being at all competitive about it. There was ample evidence of units helping ot her units as opposed to hoarding resources with a view to improving ones own unit at the e xpense of others. In discussing this practice at

PAGE 84

84 Lakeside Jane used a well-develop ed narrative that was telling of a relevant experience. The final portions are given below includi ng the evaluative final sentence. So there we were between departments d ivi-ing up what we had available and departments that were actually willing to say, I dont need that as badly as somebody else does, Ill give up my turn, my round. And I just think thats a real diffe rent type of culture when youre willing to look at things as a whole instead of as individuals. Positioning Analysis As participants produced their views during th e interviews, it was often possible to glean the position they took as indi viduals and how they positioned others in conversation about organizational life at Lakeside Community Coll ege. The interviews did not involve dialogue between two members of the college community where offering, acceptance or rejection of positions would be evident; hence that aspect of the analysis was not available. However, the way in which participants positioned themselves and others spoke directly to whether they saw themselves or others as facili tating or inhibiting or ganizational learning. Some positional claims were explicit and involved thei r self-analysis, however some were more subtle and required analysis of the participants statements at vari ous points. Their positions presented here, reflect those most often taken by the participants. Unlik e roles which are more static, individuals may claim various positions during the course of an interview. Sarah Sarah positioned herself as having a high sens e of moral obligation to help those she considered less fortunate than herself. She pos itioned many community college students as being in need of the help that she and the college were able to provide. She felt that because she benefited from educational opportun ities, that she needed to give to others. This sense of obligation provided the stimulus for her to assist in organizational le arning in an effort to better meet the needs of students.

PAGE 85

85 But what interested me in working in a comm unity college was the ability to work at the grass roots level. To work with people, and I always liked working with the student population. That was a dream of mine to work with students anyway and to me community colleges represented grassroots. Sarah also positioned herself as having the nece ssary skill to have learning conversations, and as the one with the courage to initiate troubling c onversations. She viewed herself as being able to inquire into the feeli ngs and assumptions of others an d open herself to similar inquiry. This is an important concept in organizationa l learning. She gave an account of a difficult conversation, a portion of which is reproduced here: and I put the question to him in the context of some of the conversation he was having and he was glad that I asked and I was glad th at I asked because I could express, you know, underlying feelings that I was ha ving and he was able to explain and I said I wish more people talked like this and we communicated. Jane Jane positioned herself and othe rs in her area as skilled in certain processes that could benefit organizational learning. She commented that working in business and industry required more work to be done in teams and hence indi viduals from such backgrounds were poised for collaboration. She positioned others from depa rtments who had a background that was more grounded in academic pursuits as lacking certain skill s due to what she perceived as the norms of isolation associated with teaching. She stated: I think that the biggest thing I s ee is that for the most part [i s] those of us who have come in from a business background, no matter whet her its just general business or its construction or its a medical field, all have more experience with ad ministrative types of skill sets. Were more used to working in teams because typically as a faculty member, you dont typically work in a team. Jane also positioned herself as a facilitative leader, one who would enable others to be creative in performing their duties. In claiming this position she viewed herself as supporting risk-taking and experimentation which are both cr itical to organizational learning. In addition to

PAGE 86

86 the positions claimed for her, Jane positioned her supervisor, the VP of Academic Affairs as having the skills needed to facilitate organizationa l learning. She commented: And all of that has to do with the vice-president we now have. She comes from an amazing background. She comes from an academic background and she has a business degree as well and she also knows how to facilitate in her role as opposed to directing and managing and it just has opened a lot of conversation that takes place. Frank Frank positioned himself as a loyal company man who strongly believed in the mission of the institution and the n eed for it to be central to all activit ies of the organization. He felt that there was a close match between the organizatio ns mission and his personal values. He also claimed the position of a servant-leader within the organization, seeking to serve students and co-workers alike. He said, My philosophy of leader ship is really, Im a se rvant. I have a servant attitude and I think the best leaders are those who have that attitude. These position claims impacted his role in organizat ional learning as he had the mo tivation to improve based on his commitment to the mission and he was also willing to engage in collaborative work. Lorna Lorna positioned herself as having the ability to understand what was happening in the organization and described some of her colleagues as lacking that ability. She saw herself as knowing why certain things had to be done even when others at her level might not have understood. In organizational learning terms, sh e positioned herself as a systems thinker who saw the impact of actions beyond the immediately obvious effect. She said: However, they didnt think about what this w ould mean within the in stitution and how this could affect our department in the way that other department s were looking at us, the way administration was looking at us and part of that is that most facult y, I dont think really think like that. They just seemed not to look at the ramifications of a decision they were making beyond just our own sort of narro w sphere. So that was a frustration for me.

PAGE 87

87 These claims became obvious upon analysis, however, she made more explicit claims of faculty in her discipline as dedicated profe ssionals who were focused on improvement and on faculty in general as sm art and creative. Yvonne Yvonne positioned herself as being able to understand how things worked within her department and as an instrument of change within the unit. Most of her positioning, however, seemed to be based upon the claims that she ma de for others. She positi oned the President of Lakeside as a hard-working, ri sk-taker who was largely resp onsible for the learning and innovations taking place throughout the college. C onversely she positioned her department head as insecure, lacking the ability to put the pi eces together and as not wanting feedback. Her portrayal suggested his limited capacity for i nvolvement in effective organizational learning. This positioning is consistent wi th her view that most of the changes in the department were driven by the changes in the i ndustry or by mandates from seni or administrators not by the efforts of the department head. Mike Mike positioned himself as having a firm grasp of the big picture. This claim is related to his perception of his broad involvement at the college and the impact of his diverse educational background on his ability to see the b ig picture. He also positioned himself as a creative, problem solver who embraced change. A ll these claims are aligned with high learning capacity. The Researcher As the researcher in this framework it is ap propriate that I examin e my own position as I joined with participants in the construction of their data. At various points I varied between emic and etic stances (Pike, 1967). Having had more than ten years experience at a community college

PAGE 88

88 I was able to engage them in an emic way as an insider. There are ce rtain experiences common to most community colleges and as I shared my experiences this allowed participants to see me as understanding their point of view and I believ e, to share even more. Contrastingly, at other points in the interviews I positioned myself as an outsider, adopting a more etic stance. From this position, while I had community college expe rience I did not have experience at that community college and hence I had to learn from the experien ces of those who were inside the setting. I also stood outside as the researcher, ha ving control of the big picture of the research project and bringing knowledge of the theory and terms associated with the area of study. The following quote represents an occasion that I connected with a pa rticipant as an insi der to the community college experience. Yeah, you did and you answered mine because th at has been my experience as well. Very similar to yours. In a faculty position and then just taking on more and more administrative stuff and then even being seen as part of the administration Lorna: Yeah, right. KD: without officially being there. Lorna: right, right KD: Till eventually I became a dean so then I was officially part of it but it happened long before, just making yourself available. And I was concerned over the same thing as you because yes, I was involved and really felt I made significant impact but there were a lot of people w ho I thought were just as talented, had as much to say, had as mu ch thought power or wh atever and energy but just didnt somehow feel that (.5) obligation or that (1.0) feeling invited, I dont know. No one was stopping them but somehow they didnt feel invited and um Summary The results of this study were presented as w hole in order to present the interrelated and story-like nature of the analysis. In this section the results will be summarized as they relate to the research questions and sub-questions. How do members of a college community construct organi zational learning? This question speaks to how organizational le arning takes place and sought to assess the quality of learning processes. There was ampl e evidence of learning processes at Lakeside Community College. There were op portunities for corporate discus sion of issues and searching

PAGE 89

89 for solutions. Groups were able to use informa tion that was received fr om outside and from internal information sources such as from survey s that suggested a need to make changes to the routines and practices of the organization. Ther e was evidence of creative learning as some discussion forums resulted in defining problem s, opportunities and the proposal of appropriate responses. Evidence that would distinguish si ngle-loop and double-loop learning was not as clear. While error was detected and corrected, the degree to which underlying assumptions were examined in that process was not absolutely ev ident from this study. R ecommendations to rectify this in future research will be offered in chap ter five. The level of refl ection on past events for the purpose of informing future practice seemed lacking. The participan t who most explicitly addressed lessons learned from past events felt that this was a weak ar ea in the institution as particularly projects that failed just died without examining what went wrong. Lakeside displayed solid processes to spr ead knowledge and new practices within the organization. Numerous opportunities for interact ion through various discussion forums greatly facilitated this aspect of organizational learning. There was also evidence of new practices being utilized and becoming a part of th e organizations routines. In sum, the study indicated that the stag es of organizational learning knowledge generation, dissemination and utiliz ation were all well attende d to at Lakeside though the quality of some learning processes could not be properly assessed in this study. Sub-questions 1. How do members of a college community de scribe facilitators of organizational learning? The study was particularly useful in addressi ng this question in the study. Lakesides high capacity for learning meant that participants were able to speak more about what made learning possible than the things that i nhibited learning. They reported num erous stimuli for learning such

PAGE 90

90 as commitment to the mission, desire to meet students needs, encouragement from senior administration, a desire to maintain the institu tions reputation for innovativeness and external stimuli. The means for generating or acquiring kn owledge that would precede learning was also evident at Lakeside. There were adequate forums for discussing issues at the college and there was support for attendance at conferences where many new ideas were obtained. Forums also proved to be an excellent means for spreading ideas and innovations throughout the institution. The spread of new ideas occurred through both formal and informal means. Participants also described num erous organizational environmenta l features that facilitated organizational learning at Lake side Community College. Thes e features included a high tolerance for failed initiatives, supportive senior administrators, availa bility of discussion forums, facilitative organizational structures, po sitive relationships, high quality faculty and sound leadership. Finally, the abilit y of members of the organizati on to see the big picture and appreciate how things inter-relate al so facilitated organizational learning. 2. How do members of a college community de scribe inhibitors of organizational learning? Given the high learning capacity at Lakeside, there was not as much talk about what factors inhibited organizational learning at the college. Some pa rticipants did provide some insights that surfaced as counter-narratives to the prevailing views of the others. Two participants cited a possible obstacle to frank sharing in the problem identifi cation process. They indicated that identifying a problem usually meant havi ng responsibility for seei ng it through to solution. Another participant felt that le arning opportunities were lost wh en failed projects were not examined to determine what went wrong.

PAGE 91

91 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION A comparison of the theoretical stages of organizational learni ng with the results of this study, showed that there was cl early a high capacity for organi zational learning at Lakeside Community College.. The collective na rrative of participants in this study showed that there was evidence of an individual awarene ss of the big picture, tolera nce for mistakes during learning, a trusting and collaborative climate, a shared and monitored mission, and ongoing professional development at Lakeside (Silins & Mulfor d, 2002; Tannenbaum, 1997). In a summary of literature, and practices essent ial to organizational learning, G oh and Richards (1997) identified five characteristics includi ng clarity of purpose and mission, leadership commitment and empowerment, experimentation and rewards, transfer of knowledge and teamwork and group problem solving. These characteristics were also present in the environment and practices at Lakeside. In this chapter, I will provide a summary of the findings about the nature of Lakesides organizational learning and disc uss the linkages between these findings and the research literature. Included will be im plications of the findings for other community colleges. The overarching themes including the morally app ealing mission, trust, communication, leadership, and big picture/systems thinking will comprise this section. I will discuss the theoretical implications of this study a nd conclude this chapter with recommendations for further study. Stages and Types of Organizational Learning A review of the nature of organizationa l learning reveals that there are key stages in the process including how knowledge is acquired or generated, disseminated throughout the organization, and utilized and retained (Huber, 1991; Crossan, Lane & White, 1999; Dibella and Nevis, 1998 and Kruse, 2003).

PAGE 92

92 At Lakeside, internal and external sources we re used to ensure that, adequate knowledge was generated. The leadership of the institut ion encouraged the acquisition of external information by funding participants to attend conf erences, purchasing subscr iptions to literature and hosting speakers on campus who could speak informatively about initiatives under consideration. Discussion forums were held wh ere knowledge acquired exte rnally was shared. Internal knowledge was generated through verbal interchange. Particip ants reported that they felt that there were adequate opportunities to share e xperiences and to engage in discussions leading to knowledge creation. Access to information needed for organizationa l learning is not unique to Lakeside. Even schools with low budgets for travel can access onli ne resources to catal yze conversation about trends and innovations. Providing forums for discussion on campus simply needs planning. Underlying such initiative s requires that the institution place a value on such activities and that the senior leadership signify its importance. Lake sides senior leadership clearly placed a value on accessing information. Some theoretical frameworks applied in vary ing degrees to the t ype of organizational learning at Lakeside Community College. For exam ple, the detection and correction of error is fundamental to organizational l earning (Argyris, 1978). There was ample evidence to show that Lakeside engaged in the collection of feedback data that could aid the detection of error, although one participant questioned the use of th e data in the decisionmaking process. That participant felt that learning opportunities were lost because failed programs were allowed to fade from the consciousness of the organizations members rather than be analyzed to see what went wrong. Other participants did not expres s the same sentiment but neither did they emphasize processes in the organization that focused on reflection on past activities.

PAGE 93

93 Influences on Organizational Learning Morally Appealing Mission One significant impetus for organizational le arning at Lakeside Community College and potentially for all community colleges was its morally appealing mission. Lakesides mission was stated as Adding value to the lives of our students and enriching our community. There was wide consensus that the mission was the righ t one for individual participants and for the campus as a whole. This particul ar mission/vision statement was well known to participants and seemed significant in their eyes but the real force seemed to be in the meaning derived from it. Drawing examples from physical science, Wheatley (1999) found that seemingly chaotic systems are in fact organized around strange attractors. She posits th at in organizations, meaning is the most powerful force of attrac tion. Meaning then, provide s the answer to the question, Why we do what we do ? At Lakeside, the central theme seems to surround meeting students needs and student development. These themes appeared to be the attractors which powered the drive among faculty and staff to con tinuously learn and improve the organization in service of the students. By adhering to its mission, the institution ai med to make a difference in students lives. Many participants specifically de scribed the differences that th ey perceived between community college students and the typical 18-22 year ol d at a four-year univers ity. In comparison, they claimed that community college students atte nded school by choice, had more by way of life experiences, and felt a greater need to succeed at th is point in their lives. Participants seemed to feel that helping such individuals was more gratifying and self-fulfilling than teaching young university students who were attending school as pa rt of a long-designed path. Participants found deep meaning in what they did and that same purpose that brought personal gratification was also embodied in the mission and values of the institution.

PAGE 94

94 Throughout this study it became apparent that th ere is a strong shared vision at Lakeside Community College. Senge (1990) describes the ph enomenon in this way. A shared vision is a vision that many people are truly committed to, b ecause it reflects their own personal vision. (p. 206) Most participants articulate d the values and goals that are important to them a personal vision and found congruence between their own mission and that of the institution. Personal vision leads to shared vision which is necessary for a learning organi zation (Senge, 1990). He also found that shared vision uplifts people s aspiration and cultivates risk taking and experimentation in an organizati on; both of which were evident at Lakeside Community College. Community colleges are often seen as the second chance institution for non-traditional students, though indicators sugge st that more traditional coll ege students are opting for the community college as an entry point to higher education, due to escala ting costs (Boggs, 2004). The opportunity to do work that makes a difference in the lives of individuals was an important stimulus for organizational learni ng at Lakeside and given the right conditions could be the same elsewhere. Trust Another positive influence on organizational learning at Lakeside Community College was the atmosphere of trust that seemed to perv ade the campus. Many factors contributed to this influence. For example, the Presidents prom otion and practice of open communication was a key component. Most of the participants felt th at communication structur es were open and that ones own voice could be heard through forums and i ndividual contact with l eaders. This access, combined with the belief that members of the campus community, includi ng the leadership, were aligned with the institutions mission fostered an atmosphere of trust. Positive relationships between individuals a nd functional areas on campus also contributed to the atmosphere of trust. The relationships were developed both se rendipitously and through

PAGE 95

95 purposeful action by the colleges administration over the years. Gi ven the relative small size of the city in which the college is located and the high average lengt h of service, there had been opportunities for employees to get to know one another both during on and off campus interactions. Those interactions mostly resulte d in a positive impact on work relationships. College practices such as the regular use of interdisciplinary and inter-functional committees, and promotion across functional areas also helped bring persons into contact with each other. Distributing faculty across campus in interdiscip linary workspaces also meant that relationships were developed between department peers and lo cation peers. A learning culture requires high trust or at a minimum high functional familia rity (Schein, 2004). The leadership of an organization is instrumental in both. Leaders must operate unde r the assumption that employees can be trusted and they must create suffi cient opportunities for interaction between interdependent people and units to foster familiarity (Schein, 2004). Another aspect contributing to trust was a sense of a psychological ly safety in the environment. Some elements of such an e nvironment are support and encouragement to overcome the fear and shame associated with making errors, norms that legitimize the making of errors, and norms that reward innovative thinki ng and experimentation (Schein, 1993a). There was congruence between these elements and the at mosphere at Lakeside Community College. At Lakeside, innovation and experime ntation were encouraged verb ally and through the provision of needed resources. Part icipants were united in describing Lakeside as an organization where some failure was expected as a part of the learning process. Community members seemed comfortable in making several attempts at initia tives thought to be of be nefit to the institution. No participant reported negative repercussions for failed experime nts or initiatives on campus.

PAGE 96

96 Comfort in experimenting and ri sk taking are essential elements in developing a facilitative atmosphere for organizational learning (Mul ford & Silins, 2003; Senge, 1990). Communication Participants agreed that th ere was good communication flow and opportunity for input and exchange on issues related to the work of the institution. All stages of organi zational learning were positively affected by e ffective communication. Organizati onal learning was stimulated by effective communication of the mission and vision for the institution by senior leaders of the institution. Their willingness to support innovation and learning also seemed to be clearly understood by the participants. Disc ussion forums were ample and ad equate for the generation of knowledge internally. The atmosphere at most forums seemed to be open and rich. There were also systems for disseminating ne w ideas gained externally from conferences and similar experiences or from internal de liberation and experimentation. The successful diffusion of innovative practices across an organization depends in part on the permeability of organizational boundaries and the information infras tructure (Senge, et al., 1999). Lakeside was structured to bring together the people needed for discussion, regardless of their functional area. The discussion forums themselves were integral to getting informati on across the institution. This was achieved through the stated objectives of meetings as well as the informal interaction of meeting participants. The fact that meetings often involved i ndividuals from differing functional areas also helped in the formal and informal spread of information. Leadership All the stages of organizational learning can be influenced by the leadership of the organization. Effective organizational learning requires involved, learning leaders (Dibella & Nevis, 1998; Schein, 2004). A high capacity for l earning at Lakeside Comm unity College can be traced to the particular choices and actions of the administrati on. They stimulated the desire to

PAGE 97

97 learn and adapt by bringing an aw areness to the organization about what similar schools were doing and by asserting that Lakeside needed to be among the best. Lakesides leaders encour aged and supported the gene ration of knowledge at the institution. Organizational learni ng is facilitated when indivi duals seek information about practices outside their own unit or institution an d when curiosity about current practices and possible innovations is encouraged (Dibella & Nevis, 1998). Lakesides leaders urged faculty and staff to look outside of the in stitution to find the best practices in the field that were suited for adoption at the institution. In addition, they facilitated the cr eation of discussion forums in which knowledge was generated internally. Ma ny forums were interdepartmental or interdisciplinary in nature, thus enriching th e discussion. They also created opportunities for faculty members to share innovative pract ices thus communicating a high value on innovativeness in the institution. Lakesides senior administration emphasized the importance of feedback. In addition to personally seeking feedback a nd exemplifying open communication, they systematized the use of survey instruments to collect opinions from the entire college community on various aspects of the operation. Assessment was built into pr ojects and other activities as a means of determining effectiveness and providing informa tion for improvement. While feedback implies reflection, there was no clear evidence from the da ta that the administratio n led team members in reflective activities that exam ined assumptions underlying ac tions in the organization. Big Picture/Systems Thinking When Senge (1990) postulated the five disc iplines of the learning organization he suggested that the fifth one, systems thinking, wa s the most important as it brought all the others together. While not fully developed, there was evidence of capacity for systems thinking at Lakeside Community College. Systems thinking re quires an appreciation of wholeness of an

PAGE 98

98 organization, a sense of how things interrelate, and mechanisms for feedb ack within the system. Human resource policies at Lakesi de featured cross-functional promotion and cooperation that resulted in a cadre of individuals across the inst itution familiar with how other areas worked and hence were able to understand systemic inte rrelations. These indivi duals could use that understanding within thei r units as well as in any cross-f unctional discussion forums of which they were a part. Effective discus sion forums at the highest leve ls, such as Coordinating Council and Academic Heads Meeting, brought various un its together and increased the understanding of how things interrelated at Lakeside. Based on the views of participan ts, employees of Lakeside seemed to have a strong sense of the organization as a whole. Individuals seem ed to be committed to the mission and goals of the organization above unit or individual goals. In the academic units, people spoke of our students and seemed to recognize a joint responsibil ity for all the students at Lakeside. This can also be attributed to the sense of the mi ssion being right for the institution and general commitment followed as a result. This sense of joint responsibility for achieving the institutions mission probably accounted for the high levels of collaboration and the lack of the type of competition between units that yielded negative effects. Lakeside practices systems thinking to some extent and certainly seems poised to improve their capacity in this arena if th ere is investment in developing the skills of systems thinking. While there was a level of skill in this disc ipline, comparison with the work of leading researchers suggest that it is not optimized at Lakeside. For example, concepts such as understanding the varying di stances between cause and effect, id entifying processe s of change as opposed to snapshots, and leverage for example, must be purposely developed.

PAGE 99

99 Theoretical Implications Argyris (1978) focuses on the detection and correction of error in organizations. He suggests that the quality of l earning depends on the extent to which the assumptions underlying action are examined. He called the learning that includes such examination double-loop learning. Without it, only single-loop lear ning could occur. Based on the experiences of participants within different units at Lakeside as well as experiences at other institutions, it is clear that learning capacity varies from unit to unit and among institutions. Argyris cl assification is useful in characterizing the quality of learning alt hough whether all action in an organization will require an examination of underlying assumptions may be questioned. Argyris approach seems to be based around pr oblem-solving; organizations looking back at past action with a view towards informing future practice. Community colleges and other organizations are necessarily proactive in order to be competitive in todays marketplace; hence a theory that projects forward is needed. Furthermore, some pa rticipants in the study described conversations pertaining to se izing opportunities in additi on to responding to perceived problems. Argyris ideas are still useful however, because the assumptions underlying projections must also be unearthed in order to make high-quality decisions. A theory that addresses how quality projections are made must include the role of vision and mission in focusing and guiding those projections. Ellstrm (2003) also addressed the quality of learning within organizations and classified them as adaptive and developmental learning. His dist inctions of learning in organizations relate to the degree of control individu als have in determining the tasks, methods and results related to their work. This approach allows for both proble m-solving and learning a ssociated with seizing opportunities. The experience of participants at La keside required and evidenced such a flexible framework.

PAGE 100

100 Dibella and Nevis (1998) de veloped a framework for understanding how organizations learn and for determining their learning capacit y. While they designed it for applications across organizational types, their application of the fr amework has led them to believe that there are types of organizations that po ssess enough unique features to me rit minor modifications to the framework. They gave an example of modificati ons to healthcare organizations based on their particular characteristics. Similar to healthcar e systems, community colleges possess features that may require adjustments in the framework in order to best assess th eir learning capacity. As with healthcare, they are service providers, no t manufacturers or retaile rs and as a result the measurement must focus on the process of deliveri ng the service. The provision of a service does not easily allow for research and development ap art from the actual delivery of the service. Innovations are often pilote d with the clientele. Several adjustments made for healthcare syst ems seem applicable to community colleges. They are both service providers with long-standing institutio nal purposes that are morally appealing. Given the importance of mission de monstrated in this study, mission and vision should be addressed explicitly among the learni ng facilitators Another learning facilitator identified within healthcare systems that is applicable to community colleges is learning confidence. This facilitator refe rs to learning from past experi ences, experience in trying new things and the conviction that lear ning is possible. Results of the study do not suggest that this is a significant attribute of learni ng at Lakeside Community College but it is possible that the investigations structure may have inhibited revelations in this area. Results from healthcare systems caused the researchers to re-label thei r learning facilitator climate of openness, to trusting relationships. This present study presents a strong case for similar labeling in community colleges. Trusting relationships re fer to both the ties individual ha ve with each other in the work

PAGE 101

101 setting and to the associated psychological sa fety that would increas e open discussion about mistakes and unproven ideas. Community colleges have numerous subcultures and can be classified in various ways based on what they hold as important and how they operate (Berquist, 1992; Birnbaum, 1988; Levin, 1997). Results of the study indicate a match between Lakeside and several cultural types. Lakesides values and modes of operation were most congruent with th e developmental culture and the service culture (Berquist, 1992; Levi n, 1997). These cultures focused on meeting the developmental needs of students, employees of the institution and the surrounding community serviced by the college. Participants frequently mentioned meeting student needs as the major priority of the in stitution. The prevailing view among participants was th at this type focus was right for the institution and this positively stimulated learning and also improved collaborative efforts as a result of the unity of purpose. There were indicators of other cultures on campus, t hough not as strong as the developmental and service culture. Two notable cu ltures present at Lakeside were hierarchical and negotiating. The hierarchical culture focuse d around the president of the institution and respect for that individual as embodying the mora l purpose of the institution and having the right to articulate its mission, vision and values (Levin 1997). The results indicated that the president of Lakeside had such status in the eyes of the college community. The presence of this culture on campus facilitates organizational learning provided that the leader articulates values such as focus on mission, open communication, focus on improve ment for the benefit of the students and willingness to experiment and innovate; this was clea rly the case at Lakeside. The central role of the College Senate in activities of the college indicates the presence of the negotiating culture on campus (Berquist, 1992).

PAGE 102

102 Recommendations for Further Study 1. The results revealed insight into the nature and quality of organi zational learning at a community college. However, understanding the nature and quality of interaction and learning calls, essentially, fo r a cultural study. I believe th at a micro-ethnography would be appropriate. Such a study would require prolonged contact in the field and should involve observations in addition to interviews. Participants should be interviewed as they attend large and small meetings in their normal setting. The observational data would be used to inform questions to be asked of pa rticipants as researchers seek to unearth underlying assumptions to their actions a nd the differences between their espoused theories and theories-in-use. Argyris (1993) used such an approach with much success while investigating or ganizational learning. 2. This study utilized a sample from different functional areas and va rying levels in the organizational hierarchy. Ther e were some differences in views based on participants level in the organization. There appeared to be stronger support for the leadership of the College among those closer to the top. While this is expected to some degree, a study aimed at determining the degree to which mome ntum from the top is lost and at what point would be useful. A study that included more individuals from both academic units would be useful as there were subtle indicators that the view s that individuals held were related to their area of work. 3. A study based on length of service could prove useful as most counter narratives came from the faculty member with less than five years of service and the member with over 15 years seemed extremely committed to the in stitution, a corporation type man as he put it. More participants coul d be sought from among faculty with few years of service and those with many years of service. 4. Participants in the study did not produce as many classically stru ctured narratives as anticipated. This may have been due in part to their recounting of thei r views, as required by the study, as opposed to their experiences. De signers of future similar studies should consider this when planning the use of a narra tive analytical framework such as that of Labov and Waletzkey (1967). 5. The dominant discourse was the primacy of students needs and support for the Administration, in particular Lakeside Community Colleges President, in determining the way forward for the institution. When th e question of innovations was raised during the study, most participants referred to thr ee priority areas/initiativ es established by the President, though ironically, most were only able to name two. These features are certainly of benefit to the institution but I wondered if th e discourse was so dominating and bound in tradition that there was little oppor tunity for questioning the organizations direction and practices at La keside. Only one participant questioned the appropriateness of any of the Presidents priorities. Future research could examine how the discourse was developed and if it plays a role of silenci ng discordant voices. The higher quality modes of organizational learning require the capacity to inquire into the vi ews of others and the assumptions that support those vi ews (Argyris, 1978; Senge, 1990).

PAGE 103

103 6. The findings of this study revealed that mo st practices associat ed with facilitating organizational learning were in place at Lake side Community College. An area worthy of further investigation is the practice of reflecti on at the institution and the role it plays in learning. The point of interest is not whether or not reflec tion is taking place, but the quality of that reflection. Changes in be havior can take place without changing the underlying assumptions behind those behavior s but such change is typically not sustainable (Argyris, 1978). A study that focuses on how re flection is practiced could reveal whether conversations about past practices go beyond the surface and examine the theories-in-use that support the particular action. In essence, such a study could help determine how much of th e higher level double-loop learning is taking place in a particular setting. 7. Two components that were mentioned in the li terature but not attended to in a significant way in this study were organizational memo ry and the level of on-going professional development. On-going professional developm ent facilitates organi zational learning and thus merits more attention than given in this study (Leithwood, et al., 1998; Mulford & Silins, 2003). Future study could address the extent to which new practices are institutionalized and retained in the or ganization and the impact of professional development. 8. Many administrators in higher education institutions value comparing their institutions with peer institutions. Findings from this st udy combined with further work in the area can be used to adapt an organizational lear ning framework, such as Dibella and Nevis (1998) for use in community college setti ngs. The framework, developed around learning orientations and what facilita tes or inhibits learning in an organization, could assist organizations in an assessment of their learning capability.

PAGE 104

104 APPENDIX A INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL

PAGE 105

105 1. TITLE OF PROTOCOL: Organizational learning in a community college 2. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(s): Karl Dawson, M.A., Ph. D ca ndidate, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy, Home address 2701 NW 23rd Blvd, P128, Gainesville, Fl. 32605, tel. 352-264-1213, kadawson@ufl.edu 3. SUPERVISOR (IF PI IS STUDENT): Dr. Linda Behar-Horenstein, 1202 Norman Hall, (352) 392-0731 ext. 230, Lsbhoren@ufl.edu, fax: (352) 846-2697 4. DATES OF PROPOSED PROTOCOL: From May 21, 2006 To May 20, 2007 5. SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR THE PROTOCOL: (A copy of your grant proposal must be included with this protocol if DHHS funding is involved.) 6. SCIENTIFIC PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION: To explore the form and influences on organizational le arning in a community college. 7. DESCRIBE THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY IN NON-TECHNICAL LANGUAGE The researcher will conduct interviews with the participants, drawn from among faculty and staff of th e community college. The interv iews will be audio-taped, transcribed and analyzed usin g qualitative methodologies. Multiple interviews of approximately one hour duration will be conducted as requir ed by the study. An upper limit of five interviews per participant is envisaged. 8. POTENTIAL BENEFITS AND ANTICIPATED RISK. I perceive minimal risk associated with participating in this study. I do not expect be nefits to accrue directly to the participants. The names of in dividuals, institutions or co lleagues of the participants will not appear in any report associated with this study. Pseudonym s will be used in reporting results. 9. DESCRIBE HOW PARTICIPANT(S) WI LL BE RECRUITED, THE NUMBER AND AGE OF THE PARTICIPANTS, AND PROPOSED COMPENSATION (if any): Participants will be selected with the aid of school admi nistration and on a voluntary basis. Six participants over the age of 18 w ill be sought from am ong faculty and staff. The contact person at the school will be asked to assist in identifying a pool of possible participants and the researcher will cont act members of the pool and select the participants himself. This will decrease th e chance of participants being identified. No compensation is proposed. 10. DESCRIBE THE INFORMED CONSENT PROCESS. INCLUDE A COPY OF THE INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT The nature of the study will be described and informed consent sought before involving anyone in this stud y. Proposed inform consent form is attached.

PAGE 106

106 APPENDIX B INTERVIEW CHECKLIST AND LAY SUMMARY OL Interview Checklist Introduction and thank you Brief subjectivity statement Lay summary Site and participant selection Benefits and risks to researcher and participants Study Plan # of interviews length and purpose of each Research methodology, social c onstructionism and participant participation Permission to tape Signing of informed consent Conduct interview Thanks and next appointment if necessary Lay Summary This study seeks to explore organizational lear ning in a community college. Organizational learning has been studied in bus iness and other organizations but not much work has been done in community colleges. In this study, I use the te rm organizational learning to refer to the study of if and how organizations l earn and to a process where erro rs are detected and corrected, insights and knowledge are generated, reflection of past events and practice inform future practice, and behavior is cha nged through the process of information gathering and meaning making. Insights and knowledge may begin with the individual but must move via groups to the organization at large to fit this construct. My fo cus in this study is to record and analyze how members of a community college community constr uct their views of processes in the college that affect organizational learning.

PAGE 107

107 APPENDIX C SAMPLE INFORMED CONSENT Informed Consent Protocol Title: Organizational learning in a community college Please read this consent document carefully be fore you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to examine organiza tional learning in a community college setting. What you will be asked to do in the study: You will be asked to participate in up to five in terviews with the researcher. The interviews will focus on your views on aspects of organizational life in the school relative to the study. Topic areas may include communication, experimentati on, modes of interaction and organizational structure. Interviews will be sc heduled at times agreeable to you and the researcher. Interviews will be audio taped for later transcription by the researcher. Time required: 1 hour per interview Risks and Benefits: I do not perceive that there are risks associated with your participation in this study nor will I provide compensation. The researcher will gain experience, meet a degree requirement and contribute to the understanding of the phenomena and you may become more aware of certain processes in your organization. Compensation: There will be no monetary compensation for particip ating in this research nor are there penalties for non-participation. Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your interview will be taped and later transcribed by the researcher who will erase the tape upon completion of transcription. During this time the tape and transc ript will be kept secu rely by the researcher. Your name will not appear on the transcript, nor will the name of you institution or colleagues. Your name will not be used in any report associated with this study.

PAGE 108

108 Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating or for refusing to answer any particular question. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from th e study at anytime without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Karl Dawson, 2701 NW 23rd Blvd. Apt. P128, Gainesvill e, Fl. 32605. Tel. 352-264-1213, cell 352-283-1350. kadawson@ufl.edu Dr. Linda Behar-Horenstein, 1202 Norman Hall, (352) 392-0731 ext. 230, Lsbhoren@ufl.edu, fax: (352) 846-2697 Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Flor ida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; ph 392-0433. Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I volunt arily agree to pa rticipate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. By si gning this document, I also give permission for the results of this study to be submitted fo r academic purposes, including publication in academic journals. Participant: _______________________________________ Date: _________________ Principal Investigat or: ______________________________ Date: _________________

PAGE 109

109 APPENDIX D INTERVIEW GUIDE 1. How long have you worked in community colleges and in what areas? 2. What do you find most rewarding about your work? 3. What do you think is the most important work of your community college? What should you be doing more of or less of? 4. Please give me your view of the prevaili ng attitude in the organization towards improvement. What do you think drives the attitude? 5. How would you rate the climate for collabora tive work at your school? Among (a) peers, (b) supervisors, and (c) direct reports 6. Please tell me about the effort s at your school to identify ine ffective practices and choose new ones. 7. What forums are there for discussing issues related to the work on campus? 8. Can you recall any instance when you identified a problem or solution to a problem on campus and you did not bring it to the attention of a supervisor or someone who could possibly act on it? Why? 9. How do you view the attitude of this organization towards experimentation and innovation? Towards failed experiments? 10. When lessons are learned through reflection or experimentation, are they put into practice? 11. Describe how new practices come to your campus. Can you recall and share with me the origination and development of an idea or innovation that was eventually widely adopted?

PAGE 110

110 APPENDIX E SAMPLE USE OF STANZAS AS ANALYTICAL STEP Sample of the use of stanza s as an analytical step Working things out at retreat in the context of the retreat that we had we got we you know we talked about a lot of things with each other that were of concern to us and sorted out some of the things. Improved energy, trust and communication And I think just doing that, I felt that the energy level went up. And I think the trust level, communication, all of that has definitely improved. Colleagues trust me And I feel we have a trust in terms of, do I know shell do a good job, do I know shes responsible, do I know shes dependable,

PAGE 111

111 do I know if I ask her something, shell get back to me with the information. Evaluation system We evaluate other. We have peer appraisal, peer performance appraisal every year and we give it to 16 or to about 20 of our colleagues all across campus. And they evaluate us on our communication, leadership skills, management skills, on a lot of different measures.

PAGE 112

112 APPENDIX F SAMPLE USE OF LABOV AND WALETZ KEYS NARRATIV E FRAMEWORK Sample narrative with Labov and Waletzkeys framework applied Abstract So two examples, one is my own department. Orientation We had an economics position that was empty. We were going through the hiring process. Complicating action The person that we selected didnt take it so we were getting ready to go back out again but at the same time we didnt have an open position in our health information management area and the program had more than doubled in size. We only had one faculty member who also was the administrator of that area and just an impossible si tuation for that person. Resolution And economics offered up their faculty line and gave it to health information management so that they could hire a faculty member and theyre teaching doubles over in economics to off-set that loss

PAGE 113

113 Evaluation but they gave up something because somewhere in the department they saw a greater need.

PAGE 114

114 APPENDIX G PILOT STUDY OF ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING IN A COMMUNITY COLLEGE Pilot Study of Organizational Le arning in a Community College Introduction Higher education institutions are facing ch allenges of finance and capacity that are enduring in nature (Guski n & Marcy, 2003). In response to such efforts, organizations renew efforts to increase their effectiveness. The study of how orga nizations learn hold promise for improving how organizations reflect on their practices and for improving said practices (Kezar, 2005). Learning is not restrict ed to special organizations but is widely found across the spectrum of organizationa l types (Dibella & Nevis, 1998). Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, Roth, & Smith (1999) agree with this sentim ent and state, All organizations learn in the sense of adap ting as the world around them changes. But some organizations are faster and more e ffective learners (p. 24). Learning capacity depends on the existence of facilitating factors for learning in the organization (Dibella & Nevis, 1998). This study seeks to explore co mmunity colleges as organizational learning environments and asks specifically, What is the nature of organizational lear ning as viewed by selected members of a specified community college, and what do selected members of a community college view as promoting or inhibiting organizational learning in that setting? Review of literature The study of how organizations learn orig inated in the busin ess sector but is increasingly applied across vari ous sectors, including educat ion. Organization learning is the study of how organizations learn as well as the processe s involved in this learning (Kezar, 2005). Studies from K-12 education are emerging from both quantitative and

PAGE 115

115 qualitative perspectives (Mulford & Silins, 2003; Leithwood, Leonard & Sharratt, 1998). Higher education has been slow to embr ace organizational lear ning as a means of evaluating learning processes or as a strategy for increased effectiveness (Kezar, 2005). Huber (1991) suggests that an entity learns if, through its processing of information, its range of potential behavior is changed (p.89). Learni ng is also described as the successful application of new strate gies (Argyris, 1993). When new strategies work, they will be called upon again in the fu ture and the assumptions that support them will be maintained (Schein, 1993a). Rowe and Boyle (2005) describe organizational learning as an iterative process of action and reflection that results in the modification of an organizations actions. The quality of learning is al so discussed in the literatu re, the most noted being the distinction between single loop and double loop learning (Argyris & Schn, 1978). They describe single loop learning in organizations as change that takes place without a challenge to existing assumptions while the more difficult-to-achieve double loop learning takes place when existing assumptions or taken-for-granted-beliefs are surfaced and challenged. Double loop learning requires skills such as the ability to dialogue (Schein, 1993b). Dialogue is critical to learning in organizations because of its potential to inquire into existing assumptions and cr eate new, shared mental models (Shein, 1993b). Isaacs (1999) outlines the stages of di alogue as listening, respecting, suspending and voicing. Variation in the capacity of organizations to learn can be attr ibuted largely to whether facilitators or inhib itors of organizational learning exist in the organizations internal or external environment (Dibella & Nevis, 1998). Facilitat ors of organizational

PAGE 116

116 learning include the presence of stimu li for learning, psychological safety, accommodating structure, skill and leadership (Dibella & Nevis, 1998; Schein, 1993b; Senge, 1990). Most of these variables in or ganizations are on a continuum and their absence serves to inhibit organizatio nal learning (Dibella & Nevis, 1998). The stimulus for learning may be external such as the demands of a supervising district office on a school (Leithwood, et al ., 1998) or may come from within the organizations (Senge, et al., 1999) As people within organizati ons realize the future they desire and match it against their current reality, this leads to the creative tension that can fuel organizational learning (S enge, 1990). Individual aspirations must connect with that of others in the organization to create shared vision, which Senge ( 1990) describes as the focus and energy of learning. Organizational learning requi res a climate of trust and collaboration where experimentation is welcomed and the errors a ssociated with experimentation are tolerated (Mulford & Silins, 2003; Schein, 1993a). Ro we and Boyle (2005) found that emotional conditioning and anxiety associat ed with past punitive reactions to failed experimentation were among constraints to organizational lear ning during change at a health services facility. A trusting and collabora tive climate was determined to be the first requirement for organizational learning in a large K-12 st udy in Australia (Mulford & Silins, 2003). Organizational learning in schools requires that time and space be structured to allow colleagues to interact and shar e (Collinson & Cook, 2004). Group processes constitute a significant part of organizational learning, hence organizational reward systems should change to considering group output as opposed to current systems which focus almost exclusively on the individual (S enge, et al., 1999). Decentralized as opposed

PAGE 117

117 to hierarchical organizationa l structures are more conducive to organizational learning (Kezar, 2001). The leadership of the organization affects many of the influences on organizational learning mentioned above. L eaders stimulate, provide structure and rewards and greatly influence the climat e of the organization. Transformational leadership approaches facilitate organizat ional learning (Silins and Mulford, 2002). Varying cultures are typically found in hi gher education instit utions (Bergquist, 1992; Birnbaum, 1988; Levin, 1997). Being positio ned within a particular sub-culture will often determine how indivi duals interpret organizationa l events (Ayers, 2005). Levin (1997) identifies four subc ultures typically found on commu nity college campuses. The traditional culture focuses on students intellectual and cognitive development. It mimics that found among faculty on university campus in many ways and is found mostly among academic faculty who are preparing students fo r university transfer. The service culture focuses on the improvement of the students as evidenced by not only university transfer rates but also retention, soci al equity and student persona l growth. The hierarchical culture is centered primarily on presidential leadership and combines an emphasis on the moral purpose of the institution, as articulated by the president, a nd rational/bureaucratic control of the organization. The business cu lture arose from demands for accountability from external sources and the evolution of the community college as a force in the economy through the provision of workforce tr aining. This culture values efficiency, innovativeness and speed in responding to demands of the service area. Subjectivity statement My approach to this research is construc tivist. I believe that meaning is situated and that the varied experiences of individuals cause them to derive different meaning

PAGE 118

118 from the same phenomena. I think that is part icularly true in the study of organizational behavior. In investigating or ganizational behavior I am not motivated by a search for truth that is known to all but I am interested in understanding the underlying assumptions that drives individual behaviors which may be, and often is, different from the values and assumptions that individuals espouse. Given the issue of hard-to-surface assumptions and values, I believe that inves tigation into organizational behavior must always be prolonged, whether through intervie ws, observations or some combination of both, in order to help the participants unearth the deepest meanings possible. I believe that my training for leadersh ip and management roles both helps and hinders my capacity to investigate educationa l organizations such as community colleges. Through my training and experience, I have become aware of some the issues facing organizations, and that has help ed in guiding me to some areas in need of investigation. On the other hand, my experience has caused me to bring certain assumptions to the research table of which I may not always be aware. Preparation for leadership is largely about finding what works and preparing to practice it. For me, what works includes tendencies towards servant lead ership, participatory leadersh ip style, focus on continuous improvement and the practice of reflection at the individual, gr oup and organizational levels. I hope that my awareness of these views helped me to bracket them. I selected this topic i nvestigation because of my long-held interest in organizational performance, with particular focus on community colleges. I worked for 12 years in a community college in mid a nd upper level faculty and administrative positions. I had been keenly interested in le adership and organizational culture, having held leadership positions as a student, in the community and in the workplace. My

PAGE 119

119 tendency towards being active in organizations probably results from being raised in a Christian household and being taught to make a difference in any situation that life may lead to. These experiences have left me with certain views about what is good for organizations, what is effective leadership, the need for continuous improvement, and the importance of treating everyone with respect and dignity. As an Afro-Caribbean male, not raised in the culture that I am studying, I tried to monitor the pe rspective I brought to the investigation. I took care to ensure that my views did at tract me toward a particular type of participant or cause me to listen for a particular viewpoint in the interview process. The use of memos-to-self in the re search process assist s the researcher in reflection and examining his/her own feelings (Glesne, 1999). Participants and context Sampling for this study was done using ma ximum variation sampling (Creswell, 2005). This type sampling is utilized when participants that vary on particular characteristics are desired (C reswell, 2005). Various sub-cultures exist within community colleges. These subcultures ma y interpret events differentl y. In this study, participants were sought, one each from among student services staff and among the faculty. The actual participants were selected th rough professional networking bearing the requirements above in mind. The site for the study was a large community college in the southeast United States. A review of information available on th e institutions website reveals priority on innovation and collaboration in achieving the institutions mission. While the examination of the material relating to the college did not explicitly mention organizational learning, their emphasis on innova tion and collaboration show institutional

PAGE 120

120 concern for concepts associated with organiza tional learning. Participant Sue works in the student services division and has served the in stitution for 10 years incl uding the past five years in her current role. Beth has been on full-time faculty for two years after working previously as an adjunct faculty member. Th ey are both Caucasian females between 45 to 55 years old. They both articulate that meeti ng the needs of students is the raison dtre of the institution. Data Collection Data for this study was collected via doc uments and interviews during the spring, 2006. Documents were selected from among various publications made by the school on its website. These documents were selected to build the context for the study and to provide information of possible use by the researcher during interviews. The primary type of data used for anal ysis in this study wa s that obtained via interviews that were audio-taped and transc ribed verbatim. Intervie ws were conducted in the work settings of the participants, in one case an office and in the other a teaching laboratory. The theoretical perspe ctive of the study is construc tionist, so while other data may build context, how individuals construct the meaning of their experiences during the interview process was of paramount importan ce. In the constructionist interview both interviewer and interv iewee and their accumulated expe riences converge to produce the interview data (Holstein & Gubrium, 2003). The interview was semi-structured and utilized open-ended questions. Openended questions offers a greater likelihood of individuals explaining their actions or views (Creswell, 2005). Follow-up probes were utilized to allow continuation along paths opened by participants when an swering the initial questions. Probes may include verbal

PAGE 121

121 requests for more information or explanation as well maintaining s ilence after a response thus making the interviewee feel obliged to continue (Glesne, 1999). Additionally, I pursued a conversational style of interview b ecause of its potential to allow participants to share more (Stage and Mattson, 2003). Data Analysis Documents gathered in the study were reviewed for relevant themes. The interviews were first open-coded, which were then used to identify themes in the data. Narratives were then identified from data surrounding the identified themes (example in appendix A). Narratives were examined and at tention was paid to their structure as outlined by Labov (1967). Of particular inte rest was how participants positioned themselves and others during the course of the interview. Positioning analysis is concerned with how subjects construct themse lves by the positions they take in their narratives as they relate to normative disc ourses (Bamberg, 2004). In one instance, I analyzed the opposing views of both participan ts on a particular topic as narratives and counter-narratives produced through thei r roles and experi ence (Solis, 2004). Preliminary Findings Various themes were revealed after prel iminary analysis of both interviews. For this brief analysis, I will focus on one theme from a particular interview and one theme that was found across interviews, though interpre ted quite differently by each participant. In addition to the initial meaning derived fr om the themes, I examined how participants positioned themselves and others within the narratives, in pursuit of answers to the research questions.

PAGE 122

122 Its a whole different ballgame no voice, no power Sue, the student services professional, s uggested that the structure for discussions and information sharing that could lead to organizational learning were present in the institution but that the capacity for involveme nt in the process was not evenly distributed throughout the organization. She positioned hers elf and her colleagues in her area as lacking voice and power, especially when comp ared to the faculty. It appears that longstanding patterns of disproporti onate distribution of power w ithin the institution remain in spite of changes in nomenclature. This was evident when she said, They call it the college senate now but if you ever attended a meeting, its still the faculty senate. Giant innovations will come through in student services will flick by (clicks finger) in a wink of an eye and if it has anything to do with facult y theyll discuss it till you just want to die and go home. Sue emphasizes this further when she uses the phrase, its a whole different ballgame (in student services) as both abstract and c oda in some of her narratives. Sue feels that her input from her role though sometimes sought, is not taken seriously within the or ganization. She related, I have b een advocating for us to have a student computer.and I really dont think it matters whether I bring that to someones attention or not. While positioning herself a nd others in similar roles as lacking voice and power, Sue also took the position in he r narratives as being an advocate for the students and knowing what students want. The implications of these combined positions seem to be that the needs of the students do not always reach the administrators who are responsible for many of the top-down policies.

PAGE 123

123 Organizational learning is gr eatly facilitated by the ope n sharing of ideas (Cook & Collinson, 2004; Dibella & Nevis, 1998). When members of an orga nization feel that their input makes no difference, it diminishes their motivation to continue to make contributions through the ch annels already tried. Good old faculty bad old faculty Both participants mentioned long-serving employees on several occasions, though Beth brought them into the discussion far more frequently. Long-term employees were presented in contrasting ways by the partic ipants, with potentially varying effects on organizational learning. These points of view could be described as narratives and counter narratives about l ong-term employees (Solis, 2004). This contesting of the identity of long-term employ ees is rooted in the discourses of each employee. Sue, herself an employee of over ten years, found that the relationships she had developed with other members of staff over time were c onducive to creating the type atmosphere in which organizational learning would thrive. With these colleagues she felt very comfortable sharing her view s even though she also posi tioned these individuals as partners in powerlessness and whose views may not make a darn bit of difference. Mulford and Silins (2003) identified a trusting an d collaborative effort as a critical first step for organizational learning and Sue ha s found this among some colleagues, but it seems unlikely that the learning would move be yond the level of the select group to bring about the change associated with learning. Beth, in contrast, positioned herself as having a different view on many issues. Her difference was mostly in relation to th e views and actions of long-term employees. Beth took a position in her narratives as acti ng in a way that facilitated organizational

PAGE 124

124 learning, based on what is known about facilitators of the process. She is willing to share even when others are not willing to accept what she offers. She stated this typical scenario: Oh, I happened to notice that ou r educational session was a whole lot of information on your area. Would you like to see it? Oh no! Thats threatening. Organizational learning also requ ires reflecting on past action and the skill to inquire into the positions of others while reciproca ting by allowing inquiry into your own views (Argyris, 1993; Senge 1990). Beth aligns herself with newer faculty members and suggests that their youth and background in th e business world have produced skills and approaches that will ultimately benef it organizational learning. She relayed, Were not afraid to say, I dont know. Were not afraid to say, Well have you thought of this? According to Beth, many long-time faculty are not like that and in fact, feel threatened by newer faculty and withdraw into silos where they are safe from inquiry, suggestions and calls to change. They ar e supported by the administration who think, They are so wonderful due to their loyalty and past contribu tions and as result they feel no motivation to change. Archival Material Documents that were sourced for this study were taken from the institutions website. The website is comprehensive, a nd information on the institutions mission; official values and goals; the role of the College Senate a nd other committees; and copies of manual are among the available documents. The documents were reviewed for themes relevant to the research questions. Informa tion on the institutions mission and values, forums and processes for problem solvi ng and strategic thinking were deemed particularly important.

PAGE 125

125 Documents, to an extent, reflect the realit y of the context within which they were created but once in use, those documents beco me a part of that reality and influences future constructions of reality in that sett ing (Cortazzi, 2002). Documents such as those reviewed present the official position of the in stitution or how it would like to be viewed. A governance structure that faci litates discussion and input, as well as the inclusion of innovativeness and improvement in its mission and goals would suggest fertile ground for organizational learning, though analysis of interv iew data suggests that this end is not always achieved. A theme identified in the interview data was differences between divisions on campus. One participant positioned faculty in general as the most powerful group on campus, while the other, a member of facu lty, suggested that academic faculty were more highly regarded than those involved in technology and applie d science programs. Interestingly, the official description of college committ ees seem to reflect and/or influence this viewpoint. The Curriculum Committee has two subc ommittees: one for the Liberal Arts and Sciences with an emphasis is on sy stematic analysis leading to innovative curricula that meet college goals an d accreditation standards; and one for Technology and Applied Sciences to disseminate curriculum and program changes throughout the division and college and advise the division about the effect of college policies upon these changes. The goals for the Liberal Arts and Scie nces seem much loftier, including analysis leading to innova tive curricula and more ali gned with college goals and external accreditation standards. The Technology and Applied Sciences sub-committee is left only to distribute information, seemi ngly established elsewhere, and advise on the resulting effect of college policy. Whethe r purposely, or unwittingly, this committees charge is written in a way to promote the leve l of discussion and inquiry that may lead to

PAGE 126

126 a higher quality organizational learning in one subcommittee and not the other. Statements like these enlighten analysis of the talk produced in interviews with members of the various divisions of the college. Concluding Comments Due to the size of the project, all aspects of the research questions could not be addressed in the analysis. Pre liminary review of the data i ndicates that both individual felt that the organization was lacking in re flective or double loop l earning. The analysis did reveal aspects of organizational life th at participants found to be promoting or inhibiting organizational lear ning. Sue viewed the non-responsiveness of the organization to certain constituents as affecting their willingness to share and hence inhibiting organizational learning. Beth viewed long-sta nding employees as resistant to change and immune to administrative pressure to learn, hence impacting collaborative activities and learning. (Interestingly, my thir d interview, with a senior administrator, which was recently done and not included in this study, indicates a much more positive interpretation of organiza tional learning processes.)

PAGE 127

127 LIST OF REFERENCES Argyris, C., & Schn, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning perspective: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Argyris, C. (1992). On organizational learning Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Argyris, C. (1994). Good communica tion that blocks learning. Harvard Business Review ( July August ,) 77-85. Ayers, D. F., (2005). Organizational climat e in its semiotic aspect: A postmodern community college undergoes renewal. Community College Review 33 (1), 1-21. Bamberg, M., (2004). Positioning with Davie Hoga n: Stories, tellings and identities. In C. Daiute & C. Lightfoot (Eds.), Narrative Analysis: Studying the development of individuals in society (pp. 135-157). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications. Berger, P. L. & Luckman, T., (1966). The social construction of reality New York: Anchor Books. Bergquist, W. H. (1992). The four cultures of the academy San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Bergquist, W. H. (1998). The postmodern ch allenge: Changing our community colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges, 102 (Summer), 87-98. Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernet ics of Academic Organization and Leadership San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Birnbaum, R. (2000). Management Fads in Higher Education San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Boggs, G. R. (2004, November/December). Comm unity Colleges in a perfect storm. Change, 26 6-11. Boone, E.J. (1997). National perspective of community colleges. Community College Journal of Research & Practice 21 (1), 1-12. Bragg, D. D. (2001). Community College access, mission, and outcomes: Considering intriguing intersec tions and challenges. Peabody Journal of Education, 76 (1), 93116.

PAGE 128

128 Burck, C. (2005). Comparing qualitative resear ch methodologies for sy stemic research: the use of grounded theory, discou rse analysis and narrative analysis. Journal of family therapy 27 237-262. Burns, J. M., (1978). Leadership New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers Chandler, M. J., Lalonde, C. E. & Teucher, U ., (2004). Culture, continuity, and the limits of narrativity. In C. Daiute & C. Lightfoot (Eds.), Narrative Analysis: Studying the development of individuals in society (pp. 245-265). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Cohen, A. M. & Brawer, F. B., (2003). The American community college (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Collinson, V. & Cook, T. F., (2004). Learning to share, sharing to learn: Fostering organizational learning through te achers dissemination of knowledge. Journal of Educational Administration, 42 (3), 312-332. Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational Research: Planni ng, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W. & White, R. E., (1999). An organization learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24 (3), 522-537. Czarniawska-Joerges, B., (1997). Narrating the organization: Dramas of institutional identity Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press Czarniawska-Joerges, B., (1998). A narrativ e approach to organization studies. Qualitative Research Methods Series 43 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S., (2005). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.) The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Dibella, A. J., & Nevis, E.C. (1998). How organizations learn: An integrated strategy for building learning capacity San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Eckel, P., Hill, B., & Green, M. (1998). On Change: En route to transformation American Council on Education. Washington, DC Eckel, P., Green, M. & Hill, B., & (2001). On Change Riding the waves of change: Insights from transforming institutions. American Council on Education. Washington, DC.

PAGE 129

129 Ellstrm, P. (2003). Developmental learning : A condition for organizational learning. In B. Nyhan, M. Kelleher, P. Cressey, & R. Poell, (Eds.), Facing up to the learning organization challenge (pp. 24-32). Luxembourg: Cedefop. Evers, C. W. (2000). Leading and learning in organizational contexts: Contributions from the new cognitive science. International journal of le adership in education 3 (3) 239-254 Fischer, M. ( 2003). Challenges and open questio ns raised by the con cept of the learning organization. In B. Nyhan, M. Kelleher, P. Cressey, & R. Poell, (Eds.), Facing up to the learning organization challenge (pp. 33-49). Luxembourg: Cedefop Franz, H. (2003). How organizations learn: a theory of learning and organizational development. In B. Nyhan, M. Kelleher, P. Cressey, & R. Poell, (Eds.), Facing up to the learning organization challenge (pp. 50-72). Luxembourg: Cedefop Freeman, M., (2004). Data are everywhere: Narr ative criticism in the literature of experience. In C. Daiute & C. Lightfoot (Eds.), Narrative Analysis: Studying the development of individuals in society (pp. 63-81). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Frydman, B., Wilson, I ., & Wyer, J. (2000). The power of collaborative leadership: Lessons for the learning organization. Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann Gee, J. P., (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Gergen, K. J. (2002). Social c onstruction and practical theolo gy: The dance begins. In Hermans, C. A. M., Immink, G., Dejong, A., & Van Der Lans, J. (Eds.), Social constructionism and theology (pp. 3-21). Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Goh, S. & Richards, G. (1997). Benchmarking th e learning capability of organizations. European Management Journal, 15 (5), 575-583. Gubrium, E. & Koro-Ljungberg, M., (2005). Cont ending with border making in the social constructionist interview. Qualitative Inquiry, 11 (5), 689-715. Guskin, A. E. & Marcy, M. B., ( 2003). Dealing with the future now. Change, 35 (4), 1-12. Hatch, J. A., (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

PAGE 130

130 Holstein, J. A. & Gubrium, J. F., (2003). Insi de Interviewing: New lenses, new concerns. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Inside Interviewing: New lenses, new concerns (pp. 3-30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Huber, G. P., (1991). Organizational learni ng: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organizational Science 2 (1), 88-115. Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the art of thinking together. New York, NY: Doubleday. Kezar, A. J. (2001). Understanding and fac ilitating organizational change in the 21st century: Recent research and conceptualizations. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Volume 28, Number 4. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kezar, A. (2005). What campuses need to know about organizational learning and the learning organization. New Directions for Higher Education 131 (Fall), 7-22. Kruse, S.D. (2003). Remembering as organizational memory. Journal of Educational Administration, 41 (4/5), 332-347. Labov, W. & Waletzkey, J. (1967). Narrative analysis: oral versions of personal experience. In J. Helm (Ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts. (p.12 44). Seattle: University of Washington Press Lam, Y. L. J. & Punch, K. F., (2001). Exte rnal environment and school organizational learning: Conceptualizin g the empirically neglected. International Studies in Educational Administration. 29 (3), 28-39. Lam, Y. L. J. (2002). Defining the effect s of transformational leadership on organizational learning: a cross-cultural comparison. School Leadership and Management, 22 (4), 439-452. Leithwood, K., Leonard, L., & Sharratt, L. ( 1998). Conditions fostering organizational learning in schools. Education Administration Quarterly, 34 (2), 243-276. Levin, J. S. (1997). The cultures of the community college (November, 1997). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of th e Association for the Study of Higher Education, Albuquerque, NM. Levin, J. S. (2005). The business culture of the community college: Students as consumers; students as commodities. New Directions for Higher Education, 129 (Spring), 11-26. McGill, M. E., Slocum Jr., J. W. (1993). Unlearning the organization. Organizational Dynamics, 22 (2), 67-79.

PAGE 131

131 Morrow, S. L., (2005). Quality and trustworthin ess in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology 52 (2), 250-260. Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Ols on, K. & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliabi lity and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 1 (2), Spring Mulford, B., & Silins, H., (2003). Leadership for organizational learning and improved student outcomes What do we know? Cambridge Journal of Education 33 (2), 175-195. Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company Harvard Business Review, (November-December,) 96-104 Pike, K.L. (1967). Language in relation to a unified theory of structure of human behavior (2nd ed.) The Hague: Mouton Polanyi, M., (1969). Knowing and Being Chicago: University of Chicago Press Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative resear ch in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology 52 (2), 126-136. Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative Analysis. Qualitative Research Methods Series 30 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Rowe, P. A. & Boyle, M. V., (2005). Constrai nts to organizational learning during major change at a mental h ealth services facility. Journal of Change Management, 5 (1), 109-117. Rusch, E. A., (2005). Institutional barriers to organizational learning in school systems: The power of silence. Educational Admini strative Quarterly 41 (1), 83-120. Scribner, J. P., Cockrell, K. S., Cockrell, D. H., & Valentine, J. W., (1999). Creating professional communities in schools through organizational learning: An evaluation of a school improvement process. Educational Administration Quarterly 35 (1), 130-160. Schein, E. H. (1993a). How can organizations learn faster? The challenges of entering the green room. Sloan Management Review 34(2), 85-93. Schein, E. H. (1993b). On dialogue, culture and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics, 22 (2), 40-51. Schein, E.H. (1997). Three cultures of management: The key to organizational learning in the 21st century. The Society for Organizational Learning. Retrieved April 4, 2005 from www.http://learning.mit. edu/res/wp/10011.html

PAGE 132

132 Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational cultu re and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and pr actice of the learning organization New York, NY: Doubleday. Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. Roth, G. & Smith, B. (1999). The dance of change: The challenges to sustai ning momentum in learning organizations New York, NY: Doubleday/Currency Silins, H. & Mulford, B. (2002). Schools as l earning organizations: The case for system, teacher and student learning. Journal of Educational Administration, 40 (4/5), 425-447. Smart, J. C., Kuh, G. D., & Tierney, W. G., ( 1997). The roles of institutional cultures and decision approaches in promoting orga nizational effectiveness in two-year colleges. The Journal of Higher Education, 68 (May/June), 256-281. Stage, C. W. & Mattson, M., (2003). Ethnogr aphic interviewing as contextualized conversation. In R. P. Clair (Ed.) Expressions of ethnography: novel approaches to qualitative methods (pp. 97-105) Albany, NY: SUNY Press, Albany. Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J., (1998). Basics of qualitative research. 2nd ed Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Tannenbaum, S. I., (1997). Enhancing continuo us learning: Diagnosti cs findings from multiple companies. Human Resource Management 36 (4), 437-452. Vera, D., & Crossan M. (2004). Strategic leadership and orga nizational learning. Academy of Management Review 29 (2), 222-240. Wheatley, M. (1999). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers

PAGE 133

133 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Karl Dawson was born in the Caribbean territory of the British Virgin Islands. He received his early education there and attended the Univers ity of the West Indies in Barbados and the Bahamas where he earned a bachelors degr ee in hotel management in 1990. Following that experience, Karl worked in the tourism industry for two years befo re joining the faculty at the then recently opened H. L. Stoutt Community Co llege in the British Virgin Islands. At the college, he served as coordinator of hospitality st udies and later as dean of technical, vocational and professional Studies. During th is period he earned a Masters of Arts in Education from Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio. In 2003 he embarked on doctoral studies at the University of Florida in Gainesville. Towards th e end of his studies he was appointed as vice president at the H.L. Stoutt Community College. He was awarded the Do ctor of Philosophy with a concentration in Higher Educat ion Administration in May 2007. As a scholar, his research inte rests include organizational beha vior and leadership. He is also keen on utilizing his research skills to provi de information that could assist in solving social problems in his native country. Karl is very committed to his wife Lucia, and children, Kerrison, Karla and Kylah. A dedicated Christian, he spends much of his time aw ay from work and family on church activities. He is also an avid sports fan and particul arly proud to be a part of the Gator Nation.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101208_AAAAIX INGEST_TIME 2010-12-08T15:07:01Z PACKAGE UFE0019641_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 1053954 DFID F20101208_AABDOL ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH dawson_k_Page_020.tif GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
8a380f177530cc5a712bfe54194f7b0e
SHA-1
161862329472662a60a74112e6534cc331d67da9
30264 F20101208_AABDNX dawson_k_Page_102.QC.jpg
dffe076c98cec9326c84dac391d3e86c
a6973fa230ab09bbd9979605b73348cc1b7aefeb
25009 F20101208_AABDOM dawson_k_Page_034.QC.jpg
913ce64cc6781dd41577d2c84453bfb8
351c0a53d4285452c354fdae96c0aef9bcaa570f
60887 F20101208_AABDPA dawson_k_Page_074.pro
94fbc8427193196aef32fecda750dfe9
4739fc59d4f91d89af8a7fcaeccd3536805de757
25609 F20101208_AABDON dawson_k_Page_022.QC.jpg
beb6c4fa2978d39694d8475c77879264
1026485debb64ef756216afa4f20779b8a42c672
6930 F20101208_AABDNY dawson_k_Page_081thm.jpg
c1a68285f0a3432f0329fb443ee238c1
c026bedcb425f9e7355718308207763e84c0f31c
1874 F20101208_AABDPB dawson_k_Page_122.txt
889b42a66f7246b69ba5a86c1d07fd41
be84347d358cd7d89247c4970536b53ae8148d4d
106623 F20101208_AABDOO dawson_k_Page_054.jp2
c8541b1b777854eb6ec42206443a4f27
90ce12132c2488ea9c6edc5e2f593f4412459b38
7003 F20101208_AABDNZ dawson_k_Page_021thm.jpg
af8b9119eaec2b1e48812e95574b85bb
fb7014b876bc54474897d359d2f05205fa4ef0c5
111159 F20101208_AABDPC dawson_k_Page_116.jp2
0d4d5395421c68ac8f0178f5dd984d4c
ddde7f702308c69fc79c7173eee02bd0f80ea0fa
1871 F20101208_AABDOP dawson_k_Page_008.txt
8895bc4275636e7b6e3e9bac73b44070
49f2250f22793f38037319f0d0422e06b3a4bdd3
115134 F20101208_AABDPD dawson_k_Page_034.jp2
8b6038de3fc0453a2c552e0d3746cda8
8236758b0ef1fc153441283cfb79349c95a98d15
2092 F20101208_AABDOQ dawson_k_Page_056.txt
f9d10b1583a9735665a53781b6e7c8aa
824c9ecbf5eb2982f1b7e7e38a99199fffe2ecab
114070 F20101208_AABDPE dawson_k_Page_105.jpg
59a5c7e9f405995826398e7e6d681231
46358cc64ba31ee159286e7eeb74fc059190c2ea
2368 F20101208_AABDOR dawson_k_Page_130.txt
4550797479b28e00e92720b972b891b7
adf52155549855c15b0f2ca10b8582244fb255a9
53653 F20101208_AABDPF dawson_k_Page_089.pro
2e161b745956afd5f9a2089eb5c563be
24f346a902606616a35290864b04be42924d6166
100199 F20101208_AABDOS dawson_k_Page_122.jp2
91654885fa326e3282235215b14957ae
d6a347d2ffd25e0ece1b450691d5df4bdbda5527
6725 F20101208_AABDPG dawson_k_Page_086thm.jpg
9cc538e1cc506d1eaccb9dcd04ef8128
78adcf4b48f4e45daff7d2e3fc04145f7385c707
F20101208_AABDOT dawson_k_Page_128.tif
94f0b07c68654b6624d517aa2b114c48
8011c604aa38f328e9cf2781f1834dc4ec042d6c
2274 F20101208_AABDPH dawson_k_Page_031.txt
432e947052815c51d256b003d8d86b83
6fc5fd033ef65ddb9be2d84fe87a23975164f2fd
32738 F20101208_AABDOU dawson_k_Page_105.QC.jpg
ad8c1e45cd7864b4949c615cf2912521
95ef16f74a70481c948e8b511b472b5419486cbc
13892 F20101208_AABDPI dawson_k_Page_112.QC.jpg
4b5b767b980e16c5778bcbef6dca7d21
4496f74581f9ba13dbd3d98c6de255b8bd3118aa
24123 F20101208_AABDOV dawson_k_Page_098.QC.jpg
b32e1d64f774e16adbe1836d6a0b5b8d
82690895640065cbfca8a19f6752d26ef45d6740
F20101208_AABDPJ dawson_k_Page_074.tif
c280ac3ddd3b8e6091804af0b07b4807
04ed8cd0016d02f2bcfdf313b7e8c9a609aa3ec8
24907 F20101208_AABDOW dawson_k_Page_080.QC.jpg
ccbf9413201588dab9854408c3053fb1
cb46f19fd00057fb61be0cbb8771d2c348fd3f6e
6917 F20101208_AABDPK dawson_k_Page_065thm.jpg
8c61fd12810813f148f9827162e0a2d8
072bcff8f6a9600e772427ba0249223008ec5c6c
2189 F20101208_AABDPL dawson_k_Page_026.txt
5d5a3b9d30fd68ff1b02102f9199922c
207dd2c0fc210477369310caee8140a139d59061
75089 F20101208_AABDOX dawson_k_Page_016.jpg
11052289f66042ec120c71eeed9c3ac4
faa963780e2784c768f969f2fb0719449dedaa0b
F20101208_AABDQA dawson_k_Page_038.tif
93b909bf7fec6a805653a93131d5f188
946b52b1f594c120037d2fc4d3651bbc5becd975
25362 F20101208_AABDPM dawson_k_Page_062.QC.jpg
24d80ab1c7928a4222e716df9ae4ea58
e51e1db401d99f879ea3c5c6ae92e0cc75f3d446
990 F20101208_AABDOY dawson_k_Page_112.txt
70b6d102241463267222e2c979ec77d1
ba6dfd02e1e74ce563ddf1f53ec3d1102e6d8c99
72986 F20101208_AABDQB dawson_k_Page_041.jpg
cb1d0d6777d6cdf038a73f39152a73b3
346a9992f5e43887907a2d0cf9852430b40fd03d
67313 F20101208_AABDPN dawson_k_Page_126.jp2
df68e899168a6b48fe329f81bb87bc60
3f24c3dbbfa7c4e93457a9291ae6741f52edac70
102395 F20101208_AABDQC dawson_k_Page_124.jp2
18468959ec0c4090074f3fb1ecac71fc
63a805d6dd5befbf1d39c6c675688928187d1202
7040 F20101208_AABDPO dawson_k_Page_023thm.jpg
fadba88793b2031b17381e4c824ef981
04373cb208997482798cee5b4d5b220fd55abd2a
80945 F20101208_AABDOZ dawson_k_Page_078.jpg
0fc1fa26c99090437e4e136b50724a35
90c89de23f22d3fda0e1c304300ef7a0cf9a6553
6840 F20101208_AABDQD dawson_k_Page_084thm.jpg
08d2d7a6711eee96bfa12808e8aa2adb
5f1ad91367c694fd9687beaceaae3e98af044519
80658 F20101208_AABDPP dawson_k_Page_130.jpg
2f0ac58610d00584b612704404d56a1c
b99ede82282f10bb3c593d6b859bf5eca8d4ca37
53699 F20101208_AABDQE dawson_k_Page_075.pro
19f6364df1e5637b2a6bdc5434a2175a
c5ac0f9210137f0d26f78a77ce81c5caf0b5c371
77560 F20101208_AABDPQ dawson_k_Page_036.jpg
8b86cf010e144436e2b602b3d477c08f
56ea9264a97aaf81d8ff1a2c27c620ac7efeca2f
2535 F20101208_AABDQF dawson_k_Page_088.txt
d43e50da47ee4ccc7fd11ba939a865f9
04624dda95c3ce84304b3089e3335092962b0b51
124333 F20101208_AABDPR dawson_k_Page_031.jp2
823bdb9e47945f69d8a3dce24d2d02d5
1554de5f2707101bc05bcc4599da414612a2c532
5328 F20101208_AABDQG dawson_k_Page_057thm.jpg
3ae13d2e1960e69523bbba4fac5f03a9
88264f1aeaa2528a1595c0701bc8841e83ed9cd9
56136 F20101208_AABDPS dawson_k_Page_045.pro
6f6cc694835892ceb826400ed9c7a22b
4b57f53d7e4d75d89757489dbd65e93f9e1a0fd2
1051979 F20101208_AABDQH dawson_k_Page_006.jp2
fbdfa09f0bebc5ea3118c61275a3f8e3
c839fd557f62ce39728a18bc9b65ec98d7d8b596
F20101208_AABDPT dawson_k_Page_078.tif
f3a6423875795c6e0c000e7d160ec625
93888d878ade724162e064fca32d79c0ee8101d2
3299 F20101208_AABDQI dawson_k_Page_007thm.jpg
bc755bd55965f98da0f10cb27f49bccf
0e6b0078e0e4ebbf90488f4d9821b2693c01ea23
72717 F20101208_AABDPU dawson_k_Page_068.pro
5cef5a7277e27c6c26fa8b4e0666b8c9
b7099e1d31e93f4ff3dc0bb9bfe4dd60f7fef005
F20101208_AABDQJ dawson_k_Page_032.tif
726a7799b998e6c1defa038d00417f3a
2ee5a9914b56132b8dbab3a961bd2d44bc760f22
62108 F20101208_AABDPV dawson_k_Page_060.pro
27c255442a26c5c87132b16e1ac69046
7f4ef72f89300047c02a669e63fa86d2261a2298
113574 F20101208_AABDQK dawson_k_Page_056.jp2
714734bb2d6d56844f2432d63ed7cfeb
b24894461f99f366cacd531f9bfcbc2e5ef304a4
F20101208_AABDPW dawson_k_Page_073.tif
356b8b4c62cbc3f090af5cdc4f9edf0f
07d7b42f689f86cdf7f2aaad5aaee8bce6eaed47
2177 F20101208_AABDQL dawson_k_Page_084.txt
fdeb58f2924b9c4b8cdf68908caf43bc
285cbc6ed58d09f7493912a8d1679447f0513d53
6649 F20101208_AABDPX dawson_k_Page_062thm.jpg
674d34ab134ec4c0b72168c983429bb4
0007d6385af81d9c95a7e55f6001f5202d051401
53086 F20101208_AABDQM dawson_k_Page_010.pro
ed725b1c0d1670aa6b2a62298df7033a
89b7b3871c5a58d021b55784fc9ba063bc316fa6
28183 F20101208_AABDPY dawson_k_Page_044.QC.jpg
b297d2d7f3c50f4abed553a64d291fd0
a675bc015e5f68765d5ac286a751801f4168492a
21700 F20101208_AABDRA dawson_k_Page_127.QC.jpg
f93c105b4784f177c470ece02edf8c2b
0287c361ef6146ed855520cd61b77cf11facc04a
95381 F20101208_AABDQN dawson_k_Page_132.jp2
6460c20bab9894aa4cca1bb576d50475
bd50156e1c16cd46f13ff23ccffd0c0bf3ad1b6d
64658 F20101208_AABDPZ dawson_k_Page_044.pro
2edba061563c9f7b10db8fcd3add9e83
5fab38df4aecdd7d23ef659b018ec99809692a20
6786 F20101208_AABDRB dawson_k_Page_012thm.jpg
5885e733fcc716617d7e80dd0e0c86c2
a8759a5c93e82deb82b03146f3035569706c6702
100044 F20101208_AABDQO dawson_k_Page_052.jpg
674b489c1a027ba336b89f96d243ed8a
9cac4f71b415d645ebddbb299ba87a183ba1de31
2282 F20101208_AABDRC dawson_k_Page_067.txt
2bbb565d72dc9f19b9e2f6732ee7fdca
95651d612ebe46fc88326cab9742615b3ab569ab
83113 F20101208_AABDQP dawson_k_Page_106.jp2
cf579d5a1fe02cd1458565586391323b
f2d285de4bb4aec6d00136824090e8d333740d3a
78614 F20101208_AABDRD dawson_k_Page_046.jpg
c5ccb91eccbaad959a4cdeae24ca060b
5603036b8b1a16a87c1992ada61ce7b2b72a2e4b
7079 F20101208_AABDQQ dawson_k_Page_060thm.jpg
73faa5a3bda2b32a7282249a3e2bdb12
c316de7756ef009a30d01d75be8e1fd070715cfd
24295 F20101208_AABDRE dawson_k_Page_032.QC.jpg
b68421abcec71537a806448999664701
b7360b1d01e40d539fad1ca10fe6d51ed58946ea
2119 F20101208_AABDQR dawson_k_Page_014.txt
51b0ce0495fe30417506990e34dcc4a4
0d1a18f2853907dc32755541cd3f588d288c2d90
73680 F20101208_AABDRF dawson_k_Page_066.jpg
d3f2428d8790b84b7bac59e9c2c0f7a9
7bc947377c629b8423f8c72b2345f93259dff961
7103 F20101208_AABDQS dawson_k_Page_039thm.jpg
6a3afaad1d5c71a7690f36094151a832
2160310fdd9f02638171cbc8e7468b4a76da8e2d
81571 F20101208_AABDRG dawson_k_Page_070.jpg
42c981580fe44f9f0c9fec2314d5ae0e
e47cbf3ff7a0302f0484db33c8a154eb014364e3
2173 F20101208_AABDQT dawson_k_Page_049.txt
605f2ea278d87b664c24fd7f332bd2fc
26f6e833721dc7212468e6d127920e7f8d05e7fa
51821 F20101208_AABDRH dawson_k_Page_118.pro
0487dbdf2a13f1b0a749d6e20df748e4
832bbe22efc9cf94620246de839e223d05fe680a
4648 F20101208_AABDQU dawson_k_Page_006.txt
a42cbf6325e04634b1a39213991ba84f
79a978322cd9c80706765464ce3bad5917398e6e
50918 F20101208_AABDRI dawson_k_Page_116.pro
680d62de6edca21c3968076a9ea0e1fa
ed2b73b73d581bdfa62c2dda8b872742703ff1a8
25270 F20101208_AABDQV dawson_k_Page_036.QC.jpg
d09b53050a3de9a13f23b90af831e39e
3ea72d35c2dbab224571f5323be7123160f618ef
F20101208_AABDRJ dawson_k_Page_105.tif
be36723b9738060597089dc413950b8e
7ccb4c71f5e7f860dc31bb1684ac8e15cb34a89a
2463 F20101208_AABDQW dawson_k_Page_129.txt
7af7d5a0528caeef1a11b7e6899ae23f
5ff93cbfb067e9a7ccb1a858f88af6880bc69ac2
107784 F20101208_AABDRK dawson_k_Page_051.jp2
e61a91cdbf4b6ebcae144aa327598c24
4f05d72fad05b4843ea610af0e047c419e9e2df6
F20101208_AABDQX dawson_k_Page_040.tif
0f9312958be62c472df38ee8547629ec
9feead0152691da74d9d8b56a73c66f9d555aac6
2424 F20101208_AABDRL dawson_k_Page_077.txt
fed68ac816a92f6b3707a526e37db029
f369187e21b7cef8a3431bc835912ad0730ef330
117663 F20101208_AABDQY dawson_k_Page_096.jp2
1e4b20e9b1101a8b6a77d3e86d527d83
b101e1864b88307f7fc63b1f35a507e20da5fbfd
F20101208_AABDSA dawson_k_Page_083.tif
3063df77da2700a929cea3a6a305ec2c
f01185936177f887535b1af886f351ba5a4c0b31
53930 F20101208_AABDRM dawson_k_Page_109.jpg
1047c65986a55347eed782680c0dc590
4bc0bf2fac0d6f4763dcac14ba71dd526284ec4d
75957 F20101208_AABDQZ dawson_k_Page_037.jpg
c3a405df14481e35d385cca47a38acaf
f4968e38ade5e1ff3524d51c2a39f9a9d5e41b40
23946 F20101208_AABDSB dawson_k_Page_117.QC.jpg
14970499d652e1e531bd22c9099b67d2
7ab6817df5f5fe2d70f743a6b3ecd4951ed4b9ff
20709 F20101208_AABDRN dawson_k_Page_121.QC.jpg
a5aec11469593f48d2de2f6c4272cf30
bbf13d89759ce2b9a17a412165947a6a69907a72
59415 F20101208_AABDSC dawson_k_Page_011.pro
1cb5bfd75f57f7339ac6210c372c036f
c0f92094dba4a8b57735f56e87bc6c1ef59a0a73
125089 F20101208_AABDRO dawson_k_Page_070.jp2
6e3ba3b46231401137a004d49ec8e42b
f389c5f25ee322f524db28a5f1b1701c742949a7
F20101208_AABDSD dawson_k_Page_111.tif
b9660116a3aeb76beb0d63b4763abe48
0c9e93e4655b7c8e6e4ae349134db4af87a06aa8
86177 F20101208_AABDRP dawson_k_Page_071.jpg
4f0e0c30cc00340ea1c38d82479fd4bf
f15c10509563c07a6cad38e798b2daaa0e3718ca
F20101208_AABDSE dawson_k_Page_125.tif
83994e0122e4627c3546c7b464e16747
d613df5147f494fd0c1e03fb293326bff1607dc6
F20101208_AABDRQ dawson_k_Page_034.tif
a2819d3416bc7791c41163b51fa66f05
b3f0f41c7bb559379090c762914d08824f572e7f
1899 F20101208_AABDSF dawson_k_Page_017.txt
a76498e78cd0a668d75773c96156cea8
692cfd24285ecb66a3e7ddf9e9df93c4910ea410
21453 F20101208_AABDRR dawson_k_Page_017.QC.jpg
3f70c6a84a8f3d6eb2ca9316e61742cf
dd8fd70f7b5663bbac126060f688308f9031f63b
25695 F20101208_AABDSG dawson_k_Page_033.QC.jpg
3990ebfa9e9cf2febb31cf3ec3eb8666
144e0abf49d8a3f3d2c4d686068abb6cf1794693
57470 F20101208_AABDRS dawson_k_Page_086.pro
2eb111ad9d1df051e1408f7169ee5a0c
b583c56eebd730efb728b21bb30f9d77c12af0a2
23145 F20101208_AABDSH dawson_k_Page_115.QC.jpg
d39eedeead6d0db4bd9310b336c335bb
3a01c937a8ef4adf0f03f8f0797128a66b25975a
6317 F20101208_AABDRT dawson_k_Page_115thm.jpg
fc4b542981173ac3c4ea0f882a4dd564
da1ccd528ec77a8748077962cb6751dba0b6f3ba
2435 F20101208_AABDSI dawson_k_Page_070.txt
8d0b58a3edaa20e85d714bb70df70d97
b302dad776e5e54c69b6e6d2187f956afe2ee08d
24764 F20101208_AABDRU dawson_k_Page_014.QC.jpg
225075e68b9fcb5e16cd4695e64e3b87
30220e243c8d461ce2cdfde1e9bcd51e9813f4c7
F20101208_AABDSJ dawson_k_Page_112.tif
c77d9523cced19bcd513d2023178d940
91e7b23793c365a1f9ee07a5c31099d87f206b1a
24613 F20101208_AABDRV dawson_k_Page_076.QC.jpg
590aa36b595bed6c7aa6f1396a397c5a
ac2ae0d9fa7ea2462dc00d0faedc1ae5787ed6b6
99402 F20101208_AABDSK dawson_k_Page_055.jp2
bcc0f5eac8ab46a76dec00432be2fcc6
48d1c519e4591159c5f5c77e235d92e86eb61a9d
87959 F20101208_AABDRW dawson_k_Page_053.jpg
318a72449d927d164848e1c6024c2141
e501df437734748d828ce98f81412e84200b7117
103807 F20101208_AABDSL dawson_k_Page_087.jp2
14a551e6dde490d03cbc17e55268e02f
9b0f4033ef2db1b6f0d6a610aeb7d36a746be6ab
24747 F20101208_AABDRX dawson_k_Page_056.QC.jpg
06496e4df9884186d1b541c0dd2ade53
737852a3847e9db5c812c6708711a0aa3029863a
24345 F20101208_AABDTA dawson_k_Page_101.QC.jpg
5699931499e22fa19995252fa095f467
e8b26cd97dc4039c2e5a9ebd026745de7cf308b1
F20101208_AABDSM dawson_k_Page_087.tif
21729d1270a6b4b164fd92e7f23df8df
df3ba86368c9e0606b2c04acce7b81d6eebf918e
25505 F20101208_AABDRY dawson_k_Page_013.QC.jpg
19796e1ba23e89f9b4f291ebd23a21f0
63928e9207216bbe9650a52100447ab24ea5eee8
53714 F20101208_AABDTB dawson_k_Page_099.pro
d9d0d1ffd6ee4eeb7441d401f39f8e68
06cb5f1ded5ad0537001f7fff2e146a0d4935401
78508 F20101208_AABDSN dawson_k_Page_023.jpg
1fda5b53f543d488d0a8f1f501b984e9
c01075fc957a9f42cb9e834f5f309a7be35ab23b
122875 F20101208_AABDRZ dawson_k_Page_085.jp2
73eed36f72857cdab6477a8919c9d24d
7259f5e925612a5796161eccf843abc1b99375b6
F20101208_AABDTC dawson_k_Page_031.tif
bc41a8ba4a0366c2306ff82f83b9486a
bc65bb5fdf0d95c0343fe58853b21d185564c47a
111095 F20101208_AABDSO dawson_k_Page_032.jp2
063098d00b5401151c03b1fe7efca5bf
47c65b025dfa0f50e7f81a6625a25b8d1470d984
6320 F20101208_AABDTD dawson_k_Page_043thm.jpg
a60ba5843c7cac71c6e09afdcff0492d
765a296465161eb5bee2318f0240354d023ca5bb
23759 F20101208_AABDSP dawson_k_Page_091.QC.jpg
f207de92af559ba3977a7da572f7ce30
3b6f2d04b4bd97ef5e759c0fe34fcc80ef43b1be
1882 F20101208_AABDTE dawson_k_Page_087.txt
88f2c3b19b8d9ecda8dbf164052b5227
79e52b8b61e7293addae1296046c43b53a40b029
77748 F20101208_AABDSQ dawson_k_Page_013.jpg
d2917ee75f8acfc9b0c3fab8e508282b
205ef1b66fa6e966b66504d19864c69297e4dd19
73412 F20101208_AABDTF dawson_k_Page_118.jpg
ef781edf3325dc5d49ff1699e6f1daaf
dcc51f63f25d16383cd2c7438828eec5fd8ec077
111646 F20101208_AABDSR dawson_k_Page_020.jp2
b3a1f67ec758951bb55c948e047ec3b8
5c7db200a09389d8f51bf84ea10b563c00ec9c8e
5306 F20101208_AABDTG dawson_k_Page_005thm.jpg
6a283e29a6ff19053b14485e282d736d
36254f4273cfd64f9e5d980495c9bc528c4a7112
52800 F20101208_AABDSS dawson_k_Page_101.pro
d31ac4a9ba746195093f5f4b72c5d94a
b61f7cdcb4e37d39b36d7c57feed5277f6ce5839
87304 F20101208_AABDTH dawson_k_Page_133.jp2
2e46fec47fab524f4b09c7c784553452
4ad42987dcf278400358f2a13fcfecb58455aebc
24908 F20101208_AABDST dawson_k_Page_024.QC.jpg
c196e161a6f1fec9ca00fcd7a32deeff
a6ee9a3be070368d57de1a8dfce6c381f6dfb9cb
105373 F20101208_AABDTI dawson_k_Page_058.jp2
51d18d8ed098bdf1d20e9db4ac30efb2
e65edc792b5cc7057fb21835f72247066b06a347
85681 F20101208_AABDSU dawson_k_Page_057.jp2
fdb5e0467bc890ee52e2f0649bb81025
452c6fed5c5e529f1333c05f4e3bc0d15573ef5d
F20101208_AABDTJ dawson_k_Page_090.tif
753bd859f59dfa2134924a4e04ae0a81
92ceefea0e6eea011fe79451921e94cf9e4ce01b
54474 F20101208_AABDSV dawson_k_Page_024.pro
62722ae49a1f8e672a59e0c5cfd06ab0
76bf163e383f8e9f30f0f111ef5e298a887e66da
72447 F20101208_AABDTK dawson_k_Page_032.jpg
542c2caaec524468be93986450ae2075
d9d60b887dc30a6d4f85c210a77aab3c15ed8100
F20101208_AABDSW dawson_k_Page_043.tif
f9cecaf1f30ecbdfeaae6a61aeca5d1c
e37a34e8c73d0299660183eb22c2b815e463dfc5
2440 F20101208_AABDTL dawson_k_Page_074.txt
7a33321d9140be1dfe17bfcb1b58f303
b7e862f810b4e2b59dac3d823a242668f120869f
F20101208_AABDSX dawson_k_Page_041.tif
c37ab7a29a8707289df821079644d1e7
f76a8321761203d3bcf2e46f258a641b0f9eebad
F20101208_AABDTM dawson_k_Page_016.tif
f8729794606af46ad27d2bbedde935d9
850fc66cfdcfe9170f2b728e7dde348dd4befc4a
2133 F20101208_AABDSY dawson_k_Page_037.txt
d008063899ff06d848fa82741efb55fc
18dd6762f4d4b5cb54537956af8f28b57204d2f2
F20101208_AABDUA dawson_k_Page_092.tif
e7db0dfc91d6609be97b6b9427ffe675
f69faf03ea8142e7aa8319d815bcd286b0ba8e6b
6707 F20101208_AABDTN dawson_k_Page_098thm.jpg
2a9296f160421d976ca12b038c5a9cb6
d0e96a52ccd7a00f9e57a647a52f41370b2db716
52702 F20101208_AABDSZ dawson_k_Page_009.jpg
e0f3e9e21b1efb0ef91962a96870e424
d6509523a110deb8eb3455eacc1bb326b8ea7a91
6571 F20101208_AABDUB dawson_k_Page_082thm.jpg
0920f01405026156fadc7bc3a56c7da4
1993ec04c6f2ae639e8822ef0b1490176123a03b
109847 F20101208_AABDTO dawson_k_Page_038.jp2
71874d58c988c2f6d4cb07b0e4f60236
59fef9dbce9c5cf3bd9f5f8d00393dba024a1697
111989 F20101208_AABDUC dawson_k_Page_098.jp2
367e77c6ea8c6e141aad12701c0b5790
e09661be000910da7a1b8ea7b4defc96132d6d4f
43213 F20101208_AABDTP dawson_k_Page_121.pro
7c626c8d54ecc4f636e0a9914c070c6b
60e154d5501101de9bbb3e9450477f7b4076ca43
2953 F20101208_AABDUD dawson_k_Page_068.txt
da3ea0ce0e4e213a28fde352e5e33c2a
5803e2ed2cd7e33c9b15739749cdebd73c745c17
6905 F20101208_AABDTQ dawson_k_Page_059thm.jpg
f04e3b41843fb8cc0df98d3df3157e8e
ebeb67a672a97e0e0355dbb588d2661147c7296f
57014 F20101208_AABDUE dawson_k_Page_128.pro
9e7feb4ae9deb18cdc0cf89102be6b2a
e759cdbfde90dd7e160a9a0bb5369ee87672b2b3
76280 F20101208_AABDTR dawson_k_Page_084.jpg
6d1a7993e15c09efc80375e324b51306
a4dce0536549d7d31e86bed5b676395b0aa43e02
73080 F20101208_AABEAA dawson_k_Page_050.jpg
c05387f9884db0d986c46affa1ce4367
5ec7386f24c9b3ceb9787f448c52315aec7f31d4
7744 F20101208_AABDUF dawson_k_Page_003.jp2
b4dc9861e35ec8ebd1864ea429aa4129
c1ba4ee13c48b54222d980c14d1fde5a57022b6b
20274 F20101208_AABDTS dawson_k_Page_107.QC.jpg
81392caff290c4dbe3d3b148e142d75c
e39d1c902ee747a69760d4259ab89f31d2e329f1
70065 F20101208_AABEAB dawson_k_Page_051.jpg
4bbfb7c8e673dd3e29fbebc848ef9b96
3c005448efaa3e7558c354562ff79edf8ba30760
F20101208_AABDUG dawson_k_Page_077.tif
54046a0f337d8a00d59412ec4c6a945e
82d2989f662913c87357e6d7bab385dc1f68bee1
F20101208_AABDTT dawson_k_Page_106.tif
40e4307d8fcbaaceff4063fae8b04b05
81f3a2adb5dc480b5b6672a4804837b69c6b9b9e
64701 F20101208_AABEAC dawson_k_Page_055.jpg
5898501e6c15b6b27fbc1fc008111d64
f8b7bdb32e3c994936d08e16721645eb04125347
86626 F20101208_AABDUH dawson_k_Page_060.jpg
f7fad55a55593051cac555fb752ee4be
75a15ce6bc59ec8b8a53e0fda53b4b73cce7b5d1
75657 F20101208_AABEAD dawson_k_Page_056.jpg
9842c0bc63b35ea2f53f617deb63c4a9
ad104e2c4c662e1d14513de618c9e76cbabb8a95
F20101208_AABDUI dawson_k_Page_088.tif
e21c2e47567b141fa4d206262b5937d9
6f2ae2c6db4aeb897e1c1b2b195668bb5ac184b8
128897 F20101208_AABDTU dawson_k_Page_060.jp2
f549e694ceb748ea80fd55096ff1fadd
eaf7ba10b6bc1f7fe042b97f54409780b8be420e
57795 F20101208_AABEAE dawson_k_Page_057.jpg
e2b3b0631797b6fcdf83a5c1492ecdab
6f7e27b3f5d75d1f3761b7e1aed1c160ab2cb414
112487 F20101208_AABDUJ dawson_k_Page_075.jp2
5741d6e03a51a5086966f5f6033476b6
26ed450cd1e32827b527b2cb8091e362af75dfd4
1941 F20101208_AABDTV dawson_k_Page_120.txt
47fb9a04b6ee4e8e4bfc784f1194e77f
10a6b149204a4f5ed6ec6afe7371e53289159f18
77054 F20101208_AABEAF dawson_k_Page_059.jpg
aea177c40d53360df43219a497be2306
c65f2866ce16633325b67ad51046076b2b0e2962
2154 F20101208_AABDUK dawson_k_Page_064.txt
e0ddccaa40fb5bc407bf7c5d1f8c7eb0
9dca1d04d3cd9fe082b73377f72165c92d2c2485
F20101208_AABDTW dawson_k_Page_033.txt
30e3c1e25189c8e15c19bf8ea447c216
c174ece4f64471e7dfcc8fa82603921063fd82c4
74356 F20101208_AABEAG dawson_k_Page_061.jpg
21d57ff2ce43e7410ba56ed5894fa4aa
5e53ed0d81b14f1cfb10840ddb1015bb1c1dae12
2158 F20101208_AABDUL dawson_k_Page_035.txt
aa54ef44420dc070fd43c56de40aa779
4fa23745fdef3b90a7a4e01f02ce35ac1118be59
116002 F20101208_AABDTX dawson_k_Page_102.jpg
786ebacfcbcb756b69e70b8e0ac5f659
843d30ef107e53fb087323ad559913b8f7da77c7
82417 F20101208_AABEAH dawson_k_Page_063.jpg
247c326eefa038093ee1c2895f65f8ab
d473a092b5fa4cf5370ef1f7055f2d20d30f7795
25271604 F20101208_AABDVA dawson_k_Page_006.tif
ab7bd0304ae769f12ac3939e22ccede4
8902760268499d55ab7c24e36ebdd5cae5dc1eca
2488 F20101208_AABDUM dawson_k_Page_060.txt
2767b6fef2118d699cfae84a6c5abee4
dff1673a66baae404701596e6432a4771d7852b8
117756 F20101208_AABDTY dawson_k_Page_097.jp2
57a2bda90b2afe115d65ecbdffecf868
a64d1340200db4f4aa0f06a9afde2c82fce8100b
74825 F20101208_AABEAI dawson_k_Page_064.jpg
15b0764d28b0ac91c97ce473574400ac
ae7432c83319bdf1e462cbff9d9521dcf8cc9aef
80081 F20101208_AABDVB dawson_k_Page_005.jpg
97f35cedc5c398d4c1a217b9f968ee45
224ff9a78b112073f9cdaec211a8b01c48038269
4067 F20101208_AABDUN dawson_k_Page_113.QC.jpg
51a87c1efd107ec290ceab4419737a7f
8c5faec4cd8623f650256579f6ccf5577b9356a4
24471 F20101208_AABDTZ dawson_k_Page_125.QC.jpg
6909031df011775a315aa1c4411b2cdb
28ae9e2b4e2c4a1a72d3ea4a4b6a6739e11671fc
98012 F20101208_AABEAJ dawson_k_Page_068.jpg
f2d756f5c5fa253c8f5d8614e7ddf4dd
b350e51c00bfb39c0e3395f4d336a2594d5485fc
6890 F20101208_AABDVC dawson_k_Page_080thm.jpg
83bd35ba55801a79127035ea4567e79d
0df018ef8ec4fd407a1ccef0e5b71d4984562ef5
2239 F20101208_AABDUO dawson_k_Page_045.txt
4093b9bcd36542b2e1182870ce8719ff
7f1da05d3638a51a4fcb740ba6411dfbbd0f9038
F20101208_AABDVD dawson_k_Page_008.tif
64eb93aa0e77501fdd95ca33487b44ae
56c8ced2cfa1bfbbb911db1973eb8f3dd1dcafb2
58822 F20101208_AABDUP dawson_k_Page_078.pro
4a3440ed5ba6052582900712a8faf906
d9f0f330ebe65fa7a4e7e192c36c67a988368354
74048 F20101208_AABEAK dawson_k_Page_069.jpg
e2c888dcf839b91be327dbe12d7de726
69401dbdb863b54217885bdd07f3417a48cec185
6487 F20101208_AABDVE dawson_k_Page_128thm.jpg
820aad86147c223fbee0880caadc07b3
fb112bb079275a9288246d315283cb13458faa0f
47320 F20101208_AABDUQ dawson_k_Page_087.pro
42a6ef95962f7917dfc58a65a4f7349f
4e604b1214cde2617826a36e9852ee73e31ebaf3
84146 F20101208_AABEAL dawson_k_Page_072.jpg
df76a8ed1418d46d7c1ed3b67ddf26d0
515227f2205df93f3fef540464450962c0d00b85
2062 F20101208_AABDVF dawson_k_Page_020.txt
89686cd5bef4b31832db17271913188b
5ff9f294d7fbd72a8bfdeae9f0074445e6d9b152
78561 F20101208_AABDUR dawson_k_Page_045.jpg
6a1752c65378d3b9e0e7fde05f5f11e7
6352c0a7bef172399861b60481dba28148c3386e
78969 F20101208_AABEBA dawson_k_Page_100.jpg
3c4757c2f17262c53f5c6da75b2d238f
908a83cd2710e9381dd4f148a9f8012068ff8837
76223 F20101208_AABEAM dawson_k_Page_075.jpg
9d318e60c99fbe85f570de53b3801a6a
a47445a307f2751056b53060e532600160a7e260
54555 F20101208_AABDVG dawson_k_Page_097.pro
d8aebfb130147af40723a3a086096a86
d420176dc8fbdfd965e46bab8c7b6bc0e008c32a
128271 F20101208_AABDUS dawson_k_Page_011.jp2
e1239bc69cd2e448b22128b37210315a
cce7b1aa98ef5a9ea3fa8846e82d0507b53c59c6
74863 F20101208_AABEBB dawson_k_Page_101.jpg
653b5566154f84caeab3cfc1430770c4
1e8e95a7f649771196f109ef325a32570ad92a66
75387 F20101208_AABEAN dawson_k_Page_076.jpg
77cd02473a05a125ed7458b1cd47480e
64e017d0ff158d86dceadc01abc4dcca73a69ed1
F20101208_AABDVH dawson_k_Page_057.tif
3f240d70d46d14493e1088a84e99981b
fd00cd0e8cf24c022186028aa76d3af996997a9e
F20101208_AABDUT dawson_k_Page_121.tif
074245b180c058939c839b94f744e9f5
d250a2dcbc9eeedf6112d1c77dcd587d7f584bfd
73058 F20101208_AABEBC dawson_k_Page_104.jpg
476c8c84217da7e0cb3ac6bc7fccdd24
ffd869efce4dccbd9e7693b69f2e2262d66415b0
82172 F20101208_AABEAO dawson_k_Page_077.jpg
e0cea062bc51bc387f6b6f4ab49926f9
2d83a1e53f031560b3fda70a17310f1ff9b849ab
118703 F20101208_AABDVI dawson_k_Page_036.jp2
b5acca92ee21b6f9277466e5ca16850b
3c8523a81a9b880c980d0f68f5450746f28ea8bd
37597 F20101208_AABDUU dawson_k_Page_007.jpg
266dc8d4724cfc9d557ac99a128311ef
8da435ab4bfb32f4dc6cdeb02d28a07e85858cef
58274 F20101208_AABEBD dawson_k_Page_106.jpg
46cb31c1ade942a4a916f7f3eebe62ef
ab79c4e30c529ec0676827cccec4c16fc80f7dfb
76807 F20101208_AABEAP dawson_k_Page_080.jpg
51191266178a03ba418ece11167e026a
927ed5cec555a4e52a709541d8fe37ee481d2440
19330 F20101208_AABDVJ dawson_k_Page_057.QC.jpg
44343b9dd2fd691e5c8ec2afe3da2f05
fbd6b97ecaad9307f944c60ce54361ad529ef05a
117143 F20101208_AABDUV dawson_k_Page_024.jp2
ad783e98782346339663d7615600ac55
fe428eada80be2cc048a386cef2027f88a8098b5
67710 F20101208_AABEBE dawson_k_Page_107.jpg
17956d154519e3ef261494d6413c3db0
c21bc8bc7dcfb46af79fc3d63fc61a6ed2b17f16
74146 F20101208_AABEAQ dawson_k_Page_082.jpg
4022705a40a377e850d810b5f04be64b
8044bcd880bca6a37a8841942f9280f9108633dc
40564 F20101208_AABDVK dawson_k_Page_112.jpg
df2a6646857454b138a66498bcf6b002
7f8ba7b052dc539ed24c820ecb3e803e27fccdf5
77827 F20101208_AABDUW dawson_k_Page_028.jpg
9daa9cffc66759a1559d5bb78efe5fcc
45ca98f0dd33fb64c3d1f246d345b52005cf0565
48758 F20101208_AABEBF dawson_k_Page_108.jpg
6a55b5243b86139a765cdbc84d7c331f
1b89dbea2ef7df82952a581683635f8a67dd9bc1
F20101208_AABDVL dawson_k_Page_010.tif
404a96706027e96a23f2fe355504ae1d
68e43f53b191e216f0a5d3e072e13aa206d4e414
46629 F20101208_AABDUX dawson_k_Page_114.pro
a409b5769626f11e4f192c613248f60a
4143d6628257b875834bc63024895accbccb2d2a
21383 F20101208_AABEBG dawson_k_Page_111.jpg
ff8aef85450a9d3381e641ba22bc916a
150cce7e7e920824a5acd8e24659191c7cb45d22
111077 F20101208_AABDWA dawson_k_Page_066.jp2
2f0a83484d57414b35718e3115ef79d4
70956e19e5a75e692aceb9639906ae14ce9ab02d
80819 F20101208_AABEAR dawson_k_Page_083.jpg
a6b9bcabfc49a3ac12506771469a674e
9ab3c7320392611a880128ba6389c232734eba25
77199 F20101208_AABDVM dawson_k_Page_097.jpg
f0daa4d2f904e1690c6b9c612d21057a
3bd2dcd50ab6b9b9e55f19ef0c53f0bdc8fca017
20151 F20101208_AABDUY dawson_k_Page_001.jpg
65814cd8e53ddacf914d55dcb1a66dd0
54535b38b3d3dc0fdec0a773aa87ab72aea04d93
12379 F20101208_AABEBH dawson_k_Page_113.jpg
2ac10373d5c50aa8cf31e7696ab14e97
86134de09a302182f539090a9a5b95e2b28b1a9d
81375 F20101208_AABEAS dawson_k_Page_085.jpg
45adcf4260e0958b5522ef0087f27c0e
eef5e8c780c565fa5a1bbd321aa6edfa8a9041d4
7161 F20101208_AABDVN dawson_k_Page_072thm.jpg
bd717e4afd8f51c4026f319bc367d39c
2859329b7d109ffecdd603f187bdbb850a1f3fee
1308 F20101208_AABDUZ dawson_k_Page_002thm.jpg
6ffbe4494631795382a348ecf972e925
97ea5266034d8cc70f2920f567b8bafc99a7f9be
70218 F20101208_AABEBI dawson_k_Page_114.jpg
5fb969d529f3ee8193e48b93efff4acb
d57d72c2831bdf6cb16abb46348b7a61334169ed
2347 F20101208_AABDWB dawson_k_Page_128.txt
1722ef95ca325d01d11195094fe7eec4
9f3a4850eb82055a9e7de67b04e459d8ae73802c
84794 F20101208_AABEAT dawson_k_Page_088.jpg
fec3d658baf56904ad784ab7f7d67fe7
19d669056c156e7396b74e03c59e24988d23a946
109485 F20101208_AABDVO dawson_k_Page_048.jp2
cdf62ed9b1e8462593e3ce8b83a8899e
dd4c836afe209cc0d292ce66201a38f7f48b18e7
70817 F20101208_AABEBJ dawson_k_Page_115.jpg
a2ed269d1ae438cc61c419589d9c4979
48e34965e0ed386fb1cefb5eb95d6d63ebdf7674
71549 F20101208_AABDWC dawson_k_Page_127.jpg
6c14f03df3ed57ec56f161189c1bfd4b
5365b6e94cf05babc91c7dee41360bd2b8f10095
75469 F20101208_AABEAU dawson_k_Page_089.jpg
6d23b7b32415928fa6fbbf4ff5f51004
4c46948fa6520f7fe82b10933b83478a9165844e
24417 F20101208_AABDVP dawson_k_Page_059.QC.jpg
bb7751e9ace8f964d736acc9194d7c44
fdb299a9e8b767353dfe047e3d5f755153d57591
72422 F20101208_AABEBK dawson_k_Page_117.jpg
7ba6915fb1e51d2754f1bee08eac373a
064360900b77805890cb6bb2cdcf7d2e945e5a41
55112 F20101208_AABDWD dawson_k_Page_059.pro
e835ed7c61196d376bc186df5473fd79
3b554950299f3c3812894a2d3714d6a3aa9882ac
70718 F20101208_AABEAV dawson_k_Page_090.jpg
05e365b8c956400162e47ef3978b54f3
98c0e27f0cf1a0929fe70bd3617debe338717cc8
2614 F20101208_AABDVQ dawson_k_Page_053.txt
8f4d5b0f1510350d5ccfef840a331e03
63f13749dff73444df82390cdb904b888d800f81
F20101208_AABDWE dawson_k_Page_094.tif
d787bb6d4183df13f677546f4ed34d6e
ce8b8af6ea573964875004888da778fe5b407588
71796 F20101208_AABEAW dawson_k_Page_091.jpg
a4b7c13681238afccc9dfc73035eda56
fb54049c469011513a6601e883094d5fb87c4afd
54819 F20101208_AABDVR dawson_k_Page_094.pro
ef1f22ff9be06c36cbe239dc979766cd
8733241ee5dd9cb20d12fe5828f279149fc96303
115670 F20101208_AABECA dawson_k_Page_010.jp2
b35ad47ff03972bfb4d008d87c2826c2
0028b2d630a9148e8b9996aa5420f577e0334cda
68580 F20101208_AABEBL dawson_k_Page_119.jpg
6fc58e60cb18f1dcf0bf6e9f3e8fbb37
d11296fb7b7c92936eb89ee59e21717b689b9f8e
F20101208_AABDWF dawson_k_Page_052.tif
a97acb1f0f906e2981452b347ec0f4ef
2eb9ab29e7aae07b09449771ade87a9436d1cda0
76724 F20101208_AABEAX dawson_k_Page_093.jpg
fc03a9a9c5b5de68d19e76caa954b399
69cd6a91f67caa0190db07b73d965d1ec6785b30
55957 F20101208_AABDVS dawson_k_Page_062.pro
e955233b2152efe01f2ada3dfde3966c
a103223a056e1a6d4389759a1b4dcc91f3d801d6
118590 F20101208_AABECB dawson_k_Page_012.jp2
050af8f9280c637872d961a320e6410c
01ab093b1c69c05d83599dd1c9a876b46575b672
68794 F20101208_AABEBM dawson_k_Page_120.jpg
91bc24d1bab227f470944ac538862442
a29fca776d17257de02065317989b720f66f3119
47845 F20101208_AABDWG dawson_k_Page_008.pro
f4b160c3d9f46bb42fadf296d2496446
9ddf8ed906f8bfc2f77efa6e211232e3609e8b01
76410 F20101208_AABEAY dawson_k_Page_095.jpg
b50280452a8d283c7a0297b13092efdf
d34dd1f5f01907a5b3eb6c4acacdbecc905e04de
124 F20101208_AABDVT dawson_k_Page_113.txt
c947d8dfd978d67820cc4c0bca8a921b
b4ea8c6ea894a57ef69e0415b4f24321e980aaa1
117111 F20101208_AABECC dawson_k_Page_014.jp2
35c52cef43300e32af262f6e7fc94ac3
537542053080915b4bbaf94e603ea2b175082850
63603 F20101208_AABEBN dawson_k_Page_121.jpg
a47e8ea48e2d6e56fd6201f7d6717dda
4ebd7d39a74dda99b21f552c2872b98a312c19e8
103944 F20101208_AABDWH dawson_k_Page_114.jp2
5fd74c46db38bca4e7ca5e5f43ae36cb
e372f5257f8848f04b4504be580d97844577b7dd
77156 F20101208_AABEAZ dawson_k_Page_096.jpg
dd2db00b46459ada1ff7ed22cc18f7cb
bbb57dc8111e9e0a849c79239a689c20dcbb27c1
48037 F20101208_AABDVU dawson_k_Page_107.pro
416d6f2dffd949cbf022b74294b721fb
c0a1c8f432b84673f416803c17d4aefff1f30620
99546 F20101208_AABECD dawson_k_Page_017.jp2
6c31f53047d2d9fee11e14e242261873
2bdd94c5d8ca4c98983bc18cb72fdbc6f78684bc
70751 F20101208_AABEBO dawson_k_Page_123.jpg
519b408fa59d1a557617b7edd35e9ba2
66a8eed78b17340a42973044fa161743f6a1b668
F20101208_AABDWI dawson_k_Page_084.tif
fe119216190dab538558286af35ab5e8
37c1c30466783ba82f3a683f8e696d08a19fcfa4
60017 F20101208_AABDVV dawson_k_Page_077.pro
157f90018a5aeff1f05b86f88ab074aa
17739388cdcfd8ccd8a4d8a1dc54fe86bbcb5546
107448 F20101208_AABECE dawson_k_Page_019.jp2
32042bee854699211a42dfc94d22d22d
8b260ff5f86d4b0469291bc2f966db11d0cb6689
75465 F20101208_AABEBP dawson_k_Page_125.jpg
80b5c417f75de5d1c8aa69429de1e692
69744fe839d249987669ac52e11e7e9322c0c88a
26721 F20101208_AABDWJ dawson_k_Page_063.QC.jpg
f7296499e196ef175c5fe86c6a08c47e
9080d4ca122dcfe5153fdc8db24cfbda68404b13
22351 F20101208_AABDVW dawson_k_Page_124.QC.jpg
601f7f29550bfd86be57814fd766e4bd
d24e782395ffee63e7599e49f1d32587040e79cf
121297 F20101208_AABECF dawson_k_Page_021.jp2
a0876cb60b26eaa64a428e9e8f5bdd10
b030dbf90439d67fc656f32a6ec00e955225e02f
46737 F20101208_AABEBQ dawson_k_Page_126.jpg
e8fcee30510ecfdda57b1ead679e4057
948eb4806094a3c14bed83b37ee5383027cb0254
26094 F20101208_AABDWK dawson_k_Page_045.QC.jpg
151ee68f23f295e35880bc7b7db0cf29
a34dfadbb5751a6b10d7a4dda57b0a2509140f23
25165 F20101208_AABDVX dawson_k_Page_070.QC.jpg
6102b27626fe96ea0aa69e324bb12442
ba7ffc1633841addd6de4433f9375939eeef7370
118552 F20101208_AABECG dawson_k_Page_022.jp2
e15d7ede299b6ef392cd4b9bd3e0c48b
52cf3969ebfba32c61f6feb05452d40529d7a75b
2350 F20101208_AABDXA dawson_k_Page_011.txt
5b8832f1829fa5b5da9a7e5fb2b55c7a
e0dcd297e700bafaf736a2f1c34b89baa12dd785
80536 F20101208_AABEBR dawson_k_Page_131.jpg
b0d72cb1248aed0af9ee7e04495d587b
8861fe4d293633ce06524ae7310d8474d894d174
6860 F20101208_AABDWL dawson_k_Page_013thm.jpg
7d55bc83940287730cdc4c6e6605b6d1
acd85739498e0403e4b93200bd7eefdb615bacd2
F20101208_AABDVY dawson_k_Page_086.tif
21ad4d585faeb8ed33d96168cf1a98e8
d7cc39feb69618d52025b3c3856d2ea02e42d646
112989 F20101208_AABECH dawson_k_Page_025.jp2
bad5db8c8ec13bb0f14061a287a4e2a5
c3c3230ca0517b8bb4df0d80f0148ed7a50826f8
69508 F20101208_AABDXB dawson_k_Page_054.jpg
d9630c014d51e9dabf1f9c16b2ee14ba
ff196226402f7dd2024a256ec8ab7289f140e8e4
61419 F20101208_AABEBS dawson_k_Page_132.jpg
f8bcb9677816a4961932b56be1efd9d9
bf2c8e0cae728287c4ff446559b0419bf23ea339
79813 F20101208_AABDWM dawson_k_Page_086.jpg
b198790a0473ef6c55edd7159f02359b
280b650ffa1a3590bafd2f6e6bdda2ee552377c3
1933 F20101208_AABDVZ dawson_k_Page_123.txt
f3d7fd1ef7fd5c0a5a649a40f6d2eb8e
43f6cf9ce4eb2d3633f6d928322b3a8fcff8b9f1
120055 F20101208_AABECI dawson_k_Page_026.jp2
3aff6bb54bd4755e7149482b2c3c92dc
174e66728ac43f8e3072391e2bcc3b466a97a893
60016 F20101208_AABEBT dawson_k_Page_133.jpg
86e56f282b6c7829c017a82e187ee14c
806e8bcaef2bdf7b3299f2b5d4c18622eccf2371
F20101208_AABDWN dawson_k_Page_043.txt
5f4d0e5caa6b141f4df87e9f16958b7f
10fa838a31cb77349c33fd7df342c84585c71810
122214 F20101208_AABECJ dawson_k_Page_029.jp2
761dc9a992f9f7c1c4691edfdb34ae8b
d03ce9006811855bb8a738ddd3dd58b3fd229461
2121 F20101208_AABDXC dawson_k_Page_069.txt
4c290640885ff8e3f570c8dc4aec62a8
7001985d449a919311334657dcb5eadbf40aedfb
20291 F20101208_AABEBU dawson_k_Page_001.jp2
b793b19770530e6f144ed0e379275f62
05beb729167717fa404f994ef3f3846747da870d
F20101208_AABDWO dawson_k_Page_130.tif
84358be014d17cad226750a5341b33f6
4af7397cc9ff8c52f5d8d024fe3aae880c7c0228
117264 F20101208_AABECK dawson_k_Page_035.jp2
3d7661c7a59866cfe3ed2ba01991c50d
78c78744609195850c9e49e77942a91973055b78
7157 F20101208_AABDXD dawson_k_Page_031thm.jpg
a364f219ed0a4b023301b362fb13d338
35774fda5f90c9208f820748c0cf82e7e97ad1d2
4882 F20101208_AABEBV dawson_k_Page_002.jp2
4cfa986e5e27d8de1f4bfeeecbcf48b3
da4685c100c75d80b9f676fca1c1700d1dc35734
32126 F20101208_AABDWP dawson_k_Page_110.jpg
28120abe546c8c36023b230ac5be09d6
9ee4ca41ba46696ad8f8541fd141626b001e97c7
115487 F20101208_AABECL dawson_k_Page_037.jp2
00e34b80e57e1d7bc1458cc4877217f9
9d26355cd563afdc6c82734fac079f43598a3ba2
54152 F20101208_AABDXE dawson_k_Page_015.pro
5f2b4f395beb989cbd432785e0fff3ff
6959c9b5680a257e980cd701feb67d5b228b5be9
1051982 F20101208_AABEBW dawson_k_Page_005.jp2
345ccf6f5225acfeb546364c4dc25aad
17b5bed99ce91d7f40b3eba7438f757d3db6d9d2
2099 F20101208_AABDWQ dawson_k_Page_025.txt
2aea0abbf155962eda3fec3a8221ca2c
1ef0ad8e093a6213b870ffb7c877c139c662e3b6
25385 F20101208_AABDXF dawson_k_Page_026.QC.jpg
bc64546b901b001618fc2027bcfc9be8
97aaabeeba81c5a51bfa84df6431b395c4cdc466
903018 F20101208_AABEBX dawson_k_Page_007.jp2
db11234584fc2d57437414a21cf31b85
ea740f7393884607db96c0e58e9053807886fefc
52402 F20101208_AABDWR dawson_k_Page_082.pro
3cdefeed78da353c5f1fd189bd926162
db797483afb02b66aa9f0b8eca5cf3c8fa46c61b
130673 F20101208_AABEDA dawson_k_Page_071.jp2
c49298f804abed657b381ef49236f1af
4d6118078c62cc2e307859d0766575228485ec26
124235 F20101208_AABECM dawson_k_Page_039.jp2
7910e5ec6d7da1fe5b73a2e20b27bc3c
757f5b2df82b5619627207e6a52a7c7124c8fa4b
25852 F20101208_AABDXG dawson_k_Page_049.QC.jpg
a7564fbd4e19c6ac0199070c09760085
7836f5f78d120279f162ba9c83137119928412fd
101377 F20101208_AABEBY dawson_k_Page_008.jp2
a1660bb861ac7ef2d3e7aec7bab5ba11
e980a8b270fd279c7d95f8f5514ea641ca64d35a
116870 F20101208_AABDWS dawson_k_Page_062.jp2
62c668facb7dc0d0ba5ddc78d7293688
b80edc5e7c6f041fc085b7737b371e0a91d85293
129658 F20101208_AABEDB dawson_k_Page_072.jp2
230830acf64220ec4066acf381d8fe9e
be7db2fdb76ee8d14dbcd13c72c588d6bfde5a8c
70698 F20101208_AABECN dawson_k_Page_040.jp2
89c3034b8aab936766aae183fed45cc2
765f14d5e3ddca3fbf540893b47ecd3055635131
81100 F20101208_AABDXH dawson_k_Page_128.jpg
ec2851c5efdc43714bc42d75c642c14d
5d3d1a743a3d609fbcd882ab23b461092cc36138
74566 F20101208_AABEBZ dawson_k_Page_009.jp2
d3216bddd7e92ca6951c6011cfd0b37e
dcbc6fc3af8deefe18df98a3d10df7efb1b55387
2201 F20101208_AABDWT dawson_k_Page_059.txt
89debd018185f044f25e5fda12909218
5344f9d1fd65cbc9c204184c11234765384a9738
145463 F20101208_AABEDC dawson_k_Page_073.jp2
fac83eda3541513af2489b40f1c82292
2ba558e61621e6642528ca623994d4dc97d4061a
109890 F20101208_AABECO dawson_k_Page_041.jp2
546b101bf16dbbc2159ad1f8493d03ca
0c20a614de8a081556a33cc1ab9e4e513431d742
24020 F20101208_AABDXI dawson_k_Page_116.QC.jpg
4f047d50cfedd5e98847874f7a8559b2
da0176b9a47c893c636087a34d9eb360f11e9c7f
125617 F20101208_AABDWU dawson_k_Page_128.jp2
7b290bbed1de2fc539f7cb5afa6af3b1
598721801e797cd87ca63ef8f806f172e5eaa93b
124307 F20101208_AABEDD dawson_k_Page_074.jp2
d778c77167778241b330d92a89a62d37
8bb5925b0f2a995b20bd84351ed5b1d96b717d0f
117062 F20101208_AABECP dawson_k_Page_042.jp2
5592176b9634f8add80c388ff43abf97
9f0e1a8ad84a8cd8330352458475f1a98f9143b3
2144 F20101208_AABDXJ dawson_k_Page_096.txt
ae516d06dfb740ed4693f111fdd03840
4de4f21884b2593d142c2621db4080c186a7dc5c
57415 F20101208_AABDWV dawson_k_Page_030.pro
ac882d37823b9cfb8ac7e3619e021356
fa4a9d9fe37bf35db7cc730958e8b6a20101f39c
113158 F20101208_AABEDE dawson_k_Page_076.jp2
f6f0e8c895ce66068f80cc665b079ba3
8d211155463064aa04aca69cb1f66078ea1d2333
111598 F20101208_AABECQ dawson_k_Page_043.jp2
d9e8ecfb5936835bb076aaccf4ea058b
f56607c52a1b841eeb35456164baf3248cff2ae0
25885 F20101208_AABDXK dawson_k_Page_023.QC.jpg
f1860c8a640697391c6a7124eb3478fd
290382ac6672b31fccbda4dc26730dde84d77e50
117502 F20101208_AABDWW dawson_k_Page_094.jp2
09401f15af719d5ee55729c065b0b75a
f2b90876b50689ae0d10ce3f6fc123b52d198dd4
123383 F20101208_AABEDF dawson_k_Page_077.jp2
b9efb90d14d2d1ad46b7715b5f907d99
a99873690fea93e3688bd62ae1ede1378ab03e6a
17295 F20101208_AABDYA dawson_k_Page_106.QC.jpg
cc1958d6832b7d6dda999d0dbe0332d6
0a5e9e3909a21269134397b6b7153bc729565114
119443 F20101208_AABECR dawson_k_Page_045.jp2
e7840923d5e2b038735069787e1d19ad
8186d1dff51da5a79bb0495c9e92654c3aa295d4
2048 F20101208_AABDXL dawson_k_Page_076.txt
f34e10692c42db27e2be92ccbeb6b450
3b400db140e91b791345559bc7995b9eb66b8313
F20101208_AABDWX dawson_k_Page_113.tif
6cec211a017fedf5f21d47080f5cb922
5fa807b42aa0a3234e13c696848b3170dc15a665
123361 F20101208_AABEDG dawson_k_Page_078.jp2
a755d5401886a10830326c7d4eb45559
d3024a58378dfca06d80cb6921d7fe2abcba1f39
F20101208_AABDYB dawson_k_Page_022.tif
9503bcc26fc9aa20378da27cbd02064c
2fda22b186b5b23520b58ca519c7e3c04aafe3cc
119200 F20101208_AABECS dawson_k_Page_046.jp2
ed62affe2fe661ee0f2a1d32423f6d3d
218bbb6a1173981d9d16c69b2879422b41943238
F20101208_AABDXM dawson_k_Page_124.tif
dd056d18ec1d8769bdb0a44e4fc2b580
3ef7580eadccb18e33acd4b21d70d2fbdbd4e628
6260 F20101208_AABDWY dawson_k_Page_123thm.jpg
8cb4dd837c5b80870119f62508655a61
3c1491f0434aaba4f08264f419e9a5ff3a36baaf
112925 F20101208_AABEDH dawson_k_Page_079.jp2
b1dcb0e776e222c74419c2492da4e8e3
3602d2923580cfe501027c5cd631af3406a1687d
72355 F20101208_AABDYC dawson_k_Page_079.jpg
76a52ba70504fb1455cd6bedabf39358
7f6cee2846ca98c063c4db4166e98f97055c2fcf
111196 F20101208_AABECT dawson_k_Page_050.jp2
5fc7894cd76225b808707b0f5107ef4a
05b126095a218dbc1a736194f52174defa505198
6071 F20101208_AABDXN dawson_k_Page_120thm.jpg
55c53d89cf643ca543cacb894444b6a0
375d589325fd84e79b060a74bd61a40588945b71
2175 F20101208_AABDWZ dawson_k_Page_036.txt
82cbc1ed8434c2886ae2b6685ba9d81c
c133775103ae1f5e6ca708be525e1a2061e6d6c3
119480 F20101208_AABEDI dawson_k_Page_081.jp2
9fde6e338308e2b7ea44e2f4b03dacec
3e5c2ae59afed425635e55a7bc613bbbeb4dd012
152256 F20101208_AABECU dawson_k_Page_052.jp2
22d96fcce297c4013b220531897ce120
9fc37f8f32fcf668d5a7131ffff0d9685d26f3ea
3034 F20101208_AABDXO dawson_k_Page_052.txt
eda6f51397b0becffdcaacbded679dd8
b6d297f1e0bf46c28f7d301a65c94faba4b5f0c6
110657 F20101208_AABEDJ dawson_k_Page_082.jp2
a34b9ab6cb09d3ef7dcd593a36257bb4
1586837f1d50a1b80672dcaf8553ddd5a0018967
F20101208_AABDYD dawson_k_Page_011.tif
9221571c2dbab317779672a94e28ddfa
6af55ff196e8fa40ee8e122da755696b200f7d75
134680 F20101208_AABECV dawson_k_Page_053.jp2
3267b8d6ecd0d0c2f2c966a758bd5aa1
1e6ef7aebdd893876605f6ac572928b180651a18
77236 F20101208_AABDXP dawson_k_Page_012.jpg
f94036e74996080f9aebb54f1652bef9
982c102854ef84df52050c46613f00534c62041a
114059 F20101208_AABEDK dawson_k_Page_084.jp2
6f4bbdd806ec5bf016d23fff6b290361
896123d9cd680240317275d0fa105f509e3fa1f6
24255 F20101208_AABDYE dawson_k_Page_027.QC.jpg
4910d4dc060bfcf922bcc4fa6d08be3e
98d676d87ac672a94f191eb13b5555e38c0c5a38
124588 F20101208_AABECW dawson_k_Page_063.jp2
5168f32f9c635e1f9f3e7d32e39ee3f7
146c3b57318271c3fd082000b0b5829c89afa80a
2223 F20101208_AABDXQ dawson_k_Page_062.txt
522ed7f8d27fd2576f5431e5fcbb8da8
1e3241541b12c45e3c777caa7fae1dd041f3706d
118654 F20101208_AABEDL dawson_k_Page_086.jp2
8f3cdb37b03cfebd37802f56bc98deb7
63643e34212206016c6bf538c5d132c742316bad
F20101208_AABDYF dawson_k_Page_066.tif
198ffa828f1b50b05349f377787afbce
bea9ad0604c7610f12a7c8fec0cb4c01573e177c
112751 F20101208_AABECX dawson_k_Page_064.jp2
e117c45a080449621be7da06b898aad4
5034e84afe71ac4f28fc576b6e1aabd78522aad2
F20101208_AABDXR dawson_k_Page_019.tif
578d9d6d1f1a153b2492ae06a413b425
f576f63563e2f2192bc5b37c6b9197f84fb91a16
105946 F20101208_AABEEA dawson_k_Page_123.jp2
fc80b80b786c8d5f7afa5b30f9ba58af
61837c92e75c8d5fc370da91dad249366f25ffcf
129042 F20101208_AABEDM dawson_k_Page_088.jp2
7b1ba4f9df184f366e61935d510aa756
ef0b26869e3ab597c2cae115e7bd75f421c03dda
1065 F20101208_AABDYG dawson_k_Page_007.txt
aa78aab2f88b5304b3c4fa9c4df178ab
0f80d1a5909d005b787e6c73a3cd0624a6d42b1a
131610 F20101208_AABECY dawson_k_Page_065.jp2
42702a3ac500c5842fee1121b2fe475d
cd843832e3f90d93b71914eabf2fa9583d313572
25831 F20101208_AABDXS dawson_k_Page_046.QC.jpg
dfff3180ddb8098b7c5a99d55e652283
229897c408b35c26ed97d74b94ff2635d850f4a1
115366 F20101208_AABEEB dawson_k_Page_125.jp2
1d365de2cabe2ca93469acfbb551071b
b07a11f434593682634d9d298b7f1cd9c25b653f
113372 F20101208_AABDYH dawson_k_Page_006.pro
5df9d30592e7fdbfc264a15b0d6a7c53
f355fedf7def2d2ee61bd6b1b15d73012c012509
112391 F20101208_AABECZ dawson_k_Page_069.jp2
bd7cb04802c2e7b6879bf395426602bf
d34d2815e7f5525b8295dfe7ecdf6aa4386d4b7d
109765 F20101208_AABDXT dawson_k_Page_027.jp2
e2eecf56e52e976a50dcf328607bed39
0bd80141a918e9e83808eebe502dd6ca954767f5
111847 F20101208_AABEEC dawson_k_Page_127.jp2
cbc29f8b4ec55870a6faad998d55c5b3
94f752dc4ddc2dca91c175af94bbcdeeebbf7e0e
115504 F20101208_AABEDN dawson_k_Page_089.jp2
1cdf305377846082025ee3b0e6c2c9f3
cd17944537585bae3d14e06a1ad1c26582806680
6254 F20101208_AABDYI dawson_k_Page_054thm.jpg
a2f8f05fddd34f5feab7085eefb00765
f3dfe66ea6781c097685b8ae84e85b1af59a645e
68475 F20101208_AABDXU dawson_k_Page_124.jpg
4009ce2276686210be2dad1355ae651b
5e8c39b2807059be979c3608b34952147e7bd1a3
130602 F20101208_AABEED dawson_k_Page_129.jp2
bc51944a19ec6fa8cea418fc9ddd90e8
d7b86e8e625d0e737b76bcf0a2ef7b5032d0b2d1
108142 F20101208_AABEDO dawson_k_Page_090.jp2
06f8c0bf3e0722e95ad37b4f253cd47a
f30ade6848d246251bd4f04051f9a4db28095792
1867 F20101208_AABDYJ dawson_k_Page_055.txt
44c79f1ce346f099403b0a87d70fd633
a16e42a81c2f762bbe2bb4f62b2b4d57d6aa7551
6896 F20101208_AABDXV dawson_k_Page_046thm.jpg
1f028c56b577f91b9f402d91ac1581c8
57f4b1fbe32f34ca337b5188ccaea7d8ec52ad40
124047 F20101208_AABEEE dawson_k_Page_130.jp2
2898df6c715ddd4c03ea167849589cb8
9cb108723392e5d39825e24c15094cbd47c9e22c
115057 F20101208_AABEDP dawson_k_Page_095.jp2
0fe6f27a427625a47d500ec1da92ceca
994626d307cb5b8e5e832ec6a7b1411dd5e10021
68610 F20101208_AABDYK dawson_k_Page_103.jpg
a44d5605efd09d7c19dbe3e6500440b2
2411fd3a880ee1352c54747aedcf451409b1d797
45363 F20101208_AABDXW dawson_k_Page_055.pro
99b243876c9e21071e1238ca46d1bd32
a84dfcd87e7d50c02c6efa58199332f5a1c30c01
129208 F20101208_AABEEF dawson_k_Page_131.jp2
077373a181d59dbf05f739e37d180616
095374842e8b1a9a958ae5eb28aae76e1aa443e2
120142 F20101208_AABEDQ dawson_k_Page_100.jp2
d4523d679aee35fba9c8c168c4659286
20327d9977bb53eff84984c7e2cf07eda5fefa9e
20952 F20101208_AABDYL dawson_k_Page_005.QC.jpg
bc4104df29b860441da549e9b6def0f5
f7247e6c7982c2b97bbee40bcd7e67ce5f82ba7e
72876 F20101208_AABDXX dawson_k_Page_116.jpg
334f68fe22e6426c48f56a83512dc881
6f2152bbe0c8e65560d71de76a5df5d45483a2f2
F20101208_AABEEG dawson_k_Page_001.tif
5d77a3521a097314b32b10314a05fe45
dd23b9a8bef83f07d4d12eb934d9b7e0bfa66f0d
102406 F20101208_AABEDR dawson_k_Page_103.jp2
c2718313b03a3da485fd27a1bd3e5f43
dbe59ea36cf150c70e54adc3f569827c75e3008c
54411 F20101208_AABDYM dawson_k_Page_004.jpg
867e3892bb9c2c33a1c87eb04278438b
5a83ff1a91328af9ea03f04d70bd74ee08d8dcf2
37117 F20101208_AABDXY dawson_k_Page_106.pro
23fd0d104ecbce553b24a27b08ab794d
709da2c7a05f49c70b513f316b0f8eb8217ed40c
F20101208_AABEEH dawson_k_Page_004.tif
e25eb5dc1c29d796a6a9c455e7280345
90d80fc6f8d0b294d84d3a98ded6dc3c50aacda2
1046017 F20101208_AABEDS dawson_k_Page_104.jp2
dc17070e46b2aa5c11869585d15c4ca5
9d53eebfea4b7797efcfc4f4d4acbcab9df0adb0
6278 F20101208_AABDYN dawson_k_Page_001.pro
7f39e37aada64e5265c81cb4dd8f362f
f7b86c48998afa4e169f0a64c622df831f37bc26
94505 F20101208_AABDXZ dawson_k_Page_121.jp2
a596c564244624ec4fbbd7ac319e752e
591ff8fa045b21ff394ceb23ecb5ef2ecd6251a5
F20101208_AABEEI dawson_k_Page_005.tif
31ea4c920e003e92d64577f4e59985b0
585c63903a663450ce25776e3cbfc11374582681
11429 F20101208_AABDZC dawson_k_Page_003.jpg
613bfcf336687b4ae58a245b827c00d5
b220dc7f1ca8cb476a7a373156aea4d2e76377ec
98622 F20101208_AABEDT dawson_k_Page_107.jp2
673382983ef6aab772d5c2b64f1ab03f
328647d3924290d2f11f818c19cf8381adc49374
2428 F20101208_AABDYO dawson_k_Page_131.txt
1ea6806ec1bbbc06764fb673a138cae7
e19a6be97f79c25184cb56f48624d8e9e8ede1c1
F20101208_AABEEJ dawson_k_Page_013.tif
cc38f08600e97052a68fefaa8bebcb30
3602b059ce844cc60bb2a329dbe3028d4cafdd72
92564 F20101208_AABDZD dawson_k_Page_006.jpg
f810fbb5fa07515f0cca0a9fe9296fba
456ad33e439b41c2f749637dcf98e82283e7ffb1
68052 F20101208_AABEDU dawson_k_Page_108.jp2
75179bc07c339356f7edd201475244d9
4bd937798b96e1bd524e91276ea81c4826fda09a
116004 F20101208_AABDYP dawson_k_Page_059.jp2
6f1816aae906d0a2488f3069ba9d4a41
63d12773cbab38e48d5ed96c9dece6cfd60e8d1f
F20101208_AABEEK dawson_k_Page_015.tif
c4b1ce834e3b46de6346f452e84ca3bb
3cabaf045dd239828a112df9770e3c1eb6f5bcc4
41350 F20101208_AABEDV dawson_k_Page_110.jp2
c52f903b54120db1d5f3d77ccf66ab28
e735d453b186f77e9186a2e2a660f77ea0611771
F20101208_AABDYQ dawson_k_Page_098.tif
aab2efc9b36e18ac2261c9ffa2e18671
dd0e2076337cc17deb6cdc6118ede81e40eef577
F20101208_AABEEL dawson_k_Page_017.tif
8a0dde2b637a0485ea5645a0e85f41c4
34feaea4e59956a59b8dbe942e6b273ca26e78b0
68963 F20101208_AABDZE dawson_k_Page_008.jpg
0b7e2375fb408fabd850540de65c0a86
5d44db0fd7a266293de5c0fd92dd311558e83af4
55521 F20101208_AABEDW dawson_k_Page_112.jp2
a456d4e077c17b832fc2e18ce228b100
111539af404f2df3ad6f2587711358675208c1a2
F20101208_AABEFA dawson_k_Page_048.tif
f70d8d869ffeda54094285cf082e9792
c282e91eb2582d09e4c5c74bbb170c57e7bbef37
F20101208_AABEEM dawson_k_Page_018.tif
81174862cf0a2e391fbd09333e70e87b
aef348100ff8c58849cd4540534837c01e631366
76171 F20101208_AABDZF dawson_k_Page_010.jpg
635f0feb84fbd087ef32e95db5e251e4
3ac28c5d2980525780a2ffa4156e55b85b7d9daf
9925 F20101208_AABEDX dawson_k_Page_113.jp2
38adfd4db33d8c1a8ce164be6d367e1a
b4c7e884dad375b8491d052ab394ab5bf8327977
113035 F20101208_AABDYR dawson_k_Page_061.jp2
88cd95e16b144831c0ff900ff91b97a4
476b3292bfe613d057ccc71a1d0fe518074a838c
F20101208_AABEFB dawson_k_Page_050.tif
b1a4dba826e024a2c1144f14665fdbc3
cdc1e23d9a75b13cf00a87a1112f02b24c5433d0
F20101208_AABEEN dawson_k_Page_023.tif
43fb5a517c04fc54d21569a5fd400cac
fb6edeea19ac0f18f589cd555ae840984002e0ab
84477 F20101208_AABDZG dawson_k_Page_011.jpg
59d64ec8bdf78914f723ed6c2bdfffee
1714de005661fb3eae277ddb70a7ccc10398eef9
109083 F20101208_AABEDY dawson_k_Page_117.jp2
1546b6865c9894de5a9e008236977e0a
d6f215daad7b6acac78166e0fcf54b5f9c321dcb
56705 F20101208_AABDYS dawson_k_Page_023.pro
870e2f00e17eb1f4c9d5c1c6f97f6a15
adf30d681c1be8b67a55a17318aafe82d3928e11
F20101208_AABEFC dawson_k_Page_051.tif
f14f59390b585b05db19c2be65a727d6
96336822f6e56916e32a34253bf99c725679ee73
76161 F20101208_AABDZH dawson_k_Page_014.jpg
04bef9c0c18199c4f6a7039f8fa43a0b
efaeca5d95295903e2588a08c6fd22f98a457d17
104280 F20101208_AABEDZ dawson_k_Page_119.jp2
b814e063d564aad1dfc3c368713355c3
fd2234e0918d6c81312d5c731e72a9bc8736f357
24665 F20101208_AABDYT dawson_k_Page_079.QC.jpg
05e32ea4c3bbc97f857d5f1d6d6543bf
93526c978e0ea70c72431bcf05abaea95ed80ec7
F20101208_AABEFD dawson_k_Page_054.tif
e426fe935f5508769af72ac0291105f5
ba72e75313a9760ee9bc695e0f99bed35c947f0d
F20101208_AABEEO dawson_k_Page_024.tif
72c7d9244c7a650238cd0b2d0b9b0a45
a91f848e77574e633e422caa18ce9676d9314075
76700 F20101208_AABDZI dawson_k_Page_015.jpg
a062e72718e34461b2c98f2391ff7a37
abb5604213b164b5fa191f631fa2630b19bc106e
123842 F20101208_AABDYU dawson_k_Page_083.jp2
3ced6ab3c69c59a0e5ca80c66411d9f1
31aa77f8cef91737005578247f57b369baee8dd1
F20101208_AABEFE dawson_k_Page_055.tif
cd2efa3aa7daff06e6ed45940e186778
ee4ae2031725760a38efd9d9f906f3b92b72822f
F20101208_AABEEP dawson_k_Page_025.tif
2c87b79f151ee6fcaddbb8a73aa294ab
2032d0b0e2c18db17e51a06ae91ecbfe2487bceb
65378 F20101208_AABDZJ dawson_k_Page_017.jpg
d3d5ce10107fefd46d4abd9af93e946a
d08ef68a481e4e63f7bcd998aedb6992afe95664
16172 F20101208_AABDYV dawson_k_Page_040.QC.jpg
6ffe26a5b3dfe7f29ab7fbdf1655b483
2f9fe0d35f6b3b0062a8b6fc4665b67ce4ff971a
F20101208_AABEFF dawson_k_Page_056.tif
67563c6356fb7203226b6399c8443bcf
3ab8435beab8605192280a2a018746586fb7e35e
F20101208_AABEEQ dawson_k_Page_026.tif
06c85fb0008f1afad9696d63773c8b08
3b2cd1f8bdb1e7d81c69a3291462a882c95577f1
62510 F20101208_AABDZK dawson_k_Page_018.jpg
9fc58355d9b106b3f97be80a32cd8b83
98c527a508ce5646ca20d41d3d7a4bebfd66ebc7
55454 F20101208_AABDYW dawson_k_Page_033.pro
94aa6941ab3d69318c7c981e87c3477f
43fa9def7d1382f063c03a7fa8b58cc95248f489
F20101208_AABEFG dawson_k_Page_058.tif
7cca552955009b3a765854a0e9961e6d
4ea0b316b6bf4c69d4192b149bb8f3da1a619bbf
F20101208_AABEER dawson_k_Page_027.tif
d26e6a5c623946959b03d838c412def8
1a12b35ecdafc9fbb0876229660c1b9a29c146bc
70486 F20101208_AABDZL dawson_k_Page_019.jpg
0c8bdba7ab194ef0c4944a09eb9b22da
ab57fcccbd9767371510c5120e1470db090e5d07
70189 F20101208_AABDYX dawson_k_Page_058.jpg
b2118b1b19fd06858ccaaec8f77ba76b
5bd796543397ceef2bc131d70f2efa90264b4c23
F20101208_AABEFH dawson_k_Page_059.tif
5dc1faf960be828cbc85e452e17b8558
271fe8c22b528002ade3610a7909edf5f5b84e9d
F20101208_AABEES dawson_k_Page_028.tif
7ef7780ccc3d9538a37ae79ef9d0eae9
6ecdfc77c61ce7b1e310b4dddeb581754ba8153d
73325 F20101208_AABDZM dawson_k_Page_020.jpg
55c8e07f1d0ac91d708f487598a6180a
c493853eb03e60e9b6d13efca0dcf63cca4fd259
49313 F20101208_AABDYY dawson_k_Page_115.pro
838c382a635b9707360da498bd11ec2f
f514120333407a6e770c98113c8c0489eef4c2e6
F20101208_AABEFI dawson_k_Page_060.tif
06ec94ca0f59466b0fea05e6a46b0946
0e1279418570c2f59aaba1eb75fb36235ff5bbe5
F20101208_AABEET dawson_k_Page_030.tif
d1438cde227a8205cf1bb4cfb8ca4741
ff51df21103ce55466bbe5e1f047c3f3540244c0
77009 F20101208_AABDZN dawson_k_Page_022.jpg
03a9300c68aa80142788f24a4459622e
18b8a793f9e946aad110eb1c0614eed21ebc5d38
153734 F20101208_AABDYZ UFE0019641_00001.mets FULL
c5314878687f89d56496b70f0b898d1a
7c57f3ee7b5976230642df1302e0092bd3f2eed9
F20101208_AABEFJ dawson_k_Page_061.tif
c613502b1ae0752892a6dfe7a0dcdda9
a12bbf457426ef474e53b2f6427aea28f34f3215
F20101208_AABEEU dawson_k_Page_033.tif
f7fe8eab4678f31231cde33a8db2f1a5
0f17047c999f9ed7a3273de17e845ae58c18d14c
77041 F20101208_AABDZO dawson_k_Page_024.jpg
d015135cc7cebe16d7766fca2b579ded
34d78eeee8b5ec3a98b313e115913160e4993230
F20101208_AABEFK dawson_k_Page_062.tif
e2dbd600cbe1b483b5c44f175c712e65
a8dd79a6ff9377a28f12814719ceeccb04092b2d
F20101208_AABEEV dawson_k_Page_035.tif
d5e159a2f50299c6a1874b0eb5c42398
58b0e3f28458fc676ef25460e5dce8473ac52853
78045 F20101208_AABDZP dawson_k_Page_026.jpg
3e34c0723e2d5443717a39e677d47174
4bf8037e66151ce1be8ae9832f5985186565b48c
F20101208_AABEFL dawson_k_Page_064.tif
edbd07a2678aa956aeb49dc81bde3474
3f0ac9b6bfdba0c59416845c3fe98ed43199ce4b
F20101208_AABEEW dawson_k_Page_037.tif
68dedf45ce8880170088f79f68f57c30
c42c9144894d5544153fe8ed8d5b7b59ba2e5f9c
71517 F20101208_AABDZQ dawson_k_Page_027.jpg
c8d9263d32ce5305d1688441bf4e72b8
f859187f69c8292922aeeced8037619aa74bfde2
F20101208_AABEFM dawson_k_Page_065.tif
76ed2307b3a905d7d0b1c7fddde441dd
3cddad21b69827c9e3f7ccf63a9738abe2d09064
F20101208_AABEEX dawson_k_Page_044.tif
bab5939441008f78f9a05b23dcfe3dca
5c053942b63d862885381ee3810d05cb253367da
78959 F20101208_AABDZR dawson_k_Page_029.jpg
f36fc78e474642990c5a3e193653af08
2af64bd217bc6076966fb26aa288ce0fabcba19a
F20101208_AABEGA dawson_k_Page_102.tif
3ce76530cd87f0c556b4409c50878a0a
75af25421f9ee131e3b2811f3ab2d9503d00681f
F20101208_AABEFN dawson_k_Page_067.tif
da58194a24c9ca5c0ec76fe987ad6f7c
a514e5118a16fe4853711b8f0c21e092c91bead6
F20101208_AABEEY dawson_k_Page_045.tif
eb991d4123c62a1afe3d67577ad04a42
d5739f016a93d4f8f1ab883953e2b86f4b5da910
80559 F20101208_AABDZS dawson_k_Page_031.jpg
34bee7dbff6082effdfb3b3deb641cf3
386a3d97bd1e185298476f04e2330defcff7cefd
F20101208_AABEGB dawson_k_Page_103.tif
397e46da16aec0447bd2e481d7628cf5
ef0a3295763deaa37982dfccdfe5b9f521f49686
F20101208_AABEFO dawson_k_Page_069.tif
58d28811c6719204f2dac9b13c640395
6a3087429a0c8378008fa182cca54d349d6f4fff
F20101208_AABEEZ dawson_k_Page_047.tif
31b0736293c7bd3e5ddf8a1c736ab2ed
ab70eb552d1cd04d7a0b8b3d2fc5ed55cc0f2a12
78488 F20101208_AABDZT dawson_k_Page_033.jpg
b90125dbc067d0482406f57917291cfa
5550c37b5241c9b357602e02dd0f024074107913
F20101208_AABEGC dawson_k_Page_115.tif
d5570ab6e0d216dfe964fff65e9e733b
acc46b71fca76afb9f5d9f8e7a710234b0ef74b6
77844 F20101208_AABDZU dawson_k_Page_035.jpg
52b76dc2b727e62e95e4a0a44220357d
b03e11079efcaf466a48e20f7f830636533ff277
F20101208_AABEGD dawson_k_Page_116.tif
09cdc3192b37f7c421e14c1405c23e85
a045e8d02a211ca7dff92d157cd32740db576449
72425 F20101208_AABDZV dawson_k_Page_038.jpg
4df94882c9c0860285d07a352045e0ac
370e32b15b7ba71b0f46a65421fef9d27ff707e8
F20101208_AABEGE dawson_k_Page_118.tif
3e13d2122c232b6c9ede64320d57fead
0946d56f4fbf471d00d3209a93c2cdbb5a0df5c1
F20101208_AABEFP dawson_k_Page_072.tif
cee4b9e87346aef0c579ee5cccd1897b
5fe05d72b3ec38481580cfc1d8e2b69dba3e89eb
48935 F20101208_AABDZW dawson_k_Page_040.jpg
2e36f7a38160a1d3ca860b58ebccde24
042b9407a8834c7b144d50d3d6a0e5cc366dc736
F20101208_AABEGF dawson_k_Page_119.tif
a351f23a5f3cabafbdc39520eecaf1d4
a35a0569503425d1955551795696dda8fd09ff08
F20101208_AABEFQ dawson_k_Page_075.tif
8d8c1153209008ec32bcdbc5dba8c5eb
032a0bbe4468f8dfe3c02f36f2daaad683986e27
88748 F20101208_AABDZX dawson_k_Page_044.jpg
e721c65c1c040aca0fe888aa63d180a9
02f0a2d1c0e72ebd2f91462141495fc159f64958
F20101208_AABEGG dawson_k_Page_120.tif
7b2d045703a1b80f465e8d26dccaaa09
6a2d0b3fe5483c7fd4b1034531b4c001fd28fa1b
F20101208_AABEFR dawson_k_Page_076.tif
82c65931c594a87d262fdf018ae45994
66bc922ae7d7c171ccbfecaf57b11e69a5478bc2
72086 F20101208_AABDZY dawson_k_Page_048.jpg
ca8cb5c7e00c5a93f6a37a977bb887a7
501b6b5300a58c83ae1f1dad89634f12e8ada739
F20101208_AABEGH dawson_k_Page_122.tif
681c771eafaaa7aa15b738b6b69dba86
e0564d02bca1c8aab0ef772d032d29346555b4a7
F20101208_AABEFS dawson_k_Page_080.tif
bdc7bb64afe6c06b634cd19142cef193
9552475aa1134a00e71bf39f419fa44fb4988317
77488 F20101208_AABDZZ dawson_k_Page_049.jpg
6a32fa09b3a5bd867867f24cae0c75f2
c0f3f4b8b9ceadee818c1daba47785530052fba3
F20101208_AABEGI dawson_k_Page_126.tif
1b7ae0ad8b5de2b23e26b9dad9ff9372
a761a27864135318a4e09fb49e74a3ac0a24a63d
F20101208_AABEFT dawson_k_Page_082.tif
f60485a79c61caa07af478c59d055850
3186b49468d5829a705927a5d1b69b6452645d8c
F20101208_AABEGJ dawson_k_Page_127.tif
0ea0868c98bde75de0bd027c9558006a
8516c9f76918bc63d6fcd0d13e10f1697104079c
F20101208_AABEFU dawson_k_Page_085.tif
75df33fa33f6b1b95e23070a86b8eeca
c31fdc40890fcd4678a4f568abf4881f4b6e33c2
F20101208_AABEGK dawson_k_Page_129.tif
ab0c6a7e41c0f811021a755d69680347
3e36ca2f6db780665e6c9c0181a0b7391addd9e0
F20101208_AABEFV dawson_k_Page_089.tif
d49a93d6350993381a02674aea7217e4
2cd6d0a4956a70e2a84f6426a593a265bd7a9fec
F20101208_AABEGL dawson_k_Page_131.tif
c3bdeefffecdc5d533697e0f65851c2f
9adb5be2f487a23b23273630d04d5d1e5f1d2db1
F20101208_AABEFW dawson_k_Page_093.tif
bbf4f17aaef0c9e66260b3bf510ec382
9a840ee9784360f7f1ab449c1a7ebc87779f0322
55877 F20101208_AABEHA dawson_k_Page_026.pro
e7e2413af3e062f4e78e84ed50b4e357
1beac228b0471675a99936e9cb9eb101e91147eb
F20101208_AABEGM dawson_k_Page_133.tif
a575bd81cfe7aec2ba2cca40b0207a7c
173273e49be9a5187891347003e711250f3e9b23
F20101208_AABEFX dawson_k_Page_097.tif
ff99d86c5149192e61f9b07c46139d9d
119d5ef396873c754eb1c22ac3727a49a2baa3d0
49432 F20101208_AABEHB dawson_k_Page_027.pro
7dcd3330dd5f8e7f0f30ebb9f91091dd
d82b4361dc8c3ad69bfe12223ae124cd8bd9dd2c
757 F20101208_AABEGN dawson_k_Page_002.pro
c229b80bfe4be80cc00e6b35a1bf01e9
93c9260f893402ef8eb3bc7c646a57ee1f340601
F20101208_AABEFY dawson_k_Page_099.tif
15161a0330e839fc81fd42a400ac20f8
6cd2ea60f72a9e4f892ed9cae19fc12f4291b03a
58097 F20101208_AABEHC dawson_k_Page_031.pro
2881f37b59752086229d673c40272450
02886beeac0e411d64c6e3c41ac2fbfeaa5541d6
2029 F20101208_AABEGO dawson_k_Page_003.pro
a0ce40481adf82edc0ea150e530ec4e8
f62a44fc8e3d9fc8ff643f2777afb032f5ea97a6
F20101208_AABEFZ dawson_k_Page_101.tif
0f476c378361dc2358845d6146c27cca
21f9337cc85ae8571e366241eb7c5bd17ecca1d0
54136 F20101208_AABEHD dawson_k_Page_035.pro
d9c14ce47ed5ac6e75e0b23ec7d48051
6cad9d5c0fd194921d9940c95564a0ddfc065030
34391 F20101208_AABEGP dawson_k_Page_004.pro
0ab0666de2b94f34761b86722573c164
bed80f1ff338c3d52b213ae5c0e0c16d6b25cd48
50983 F20101208_AABEHE dawson_k_Page_038.pro
c6ff43371237eae73d833121468d02bd
f34bf0c5e0b21c4e31f3590f67436c647c54e8c3
57471 F20101208_AABEHF dawson_k_Page_039.pro
35f578acdb54a691f9a041372570ac0b
22d2cc55dc1c7515dfc423e33e221be587b88d96
26776 F20101208_AABEGQ dawson_k_Page_007.pro
4ea516cf8eb0ed84c083ea36951ea803
f13cdc9abd5130c23c7c96556937e6928b9cb7f4
52419 F20101208_AABEHG dawson_k_Page_041.pro
f7121abc6d241b35dec2c71e7224a4ff
878dca3e56cb7d1aeba979de3fc406830a955373
54728 F20101208_AABEGR dawson_k_Page_012.pro
5785ee2928945a27ef030c7124ec011c
28fbbea90d1d3d19e2c78bf20aa44d4c9d20f6e8
54475 F20101208_AABEHH dawson_k_Page_042.pro
6655ac45ba6223946e54d731a17fabef
19a87830473aed40100bade82c79b5d9d7f9e504
53710 F20101208_AABEGS dawson_k_Page_014.pro
dff9c2e41fb05634df32019e7304b17a
d88b1cb6a270286a23cb9f2612f290fbcc5d7cd4
51220 F20101208_AABEHI dawson_k_Page_043.pro
2e75edfeaba9ddc5ce5356b91ca7de68
f23007c6bc5b92051a53a2ab4b33ff41d717d2f3
52604 F20101208_AABEGT dawson_k_Page_016.pro
a3e8cb5339cd29059b8c8e89e2af9c7d
73b150c18755969b5de5e640f301fe850581e25d
50793 F20101208_AABEHJ dawson_k_Page_048.pro
18ee891fb1e1ca997ba2d3e941633918
42120a07ef976131e69a2e0af9723e15e83b1ce3
45556 F20101208_AABEGU dawson_k_Page_017.pro
103b805e8807a52628edfb15e0a18b1f
9e18139091f114b45e42b2b27ed5d95310b95377
50007 F20101208_AABEHK dawson_k_Page_051.pro
ea3f17cb16eb07b4a19dfa4f1a2186af
24f9d8b636ed0439d848de1e9adbb74968d8bb22
44517 F20101208_AABEGV dawson_k_Page_018.pro
04adda8c93de586a5aa6b17d7966ac1b
33fd555dfa2b815c629eaae93a3b4aedc72962fe
76007 F20101208_AABEHL dawson_k_Page_052.pro
ceda3e60a9682f15574c6408af88ae42
0fd977ef7504ba3d3eeb3741b74aa54c7134fee6
49284 F20101208_AABEGW dawson_k_Page_019.pro
f5c60d59613bf7bf110cb6eb5473f5f0
ca5e356e064640a49e45d665a3350bf58e24d60b
64649 F20101208_AABEHM dawson_k_Page_053.pro
ee316804586eec6449bc01ebc903fcb5
cf080132cb9b15437d710bc466bd8ac379902546
52411 F20101208_AABEGX dawson_k_Page_020.pro
1638cb45f56772a577d78b2b2e600e42
73a335cb14405ef8223f442ce0d91244f6390a92
59893 F20101208_AABEIA dawson_k_Page_083.pro
76b73070c8974893bb7c277cba96d622
80b539e581fd8b3b7c813c17d4b8d6623c4ef55e
49219 F20101208_AABEHN dawson_k_Page_054.pro
5782fe572c29877ceddb2f0340f9af77
bdf97bee08b414838e0a0af32eb83a9d02ad0256
57217 F20101208_AABEGY dawson_k_Page_021.pro
e3422e80e2c7dc24f64134caaa659665
d2aa55c25dddb0cf5ba0b62d99dcd1bf1850176b
53847 F20101208_AABEIB dawson_k_Page_084.pro
ee478bd55113df93ed9754e856a87355
4a6500e89ac9c8600a165f0b8a140b9e3a822a29
53081 F20101208_AABEHO dawson_k_Page_056.pro
7b29f7f555e6f1d9ce4651a081d67120
c0f375a2b6aaf23965071f19d2e148ee99ded76b
52562 F20101208_AABEGZ dawson_k_Page_025.pro
c804061ef332fb8c8ce9581b9db4a06a
ff7279fc138f3af82c055baa5f416cfbcbef0994
49566 F20101208_AABEIC dawson_k_Page_090.pro
48dd2482bbed41ecc012f6897a925273
83ced2e2df6d04dbeb3c20d806d4c5167559c7ec
39175 F20101208_AABEHP dawson_k_Page_057.pro
0a8802bb6d0d6ffc3f650739a9656803
8ed15e67215319aef981239d2525c5af99e0c45d
49364 F20101208_AABEID dawson_k_Page_091.pro
a610b260331ee269a2dfb3ad32169173
b406b3fe718ec0d4474a9022f507b49dd71d12fb
52920 F20101208_AABEHQ dawson_k_Page_061.pro
32c8882b434fb2c95981e9956eeecf3c
4ddf79ff878222d2ce29c2076821c9d93281b89c
52909 F20101208_AABEIE dawson_k_Page_092.pro
0d0bcb63472b5b72b77aa80d32ff018b
9d6004d8c2cec5457272da205b10771e26fc8459
53805 F20101208_AABEIF dawson_k_Page_093.pro
5b01893a0cf02ffedde6a3268647e051
6c852243bb827bc43b6f8c535a2295bd1bee6859
63804 F20101208_AABEHR dawson_k_Page_065.pro
5c8e11890669dcfbb75383dba797111f
a898a1b87dcb55cc69a980634e4c0a38a392d857
53204 F20101208_AABEIG dawson_k_Page_095.pro
3b41c25c9bbed36aff070151e1569915
7cd8773e8163120d54c17babc36749b69a913a0a
51801 F20101208_AABEHS dawson_k_Page_066.pro
74f4c3120834ebd769c306b7d73f4bc8
815d7947228a69fbbd47df3e6234ff78d0cdb44d
50940 F20101208_AABEIH dawson_k_Page_104.pro
bbda83509820ade5fc609ca3fd3ae32d
339078750f14af24a9295c49f757886b05f895f5
57162 F20101208_AABEHT dawson_k_Page_067.pro
5ff883aaf43c5d01b42506c659d3ebce
0603b40a6085f138188a4333d1b0153e188c1725
67338 F20101208_AABEII dawson_k_Page_105.pro
cc8f708c57c730f543b329c53a56e523
fc571a1eb67320ad0e81b4f87350435f7d33499a
59760 F20101208_AABEHU dawson_k_Page_070.pro
cb08746bf3f8db0918e89306e01bd04d
fc785db4daa589930ba50a36f062621c45846188
9902 F20101208_AABEIJ dawson_k_Page_111.pro
ab637857e3f2b7704a31e7d620b57c97
5efd241ba9d67400421daf221d3dfc37385f0081
62847 F20101208_AABEHV dawson_k_Page_071.pro
a78a169450a1c692150f81c8276c12bf
6830a99a1cc125bf15778d54b8c5f63214f4cdbe
23494 F20101208_AABEIK dawson_k_Page_112.pro
9701a3e74e6316b784cbcbe998d83f1f
b8db1615e08ef290948779b2111fb12a28333005
71215 F20101208_AABEHW dawson_k_Page_073.pro
1707254296ba84866ad298fa5224f9f0
f8d4830faa9feaa3b0674c6928672d81334df457
2880 F20101208_AABEIL dawson_k_Page_113.pro
39592ddb1e4bcdd3f3035361f805ec20
5b7355e4abb66d60a2367a8a03453c77f6336aba
51614 F20101208_AABEHX dawson_k_Page_076.pro
be331cd25d3ed6d5f4f7ad6ef2aa937c
cef879a013f40b128ff4c781f1549683730d295b
1891 F20101208_AABEJA dawson_k_Page_018.txt
be9a1e7bc66045d7580bb39d7bf7dba0
e6fdd8712a404e7adfcc229a1cfdbe47f963a57f
50608 F20101208_AABEIM dawson_k_Page_117.pro
548215b05b74b5551b61cb9bf3952c15
bc9ed6c70b39ce851c12f476a8b597fac3024088
52937 F20101208_AABEHY dawson_k_Page_079.pro
6679a72ce0bd91fbc00e16e7fdeb0567
297209b2feaf731a6aa0eee3db4314d1df05b9bf
2248 F20101208_AABEJB dawson_k_Page_023.txt
5fc0ea99c9d161e6c78f605d17cb5728
2cf16ec8c54809e58eece25feabb699347e1a084
48128 F20101208_AABEIN dawson_k_Page_120.pro
d1b0e6076214549f4e13c30f424d10df
a8a9c4d51302587872f1995e84b2dae7145bab65
57519 F20101208_AABEHZ dawson_k_Page_081.pro
3fd025519144195380153903c9dd632b
8172a95ab6a103f13a20b3ab37f665e81e3b8743
60828 F20101208_AABDGA dawson_k_Page_072.pro
643bb48bf4477aa5141a4aa21bb238e0
65c3238970193d47afd1a7b0fabcd8072d1be752
2139 F20101208_AABEJC dawson_k_Page_024.txt
ab3c9742fd5e080a7e7427ec85b3bf83
05d7ac95435898d31460357a6e97ba1d3d70d0d5
47315 F20101208_AABEIO dawson_k_Page_122.pro
69063b2557f709da1a22dc1bfbd0e76e
5081ce5b88007f5acf8bdd63ddb181b886e4212a
24235 F20101208_AABDGB dawson_k_Page_035.QC.jpg
c302a064867fb75a1979811deda0eb9e
b9c08d89b6511e3f62183898685b9686ccfcc507
1956 F20101208_AABEJD dawson_k_Page_027.txt
d07122d0fa6b2d40c4ac3447d07ada3d
97ba731cfda1d9b0374bbe7ffc239c6eea19ace4
30268 F20101208_AABEIP dawson_k_Page_126.pro
e8fc0a4545698f3c28781a86c0683732
ab67df59e0fcbf268596101de1dd5b72236ab88e
18715 F20101208_AABDGC dawson_k_Page_103.QC.jpg
b7b15583d046b651c0cbccdf584a67c2
c0cbe4c11f4efb667a47eb919b53d3ba5a6dbfd5
F20101208_AABEJE dawson_k_Page_029.txt
e5558bc3559ee78f84ab5219ed872e13
5e36cc7000a94764b94cb2c1b1a45711c30269b4
59953 F20101208_AABEIQ dawson_k_Page_129.pro
7e56a558481a4f3cd71951995cb2f106
71063e550c35bbb7fac4453c0fe93f7cdbf25cb5
97899 F20101208_AABDGD dawson_k_Page_005.pro
fc1e8266955ca1d6c20a26c38c61a2ab
2fa1fe234c404976730a17a4d6e24249d69f74e8
2279 F20101208_AABEJF dawson_k_Page_030.txt
05ee0e6b3397f87969744a1dd278c1b3
4e9b30af43c0558eec88182480fce854d91f25fa
59104 F20101208_AABEIR dawson_k_Page_131.pro
01c7199cf716d37cd0b7711c1f7891e1
48086147e84587d22f3c23eadea3259d8723cc6d
31954 F20101208_AABDGE dawson_k_Page_040.pro
2a56f2b4f910aefd09da5b8f06af3d30
5ea5ccdd2dd9eb31fb30d32d1558a783d57b3889
2118 F20101208_AABEJG dawson_k_Page_034.txt
7530953cc905d31d45815d6d0141d6db
f6cc2f069e1ec29ae03d9376431f48d1bf7e4c13
6296 F20101208_AABDGF dawson_k_Page_001.QC.jpg
d0af8dbf15e905433c33e27cf3764085
862824fa082ee729f4cfb8e86a6fa242130c34cd
2014 F20101208_AABEJH dawson_k_Page_038.txt
e446ab45848c23ef445c28aa2f0b768a
6982718c19a9aaf5b693cfc20e8e1a0b61c5349b
39569 F20101208_AABEIS dawson_k_Page_133.pro
f837c581d4a718618b558d1dad253456
41a6c70de150e46866900c3f8b22b89177285ab9
59648 F20101208_AABDGG dawson_k_Page_063.pro
f387f2662183c396fd755686bd9d0f5b
0bc86e159e85934915f9a15f7ccb0db78704a9a2
2290 F20101208_AABEJI dawson_k_Page_039.txt
896b213ecab410433c2142c2c264081e
2d89bfc43508d39296920fb5257e0943a613f756
365 F20101208_AABEIT dawson_k_Page_001.txt
421cc04c6602f1bcd30ea54cf5fd5a9c
ad46a329894cc517acfde5d9c4732aa0671621fe
6922 F20101208_AABDGH dawson_k_Page_100thm.jpg
735ecc7716156974083f287219129e63
ff4a4789b918b3b5c0aac4e8221af13f4d9a5284
F20101208_AABEJJ dawson_k_Page_042.txt
23a54e273b7f423fe295c56066f740eb
005849944e3c85f8c97760909eceada8b795bff2
87 F20101208_AABEIU dawson_k_Page_002.txt
9e64ae151e1736a145f41ac129739ebf
e08dfae91fc132dff09b291b25575a8a6b4b9d05
23850 F20101208_AABDGI dawson_k_Page_020.QC.jpg
d1915b2e307c4e3c3125245bcadcdab4
ca911f741c3d7bc6016ae09ceccc7cefe2ea402f
2562 F20101208_AABEJK dawson_k_Page_044.txt
e6b311cf3dadd1fc0a7a22f31460f797
5d52c6f642dc98dda8d26f31b4f116b86e6d83e0
1507 F20101208_AABEIV dawson_k_Page_009.txt
040898747f38f3efc50c9f48f2f156a6
1bb4a601c5dccd123977e9c869c34979fab7d37c
6729 F20101208_AABDGJ dawson_k_Page_036thm.jpg
ccd9745c2938215a6903124d97ab55f5
d48135062e4cd0e32e688c69576c473a8ff636ec
2183 F20101208_AABEJL dawson_k_Page_046.txt
de96944ed6361c89e4161cfbfb4d4f45
ddcd851a6b05f2ce34f5b44dd6c495da1cb9b12a
F20101208_AABDFU dawson_k_Page_014.tif
3b8bc7f0556f27030470123f014e9f59
4e9383e9dd8b1a334e74e79bb671df66a41109cc
2160 F20101208_AABEIW dawson_k_Page_010.txt
b6cdf9bd718ec10a65fa7f8fd1375268
4cfd775c6386749848252313b8dccebe14e2cea8
2294 F20101208_AABEKA dawson_k_Page_086.txt
1a7702f685097265b878228881b1b70c
e22f766a3d8929bbca593506d1adb3d96a252bab
7069 F20101208_AABDGK dawson_k_Page_088thm.jpg
e5dca1fa1c02e18db37e4a738cb52d1c
c6656c649c772f496c098b6245c2e2425b6e9230
2097 F20101208_AABEJM dawson_k_Page_047.txt
db383efaeab695747f10d4593e7b2540
fb0eeb53761743ba1bc3be9a21f4b6bf1bfeb7c0
24961 F20101208_AABDFV dawson_k_Page_111.jp2
7e4ce5405b262cb7d4b937392db70bfb
f1e277e6e223706c4960b16ff80e17c6da9ca245
2148 F20101208_AABEIX dawson_k_Page_012.txt
b8c57e4f8504cbbd8bbc866f1424b4f9
8e75f62959cb244ac44be141e006f7cdd0d5ae78
2054 F20101208_AABEKB dawson_k_Page_091.txt
f1c6d3e9c4bd5b61b61670635a94d3dd
6c58d244cb12e6fc47cad0ce412075abf3618009
115987 F20101208_AABDGL dawson_k_Page_099.jp2
58b524d753017880d18bf62653cf2812
f9c858a506f52cd22259134c766f8a52013157e6
2024 F20101208_AABEJN dawson_k_Page_050.txt
3d610c1d51b0bc0b4524b662e4f1f869
3919bacf39dd73bf67fd9388606a6180ee0dfcb7
23086 F20101208_AABDFW dawson_k_Page_019.QC.jpg
a3932a776751c7b0972e7f702cd94d8a
d42cfc3ef424522823dc17edc6805ff5864ef771
F20101208_AABEIY dawson_k_Page_013.txt
01f81bce7eed5f6bc513dc217ce0eb5a
61a3d2e121fd3497ffe2396874e5f9907674b01b
F20101208_AABEKC dawson_k_Page_093.txt
c620ca4b13d1e73cbd3fa607fce28df5
efa70e973426cbae190598c9041dcf3b2402887e
51381 F20101208_AABDHA dawson_k_Page_050.pro
5b0ff245a76148b0757259ebff5fe8b2
028eda7fa5ae1df4630c53c7550e48fcd7d359e2
6884 F20101208_AABDGM dawson_k_Page_089thm.jpg
047d3c3daafe5a33c02d907fcb5dee16
c34185354c7e3aeee9455b1b1ec3de3ffa94115d
1555 F20101208_AABEJO dawson_k_Page_057.txt
f4e14b2b45371c75a7ba93a2d4b8d522
8058d9cc88719fcedeb1e6ade75f3b23798ae55e
41346 F20101208_AABDFX dawson_k_Page_132.pro
192454c2f94d8e7486ccdcd8d04f62e6
5fa31cb130f1a7ff73ee6cb71f8c6d1cd06830d9
2163 F20101208_AABEIZ dawson_k_Page_015.txt
dc13528f1014f1083ab5249e23aff248
a56dd80a48d521851d591a01e0be63c4d56c72db
2088 F20101208_AABEKD dawson_k_Page_095.txt
d9f1e146eae3e443beaf32372dd68438
d6a762b60e02f93b0381f515821d5566bac7ce77
2450 F20101208_AABDGN dawson_k_Page_105.txt
f241e24c66bc1f14dc74f216c9f44539
2d87581bad59402a8aeb08bbe2f21b103d723476
2351 F20101208_AABEJP dawson_k_Page_063.txt
21ca61caddadffe8ce50254004deac63
f9d161825ee7b250df284fb4e97516782d738933
118105 F20101208_AABDFY dawson_k_Page_015.jp2
d848c09e1b2b1e991b51225052f5efb1
01fba18df704032e0804b352cb58fe315ad010a4
1601 F20101208_AABDHB dawson_k_Page_113thm.jpg
82846302abf99720accb72e01c6a2c0f
08ac4e10ad84c2e53690d41cf1eea9c35271726c
F20101208_AABEKE dawson_k_Page_097.txt
58b2e6537f481eb03eb620c110119d6c
2f1e961d5a6eb020304fbfa4935eab2b3db88b6a
6542 F20101208_AABDGO dawson_k_Page_058thm.jpg
3d120450faf19dc1c63c8b05707cb054
2396512695176d6fb1a24906264700be3053e72e
2572 F20101208_AABEJQ dawson_k_Page_065.txt
753ff80ae69f3a90eec2dcc964ef6455
94dc490c7cce6e82dbb27ba3dcdf8e4871f29ffd
2199 F20101208_AABDFZ dawson_k_Page_022.txt
10b3eed88977ccbbbdb86d8d2a539548
de9fb0b0cbf9780fbf9ec6f3492f577d7eac7cf4
2018 F20101208_AABDHC dawson_k_Page_051.txt
ec19368433ad31850fdb2b07ce60494e
3c88e34cd74247901ecfc6f8feaf6b4ca99eb7a4
2150 F20101208_AABEKF dawson_k_Page_099.txt
ba075fb5a557f2191c7416daa2e4fb41
295a5fb9a8f948e270439147e86ffe9c969b629e
783 F20101208_AABDGP dawson_k_Page_110.txt
35197590d519431c7f7ef022f376b52f
28d965458a9da964e557c17797afb07e6c5d6d5f
2064 F20101208_AABEJR dawson_k_Page_066.txt
a4db3333879584837323be0a28f8fa33
9ee311cd985f7649fdcd27b762a37704a87b2a49
4728 F20101208_AABDHD dawson_k_Page_108thm.jpg
0450af4218c9bfcd3efe9b12eeb0233b
a40ff1cbcf8a93d61e34b556d11366c3ac79c4bb
2221 F20101208_AABEKG dawson_k_Page_100.txt
2f6d6c75f2c857705794df045015a942
73bdf0064867b2abcf575ebcb974da9e9457c401
6275 F20101208_AABDGQ dawson_k_Page_119thm.jpg
46c14d2e2833375726436736ca1283ac
d6ffb85520ba81db9b44cef8994477cf794554ac
2512 F20101208_AABEJS dawson_k_Page_071.txt
773867fbc1dd3c8a2cb095be1441e901
48d013ac3219ff3233ce0d728ef0e5365782c7a1
82607 F20101208_AABDHE dawson_k_Page_129.jpg
2a6d6cf941274d7797731a1545f49ef2
215fbad119858a6fbd0169a430a1635b0579a28e
2078 F20101208_AABEKH dawson_k_Page_101.txt
3d0c980050049209cdbc34ab2af56308
dcc7ffa5c55d92766985df363702cb8eaee0d8cd
62146 F20101208_AABDHF dawson_k_Page_088.pro
d7a6b8ccf3455a56198cb45a099c9114
b2d08312c80f175c2b6bb7922dbb1bfa444e2735
3534 F20101208_AABEKI dawson_k_Page_102.txt
136cbd7520831bbef3ae46ad6c835c7e
c2af2d865bd99c7ea188c84f781f6f21ae18f6c7
24815 F20101208_AABDGR dawson_k_Page_069.QC.jpg
7fca5130ace973a70569527dc6d49645
b8eaaefa9361b6f37a9d1b49ed984ef14bc9c12f
2430 F20101208_AABEJT dawson_k_Page_072.txt
ae32c06eae6882496768fe050c1b22a4
d592910bdace6f6de374d4e4bb2b8c094a7f3a79
134 F20101208_AABDHG dawson_k_Page_003.txt
691155a9121c76fe55b819dd958eaa15
602282b961818c91ee5da7cbf7b1f7addc4c2813
2032 F20101208_AABEKJ dawson_k_Page_103.txt
1b342660f897c2928820d8776c171b77
dc11aa718f417bfbd3eb640ea2cef2780f4d9cea
107791 F20101208_AABDGS dawson_k_Page_091.jp2
1bcae1b6910c6d4ceabcc3d1e8b6dc99
29c83abba900a338ce7a4584dbce1cff1cfaad8a
2912 F20101208_AABEJU dawson_k_Page_073.txt
85153ad1cf931290de34e1a473fd433a
60b3467ece300eecad19543fd2f0ed8c974cf8a8
11288 F20101208_AABDHH dawson_k_Page_007.QC.jpg
26750daea2bd6957d02502a7bcada30e
c3541e1ecf64e886b30a74df0cb2529ef6fd0ae2
F20101208_AABEKK dawson_k_Page_104.txt
deb9274797bfce9f9e070564b5f1c718
f20caf95b24687fd7fe46144121a595a45a93a59
6398 F20101208_AABDGT dawson_k_Page_114thm.jpg
462da97b2ad3df7ee1cb31225efdd8ea
09c99574aebfbb71eb514bf72b779fb478c9dd19
2336 F20101208_AABEJV dawson_k_Page_078.txt
a427c7b9de3fc91821d578fff2168098
5c6b653ade236939cf2378c5eef2f120bde21275
30108 F20101208_AABDHI dawson_k_Page_108.pro
113ab0b494bb476f3daa6f39c15e408b
abe739c4e94bc572e8a7a612eeffb69a2f51269c
1584 F20101208_AABEKL dawson_k_Page_106.txt
9400914da841aef55b5e53f159f2456f
1bd6a8c4c97896222d89a5c84f8ab0f0ab5ae3be
54672 F20101208_AABDGU dawson_k_Page_080.pro
a50ee7ba4dc7e3c475c87cb254a26d0c
d021340a15779639236b8902fa7fce0b2e27b78b
2171 F20101208_AABEJW dawson_k_Page_080.txt
91a3e14cea7baf821d87eb52676eb69c
2cbe4d44670c6b92f29a4da236ab9993f3e01c37
F20101208_AABDHJ dawson_k_Page_003.tif
51d3b143e2337c9923f0d51fa64b8686
b82d87548674b0fbdd3f9b6de99d429ed7746f2f
6852 F20101208_AABELA dawson_k_Page_024thm.jpg
52ad8a3ec72d9d2371e37ebf52654d1d
0f4dd5e165eb94c5017648673ceac0c4cd111968
1977 F20101208_AABEKM dawson_k_Page_107.txt
5e115948f31fa2c61763c4018a29d9b2
c87d8c9a7f49bc64db395279556d2752329d7a8a
2135 F20101208_AABDGV dawson_k_Page_089.txt
cf68166fc15a95959dbc37f06cae9e55
bbc3f48e28756f7120eb14885aa3209ba951609a
2295 F20101208_AABEJX dawson_k_Page_081.txt
586542bf8a1cf903ab74c7a72e9bd52a
dae5945246bfbc05668482155b0508476c353912
17640 F20101208_AABDHK dawson_k_Page_110.pro
27dd31a13260d997c86e612051e786c1
28f2078ab68de24096fa5706e31faa3fa91963db
6485 F20101208_AABELB dawson_k_Page_092thm.jpg
e8d9898d07202bcd50cc02065c4ebe74
48eebcc86c41138cee2684790a44a6133c06b40e
1245 F20101208_AABEKN dawson_k_Page_108.txt
fac9653240ddabed2f83e8d2c221fb93
af9e098509a6f5d376cf84a2b278fd713579e520
55484 F20101208_AABDGW dawson_k_Page_028.pro
71da24dcfd50115f7155df9930a8169e
9a004dad3eedc4fa54d3e1c47de1e0148899f2c1
2402 F20101208_AABEJY dawson_k_Page_083.txt
ee6e9e2a00fd1fb1c4c23f27e1a8dd86
3e23d16aa849b5ae73717cb170b1724a2f1d5fbb
F20101208_AABDHL dawson_k_Page_107.tif
ec4960b3eea09850afb2a0f53706fe94
88cc14613451091b5cb11739ec431b866c769790
8428 F20101208_AABELC dawson_k_Page_105thm.jpg
8768331cb6a1d380ab18985bea96344c
5df848172589ffe953cd13ddccadda254f910700
1486 F20101208_AABEKO dawson_k_Page_109.txt
000333e94a053ac94b945bdf2b677cde
c7df78321dab6fae851b3f6ff394496fb9a07865
2041 F20101208_AABDGX dawson_k_Page_118.txt
8ad544620c6fcc7f5b175787a86424b3
a4fe70402010db40467d6deb8319150be0867bc1
2396 F20101208_AABEJZ dawson_k_Page_085.txt
be2732840ba12b7a226830d74cd8c5f5
a9ae2de8099afa9f7b4a1ccceaab88569b116635
82611 F20101208_AABDIA dawson_k_Page_074.jpg
827d3fb5d9d695dfdd1a12d2d4add52d
a635757244051dd368708a437cd70f5b30288b29
6664 F20101208_AABDHM dawson_k_Page_020thm.jpg
534f4e55b55fe01dbc7391f757d74cf1
d13f1ede42dcc2dfb44fd4cc723dace0c80138c2
24389 F20101208_AABELD dawson_k_Page_086.QC.jpg
827f151947957148550c0aba012a3ebb
b7dc6d069024c8350aa334621d672b43789f3c94
415 F20101208_AABEKP dawson_k_Page_111.txt
65712377167bff921d8d5de0b555765f
d8a019a6030dc7d5e7b093b5098f485ff10384a2
119020 F20101208_AABDGY dawson_k_Page_049.jp2
720c5a0674061d080650e8064b859c35
912350abfd3f4062f5a215293690da59a5fc4454
3465 F20101208_AABDIB dawson_k_Page_003.QC.jpg
2f625ae4f047fc3744959a0f074f72ae
ed662160052121d886c9048848d3fa2a4295fe1b
54963 F20101208_AABDHN dawson_k_Page_013.pro
b209b342173e80061d1a523ac1994806
040e783417404ffe625ea29f274fc53db7d42a64
26835 F20101208_AABELE dawson_k_Page_071.QC.jpg
b3c528ef02b13047bf28fd33242b2186
865a4edd3e1fa343bb8d70274e2920d0d3d50e3e
2017 F20101208_AABEKQ dawson_k_Page_114.txt
2d6e875efd5543e451351890204fd313
10a70e85d8f731f96e31fad39d9740a11f3e02ba
4193 F20101208_AABDGZ dawson_k_Page_112thm.jpg
7b09d54445abeb33d0691522b20873c6
71e3d57309498e06400bdfe45e3a1da4d3f90636
2190 F20101208_AABDIC dawson_k_Page_075.txt
11be472d59920d548e32de0fdb83a1a7
18bd05d594f4a93dbfdfb20d2da7319210fe71f9
7217 F20101208_AABDHO dawson_k_Page_073thm.jpg
9586d2c34f5c63d8eaff3a1a3f41c301
0d20b6bfda183928b24360bc8afd76145387fe80
22421 F20101208_AABELF dawson_k_Page_058.QC.jpg
137a04080f1ec2810bb3b8f50c815f2c
6d31b9f9c29e9387de46c0c405453f81aab5eeaa
F20101208_AABEKR dawson_k_Page_115.txt
003088a1ab6177d0bb1e17244505750a
8bb723da2e3ececdbe9aeffe43c7506ec7b18bed
2184 F20101208_AABDID dawson_k_Page_001thm.jpg
3515fc076f061f46a475123ff97e430c
57631d5b8eb4ada08fdc6c365e109c61b0ff8420
120794 F20101208_AABDHP dawson_k_Page_023.jp2
44abba32844c62a8fea3a5371a073e98
5e5181c795f221ff987d6a341cdcc53e0ef7441e
6961 F20101208_AABELG dawson_k_Page_070thm.jpg
12d34f5dafbfd89e06efcb36efb8b13d
2435cdecb92e4fb59fb3539340e3344f9622f724
2013 F20101208_AABEKS dawson_k_Page_116.txt
80aac4c9c340fb34561f1d753e2fe331
a37a102b9f67c89801b2af2bb004e957c239ff32
F20101208_AABDIE dawson_k_Page_053.tif
3cf8e7fd831d5c80e3374c51c6415abf
d2dc17dd108cff54c889ea1a8e997e1531c20d02
48442 F20101208_AABDHQ dawson_k_Page_058.pro
99d448f0c0c2a1d635bf1080e13ecd6d
49a12678a7660870cab4511e7f1ed3af18f8842f
7299 F20101208_AABELH dawson_k_Page_071thm.jpg
8974267ce5ca2dcc4b83313232eb7900
adda49df79444810bcfc95ad024b936dae98d976
2031 F20101208_AABEKT dawson_k_Page_117.txt
9fad9aa9b1d524400a3181785461e657
75fbeda1278a8d9f6dd15c08b0ef83397ae699ba
56654 F20101208_AABDIF dawson_k_Page_100.pro
dc9c3a3f0dd357ca334642f0be626c42
29c666d051aa7371c135a404c60069e905b8d7a0
5223 F20101208_AABDHR dawson_k_Page_109thm.jpg
e7d69dcf3ee90007d721d425fc006136
01f5ecea2b789e0ee52dd68c9cafe3a498c6717d
6683 F20101208_AABELI dawson_k_Page_129thm.jpg
965f7e46fb7576b43d09db65f4c13fd8
53f5e064fb087ac907667c9b52c7663c090c78b3
76658 F20101208_AABDIG dawson_k_Page_099.jpg
9d0514b7db1287e885408e1e85d6109b
0544498b19af1d47ebf4e865119ef60e2477969f
23260 F20101208_AABELJ dawson_k_Page_075.QC.jpg
9480329c1f0b96abd6eebcfc1bb749bc
bcf63c475b3c3fa8852e209d004bff2084e2c1cc
1786 F20101208_AABEKU dawson_k_Page_121.txt
7a09115a773bbbf27e2bd49f2c679bcb
6a1fdbb51487b8a2340ecba2a98350bfe9c4118f
5150 F20101208_AABDIH dawson_k_Page_004thm.jpg
fabb2ad4433ef01eab312b7971a66eb3
8fd20e9c13abe2bfdf412d11970cf1424c1f341d
F20101208_AABDHS dawson_k_Page_091.tif
651c85e6af747e69bdfe16e593353fd1
04b1f295cf83361f8c120da404afb4b42393f9a7
6314 F20101208_AABELK dawson_k_Page_125thm.jpg
0c1ed6939634d768f49a42198e10cc3b
1f3cc00ae5eee2ef2bf737c8dfeeb7a47750f8eb
1906 F20101208_AABEKV dawson_k_Page_124.txt
d50b1754db2917011dabed7eac8c2e3c
abdc817cd943d0c16c59ad89201f06b6d6575781
48768 F20101208_AABDII dawson_k_Page_123.pro
d09e774231f10f4a747a73eb25c39f52
83a63c0b9c4aeb94b8ccd1de64e7ce26bea8e82e
79601 F20101208_AABDHT dawson_k_Page_109.jp2
5103ccc457c7d43802b7f61b02508b2c
9644ab9b87c5157a3aac2b1835fbdf8e34aa1010
6754 F20101208_AABELL dawson_k_Page_049thm.jpg
d63d92fa2ecb631f91410531aca49d25
1253c232af5cd4cddeeae5e63f8dc51d325d6da6
2174 F20101208_AABEKW dawson_k_Page_125.txt
e113bcf4df98ac53747a2b69fdda2b35
7d8076389a0b3a44968178237003dfdf902163a7
76694 F20101208_AABDIJ dawson_k_Page_062.jpg
27e453afd45db46a3b984f70a3b0b4dc
6e5578124e7dbb68c47a9b706a3b58176e1c5e78
80155 F20101208_AABDHU dawson_k_Page_067.jpg
4d9a8426e630ca2e05efe0a00e1a8eb5
a5c4baf1732df262f5ce75738d094f6a00867983
26498 F20101208_AABEMA dawson_k_Page_052.QC.jpg
6f892441be16e64b89101725f8902c0f
06b988d0bfa90f24cf5701d9db04ad13443c1262
18078 F20101208_AABELM dawson_k_Page_132.QC.jpg
0b61aa9387872c726b11f73a257f3b32
cbbb314f0dbb8dea5dcb5007917c1700cdc5d1eb
1724 F20101208_AABEKX dawson_k_Page_132.txt
fb2a23d1868f60ac462d2e4a854f1f8f
895def9008d6cdb4f398745c9f53635480331acf
5475 F20101208_AABDIK dawson_k_Page_008thm.jpg
c1beaeafbd39d8254124d12d5e014339
7e945260a3a921c26cb200a2cf7fcc0afda3d12f
55399 F20101208_AABDHV dawson_k_Page_022.pro
ff0d6bada88d2801bd08bdc80e828012
9fbc24119f2f22119e847a076c331fc9ce95232a
6932 F20101208_AABEMB dawson_k_Page_093thm.jpg
bfa8d1fc418ef3322aab17f63cc1b29a
97e5b9bed2223ab66cbc86b79e1a008c859e21dd
26009 F20101208_AABELN dawson_k_Page_083.QC.jpg
586464bc5a80898fa1cbba032f5ca9fd
66dc565c02ddfbb9b706ce4f77b526a0ca6c8bc6
23293 F20101208_AABEKY dawson_k_Page_123.QC.jpg
e303e0a1122a3611aae3d44ecd0f6430
f47e7955763b3cae68cb0f68faf4c2465a986294
146881 F20101208_AABDIL dawson_k_Page_068.jp2
43b179c0d0cf841f4f0fa222dea70283
dcfc69c9eaf688ad190b88ea31ce88b3a710f57f
26473 F20101208_AABDHW dawson_k_Page_039.QC.jpg
9cb5da8748c020c9a295421fabaf41e5
92afbe08f483160e8bea07effdf1f72a35cf885c
23331 F20101208_AABEMC dawson_k_Page_051.QC.jpg
05db15708d193154773bf7fcf5957f2c
d95c93652f4a9ba85ad7b674d76661eb82c290e4
7098 F20101208_AABELO dawson_k_Page_068thm.jpg
20cb84804deffa29efd1cf299cd6f1a5
54542c52d53e1e47db4b9e806280d773bac663cb
24829 F20101208_AABEKZ dawson_k_Page_092.QC.jpg
b4a9daf1f603ee78d7b3f14e262d329f
e5c9081c9db9193556be5dfefff7e849bb7318ca
589200 F20101208_AABDJA dawson_k.pdf
8d5cb1ff16a892ebd2f77e5c7b1c28d1
caa7a9f208d68cf902f0adda70e2bae01086109e
76340 F20101208_AABDIM dawson_k_Page_042.jpg
75615bbb4adef055976ecfe6b0c7fe91
e0b318f10cded14ddf7de4d00e16a0869c66011a
118886 F20101208_AABDHX dawson_k_Page_033.jp2
d6c94c23fa3aefd35ab85981f4294ec9
ef789e1d2dc476a9d583b5589886cfc0099c9841
6867 F20101208_AABEMD dawson_k_Page_022thm.jpg
9386f5c74281fd0f22a489a600405b80
414c0c1553520c4774155749906b201b67b6f0ca
23540 F20101208_AABELP dawson_k_Page_038.QC.jpg
70a963b5cb024e6e6ad7144f69189841
dc1a9f5d9dfe88c020e3c4dbc90ef5780b5375df
57059 F20101208_AABDJB dawson_k_Page_029.pro
6c43baf621b08364260bfe722bdc98ad
2c58b5b2de1c434de3accc62856c0a7fb6a8794a
5647 F20101208_AABDIN dawson_k_Page_107thm.jpg
edece89b9cedd9170c8a6928457941ba
ddf10e4b35a652eb6777a430a0893d5d220c0740
17662 F20101208_AABDHY dawson_k_Page_004.QC.jpg
2b9fa96fcc2e888efa4efa41ad7596cb
a5ddf65be9d9a296ad0c9b15fdba6326ab1c4c27
6235 F20101208_AABEME dawson_k_Page_048thm.jpg
9b10b16c4eec66c24da2177b137fbf3a
dfca202b16c1499c9a3d6bcbe2866bb82b05570e
26515 F20101208_AABELQ dawson_k_Page_030.QC.jpg
92ea8f34e08e7fe14fbcada9ced690a3
c13eb6307f94f609177cf9b5b8bc467f2754e5e3
26770 F20101208_AABDJC dawson_k_Page_031.QC.jpg
7a6d9d951fd1a28daff08a7986fdc009
d054f2cf24efb6e64bcf6a3853ff9c56d0f68180
115556 F20101208_AABDIO dawson_k_Page_092.jp2
a622a30de9445942d5f9498f37e34132
0e0383fa2aaff2316ed58d78d061012af1f3a8c2
23057 F20101208_AABDHZ dawson_k_Page_130.QC.jpg
d845d420f9c11e3ae0e7cc1cd1cd029a
4ec99453772aab47b3e30c4cf0031a3e0a150146
23835 F20101208_AABEMF dawson_k_Page_048.QC.jpg
e187b958914de144d8eb0447306f137f
6e58927b84dce81faa43ca5b3986eae6859aae58
6647 F20101208_AABELR dawson_k_Page_101thm.jpg
c93cabe14dc23bb1d1f6f83949753eb2
39f65aabb5923c9979f907052066454d6e1df1c6
6136 F20101208_AABDJD dawson_k_Page_122thm.jpg
fff9ee60958e7fd34c1d574765342fd5
3d59398cd48bfb204f9dbf26ee299f701e4b72e2
86828 F20101208_AABDIP dawson_k_Page_065.jpg
e4a71665a97a3a1942f973829d0b5642
4daacfb0cf6a4358983d89d2d52f57d440131292
6533 F20101208_AABEMG dawson_k_Page_087thm.jpg
377804260816331ddbc5f97a87e25889
f8cde69e42e9f2841654696e48e2012c77f5c06c
6757 F20101208_AABELS dawson_k_Page_076thm.jpg
f1d38218a6f468daef95cd58d5bc8d12
f82baf17784361e56b8680a6a14b7e6ddddc81e2
4791 F20101208_AABDJE dawson_k_Page_009thm.jpg
d22879c424408d903a7d9e333d32c26c
b1987f88ba5547b038ac79c6aced4a8df60a5fb8
6955 F20101208_AABDIQ dawson_k_Page_045thm.jpg
4cef546cf9d271620644789cf997b99f
e41c77dac13af4f68da24b58348dea2bd8490d8c
6581 F20101208_AABEMH dawson_k_Page_118thm.jpg
355f9c08485c565855ad32dad3d2d19d
ea399c449f952a141a6e78afaa3bfb9204960b89
23369 F20101208_AABELT dawson_k_Page_061.QC.jpg
976a2e5827f88acc5a3d7add6da9208f
636e3f043740c60f5465a15a38c0b2e1d50c1b99
96546 F20101208_AABDJF dawson_k_Page_073.jpg
c0b1fefdc6f55659e63e0307da187e7e
723e26ea23daf3880aa35cf249104d314c0efebb
1407 F20101208_AABDIR dawson_k_Page_004.txt
2f2088cc7efacca545e2289647dae652
02c0f426fb0f6cc92d4787ff01587a291c506174
7147 F20101208_AABEMI dawson_k_Page_063thm.jpg
7297ea8413be6e60d27914ec3a856823
ee770b61d11676683014d70b183fc715bf574bc9
6690 F20101208_AABELU dawson_k_Page_085thm.jpg
e929b709df18d281bf479462a74e0676
76922e187c45e1839e3dc36b8500d859c845b8e8
119673 F20101208_AABDJG dawson_k_Page_028.jp2
775171b3246572a8b9188ce37b445118
be004e317288d35b9830fb8e4b4bf80ce4a4ad41
F20101208_AABDIS dawson_k_Page_079.tif
89e14905b13312ee06fe734b7fa2a4b8
2148946812a55a0c776c2c0e83d4e814b0bac79c
6694 F20101208_AABEMJ dawson_k_Page_099thm.jpg
199a68c0fa241016ebe90ffb7fe45d4d
91e3abf17ee3a148855d5593cc7e30ca5da537a3
123671 F20101208_AABDJH dawson_k_Page_030.jp2
0532090451fc98719125092d888a998c
a787d786abbaa00e5b311eca791187c51b04b1e8
22800 F20101208_AABEMK dawson_k_Page_090.QC.jpg
27e0681216fb54f17d509163e99cd8af
d612e7559612889b038b516ce4ca55dee878432c
5219 F20101208_AABELV dawson_k_Page_132thm.jpg
35d2104da5bdd92bec7726ab175834d2
14bf19a7308fa3120455876ac50ffdee2fc259c0
2045 F20101208_AABDJI dawson_k_Page_098.txt
f44e7988e11022b7d05afcec940498d7
8656ce797d8f4b7b385d03abad2bac5068c91d58
53078 F20101208_AABDIT dawson_k_Page_034.pro
9b3a5476bdfbd20e0798078622cc61c5
7f8c530592d3c87fb8ab823e4116d810d945b527
24049 F20101208_AABEML dawson_k_Page_131.QC.jpg
6b3d26822671fc39c0939f40274c13bf
7f4b0b19402c0c07ac9830ddb966d1a694211d89
7146 F20101208_AABELW dawson_k_Page_011thm.jpg
bd67280cba0f56197b28f47868fb1b82
765ccebffb1cb218d7362e6d3de6d241fb8273cf
108384 F20101208_AABDJJ dawson_k_Page_115.jp2
19073cc08793a8838429fa431efb4e62
7fda25d3183d960ea2edf9d090845000e0497d84
1947 F20101208_AABDIU dawson_k_Page_119.txt
7df8a3bcb77b09b18f4102f228230778
6871deaaa0a6427491c77255cb43b3adf032b6bc
28005 F20101208_AABENA dawson_k_Page_068.QC.jpg
c5f3cf48d20329dbf651a381d4d929da
1e9652d588b8ddea88a3ad9f31ec09d1f27b3835
6710 F20101208_AABEMM dawson_k_Page_014thm.jpg
2b761fda4b9dca2dbb5b6fd07fe2da07
6487b19ba5bc7a0107d10b82e782abafb2d505c0
24272 F20101208_AABELX dawson_k_Page_077.QC.jpg
bb16fdd91880b710649dcfc70209600c
bf3817888a2c297f0d9fc56c6aa843c5506807e1
79543 F20101208_AABDJK dawson_k_Page_081.jpg
3baf599b9840455b776c10d019ed679e
8e060175245bb751e71c89918c327c9bab358373
54436 F20101208_AABDIV dawson_k_Page_096.pro
00da9cde6a6ae17f132f0fb573e54e6d
1c44ed1d83ae9714afd262ced25b935e0f7e92c9
6449 F20101208_AABENB dawson_k_Page_130thm.jpg
14f8487192bbe875fb86ddb3c10b8188
701835a4bb1c87adde601e5acb2b522b3d23314f
6807 F20101208_AABEMN dawson_k_Page_097thm.jpg
9c6b348c664eb7692c70ef26249d1c60
86d65ad409803bff5b5b63d7da0eacc7e235939b
6933 F20101208_AABELY dawson_k_Page_096thm.jpg
243d55837957a79a112721eddbe8bcd0
96083c00c48cb0be0d724eb2dac2e2d6b9b6731b
F20101208_AABDJL dawson_k_Page_028.txt
885b9beef8e79030a2fa0bf2997b85c7
4e96d714e645f9023a5459de1bb72c155fd0f082
2042 F20101208_AABDIW dawson_k_Page_048.txt
73aa4f45f0848eb934ebe4b93c757e86
27035c66d043577aed99688cfe8b536153180800
6502 F20101208_AABENC dawson_k_Page_079thm.jpg
284e597c63287684a17e52db1b434386
ef4e5fb325c03115f50de5a5fd027e4a43359209
23474 F20101208_AABEMO dawson_k_Page_128.QC.jpg
c6b76ef32c1e5396e21f9cecbd6e33bc
f4dc3662f0a049832fc8228f3b92d287306a33cc
6721 F20101208_AABELZ dawson_k_Page_069thm.jpg
0b2371b782e361e9deae8aa5d239b928
41fc8bf3c48e8a9c356202e17e83bfcf29ebe1d5
F20101208_AABDJM dawson_k_Page_100.tif
f75cfa01a3b735d37fcbfe131b6463a8
794bf8ce0dee23b578b135207ee82de6a1f6cc62
24102 F20101208_AABDIX dawson_k_Page_084.QC.jpg
528e3fa6eb2ae068fef9ccc832683183
f34a052b09f314d33e259b0707d81fe43d76f112
81161 F20101208_AABDKA dawson_k_Page_030.jpg
6d6ab2ed83407b4297815119d584ff05
c02674a468ca80fec05aa51af80d0bea7584c4d5
27178 F20101208_AABEND dawson_k_Page_011.QC.jpg
a97ffc05c4aecfb241bb16caea022c84
1ef12f344fc1924625743a67077dec6312259344
6423 F20101208_AABEMP dawson_k_Page_061thm.jpg
161395bf249a6b1d66eae0813368d10b
4717396963b4c1fd2b12a6e48f4b4e17218f477e
22269 F20101208_AABDJN dawson_k_Page_041.QC.jpg
d70ea02a12407a92ce6e7b2576840578
0dbd82b44dc0964634bb7715a953d845be044cc9
24205 F20101208_AABDIY dawson_k_Page_118.QC.jpg
ec87832465c693d02af4d125222d4d3a
d0c9046284748d9bfe975219749b7bb3de3b9840
4735 F20101208_AABDKB dawson_k_Page_106thm.jpg
e365b6a202d65e0e93787345174ea0e5
984fca4b3c96c5ddd994e7188528f748c0ab2903
6805 F20101208_AABENE dawson_k_Page_015thm.jpg
26bec44400f8611fef1ff817ea669bb7
1ed0739d9d8d2f8f1d4ed02821cb47c5e25145d0
18341 F20101208_AABEMQ dawson_k_Page_018.QC.jpg
13552af6790ff344ac9562100f85e3e8
aa5d537bf8b69f1355b1f6d94ac6a0fccd0e15eb
F20101208_AABDJO dawson_k_Page_117.tif
b837fc8a9b58a9193aede8052cf66fa6
b32638401ea24224353af304af28304507a44c61
F20101208_AABDIZ dawson_k_Page_042.tif
8676a01a68b6b6d191155987527045de
911c105d5325710d1dc31fa16c8e889615df7a7e
6663 F20101208_AABDKC dawson_k_Page_035thm.jpg
ad4481158ce9a68310268004e93d0b58
9e39c0001c7d874bc7a48117b293a0ba271d31ae
22078 F20101208_AABENF dawson_k_Page_122.QC.jpg
d230caed4b52b20d8db0263b1692b642
37dd5655f2a87aff33a2ee65a3cd7c789d1a25db
6586 F20101208_AABEMR dawson_k_Page_027thm.jpg
6eedda966e59e2c843e10f6d5e561bc5
73b61cb73808f92a531c4c3109f280be6a694830
F20101208_AABDJP dawson_k_Page_046.tif
7aa809f6548ec1eed6b11d329156dd25
a8bf10b8ea79e27584ebb55aa0b59b7df78a08f6
2056 F20101208_AABDKD dawson_k_Page_019.txt
8e4758b79d38cb144aa6b5ce4da87c2a
3ae29e3bb6e2a51fae5c39437f6051c6d2b30bdc
25338 F20101208_AABENG dawson_k_Page_067.QC.jpg
4faedd6bc4855280ca54d4844cfea03e
5b347c043de3edd663d1308098c62c7de3731cfb
25757 F20101208_AABEMS dawson_k_Page_029.QC.jpg
e7ba8a74ffd11f5eea5dfdff13fa966c
2ba450d1e6e4a7f7f880904ed16228b7ef116a1b
80265 F20101208_AABDJQ dawson_k_Page_021.jpg
4a3cd8b15dc825c477c9f381f13db715
0ad10f61ac2ea72be903f4c81975572675a10456
22360 F20101208_AABDKE dawson_k_Page_120.QC.jpg
5a610a16d8001a5503cb67a7a60e8840
a4ea94a295fda06e2b01a79cad98ed63c3b9932a
7196 F20101208_AABENH dawson_k_Page_030thm.jpg
50dfb0057d4ab01deef8130d61d4e5b4
aa3cb733deebf775873cef9d662ee3aaa241ee70
27632 F20101208_AABEMT dawson_k_Page_053.QC.jpg
0b65548135aa8c09cdd777df31b4f76e
61deb0367b34a28832e606fd5d3f81636f500891
6522 F20101208_AABDJR dawson_k_Page_077thm.jpg
b44afe67e484c9d7f5da7ef6313a87be
80198c0928f8162c93a24f27df0d87451398f192
6331 F20101208_AABDKF dawson_k_Page_019thm.jpg
ff97da0ac7737bac32d85e3068a79267
22c9b9797c3eac0e8d98295b093e58da7f51cf14
24138 F20101208_AABENI dawson_k_Page_064.QC.jpg
6e54a8dc3837c5b056e76e4ac7daa635
5cb6376ddd5d5aaecaa92b08e0c25ed3768174ac
24846 F20101208_AABEMU dawson_k_Page_085.QC.jpg
ab4fd785c2a899aa1320c86690bca88b
6512681da49662f3789e3840a0ed0bb28411ed12
9747 F20101208_AABDJS dawson_k_Page_002.jpg
b85abf43bf3174f4c01a9bfe2d4b016e
c9c233e5e7978f35d6cefb0499fb6d6974b92903
6618 F20101208_AABDKG dawson_k_Page_131thm.jpg
94f8d5db68ad0164463a22600767822e
f91f4ef66c9d2fc181f4e4fdc9cd7b860ce06214
15903 F20101208_AABENJ dawson_k_Page_126.QC.jpg
b8d34d77e1abb7807e9f81ead7800674
5c563adf7e5defeab8d8043b6685c6ade8e6a7ba
25403 F20101208_AABEMV dawson_k_Page_094.QC.jpg
5fd6f1936fceb30322f10ed4601920f5
e621c752f98a266bb1fa3ee5b64d3f20d4b66bf0
1619 F20101208_AABDJT dawson_k_Page_133.txt
21b704bf5bdd7819834af4b61397c71a
ddca7b475ea5e7402346d0d6a60c56e9f2b15e8b
113121 F20101208_AABDKH dawson_k_Page_101.jp2
a79a0b720931d1abe973af72b66a7e2f
0bf882d60f8e1057d3e01eccb3a216b058b321fb
6608 F20101208_AABENK dawson_k_Page_038thm.jpg
38d0529d793a2709c11fa8a9a2c94925
d72fa1c2dac725653092cb68c21a1dd24c990272
F20101208_AABDKI dawson_k_Page_110.tif
82182725d115ed5c98289ce9549fd68f
cb0b83057266e826909b2b7b845cf57bbed98980
24998 F20101208_AABENL dawson_k_Page_037.QC.jpg
4ed5d47457804a8fd5f95de0f1529b1e
ba2a27d8c9d4308773acf783f0a77e62939ff4d0
6192 F20101208_AABEMW dawson_k_Page_127thm.jpg
a0ca064dbb67f94a1cb8a7e6d4afb33a
dbe3d335f423adffb3820eee29ae54d1c734eb5c
F20101208_AABDJU dawson_k_Page_002.tif
f1d0d4315bb5d787dd8325c553fcf095
3e132bb0c9d0c35ed59cd172d20301db0efb5fea
134229 F20101208_AABDKJ dawson_k_Page_105.jp2
24319c248e20c785cccf5a7b4fc69864
4202bb4f1f94b4759b085bdc2011b0f0976d8eae
1634 F20101208_AABEOA dawson_k_Page_003thm.jpg
b9adcb8a7e1a715875e6111bf77f67bf
394ecee99c76808e2ffe06a5008e052ee84f86b3
6530 F20101208_AABENM dawson_k_Page_025thm.jpg
990c92a24287956349dfb8077cd3c97b
5b03fe674ff028187e450309a3383099f175395f
6698 F20101208_AABEMX dawson_k_Page_091thm.jpg
ff8584fc678041b72dacb72e14026661
d03f31a7dfa52dde0600eaa935abb8331f94a94d
6749 F20101208_AABDJV dawson_k_Page_010thm.jpg
d9f5ea0a97796aab152c861dab3a53df
3c33343178deffc903ed6a4d8850943b798deb15
2021 F20101208_AABDKK dawson_k_Page_032.txt
a12a50b71cf418bde9fbc3d3f64bd378
6af0f242f774af42256e7dfcf2e7289e38344f60
5796 F20101208_AABEOB dawson_k_Page_006thm.jpg
a46ba0496b7a4beef04b891d8cc2c52f
239375a0d6e0bf18c275036e2a50d26ff9b7e7c7
26149 F20101208_AABENN dawson_k_Page_021.QC.jpg
773c6a91560d2cadaf2170d2b68cbbc1
659acfeb1a209da1b664278870a3284846a9c16e
6149 F20101208_AABEMY dawson_k_Page_017thm.jpg
e5e1a59ac0c27ef9ae5b12dc7af526cd
e89fa24b5201408ff2cc9e7db180287059bdac43
1985 F20101208_AABDJW dawson_k_Page_090.txt
d6c15fc755195d34728a4d6b01b04cd5
8dda407143c3781ce24d4efe592da38c23411add
F20101208_AABDKL dawson_k_Page_021.tif
00733f412d94fbff54acffd078a34d5b
b50c7b0000ce63e73249b6ad5b39cc6adc1e0494
20060 F20101208_AABEOC dawson_k_Page_008.QC.jpg
8c511609da87b195423ee832f5ad444d
2fd6ea710c5ce10bf186b66f8794a15d616d98a2
25425 F20101208_AABENO dawson_k_Page_097.QC.jpg
400f8ee56d5e6079c3ddaf45fddd1e61
c7ae25e037af60809457cd09df89d3cdc323d9b4
23743 F20101208_AABEMZ dawson_k_Page_066.QC.jpg
7b41b8a6b4e492173d92925defa0fc0f
dfc4371530ad5982c64494dd6d937e3a08dc94af
2243 F20101208_AABDJX dawson_k_Page_021.txt
3cf914dd2e8c00dd40357b429423d72f
f116efa10251347e3fca71645b6a3bfb94291655
75199 F20101208_AABDLA dawson_k_Page_092.jpg
af6280c191cebee8337b0003992897d0
f9352e0c6e308aaef910ef14078df52589b0cebf
21370 F20101208_AABDKM dawson_k_Page_055.QC.jpg
93cda1ef316ce50340528b6a97d7e277
284f51616a7691b85687a6979741a31f0bdeac02
24643 F20101208_AABEOD dawson_k_Page_010.QC.jpg
2f66655b1d23a66627082037cd0dab75
b60b0d3a2577c310090dc7b562e406a4e5cde0f4
25721 F20101208_AABENP dawson_k_Page_100.QC.jpg
6b0a4284f793c8ab33fde62eb8b11d3b
2972e01faf26adfeffefb191e7149119a90beb41
F20101208_AABDJY dawson_k_Page_123.tif
1bfc8de81ea69a0135f8f28da56d9122
188ef13e388c1897407dfd0908553480ce45970a
24704 F20101208_AABDLB dawson_k_Page_095.QC.jpg
98bcfc1c4e7a387e1ca62eaa1155dfb7
d42d6454012429ea090b0c4705e6cfd14b5c58a7
32865 F20101208_AABDKN dawson_k_Page_009.pro
817e4cc7b4c359ad3e5ea2a71dca91e8
3c5e6ede6d75f86f39ec3942ed0f878e2c3e650f
25254 F20101208_AABEOE dawson_k_Page_012.QC.jpg
9ae58cea5a871d6e79399eed7cdade7c
0c02c1ebeef71852f3f55bf4ec86aa85346f076d
6750 F20101208_AABENQ dawson_k_Page_052thm.jpg
98d42ee69cfb5a3323a62e19240aa0ee
14fc7eaa38f1bcf5ebbc3e2b1ba22219f3005c25
80985 F20101208_AABDLC dawson_k_Page_039.jpg
8ce9cc4c8b88a2c1e419bab7bcce43ad
0f9154dc813f67929a6051018334e70a2447b139
1242 F20101208_AABDKO dawson_k_Page_126.txt
9a5f1eb2c41171f422fa9e892769c423
f7c7fabce5ec2f00897bf17d05e9c407c9830cbc
F20101208_AABDJZ dawson_k_Page_095.tif
569c8c75b14aa51ad8659ce9e7e5169f
462e4f6dd3e965b29d22ce678e0fb6a1ae114637
25190 F20101208_AABEOF dawson_k_Page_015.QC.jpg
7c2652076c2b1db72fb9490669787803
f9af3d2c47ffebd82db8ae30514125955112cbfd
6752 F20101208_AABENR dawson_k_Page_056thm.jpg
1e97ce05589212f02d006b1d36f50163
cec87403044633bd55ee2a64a793f5ba37f79289
6381 F20101208_AABDLD dawson_k_Page_075thm.jpg
eadcf59137b7820f1a0ccb4a08acab84
537b1d2615c5d97137cd9924768b8defa010d1c7
F20101208_AABDKP dawson_k_Page_109.tif
d2e590e31245dd846bf64a1d7004e587
b4d918a08298ed223ade9ab2ec14042455b5f9df
24556 F20101208_AABEOG dawson_k_Page_016.QC.jpg
dede0bf13d9b9044dd0985ce9965bdb5
7a41627dccadf8ec2fdeeb90a08b565cce22ae51
6821 F20101208_AABENS dawson_k_Page_016thm.jpg
c2ee8edcccf3e4c65e7a9188bc7b2ab5
0933f34eac76fc548c809e3a09abd2bdaf87f29d
23258 F20101208_AABDLE dawson_k_Page_006.QC.jpg
8842bdec0c5463319a3d1bd64ac617bf
8d764f4b43181a7260fa3a0020abde6e576c6376
6059 F20101208_AABDKQ dawson_k_Page_121thm.jpg
97ad7ea090d7d791ae26877e7481f398
4f02343f149bf8ea59d393bb7a37b27a0c34920b
24482 F20101208_AABEOH dawson_k_Page_025.QC.jpg
6cf3254b9e2373e23020cc59d1d639b7
bd1c6d4163d2ff8104b9a7c037539b2a6962f796
6669 F20101208_AABENT dawson_k_Page_051thm.jpg
60c0df4fc8cf09a7c0a80d527f55d12f
c56dd9141ecf764413404612432fe176a3cbc42a
6483 F20101208_AABDLF dawson_k_Page_032thm.jpg
0ab2913442e0a9550c151555f64bb576
ec73de445b4a785a96ed3e03bb5914a0660d520a
53818 F20101208_AABDKR dawson_k_Page_125.pro
dd0c9f07c8ccdd4e21129ca8f4a39eb7
51dc18741f52cb2644dbfbaac65d344f0c2dcfae
7100 F20101208_AABEOI dawson_k_Page_026thm.jpg
8c20355f64d67fd7121f8e4a76ad8713
fe01223508a06ac49cc9274c6fb27dd48bfec2cb
4601 F20101208_AABENU dawson_k_Page_040thm.jpg
21457c17514681b6c787a7bd1e6dc3fe
8d58d2400142b946986a980ee651488550822773
F20101208_AABDLG dawson_k_Page_036.tif
83a206fd48c1d28159525dffaa67800c
37b044dfca522c731dac58dfa8909eb674ef9809
24217 F20101208_AABDKS dawson_k_Page_050.QC.jpg
5ac825f40d33db4c8f1468e88be91bfa
b160edc3da6b4db115bd9f304cfa64d2b900004d
F20101208_AABEOJ dawson_k_Page_034thm.jpg
92f181efc9ab146662d88b0aaa968ded
d4006f83efcb87c73a2728f90582b3d59b928d46
16000 F20101208_AABENV dawson_k_Page_108.QC.jpg
6ae0170ad571d0180e4270158bcae7af
f06dfdf1a342d3441c9f518f0219dab8bb19e8d6
7064 F20101208_AABDLH dawson_k_Page_028thm.jpg
0b59b089459a072e73964c82de114f56
18ab74487d9dd279336f135c890125d90c818087
F20101208_AABDKT dawson_k_Page_063.tif
3e1d74f307b2a4c3236c727453358f1b
c478e23e447b4bc8d1e0dbe8dd3fff5ab737618e
6937 F20101208_AABEOK dawson_k_Page_037thm.jpg
a25884fffa91663607258ebfcad1ab73
abcc133390b7300cc8c69aed0851fb489285dd8d
5510 F20101208_AABENW dawson_k_Page_133thm.jpg
e2135f052fb9904a116dd07297dd651d
fcd6beb889d18476bcebc069b362b6868482fcff
173307 F20101208_AABDLI dawson_k_Page_102.jp2
7b580e9cb0c2f0383d61d6e6d2df900d
c2f52b4dad4cb8a3ea76e758cdc6f20ff5b95c0d
88763 F20101208_AABDKU dawson_k_Page_102.pro
981a1c664938d986e36e2d76abfd4dec
4e8a8af043ab62db0fcbb6cbd823e5643f70d396
25259 F20101208_AABEOL dawson_k_Page_042.QC.jpg
5e25f0133044d119a4b8056a6ba21d7b
ea2a65838ba78e84419bb326cb54423cc0508b09
F20101208_AABDLJ dawson_k_Page_049.tif
14d089bbb5e63a875676e5ec333d6866
8619a3e826861a9ea3cc5fb3aba58884d74d4bcf
24695 F20101208_AABEPA dawson_k_Page_089.QC.jpg
3319e37caa9594aa679f57a7a0645516
e2925434c60ee7dac942c317746cd2f23e423535
F20101208_AABEOM dawson_k_Page_042thm.jpg
236c40f4cf36e3a85ac3ba635cc1e320
b43cd5f9b03f5acb19d7c1b81c256afb0a3682b4
6420 F20101208_AABENX dawson_k_Page_041thm.jpg
972ea29724b302cd367e84fae25a9244
6dd858a62507919b531015adc23feb823779b021
F20101208_AABDLK dawson_k_Page_108.tif
f7c17895c66b8f7c0fdf1ebf82c0ecdd
8ef7165793d746516fafbf12bbbbc93c1819e5a9
F20101208_AABDKV dawson_k_Page_104.tif
3fcd8d47bae7fab82c7b5cff763aaf03
bfa6e751ab2387ce1653d7a8c94f55d09dd67c58
6325 F20101208_AABEPB dawson_k_Page_090thm.jpg
49bfc7471e9df61479a887b5e24aa858
ba703b662fc78eb5fdba44503119b19b4852f09d
24313 F20101208_AABEON dawson_k_Page_043.QC.jpg
80c1e2fe5bed7df8bcc30340bd310fd2
53479366e27bd2deb8f55a82220799b5c89438b4
199083 F20101208_AABENY UFE0019641_00001.xml
d8df7c1c8eac235869af51a806b007f3
5ddda9d96db8c581dfe012e7441311ec63f07ae1
2161 F20101208_AABDLL dawson_k_Page_094.txt
30197856e44aa27e82df1000b088f1d7
7e7346b3c00284b05ac1d6b3031c7c1aed0daf03
50423 F20101208_AABDKW dawson_k_Page_103.pro
b41c151479174a179aac871602fae40b
1fa846465b6352ed3a22b864824a6afcdf40495e
25395 F20101208_AABEPC dawson_k_Page_093.QC.jpg
b5168cb6885b30ea2f5b99db01cb17a6
51f7974e1c5dbcce600a554b4c46029843c19063
24419 F20101208_AABEOO dawson_k_Page_047.QC.jpg
b8626d85c664ab90bc3aae1bb0898a57
f95381c8061063d982f71a98a7e03339d1a8128c
3030 F20101208_AABENZ dawson_k_Page_002.QC.jpg
5695ff38afffa108b16f957988df4e6f
58bbd978e13d3f26041c6ddb28d52f72c5cab4a2
76931 F20101208_AABDLM dawson_k_Page_094.jpg
44eab456469b7f12367aec9d381046e4
2d2e406280c50fd544223361ad81b0ef241feb34
F20101208_AABDKX dawson_k_Page_071.tif
81bb3fda13b83245d6bf0669dc845422
c2fee6fab4e43c265955a24f7f8dfedbe24c3716
59067 F20101208_AABDMA dawson_k_Page_085.pro
77c0570e7b4ac4ad39ba4a36c6c3d170
75f18413e277b70548f16b5367c636eec84651c8
7024 F20101208_AABEPD dawson_k_Page_094thm.jpg
3dba76560b19fc8e7c8f308de9778cf3
fedcbdca21e0b15db349c6ff2528bc5395fbbb79
F20101208_AABEOP dawson_k_Page_047thm.jpg
938247ff3257c2da279ea7ff975b7a21
d96ddbd030b3adf7ddeebff9d682fab6d1ef8ca9
115661 F20101208_AABDLN dawson_k_Page_093.jp2
eb47fe514a56447f101910ac3a07c584
0e79a17ab7152194f1215d41faddd577cab992c4
6810 F20101208_AABDKY dawson_k_Page_033thm.jpg
78dc0fe301c05df529f92c98d66224c5
70c8a595115a034fc8c60d6028406d0b7c34811d
F20101208_AABDMB dawson_k_Page_068.tif
98501a310e92a00a497b6ea9a7c743f1
2adf98c722d7ba3a132dce1075669644741f9a55
6782 F20101208_AABEPE dawson_k_Page_095thm.jpg
291f743cbed0ef15b8efbda21161906b
16666ed43d95b5ee9e535312de45e8ad067acc53
22380 F20101208_AABEOQ dawson_k_Page_054.QC.jpg
3b4fe02161272827e2d08e7af41d8eb1
34d3f9c1b82942ee7b93586bbe222e8eccf4cd0d
F20101208_AABDLO dawson_k_Page_012.tif
2d4d9642ac1425159efd0ef659320de3
348c5be70e96459f526aba68c9faaff99201e511
7182 F20101208_AABDKZ dawson_k_Page_044thm.jpg
6793060f30e3eeafd9aff49ca9d2098d
1941843e3def860d2b0fb85d6130c68eb5753736
F20101208_AABDMC dawson_k_Page_009.tif
f609bad8d38af14025d7e1fc321b123b
52105fe2e352653879fba89c07e48074288bbc13
24831 F20101208_AABEPF dawson_k_Page_099.QC.jpg
1880eafc06ccd7d8c9189270206983c8
e4deedfae677f09a3c229c76ebfa2da9599fe1e5
26616 F20101208_AABEOR dawson_k_Page_060.QC.jpg
ec6d23ffcd27ae7d0c6fb1a25dbafd61
5f144fc5e214ce01dbaa73dff1f2f53be60eabd0
55452 F20101208_AABDLP dawson_k_Page_036.pro
a77250a775f2336c50e5122f7109478b
4d59cea3c6f5b25a2f36f8cfc2f9a09511deb419
55244 F20101208_AABDMD dawson_k_Page_049.pro
f40c3105307970a5e6a762e3a9214704
cad73b55b960f00b010418b02ca9dcda7a387ac2
7282 F20101208_AABEPG dawson_k_Page_102thm.jpg
6e4aeadb822ad479d98316935c7e314e
a8527f9aa4530ed19d717a058f59c78cbf3f6c8b
F20101208_AABEOS dawson_k_Page_064thm.jpg
c4ec4c4e73d8e8c21467d6780af92e6c
f7b08255ecb4bd121a79a1b8d640bd4ce1130da8
53228 F20101208_AABDLQ dawson_k_Page_064.pro
5455129fb6f20ae390c95e89d30a1e18
85372fd34c03763c3bf0a92d72857d5a7bfb4362
25736 F20101208_AABDME dawson_k_Page_081.QC.jpg
3b36fbd7738a363a5851ece832d65ebd
06ca49f96f457fe7744cfdd37d9d0da9e8221fc7
4807 F20101208_AABEPH dawson_k_Page_103thm.jpg
b1637fac2b9e3fb20565ac66101cb097
a19c5f67ea2641b35a136d5122712bfa3148754a
6521 F20101208_AABEOT dawson_k_Page_066thm.jpg
f9e272771a1e0ac05caf584699fbf030
3b82e8a8ffcfb72e585fb9e6a5230fc5735e7424
F20101208_AABDLR dawson_k_Page_130.pro
359a4e702e390fcd46213325edb8654c
4528a27597bb5a82020b98d339ec3b0470e61edd
2027 F20101208_AABDMF dawson_k_Page_058.txt
e4ce7e8e18f314704f48f835b930d43e
3cae24c5e1f66c4961a5ab88ad0cc61435abbfa5
21027 F20101208_AABEPI dawson_k_Page_104.QC.jpg
5e9ad9c243e521bcdb30be6d7c41387f
33a5fa838fcc0ea4ebfd0fe3734c5ddc3d2055ff
6808 F20101208_AABEOU dawson_k_Page_067thm.jpg
26ccfb5cb3eaafa9d8741c4f3ff1c406
a0083316bce4d8742cf31fe3d61ea6469f2f1f14
7021 F20101208_AABDLS dawson_k_Page_029thm.jpg
9ae6c5d342115792b7533fa377cd23dc
0877d68ff2cbd37f6e2e94fe18d8ed0479e29fe0
53221 F20101208_AABDMG dawson_k_Page_047.pro
8d6fe1f6d9fc8498b736b60043428541
cd7e34a421c2d48c7a4e32a4a45ef407c31378af
17222 F20101208_AABEPJ dawson_k_Page_109.QC.jpg
0f0f2c5ae6a308ab78052a78f78fe4fe
74e76f8740039cec358f59c85709098967d8737b
26963 F20101208_AABEOV dawson_k_Page_072.QC.jpg
b8f4af118a409e8c2967bf0901476b40
545f603c00331cca0e28082476204ab47e35f23a
F20101208_AABDLT dawson_k_Page_007.tif
b8b8192491fe69bfcb90ab914b38f76b
de117eff8d6449b19de41ee04e4b776555b83e42
26312 F20101208_AABDMH dawson_k_Page_065.QC.jpg
fc3cdbb87d0b1a2b8b0fd2e1073a59e9
066ed63fb8d470be90a2a26e6ceac800dfbc2ee8
3399 F20101208_AABEPK dawson_k_Page_110thm.jpg
2b766710d8d9064c463aeb536ef2d482
92c3855ffb2a18f59cb12eab5c9babdc075b8bd5
27545 F20101208_AABEOW dawson_k_Page_073.QC.jpg
71635e0da46d6888d499ca955e15c24b
a3ad62cca34e10120d9901cdc7c79c763aee0880
F20101208_AABDLU dawson_k_Page_096.tif
2169636ccfd7b8fa4f472eb4b158900c
953d7eb113e72c6ed84c1533d63c2658f3cbc958
74861 F20101208_AABDMI dawson_k_Page_047.jpg
c8cf967a7ac5978796278eabad6c02f9
8defaaa148e5e7a9cfa76db19f3f5b05bd32ddd3
7124 F20101208_AABEPL dawson_k_Page_111.QC.jpg
2a9e83ba1c12b4940835df0f1d1002eb
28df365feb85ad6b441d783684e46302a33aa127
6825 F20101208_AABEOX dawson_k_Page_074thm.jpg
1a27fed74602914c18873b62f0e4dd1a
ecb0c4f345d3c89328a5924d07239b43c9092fdc
51233 F20101208_AABDLV dawson_k_Page_032.pro
616eac0b3d41092b0544d714fc35c665
52cd89b005cd7cee4213bf88e5aa337ed74e1441
111091 F20101208_AABDMJ dawson_k_Page_118.jp2
afbad75cc3f4605a6e066607f267078c
b9f5c59f26d5221aa5153b0b6e0e198572a6ca37
2442 F20101208_AABEPM dawson_k_Page_111thm.jpg
1ec46b243000a85c6747bb2116d0f1d4
043bdd19b2328becdcd142fbd23c763501eb420d
24240 F20101208_AABDMK dawson_k_Page_082.QC.jpg
0598513053add5b2909f160f63b8a7d5
2f311e7950fc7d76f690ddab0e6402dfca16d53d
23115 F20101208_AABEPN dawson_k_Page_114.QC.jpg
701bfa3f16240abce50ef40cae902cd3
079218ed672b2b244db1a36fbb87ee41f6056084
25895 F20101208_AABEOY dawson_k_Page_078.QC.jpg
4f4032b1d0cb834f2950d66ec20a6e5c
165c649018df4f1ba73eb3ce02685a4e10678c44
35060 F20101208_AABDLW dawson_k_Page_109.pro
4bc7566cea51b8ebb45c707283afd373
d137f2e1b4d5b1d285fe6713236c259545185129
104010 F20101208_AABDML dawson_k_Page_120.jp2
8890f65384be7f0a1531a25c4a21408d
9e6a930c0a6b1b9bd03131f48dbea34909d9cf2c
6470 F20101208_AABEPO dawson_k_Page_116thm.jpg
7de3561510fd3f99a78b27d9bdcb71af
eb4802a7e888f312274065c7a5ce3f1af3380602
6924 F20101208_AABEOZ dawson_k_Page_078thm.jpg
7587fcf9bece4e183ea5fafc9e710e93
20ea4874f83436a88a27a09065253b8e0c1e3b7a
75495 F20101208_AABDLX dawson_k_Page_034.jpg
0a313fa843f6dc115f854225d7ef5955
c872493be24b934eeef51e918b0cdf00107ca0e0
115579 F20101208_AABDNA dawson_k_Page_080.jp2
ee4cc6c0c4818f5396b8c59d9239b480
4f7a028faf06822b8885f7488ed41a7088efbb7c
5938 F20101208_AABDMM dawson_k_Page_104thm.jpg
94c9bae6e8a101b230a3259a2169bcf0
3181a2560e9a36e73a95ff2482374eed96245d3a
22370 F20101208_AABEPP dawson_k_Page_119.QC.jpg
c3e22106131acb720c7e88391c7318d5
c6162f9269d103180edba750fd22c29759e83d37
113443 F20101208_AABDLY dawson_k_Page_047.jp2
d877349a689d8f8be443b5945fd503bf
f3e92019dbb0a188e3f5742bf2ba0b1fced68b26
F20101208_AABDNB dawson_k_Page_029.tif
6fed42c4f6318a776b4645280921b709
ff7661b8bbf204b8368403cd2a64d84bd400bf49
16729 F20101208_AABDMN dawson_k_Page_009.QC.jpg
cba5f5e6e9810880e3ebedef0115e5c7
8863ff735cfd95a43057a57b07ce97ca5eaf31ed
6370 F20101208_AABEPQ dawson_k_Page_124thm.jpg
b9095463ff71b10513e565d90083582e
313a6fb68d4818597026a47fe1ebdf9815219255
74218 F20101208_AABDLZ dawson_k_Page_025.jpg
d2559163c3731efdb7b23a9036076df1
84ff38af13c65a838ead39d43883cdcb3ca68b34
1997 F20101208_AABDNC dawson_k_Page_127.txt
206a643e609cedd34610dbf3845eaac3
d0ff280d2ff2f401330be1566bfe56a9ba8153dc
F20101208_AABDMO dawson_k_Page_081.tif
00ab1e4c3289e2fb2a04844163e620c5
5c68603c912f8f11ccc528dae12f6a9a67999e4b
4642 F20101208_AABEPR dawson_k_Page_126thm.jpg
1dab307fde443e0669e5f61d17d3bc20
98342ceb270854fd4368994cb6de4d2c65a84dc1
6636 F20101208_AABDND dawson_k_Page_083thm.jpg
3ef5b6fe3e5dd52005023ba1dbee79fe
874846bd0647bee9a6f2767c9398d67b3dd66324
6376 F20101208_AABDMP dawson_k_Page_117thm.jpg
74f56e4cbaf97c1768c09338cd321ec8
3cb5c812c84e5d8018c09cc75088a42e266f1724
24109 F20101208_AABEPS dawson_k_Page_129.QC.jpg
c53b878b4f85f8f92c7e07c8912125fc
2aff13c57da3822f08fe324bf6f7b8552268297c
F20101208_AABDNE dawson_k_Page_132.tif
fc81a09eae641a49f47664b173d86a9e
974b773aae0e7b504344cc2169512338cf78f9df
68127 F20101208_AABDMQ dawson_k_Page_122.jpg
79b803dcd71ee5310c389c23a91f2ac3
0d867ff6363a4c5d65ae3a50faccf162ec265c92
19734 F20101208_AABEPT dawson_k_Page_133.QC.jpg
5cad1adce2ee78bd390382db2a93b8aa
3405fda11f3fe52e33623bcb8352ef8360d3d23c
120477 F20101208_AABDNF dawson_k_Page_067.jp2
9d21f28b811e4340f94a720d618474a4
37b9d5f20466daf3e041f49c2ab74c9095ba6adb
74145 F20101208_AABDMR dawson_k_Page_098.jpg
3986585860219d186074972e57345afa
a8211825d10fdb58e2ce95ec34acb81f4f14eafe
51890 F20101208_AABDNG dawson_k_Page_098.pro
6f5c5b21d0ff6c5833d4f3941620b8db
3780d8ba72d1365dd9c43cb9d26b1f106c5961de
133520 F20101208_AABDMS dawson_k_Page_044.jp2
2c7969e4c39ee82a569ec762fe788a66
649c7260399271286125b8d63b29ed565d993887
48627 F20101208_AABDNH dawson_k_Page_127.pro
aa1f4f6e632863f7cf30fb519adc21e3
f93b0820e2ac20c36972b461caaad48dd95fbff5
7200 F20101208_AABDMT dawson_k_Page_053thm.jpg
1e3731d5b6db91a85dee11fe9d2d2d5f
d9ef4f435295614f4ee7d68da90913504b3dcf5a
2105 F20101208_AABDNI dawson_k_Page_079.txt
74c61ee371ce350127f26e371c2ba8c0
bea8b259158cfe057fae78e225162dd195ad736c
47505 F20101208_AABDMU dawson_k_Page_124.pro
bbdf4c41f4c7d1da11c03f84e04653ff
b4e9338ebddda414dc3b054f5577e25fdd0a39af
11221 F20101208_AABDNJ dawson_k_Page_110.QC.jpg
5cec3ad05d164164e7f646645d1e5d13
4c7c033d81e47fcd3da61bdb9ace48f044d59d5a
48492 F20101208_AABDMV dawson_k_Page_119.pro
0d629479e603f771caa5eb9f5cdb57e9
6f5ca0d38e314537a09fade9c15da020af09ea28
54282 F20101208_AABDNK dawson_k_Page_037.pro
4607bb8add61257f3c8791d8df4f8fdc
b062cd73bcddb625cd733552d0c1f3b41cc693f2
2085 F20101208_AABDMW dawson_k_Page_092.txt
dc0b2070ee1b4a37a5a7b14e8f141ba2
18aa5a1d84ea6394bde5fa388cd5cb168c4ff6ca
55752 F20101208_AABDNL dawson_k_Page_046.pro
16adacd491fdb18dd24ee3fac3944dc4
3cee184a61a0665a161c9d0e1462d411304f4bdb
25786 F20101208_AABDOA dawson_k_Page_096.QC.jpg
12d3f6e118170e12fb8bc83724dd916a
663c3e7d8e321383bc4f7a38d1975e4978656175
4005 F20101208_AABDNM dawson_k_Page_005.txt
f1d94716a9d7c5516e7a552bac003ea1
10f0241f30b273520c7fb44392a1db18771c82c5
F20101208_AABDMX dawson_k_Page_055thm.jpg
91830e5becaedf19b2dc9a45d4a2aa2a
835e2b57f213d92d91ee3b16a103808716fa1f08
1270 F20101208_AABDOB dawson_k_Page_040.txt
274d6d155d79574a35065f08c4174774
20b3b3b0e7ddd806c43e124323c82350cb9111e4
76402 F20101208_AABDNN dawson_k_Page_004.jp2
7b02eb17ae064fe9fccd26bed537d75f
1b91b504f63eba463bba3a61a399a67352e0cc84
72963 F20101208_AABDMY dawson_k_Page_043.jpg
ff1038b33c3727323ba69bc0ca12684e
72cd8cbeb6a7aa746bbace6025c06708838849c9
F20101208_AABDOC dawson_k_Page_054.txt
6a7d975498de014ee3bf0edf4ca18088
0573fb10a277f789a06e8f0592ff0d5df4bf6332
5211 F20101208_AABDNO dawson_k_Page_018thm.jpg
d68258b494d2b30afccbcce24dccf2f4
d9e279af8649a8ad908a9eb3d73cac714817b3c3
2128 F20101208_AABDMZ dawson_k_Page_061.txt
8580b7a66dced7b3fc1ba8bdbf84cfce
97db9f5fea46067efb4b1ed05276cd5ce60d78e0
F20101208_AABDOD dawson_k_Page_039.tif
e1a11556f42adb3100447b6ff54f9909
316232ad80c6b9f6f98bc6d2dd227e40603599fc
F20101208_AABDNP dawson_k_Page_070.tif
2b876b5d316b625df473818a270877d1
939b109806e300379b5991210d052a8b9615fd0c
116849 F20101208_AABDOE dawson_k_Page_013.jp2
69b2c15d6fa65212f0b3e62707d9eda3
62df6c2c1d2b0149f2d49da64a42376acef9b9fe
69414 F20101208_AABDNQ dawson_k_Page_087.jpg
86eca1e7ca25be95f714830d93a7d7a3
01bb22644355e18befb4695ae557b4525cdd77bc
26207 F20101208_AABDOF dawson_k_Page_074.QC.jpg
05f5a5ead34780236968b5d7f9baa088
dfceff6ffbc1938706e6e5eb5e16e9ecda3f7ff5
53185 F20101208_AABDNR dawson_k_Page_069.pro
1451998a8dcc855eb3597c20a9435b20
e7daa6e5be7e3c6ada761c6124905bf25d7592be
26436 F20101208_AABDOG dawson_k_Page_088.QC.jpg
15739b33876215b93720ace332a123e7
b6e9fe2e11b5331d68d44b75b2e8e1b2dbdffe4c
113740 F20101208_AABDNS dawson_k_Page_016.jp2
718220a1f5881ab1f96e83e40ac3bdb5
06aead347583853bca148ee470d2179e58bd5d38
92675 F20101208_AABDOH dawson_k_Page_018.jp2
853a045f54b54e4a6934d3610bd3a30c
8b8d089197ffc3436c39aa7f568c77d3d78d81b6
2120 F20101208_AABDNT dawson_k_Page_082.txt
5eca4375060e59c4ac86d48a6a50c335
3e56499c99af93dd52ae2405bd65f79a3cf0e87b
6791 F20101208_AABDOI dawson_k_Page_050thm.jpg
c8a03b645426deb5509a22541447c72f
5f5520d6d0c088d36ae3494f20fe146b9cd9ed2a
2270 F20101208_AABDNU dawson_k_Page_041.txt
da2b0fb24af990a91d4951091b41370b
3d7aac865c84e969af9db64bed957e1d3403edd1
25683 F20101208_AABDOJ dawson_k_Page_028.QC.jpg
c52340c84766c3f4e39292ec71a96fdf
1fc8a553b3ceb4cc0fc356c102f18f802a04253c
F20101208_AABDNV dawson_k_Page_114.tif
7b852707f9775abb8b3136d2f082a448
b7c9ae60a106f83c6095c460dc47f0d92a972a39
2116 F20101208_AABDOK dawson_k_Page_016.txt
72a819152e5c9078615ba53762cde9cc
79568b33ee5effc65c303abaf76a5abecb0100cb
22840 F20101208_AABDNW dawson_k_Page_087.QC.jpg
9e3a4ee26640ccc556fe7939060a0b0c
85ad52d2e08aac5f7f5be5f037e255f60983f453


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0019641/00001

Material Information

Title: Organizational Learning in a Community College
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0019641:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0019641/00001

Material Information

Title: Organizational Learning in a Community College
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0019641:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING IN A COMMUNITY COLLEGE


By

KARL DAWSON

















A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007


































2007 Karl Dawson


































For my father, who would have been proud to see me earn this degree









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my committee chair, Dr. Linda Behar-Horenstein for her patience and

guidance through the challenging but rewarding process of writing this dissertation. I would also

like to thank other members of my committee, Drs. Dale Campbell, Linda Hagedorn and Mirka

Koro-Ljungberg for their guidance and support. Drs. Phil Clark, Larry Tyree and Tom Oakland

assisted in the early stages of this study and I wish to thank them. I will long remember the

support of faculty, staff and my fellow students in the Department of Educational Administration

and Policy. I would also like to thank those who helped me to gain access to the research site and

the participants of this study who shared with me so openly.

I am very grateful to family and friends who so enthusiastically supported me during my

study. My mother Yvonne, sister Lorna, brother Kenneth and aunt Ena were particularly

supportive. My daughters, Karla and Kylah sang to me to encourage me during dark hours of

dissertation writing for which I am thankful. My wife Lucia, was my coach, cheerleader,

personal assistant and friend and I do not think that I could have done this without her. Foremost,

I would like to thank God for "never leaving me nor forsaking me" in this most challenging

undertaking of my life.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A CK N O W LED G M EN T S ................................................................. ........... ............. .....

L IST O F T E R M S ............. .. ............... ....................................................... 8

ABSTRAC T ...........................................................................................

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ............... ................. ........... .............................. 10

State ent of the Problem ............................................ ............. ...... .......... 15
P purpose Statem ent ............................................................................ 16
Significance of the Study ....................................................... .......... ......... ..... 17
Lim stations of the Study .................................... ... .. .......... ....... ..... 18

2 R E V IEW O F L ITER A TU R E .................................................................... ...... .................19

Organizational Learning ................................................................. ............ 19
Types of Organizational Learning .............................................................................. 22
Stages of O organizational L earning .............................................................. .....................23
Facilitators of O organizational L earning...................................................................... ...... 25
Stim uli for Learning ......................... ....... ....... .. ........ ......... 25
Psychological Safety .................................. .. .. .. ...... .. ............26
S tru ctu re ................................................................2 7
S k ill........................................................................2 7
L leadership ...................... ..............................................29
Factors Inhibiting Organizational Learning ..................................... ..................30
Lack of Psychological Safety ...................................... .................. .. ........ 31
Improper Structure and Communication Issues ........................................... .....32
D efen siv e R ou tin es.............................................................................................. 3 3
The N nature of Knowledge ...............................................................................34
The Com m unity College Setting ................................................ ............... 34
Summary ................................... ....... ... .. 39

3 METHODOLOGY .............................................................. 41

Q ualitative R research ............................................................................................4 1
T theoretical P erspective......... ......................................................................................42
R e search D esig n ................................................................................................. .. .. 4 3
Population and Setting .................. .................. .................. .......... .. ............ 45
P articip ants ..............................................................................4 6
A access and E ntry ....................................................... 47
D ata C o lle ctio n ................................................................................................................. 4 8
D ata A analysis ................................................... 51









V alidity and R liability ........... ...................................................................... ........ .. ... 53
S u bjectiv ity ................... ...................5...................5..........

4 R E SU L T S .............. ... ................................................................58

S tim u li fo r L earn in g ............................................................................................................... 5 8
M issio n .............................................................5 9
M eetin g Stu d ent N eed s .............................................................................................. 6 1
R reputation ................... .......................................................................... 62
Senior Administration's Encouragement ............................. ...............63
E external Stim uli ......................................................................................................64
K now ledge Sources ................................................................64
E x tern al S o u rc e s ...............................................................................................6 5
In te rn a l S o u rc e s .....................................................................................................6 6
Learning Processes ................................................. ......... 70
Dissemination of Knowledge/Learning throughout the Organization ............... ................72
Other Influences on Organizational Learning ...........................................73
Tolerance for Failed Initiatives and Experimentation ...................................73
Support from Senior A dm inistrators ....................................................... 75
Availability of Numerous Discussion Forums .............................. .................76
Organizational Structure......................................77
R e latio n sh ip s .............................................................................7 8
High-quality Faculty .......... .............. ......... ....... ...............79
L ead ersh ip ..................................................................8 0
Big Picture/System s Thinking ............................. .......... ... ............... .. ...... ..... ..82
Positioning Analysis .......... ... ............................................84
Sarah ......... .................. .............................. ............... 84
Jane ......... .................. ................................ ............... 85
Frank ......... .................. .............................. ............... 86
L om a....... .............................................................. 86
Y v o n n e .........................................................................8 7
M ik e ................... ...................8...................7..........
The R researcher .......................................... ........ ....................... .... 87
S u m m ary ................... ...................8...................8..........

5 CON CLU SION .... .................................................91

Stages and Types of Organizational Learning ............................................. ........... 91
Influences on Organizational Learning .................................................93
M orally A appealing M ission............................................. ............... ............... 93
T ru st....... .............................................................. 94
C om m u n ication ...................................................................................... ................ .. 9 6
L leadership ...............................................................96
B ig Picture/System s Thinking.................................................................... ............... 97
T theoretical Im plications ................. ................................................................ 99
Recomm endations for Further Study ........................................................ ............. 102




6









APPENDIX

A INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL ............................... 104

B INTERVIEW CHECKLIST AND LAY SUMMARY................................ 106

C SAM PLE INFORMED CONSENT ....................................................... .............. 107

D IN T E R V IE W G U ID E ................................................................................ ..................... 109

E SAMPLE USE OF STANZAS AS ANALYTICAL STEP .................................................110

F SAMPLE USE OF LABOV AND WALETZKEY'S NARRATIVE FRAMEWORK.......112

G PILOT STUDY OF ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING IN A COMMUNITY
C O L L E G E ......... .... ................................................. ...........................114

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ......... .. ............... ................. ..........................................................127

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ......... ................. ............................................. .......................... 133









LIST OF TERMS


Espoused theories refer to underlying assumptions and values that individuals claim guide their
actions but in reality this is not often the case (Argyris, 1978).

Learning organization refers to a setting where high learning capacity is evident and exploited.

Organizational culture refers to the shared basic, tacit assumptions held by people in a setting
about how things are or ought to be. These assumptions determine their perceptions, thoughts,
feelings and to an extent, their overt behavior (Schein, 1997).

Organizational learning refers to the study of if and how organizations learn and to a process
where errors are detected and corrected, insights and knowledge are generated, reflection of past
events and practice inform future practice, and behavior is changed through the process of
information gathering and meaning making. Insights and knowledge may begin with the
individual but must move via groups to the organization at large to fit this construct (Argyris &
Schon, 1978; Kezar, 2005; Scribner, Cockrell, Cockrell & Valentine, 1999).

Organizational learning capacity refers to the level of effectiveness and efficiency
demonstrated when making the changes needed to adjust to the actual or potential changes in the
internal or external environment (Dibella & Nevis, 1998).

Organizational memory refers to how an institution retains what it has learned and discards
what is deemed to be of no value (Huber, 1991).

Theories-in-use or mental models refer to underlying assumptions or master programs that
guide the actions of individuals. (Argyris, 1978; Senge, 1990).

Transformational leadership refers to a form of behavior where persons of influence focus on
individuals' potential to satisfy needs of self-fulfillment in the process of organizational
performance (Burns, 1978).









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING IN A COMMUNITY COLLEGE

By

Karl Dawson

May 2007

Chair: Linda Behar-Horenstein
Major: Higher Education Administration

My study examined organizational learning in a community college, how learning took

place and what influenced it. There were indicators of high capacity for learning at the school.

There was evidence of effectiveness in knowledge generation, dissemination and utilization.

Organizational learning at the college was influenced largely by its mission, the level of trust,

ample and effective communication channels, leadership, and a capacity for big picture/systems

thinking. My qualitative study included six members of faculty and staff who joined me to

produce the data through multiple interviews. Narrative analysis was used to examine the data.

One administrative and one non-administrative employee were chosen from each of the

Associate of Arts, Associates of Science and Student Services Divisions for my study.

Additional studies are recommended to further understand the quality of other learning processes

at the college.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Higher education institutions in America are facing numerous challenges that, in some

cases, threaten their very survival (Guskin & Marcy, 2003; Kezar, 2005a). Guskin and Marcy

(2003) argue that the primary problems are financial in nature, and are long-term rather than

short-term. Guskin and Marcy (2003) suggest that the financial problems can be traced to an

eroding tax base and a rapid rise in health costs. They contend that major structural changes in

the sector will be needed for continued success. Traditional higher education institutions need to

undergo transformation that is aimed at increasing affordability, efficiency, and responsiveness

to students or they may lose clients to other providers (Eckel, Hill, & Green, 1998; Kezar, 2001).

Higher education institutions must also respond to threats to their survival, such as, public

pressure for educational and financial accountability; the need to contain costs to ensure

continued access; the impact of technology; and the proliferation of competing delivery modes

such as, distance education, corporate universities, and transnational delivery (Eckel, Green &

Hill, 2001).

Community colleges are facing many of the same challenges that impact the entire higher

education sector. The mission of community colleges is expanding (Ayers, 2005) and the

demand for services are at an all time high (Boggs, 2004). Increased need for service is fuelled

by Baby Boomers whose children have reached college age, an increased demand for community

college education among immigrants, and the increase in the number of high school graduates

who now attend college (Boggs, 2004). There are around 1200 regionally accredited community

colleges, which represent the largest sector in higher education (Boggs, 2004). Boggs (2004)

reports that forty-five percent or 6.5 million of all undergraduates are enrolled in community

colleges. He added that when non-credit courses are included, the number served per year









increases to 11.5 million students. The president and CEO of the American Association of

Community Colleges, George Boggs, summarized the challenges when he said,

In the past three years, student enrollment has escalated, and college leaders have struggled
to meet demand in the face of steep state budget cuts, limited facilities, faculty turnover,
rising technology costs, and increasing numbers of students who need remedial work
before they can take college-level classes (p. 8).

Some researchers argue that community colleges are currently operating in a post-modern

setting that features fragmentation within, and a constantly changing external environment

(Ayers, 2005; Bergquist, 1998). In recent decades, organizations in other sectors have had to deal

with change. Different strategies and approaches have been utilized with varying success. These

include reengineering, knowledge management, learning organizations, and total quality

management (Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, Roth, & Smith, 1999). Higher education has also

tried strategies to enhance organizational performance such as strategic planning, benchmarking,

Total Quality Management, and business process reengineering (Birnbaum, 2000). Birnbaum

refers to these efforts as management fads. The lens and practice of organizational learning has

been proffered as a tool for analyzing and improving institutional performance and as a

mechanism for studying if and how organizations learn. Kezar (2005) holds that organizational

learning is not a fad but is rooted in years of continuous research.

While there is not a widely accepted definition of organizational learning, a synthesis of

the works by leading writers on the subject reveals certain themes. Organizational learning

involves reflecting on past action and considering anticipated challenges. Ultimately it results in

change to practices or routines (Argyris, 1993; Ellstr6m, 2003). Argyris (1993) stresses that only

when new action has taken place has learning occurred. Organizational learning may begin with

an individual or the collective output of a group but it must spread beyond that initial unit or

individual to be considered truly organizational in nature (Dibella & Nevis, 1998; Vera &









Crossan, 2004). Organizational learning includes taking initiatives and trying experimentation

that will lead to new knowledge that will then be disseminated throughout the organization

(Silins & Mulford, 2002). The more significant and sustainable forms of organizational learning

require that members of the organization examine the basic underlying assumptions or mental

models related to the organization and its functions, and utilize what is discovered to guide

action (Argyris & Schon, 1978; Senge, 1990).

Learning is not restricted to special organizations but is widely found across the spectrum

of organizational types (Dibella & Nevis, 1998). Senge et al. (1999) agree with this sentiment

and state, "All organizations learn in the sense of adapting as the world around them changes.

But some organizations are faster and more effective learners. The key is to see learning as

inseparable from work" (p. 24). They contrast this integration with work, and the continuous

nature of learning with training, which, they suggest, is typically episodic and takes place outside

of the normal work context.

The capacity for organizational learning varies among institutional settings and is

dependent on the presence or absence of factors that facilitate or inhibit the process (Dibella &

Nevis, 1998). Some of the factors that promote organizational learning in educational institutions

are decentralization (as opposed to hierarchy); trust between employees and managers; new

information systems; incentives and rewards; a culture of people who are interested in learning;

open communications; information sharing; staff development and training; and the existence of

inquiry units (Kezar (2005). Learning in an organization takes place when individuals and groups

are committed to experimenting with finding better ways of doing things. There are also factors

that restrain organizational learning. When errors due to innovation and experimentation are

severely punished in organizations, a psychological environment that discourages innovations









and restrains organizational learning occurs (Schein, 1993a). Organizations that are not

structured to facilitate communication and reward group productivity will find it difficult to learn

at a high rate (Senge, 1999).

The concept of organizational learning originated in the business sector but is increasingly

applied in other sectors, such as K-12 education. The success of organizational learning that is

directed at institutional improvements has been observed in companies including Ford Motor

Company's Electrical and Fuel Handling Division, Royal Dutch/Shell group of companies,

Harley-Davidson, British Petroleum, and Xerox (Senge, et al., 1999). At Ford, the division made

$150 million dollars in 1996 after losing $50 million just five years earlier. They attributed their

success to the development of learning capacity (Senge, et al., 1999). Similar stories of the

impact of organizational learning are also beginning in education. In a large-scale study in the K-

12 education sector in Australia, Mulford and Silins (2003) found that organizational learning

had a positive impact on schools' central function, teaching and learning, and it facilitated

desired student achievement. Results such as these hold promise for the effective use of

organizational learning in other organizational settings, such as higher education.

Organizational learning has the potential for sustaining organizational effectiveness

because it results in the development of a learning culture (Silins & Mulford, 2002). Schein

(2004) identifies ten features of a learning culture, namely, (a) a proactivity assumption, (b)

commitment to learning to learn, (c) positive assumptions about human nature, (d) the

assumption that the environment can be dominated, (e) commitment to truth through pragmatism

and inquiry, (f) an orientation toward the future, (g) a commitment to full and open task-relevant

communication, (h) a commitment to diversity, (i) a commitment to systemic thinking, and (j) a

commitment to cultural analysis for understanding and improving the world.









Efforts directed towards improving organizational performance are most effective when

the approach has been tested in the particular setting and adjustments have been made for the

context (Birnbaum, 1988; Evers, 2000; Kezar, 2005). Organizations in manufacturing and retail,

professions and non-profits, are sufficiently different such that they merit the development of

unique models to deal with change (Kezar, 2001). Non-profit organizations, for instance,

typically do not go through the stages of maturity often associated with most profit-driven

organizations (Kezar, 2001). To understand the nature and effectiveness of organizational

learning in for-profit businesses Dibella & Nevis (1998) developed an assessment tool; however,

they found it necessary to make modifications to the instrument when assessing organizational

learning in health care and in education.

As a sector, higher education possesses features that distinguish it from other sectors.

These distinctions must be taken into account when examining issues of organizational behavior

and performance among such institutions (Kezar, 2001). From a synthesis of the literature,

Kezar (2001) identifies these features as interdependence, status as an institution, loosely

coupled systems, organized anarchical decision making, and shared governance. These

distinguishing features result in a culture that determines how those operations conduct their

affairs (Bergquist, 1992; Birnbaum, 1988; Kezar, 2001). Bergquist classified cultures within the

academy as collegial, managerial, developmental, and negotiating culture, while Birnbaum when

examining decision making in higher education institutions categorized them as collegial,

political, bureaucratic, and anarchical.

As a sub-sector, community colleges possess certain characteristics that further distinguish

them. In comparison to other types of higher education institutions, community colleges tend to

be more bureaucratic in their decision-making (Kezar, 2001). She argues that community









colleges are becoming more market-driven and entrepreneurial while maintaining some aspects

of traditional higher education. Levin (1997) agrees and suggests that the four cultures found on

community college campuses are traditional culture (academic), service culture, hierarchical

culture, and the business culture. Levin (2005) later contends that community college missions

are now geared primarily at satisfying the needs of the economic community.

Much of the research to date on organizational learning comes from the field of business,

where the concept originated. Contributions to the field from Senge (1990), Senge, et al. (1999),

Argyris (1993) and Dibella and Nevis (1998) typify the focus on large for-profit corporations.

The K-12 sector has also embraced the concept to some extent, as evidenced by the increase in

studies of organizational learning in that environment. Large-scale studies utilizing qualitative

(Leithwood, Leonard & Sharratt, 1998) and quantitative methods (Silins & Mulford, 2002)

conducted in the K-12 sector yielded a greater understanding of the concept and its effects in

those settings. Higher education has been slow to embrace the potential utility of organizational

learning for improving organizational effectiveness (Kezar, 2005). Community colleges do not

differ much from the rest of higher education in this regard. A search through multiple databases

for studies involving organizational learning in community colleges yields very little research.

However, the selection of organizational learning as the theme for the Fall 2005 issue of New

Directionsfor Higher Education signals its emergence as a significant topic in the sector.

Statement of the Problem

Community colleges are faced with the challenge of adapting to an environment that

demands a response to, change in student demand and preparedness, sources and availability of

funds and evolving missions and culture (Boggs, 2004). How these challenges are met could

determine the survival of these institutions (Guskin, 2003).









In the search for greater efficiency and effectiveness, higher education has employed

numerous strategies, drawn primarily from the business sector. Many of these strategies have

been short-lived and yielded little success (Birnbaum, 2000). Organizational learning is an

approach to the conduct of organizational activities centered around action that is based largely

on reflection of past events (Argyris, 1978). Organizational learning has been employed in fields

such as business and education with some degree of success. Higher education, and community

colleges in particular have made limited use of the approach (Kezar, 2005). Approaches to

improving organizations are best studied in their specific settings (Evers, 2000). Community

colleges exhibit distinct cultures that merit the examination of the phenomena in that specified

setting.

Researchers have examined organizational learning in various settings and have surmised

that the phenomenon is best studied in the setting in which it will be applied (Dibella & Nevis,

1978). There has been little theoretical explanation proposed about how organizations learn in

the distinctive setting of higher education institutions in general and in the community colleges

in particular. An understanding of how a particular community college learns as an organization

as well as the factors that promote or inhibit this learning will prove beneficial to those who seek

to improve the performance of such organizations. The findings from the study are likely to

provide a greater understanding of organizational learning within a community college setting.

The proposed sample will be drawn from varying levels in the organization rather than the senior

leader-centered studies as has been observed in the business sector.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this study was to explore the nature of organizational learning and how it is

facilitated or inhibited at the identified community college. Narrative analysis was used to









analyze information gained in interviews from a sample of participants drawn from among the

faculty and staff. The questions investigated were:

How do members of a college community construct organizational learning?

Sub-questions:

1. How do members of a college community describe facilitators of organizational
learning?

2. How do members of a college community describe inhibitors of organizational
learning?

Significance of the Study

My study will contribute to the development of organizational learning theory in general,

and particularly as it occurs in the community college environment. Issues such as the stimulus,

agent, nature and influences on organizational learning are still contested in the literature.

Additionally, the findings will provide insight into how organizational learning is manifested in

the community college.

Research specifically about organizational learning in community colleges is scant. Studies

that have been conducted in business and the K-12 education sector give insight into

organizational learning. However, researchers have suggested that organizational behavior is best

studied in relation to the particular context in which it will apply. Dibella and Nevis (1998)

identified factors associated with organizational learning yet they caution that those variables

may differ across industries.

In light of the challenges faced by community colleges which are brought on by increased

demands for accountability, efficiency and demand for services, the use of organizational

learning as a tool for analysis and improvement may become vital for administrators, faculty, and

staff of these institutions. My study will enable community college faculty and staff to









understand how their own organizations learn and the role that a learning culture plays in

sustaining continuous improvement efforts.

Limitations of the Study

1. While the insights that may emerge from this study are likely to provide a greater
understanding of the subject matter, because each site is unique and each individual
constructs reality differently, generalizations are eschewed (Morrow, 2005).

2. Given that individuals, organizations, and organizational behavior are dynamic and
temporal, these findings may be different in another time frame.

3. Caution must be exercised when comparing the results of this study to other studies on
organizational learning because the definition of the term organizational learning is
disputed in literature.

4. The results of the data relied heavily on the interviewees' knowledge of the situation and
their willingness to share their views, as well as the interviewer's skill in the interview
process. The findings in this study were shaped by the nature of the interviewer -
interviewee interaction. Differing levels of rapport between researcher and participants
could result in varying production of interview data.

5. The discussions in the interview were limited to the concept of organizational learning
and its influences, not other constructs in organizational behavior.

6. The study utilized participants who were at middle levels in the organization. Individuals
at other levels in the organization may view the same phenomena differently.

7. The results of this study represent the socially constructed view of the researcher, not the
participants, although the participants were also co-authors of his construction of reality.









CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In this study, the researcher proposes to investigate the nature of organizational learning in

community colleges and the factors that facilitate or impede it. This chapter provides a review of

the literature on organizational learning and the relevant aspects of the community college

environment. The following sub-sections comprise the review of research on organizational

learning, types and stages of organizational learning, factors promoting and inhibiting

organizational learning, and an overview of the research on the community college

organizational environment.

Organizational Learning

Organizational learning is the detection and correction of error (Argyris, 1993). Learning is

thought to have occurred when the outcome of intended action matches that intention.

Organizational learning, as Argyris asserted, is based upon the successful application of

strategies, not simply upon the discovery of a problem or invention of a new solution. Errors

must be attributed to strategies and assumptions, and new strategies must be chosen and tested

for success. When individuals note the success of particular strategies, they use them in

situations again in the future and thus learning can be said to have taken place (Argyris, 1993;

Schein, 1993a). Argyris' description of the process implies action and review. Rowe and Boyle

(2005) provide a more comprehensive interpretation. They described organizational learning as

an iterative process of action and reflection that results in the modification of an organization's

actions.

Vera and Crossan (2004) suggest that organizational learning is "the process of change in

thought and action both individual and shared embedded in and affected by the institutions of

the organization" p. 224. Ellstrom (2003) describes organizational learning as "changes in









organizational practices (including routines and procedures, structures, technologies, systems,

etc.) that are mediated through the kind of human thought, action, and interaction that is

commonly called learning, but is also referred to as knowledge creation, inquiry or problem

solving" (24).

Franz's (2003) definition illuminates the organization's need to become capable of

surviving under changing or unstable environmental conditions through purposeful and

intentional learning which transforms the ability of the organization to face the future

successfully. Ellstr6m (2003) describes organizational learning as intentional but points out that

it is possible that only after reflection, or as a reconstruction used to justify action to oneself or

others, that those intentions are discovered. Dibella and Nevis (1998) define organizational

learning as "the capacity or processes within an organization to maintain or improve

performances based on experience" (p.28). They maintain the view that all organizations learn,

but it is the efficiency and effectiveness of that learning that often distinguishes it from one

organization from another.

From the preceding discussion, there seems to be some agreement that a change in the

chosen activities of an organization, brought about by internal or external stimuli, are hallmarks

of organizational learning. Two further themes indicate that organizational learning is intentional

in nature and leads to improvement. Huber's (1991) definition supports some of these assertions

while calling others into question. Huber states, "An entity learns if, through its processing of

information, the range of potential behaviors is changed" (p. 89). To support his definition he

suggests that learning does not need to be conscious or intentional; it may not necessarily lead to

increased effectiveness, as bad habits may be learned; and while it may impact thought and

viewpoints, it does not necessarily change behavior.









There is an additional question of agency. Who learns? Is it the individual or the

organization? Ellstrom (2003) suggests that individual learning is necessary though not sufficient

for organizational learning to occur. The individual mediates between the stimuli from the

organization's environment that creates the need for change, and the actual changes in

organizational practices. Argyris (1978) contends that actions needed to produce learning are not

taken by organizations but by individuals acting as agents of the organization. The learning

becomes organizational when it is embedded into organizational memory and becomes a part of

the shared theory-in-use that will determine how workers act in the future. Vera and Crossan

(2004) indicate that the change in thought and action that characterizes organizational learning is

both individual and shared. They posit that organizational learning takes place at three levels,

individual, group and organizational. Senge (1990) identified five disciplines necessary for

organizational learning and he makes a distinction between learning at different levels. One of

the disciplines, personal mastery, operates at the level of the individual, while others such as

team learning and shared vision, operate at the level of the group.

Other researchers focus on the collective aspect of organizational learning, in some cases at

the exclusion of the individual. Researchers posit that while collective learning involves

individual learning it is more than the sum of individual learning (Leithwood et al. 1998, Lam &

Punch, 2001). Dibella and Nevis (1998) argue that organizational learning is not about learning

as individuals, but learning as groups. They claim that the learning that occurs in an individual is

different from the patterned learning that occurs in groups; patterns that may continue even after

individual members of the group have left (Lam & Punch, 2001). Group property, they believe,

includes both what is learned and how it is learned. Others speak of the collective mind, which

is external to individuals and discernable by patterns of group behavior (Lam and Punch, 2001;









Leithwood et al., 1998). Group members behavior are interdependent. In a process of mutual

adaptation, group members may deal with change by altering their normal contribution to the

group or recruiting others with skills that can contribute to dealing with the new situation. A

synergistic effect is often produced (Lam & Punch, 2001). The focus on the collective processes

is supported by writers who suggest that organizational learning is socially constructed (Kruse,

2003; Imants, 2003).

Types of Organizational Learning

Even when researchers agree that organizational learning does indeed take place, there are

those who consider it significant to distinguish between the type and quality of that learning.

Argyris (1978) contends that learning is the detection and correction of error and it is the process

of determining the new strategy for action that distinguishes the quality of learning. He describes

single-loop learning as responses by members of the organization to internal and external stimuli

that maintain the central features of the organization's theory-in-use. When a response to a given

stimulus involves inquiry into organizational norms and strategies and the assumptions that

support them, double-loop learning is said to have taken place. Argyris also identifies a third

mode of learning, deutero-learning (second-order learning), which reflectively examines how

learning takes place in the organization.

Ellstr6m (2003) uses the terms adaptive learning and developmental learning to distinguish

between types of learning. The terms relate to Argyris' single and double-loop learning

respectively. He makes this distinction when analyzing the character of the work/learning

situation. He identifies the type of learning according to the level of control that the

worker/learner has in determining the nature of the task, the methods or procedures to be used

and the results to be achieved. Ellstr6m states that at the adaptive learning sub-level of

reproductive learning, the worker/learner has the desired tasks, methods and results determined









for him/her. Another adaptive sub-level of learning, productive learning: type I increases slightly

in complexity in that the desired results are not given. At the level of developmental learning,

there are also sub-levels. At the sub-level termed productive learning: type II, tasks are given but

methods and results are not and at the highest stage of autonomy, creative learning, the tasks,

methods and results are determined by the worker/learner. The range of organizational learning

spans from routine (automatic) or reproductive learning that deals adequately with routine

problems to creative learning wherein the worker/learner(s) must transform existing ideologies,

routines, structures, and practices through reflection. Interestingly, while both Ellstrom and

Argyris differentiate between levels of quality in the categories of learning, they both indicate

that all types of learning are required in organizations because of the variety in organizational

tasks.

Stages of Organizational Learning

Several writers have found it useful to analyze organizational learning through the

identification of stages in the process. Huber (1991) identified four organizational learning

processes as knowledge acquisition, information distribution, information interpretation, and

organizational memory. Dibella and Nevis (1998) describe the process of organizational learning

as a cycle that includes the acquisition, dissemination, and utilization of knowledge. They argue

that this organizational cycle is in all organizations but there is variance in the manner and

degree to which they are carried out from organization to organization.

Crossan, Lane and White (1999) developed the 41 Framework of Organizational Learning.

The model demonstrates their position that organizational learning is a process that takes place at

the individual, group and organizational levels. Intuiting occurs in an individual's mind at a

subconscious level and is the start of the process. At the next level, interpreting involves sharing

the conscious elements of the individual learning at the group level. Integrating navigates to the









level of the whole organization after collective understanding at the group level is changed. The

learning is then incorporated across the organization by embedding it in its systems, structures,

routines, and practices. This stage is institutionalizing. The model also addresses learning flow.

Feed-forward learning flow refers to the degree to which individual learning converts into

learning at the group level, then organizational level and feed-back learning flow refers to the

degree that organizationally embedded learning affects individual and group learning.

As mentioned earlier, Dibella and Nevis (1998) suggest that the product of the

organizational learning process may stay with the organization even after the departure of those

initially involved in the learning. Others maintain that organizational learning has only truly

taken place when the strategies, routines, and practices have been affected on a long-term basis

(Argyris, 1978; Vera & Crossan, 2004). What is retained is the focus of some researchers who

investigate organizational memory. Kruse (2003) suggests that knowledge acquisition, retention,

and retrieval are key features in the discussion of organizational memory. She also mentions that

how memory is put in the service of achieving organizational goals is central to the discussion.

Organizational knowledge may be retained as written manuals, policies, files, and records or

through individuals in the form of organizational cultural patterns, values, and beliefs.

Knowledge is retained selectively. When and how knowledge is retrieved, is based in part on

how it is stored and the recognition by organizational members of its utility in a given situation.

If lasting structures in which to house the information learned are not created, lessons learned

from the past may not be available should such situations arise again. Lam (2002) declares that

the product of the organizational learning process should be transformed into official records

such as administrative policy manuals to ensure relative permanency.









The literature on type and quality of organizational learning makes a distinction between

learning that results from the examination of underlying assumptions and that which does not.

The former is generally viewed as superior and leading to more sustainable actions. Research on

stages of organizational learning has explored how information is created, disseminated and

retained in organizations. Efficiency and effectiveness in these processes distinguish the learning

capability of organizations.

Facilitators of Organizational Learning

Organizational learning takes place in all organizations, though there may be variance in

type and degree (Dibella and Nevis, Leithwood, et al., 1998). This variance is due to influences,

which occur both inside and outside organizations. Some influences advance organizational

learning and others inhibit it. In this section, factors that facilitate organizational learning such as

motivations or stimuli for learning, psychological safety, structure, skill, and leadership are

described. The following overview is drawn primarily from national and international studies in

the K-12 sector including administration external to the school, and the business sector.

Stimuli for Learning

Stimuli for learning can be internal or external to the organization. When the stimulus

comes from within the organization, it may originate within individuals or from collective

processes of the organization. Senge et al., (1999) identifies aspiration as facilitating

organizational learning. This aspiration is related to two learning disciplines, personal mastery

and building shared vision (Senge, 1990). Personal mastery involves individuals determining

what they truly aspire to while making an honest assessment of their current reality. Management

of this creative tension can help build learning capacity. Dibella and Nevis (1998) describe this

as the performance gap and indicate that in the examination of organizational learning, the









perception of this gap must be a shared one. The process of building a shared vision also often

leads to a motivation for organizational learning (Senge, 1990).

External stimuli for organizational learning may be sought by the organization or imposed

from outside. In the world of business in particular, the extent to which organizations scan their

environment for best practices and opportunities is a facilitator of organizational learning

(Dibella & Nevis, 1998). The practice of benchmarking and networking also serve as external

stimuli for learning (Fischer, 2003). In education, organizations also voluntarily look to their

environment for ideas but the mandate to learn is often made at the supervising level outside of

the school (Leithwood, et al., 1998).

Psychological Safety

Even when individuals or groups in organizations are motivated to learn, a psychologically

safe environment must be created for such learning to be pursued (Schein, 1993a). This safety is

largely determined by the organizational culture. Culture is identified as a factor that could

facilitate organizational learning (Lam, 2002; Leithwood, 1998). Dibella and Nevis (1998)

suggest that how learning takes place in an organization is largely determined by the

organization's culture. They found that a climate of openness is among the factors that facilitate

organizational learning. Organizational learning requires tolerance within the organization to

take risks, to experiment, and to experience possible mistakes (Goh & Richards, 1997; Mulford

& Silins, 2003; McGill & Slocum 1993). Dibella and Nevis (1998) identify a similar factor but

termed it organizational curiosity. They also found that organizational learning is facilitated

when multiple advocates for ideas are encouraged at all levels of the organization and there is

operational variety openness to varied ways in doing things. Key requirements for a

psychologically safe environment for organizational learning include (a) opportunities for

training and practice, (b) support and encouragement to overcome fears associated with making









errors, (c) coaching and rewards for efforts in the right direction, (d) norms that legitimize the

making of errors, and (e) norms that reward innovative thinking and experimentation (Schein,

1993a).

Structure

Organizations can optimize learning when work is structured to allow the generation and

sharing of knowledge and experience (Fischer, 2003) and when human resource practices that

encourage this sharing are pursued (McGill & Slocum, 1993). Opportunities for teamwork and

group problem solving facilitate organizational learning and there should also be a means of

transferring the knowledge (Goh & Richards, 1997; McGill & Slocum, 1993). Studies in the

field of education indicate that if work is structured to allow time for interaction, then the

likelihood of organizational learning increases (Collinson & Cook, 2004; Leithwood et al.. 1998;

Lam & Punch 2001).

As working and learning in groups is advocated, reward systems must be adjusted to

recognize the resulting collective productivity (Goh & Richards, 1997; McGill & Slocum 1993;

Senge et al., 1999). The propensity for organizational learning is enhanced with increased

complexity of tasks and the degree of autonomy that workers have in determining the tasks,

methods and appropriate results (Fischer, 2003; Ellstrom, 2003). The practice of giving

immediate feedback is also associated with facilitating organizational learning (Fischer, 2003;

Ellstrom, 2003). Organizational learning is also widely linked with provision of adequate

learning resources and ongoing professional development (Mulford & Silins, 2003; Dibella &

Nevis, 1998; Ellstrom, 2003; Leithwood, et. al, 1998).

Skill

One cause for variability in organizational learning capacity is the skills available to the

organization. A critical factor that facilitates organizational learning is the ability of individuals









to understand the interdependence of actions inside and outside the organization (Dibella &

Nevis, 1998; Senge, 1990; Tannenbaum, 1997). Senge (1990) utilized the term systems thinking

to describe this. Researchers have suggested that a central aspect of organizational learning is the

ability to examine, and change if necessary, the underlying taken-for-granted beliefs,

perceptions, thoughts, feelings, and assumptions that guide people's actions in organizations.

Senge (1990) called these mental models and suggest that they are often unknown to the people

who hold them, hence making them even more difficult to change. He suggests that balancing of

inquiry into the positions of others and advocating your own, are skills that promote the

identification of mental models, which in turn may lead to organizational learning. He also

identifies the ability to dialogue as facilitating shared learning. Isaacs (1999) identifies the four

basic components of dialogue as listening, respecting, suspending, and voicing. Schein (1993b)

concludes that dialogue is a first step in organizational learning because the evolution of new

shared mental models that cut across the subcultures of the organization require a change in the

cultural rules about communication and interaction; this change is made possible through

dialogue.

Argyris & Schon (1978) identified two master programs or theories-in-use that people

employ to guide their actions both within and outside organizations, namely, Model I and Model

II. Model I inhibits organizational learning and will be examined in that section of the review but

Model II promotes it and will be examined now. Model II theory-in-use is guided by the values

of valid information, informed choice, and the monitoring of the execution of that choice in order

to detect and correct error. While both models feature advocating, evaluating, and attribution as

their most prominent behaviors, Model II is distinguished by the search for valid information

through the use of action strategies that show how the actors who are involved reach their









evaluations or attributions. Within this model, actors inquire into the evaluations and attributions

of others and encourage others to reciprocate. Embarrassment and threat, avoided at all costs

drives under Model I thinking, are engaged as opposed to being by-passed and concealed. The

ability to balance inquiry and advocacy, unearth mental models, and to view organizational

events in a systemic way are skills that occur in organizations when purposely developed.

Leadership

Schein (1993b) reported that, "organizational learning is not possible unless some learning

first takes place in the executive subculture. I do not see how learning at that or any other level of

the organization can take place unless the executive subculture first recognizes itself as a

subculture in need of analysis" (p. 50). Senge (1990) recognizes the importance of leaders in

facilitating organizational learning. He points out that they are expected to play non-traditional

roles such as designers (of learning practices), stewards, and teachers in order to help the

organization develop their capacity to understand complexity, clarify vision, and improve shared

mental models key tenets of organizational learning.

Leaders are critical to the creation of a climate conducive to collaboration and

experimentation (Goh & Richards, 1997). They largely determine the level of psychological

safety. Dibella and Nevis (1998) claim that leadership is just one of the factors that facilitates

organizational learning. Frydman, Wilson and Wyer (2000) identified characteristics of leaders

of organizational learning. Such leaders are pragmatic visionaries, values-centered, master

strategists and tacticians, skilled at the devolution of power, stewards of learning, learners

themselves and are willing to take different paths to their goal of developing a learning culture.

Transformational leadership has been found to be associated with organizational learning

in schools. Leithwood et al., (1998) found evidence that transformational leadership positively

impacted organizational learning in a study that drew its sample from elementary and secondary









schools. Burns (1978) stated that "the transforming leader looks for potential motives in

followers, seeks to satisfy higher needs, and engages the full person of the follower" (p.4). This,

he says, results in "a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into

leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents." (p.4) Transformational leadership practices

call leaders to work with others and to enable others to perform. This can be contrasted with

leadership practices that focus on power and control (Silins & Mulford, 2002).

Leithwood et al. (1998) identified eight dimensions of transformation leadership that foster

organizational learning. The dimensions include (a) identifies and articulates a vision, (b) fosters

the acceptance of group goals, (c) conveys high performance expectations, (d) provides

appropriate models, (e) provides individual support, (f) provides intellectual stimulation, (g)

builds a productive school culture and (h) helps structure the school to enhance participation in

decision making. They also found that school culture and the district (supervising body) were

found to have the greatest influences on organizational learning processes. Transformational

leadership practices were also found to be an indicator of organizational learning capacity in an

Australian K-12 study (Silins & Mulford, 2002). Transactional leadership is often viewed as the

opposite to transformational leadership and unfavorable to organizational learning. Transactional

leaders tend to approach followers with a strategy of exchanging one thing for another (Burns,

1978). Vera & Crossan (2004), however, found transactional leadership to be facilitative to

feedback learning when environments are stable and firms are performing well. Transactional

learning will positively benefit feedback and feed-forward learning when firms are in stages of

growth and maturity (Vera & Crossan, 2004)

Factors Inhibiting Organizational Learning

Successful organizational learning depends on removing restraints to organizational

learning as well as promoting factors that encourage it. In a study of reasons why teachers do not









share information, Collinson and Cook (2004), argued that removing restraints is likely to yield

more immediate success than trying to enable motivating factors, because motivating factors

involve teachers' norms, values, and beliefs and require lengthier strategies to make meaningful

impact. Factors identified that promote organizational learning are on a continuum, and as such,

the lack of those factors often constitute restraints to learning. For example, a lack of

psychological safety, stimuli, or skill will impede learning. Specific aspects of these factors as

well as others will be examined in this review of inhibitors to organizational learning.

Lack of Psychological Safety

Many people in organizations do not take the risk associated with learning because of past

organizational responses to mistakes and failure (Rowe & Boyle, 2005; Schein, 1993a). Schein

suggests that this is related to learned anxiety and emotional conditioning. Schein argues that

while emotional conditioning which determines behavior is associated with rewards and

punishment, the avoidance behavior learned through punishment is more stable than behavior

learned through reward. Avoidance behavior also discourages trial and error learning. Schein

also posits that an understanding of what he terms Anxiety 1 and Anxiety 2 helps in examining

such behavior. He defines Anxiety 1 as the feelings that arise when individuals are unwilling or

unable to learn something new because it appears difficult or disruptive. Anxiety 2 is defined as

the feelings of fear, shame or guilt associated with not learning anything new. He suggests that

Anxiety 2 must be greater than Anxiety I in order to minimize Anxiety 1 as an inhibitor to

learning. Risk taking and experimentation are essential to organizational learning and hence the

inability to reduce Anxiety I greatly affects psychological safety. As noted earlier, leaders play a

very important role in determining the climate for organizational learning.

Fear concerning the impact of social comparison can also impede organizational learning

practices. In a study conducted among seven school districts, Rusch (2005) found that the fear of









competition between schools served as a restraint to district administrators' facilitation of

organizational learning. Fear was related to the avoidance of possible embarrassment for some

school administrators. The significance of embarrassment avoidance will be discussed in the

section on defensive routines.

Improper Structure and Communication Issues

The flow of information is critical to learning organizations (Senge, 1990). Knowledge

must be moved across organizational borders in order to build a collective organizational

intelligence (Senge et al., 1999). Collinson and Cook (2004) found that the factors restraining the

dissemination of information in the studied schools related primarily to how the school day was

structured and to the amount of time available for teachers to interact. Rowe and Boyle (2005)

found that communication patterns based on a hierarchical structure that did not require

accountability of staff members for their individual or group communication practices also

inhibited learning. This was further exacerbated by the failure of those involved to recognize

those patterns. Schein (1997) identifies three cultures existing in many large business

organizations: operator, executive, and engineering. These cultures are associated with

production, finance and strategy, and research and design, respectively. He suggests that these

cultures are rooted in distinct backgrounds, particularly education and training, which those

members of the respective cultures share. This results in a unique social language, although they

may all be speaking in the same native tongue. This makes communication difficult and inhibits

learning.

The failure to reward group productivity is another constraint to organizational learning.

Senge et al. (1999) found that even when organizations espoused the importance of collective

learning, rewards and accountability systems were still individually based.









Defensive Routines

Organizational defensive routines are described by Argyris (1994) as "all the policies,

practices, and actions that prevent human beings from having to experience embarrassment or

threat and, at the same time, prevent them from examining the nature of that embarrassment or

threat" (p. 81). Argyris posits that this defensive reasoning results from the master program,

Model I theory-in-use. People operating with the Model I theory-in-use will seek to (a) achieve

their intended purpose, (b) maximize winning and minimize losing, (c) suppress negative

feelings and behave according to what they consider to be rational. These values will lead

individuals to "craft their positions, evaluations and attributions in ways that inhibit inquiry into

them and tests of them with others' logic" (52). These strategies typically result in defensiveness,

misunderstanding, and self-fulfilling and self-sealing processes. Argyris suggests that individuals

utilizing the Model I theory-in-use cannot help but bring it with them to organizations and that

most people in organizations operate from a Model I framework. The prevalence of Model I in

organizations results in what he termed organizational limited-learning systems. Interestingly,

Argyris found Model I theory-in-use to be existent in cultures as varied as in North America,

Europe, South America, Africa, and the Far East. This theory-in-use was also evident across age

groups (as young as twelve), socio-economic status, educational levels, gender or ethnic identity.

These routines are evident across a range of organizational types such as business,

government, and education. Argyris (1993) identifies some of these routines as outright lying

and deception, conducting meetings in a manner that discourages reexamination and rethinking,

referring undesired proposed innovations to other groups with the hope of them losing

momentum along the way and manipulating meeting agendas and minutes. Face-saving is a

routine that requires collusion on the part of the parties involved. The person allowing the other









to save face typically makes a statement that is untrue while the person who will avoid the

embarrassment colludes by acting as if the statement is true.

The Nature of Knowledge

Another constraint to organizational learning is the nature of knowledge. Nonaka (1991)

categorizes knowledge as tacit or explicit. Knowledge that is formal and systematic and hence

easily communicated is said to be explicit. While referring to the work of Polanyi (1969), he

states that knowledge, and skills based in knowledge that individuals possess but is not easily

expressed, is termed tacit knowledge. He gives an example of a baker who may be highly skilled

at his craft but unable to transfer all the knowledge needed about how to produce a certain

product, to a given standard, even though he may convey much of the needed information in a

detailed recipe. Tacit knowledge is also rooted in mental models, beliefs and perspectives that

are themselves taken-for-granted and hence difficult to surface. Tacit knowledge is integral in

organizational functions and is difficult to transfer, thus hindering organizational learning.

The Community College Setting

The community college is an American institution whose historical roots trace back to

principles of access and skills development, advocated by former American president and

educator Thomas Jefferson (Boone, 1997). Subsequent initiatives by President Andrew Jackson,

that later affected funding, and the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890 helped focus attention on

technical skills, and are landmarks in the institution's historical landscape (Boone, 1997). Junior

colleges emerged around the turn of the 20th century, often as an extension of the high school

system, with the aim of preparing students for college and providing up to the first two years of

the college curriculum (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). The term community college did not actually

become popular until its use in the President's Commission on Higher Education in 1947

(Boone, 1997).









The typical community college mission goals are usually grouped as, the preparation of

students for academic transfer, vocational-technical education, continuing education, and

developmental education, and community service (Cohen & Brawer, 2003; Bragg, 2001).

Missions of community colleges are expanding and becoming increasingly comprehensive

(Bragg, 2001). Levin (2005) argues that the community college has strayed from its earlier

mission of meeting the needs of the entire community to a more narrow focus that addresses the

needs of the economic sector. The ability to respond rapidly to workforce training needs is

considered to be a strength of community colleges (Boone, 1997; Boggs, 2004). Levin, however,

contends that the shift to an economic focus has resulted in an increased emphasis on training

and development, away from liberal arts and transfer curricula.

The community college environment and culture is influenced by the traditions of the

entire higher education sector and increasingly by the business sector. Schein (2004) defines

culture as:

a pattern of shared basic assumptions that was learned by a group as it solved its problems
of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be
considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to
perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. (p. 17)

An institution's culture determines how its members deal with external forces and internal

pressures (Smart, Kuh & Tierney, 1997). A large organization may have an overarching culture

but subcultures will likely form around work units or occupational communities and may exert

very powerful influences on how people behave in organizations (Schein, 2004). Higher

education institutions typically feature more than one institutional culture, though there is usually

a dominant one (Bergquist, 1992, Levin, 1997). Subcultures within a community college view

aspects of organizational life differently (Ayers, 2005). Kezar (2001) found among higher









educational institutions, there were broadly held values, as well as values associated with sub-

groups.

In examining higher education, Bergquist (1992) identified four cultures of the academy as

collegial, managerial, developmental, and negotiating. The collegial culture is characterized by

values surrounding faculty disciplines, faculty research and scholarship, rationality and quasi-

political faculty governance processes, and the placement of highest priority on the generation,

interpretation and dissemination of knowledge in the institution's mission. The managerial

culture is characterized by clear organizational structure, clearly defined goals and accountability

for achieving those goals. The developmental culture is characterized by high value on the

personal and professional growth and development of all members of the institutional

community, including students. The negotiating culture is characterized by the distribution of

organizational resources according to equitable and egalitarian policies. Within this culture,

confrontation and fair bargaining between stakeholders such as administration, faculty, and staff

is expected and welcomed. Bergquist's classifications correlate closely with Birnbaum's (1988)

who described higher education institutions as collegial, bureaucratic, anarchical, and political in

nature. The main exception is the anarchical institution which focuses on the value of gaining

consensus in a context that is not very rational, organized or clearly structured.

While much of the foregoing discussion focused on all of higher education, including

community colleges, Levin (1997) specifically examines the culture of community colleges. He

views community college culture from two perspectives. First, it fulfils a functional purpose,

affecting official structure and modes of operation for dealing with the organization's challenge.

Second, organizations are themselves cultures, "constructed through the symbols and behaviors

of organizational members, and not necessarily rational, purposeful, or even functional" (p. 16).









He also suggests that there are multiple cultures within community colleges that are a by-product

of the college community members' differing understanding and interpretation of organizational

life. He identified four cultures of the community college as traditional, service, hierarchical, and

business.

The traditional culture is characterized by a focus on the intellectual and cognitive

development of students and access to educational opportunities for university transfer or

employment purposes. This culture, he contends, is modeled after that found in many universities

and features such aspects as peer judgment and scholarship and focuses on the interests and

values of faculty. Decisions in this culture regarding issues such as governance, instructional

organization and programming are centered around academic students, academic faculty and

academic life. Furthermore, academic faculty are viewed as having a greater position of

influence and significance than their occupational and vocational colleagues. Academic faculty

dominate this culture and focus attention on curriculum and instruction from the academic

perspective, largely at the exclusion of other aspects of organizational life (Levin, 1997).

The service culture in community colleges is characterized by a focus on the improvement

of the clientele, the students. This culture may view improvement as evident in university

transfer rates, institutional student retention rates, social equity or quality of learning. Members

of the college community, who view meeting students' developmental needs as of foremost

importance, typically support and sustain this culture. They view the college's mission in social

service terms with the aim of improving the lives of individuals and consequently, society as a

whole. Administrators in this culture include the immediate community as part of their service

area and expand the mission of the institution to meet identified needs. Student services

personnel and some faculty drive this culture in community colleges.









The hierarchical culture in community colleges focuses around leadership and particularly

the role of president or chief executive officer. The culture evolved from early conceptions of the

community college serving as a vehicle for social transformation and the achievement of

democratic values such as equality and individuality mobility through education. This view

portrayed the community college as having a moral purpose whereby the leader was seen as

responsible for ensuring that this purpose is achieved. This culture also adheres to rational

systems of organization. Thus, the culture, coupled moral and bureaucratic components. The

resulting culture positions the president as embodying the moral purpose of the institution and

hence responsible for articulating mission, vision, and values, and as having firm control of a

rational organization. This culture may result in administratively dominated institutions and even

autocratic presidents (Levin, 1997).

The impetus for developing the business culture in community colleges came partly from

external demands for competitiveness, workforce training and the adoption of entrepreneurial

approach to conducting their affairs. The training function, in particular, brought the community

college in close contact with for-profit business operations which led to colleges embracing

operational styles associated with the business world. Efficiency, innovativeness, customer

service and paying attention to employee relations are features of the business culture in

community colleges. There is extreme sensitivity to the market in decision making and college

growth is focused on more programs, buildings, and increasing the number of students.

Characteristics of this culture are its flexibility and speed in getting the educational product to

the market. Traditional higher education decision making models such as faculty committees or

senates are not valued.









There are other indications that higher education is increasingly influenced by the business

sector culture. Birnbaum (2000) has described the introduction and subsequent abandonment of

academic management fads that originate in government or business and adopted by higher

education institutions. Higher education has utilized popular innovations such as Planning

Programming Budgeting Systems (PPBS), Management by Objectives (MBO), Strategic

Planning (SP), Total Quality Management (TQM), Business Process Reengineering (BPE), and

Benchmarking. The pressure brought on higher education institutions to become more effective

and efficient has led to the diffusing of these strategies into the sector, though most times, with

limited success. Another argument for the pervasiveness of the business culture in higher

education comes from Levin (2005). He contends that the primary focus of community colleges

is to meet the needs of the business community. Much effort is focused on providing graduates

who are appropriately trained for industry or by providing relevant training for individuals who

are already employed. In addition to the mission shift, community colleges are also adopting

business-oriented institutional values. Levin contends that community colleges are shifting from

a culture of "soft managerialism" based on collegiality and professional consensus to one of

"hard managerialism" based on contractual relations and autocratic control. Community colleges

are also moving toward a market-driven and entrepreneurial orientation in response to contextual

factors such as technological advances, distance education, and cost constraints (Kezar, 2001).

Summary

This chapter began with a review of organizational learning as well as factors that facilitate

or inhibit its advancement in organizations. Aspects of the community college environment as

they relate to this study were also examined. Literature on organizational learning is rich in terms

of the theoretical positions, however it is weaker in the area of empirical studies. Writers from

the field of education have based their work on empirical studies, while writers from









management and organizational studies have mixed their anecdotal experiences with well-

designed studies. Organizational behavior researchers have taken a lead in developing theories in

the field, though not always based on planned investigative studies.

While multiple cultures may exist in community colleges, an organization is often defined

by a dominant culture. Culture dictates how things are done on the campus and it is determined

by what members of the community deem to be of value. Traditional academic values, associated

with higher education, and entrepreneurial, market-driven values, associated with the business

sector, are two of the primary influences on community college culture. The value of seeking to

develop individuals for their own good is also influential. This combination results in a unique

organizational culture that may cause differences in the nature of organizational learning, and the

factors that facilitate or inhibit it, in community colleges as opposed to other sectors. This study

will provide an evidence-based understanding of how one group of community college faculty

and staff view the factors that promote and inhibit organizational learning in their institution.









CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study was to provide a greater understanding of how organizational

learning is manifested in a community college setting. The research questions were

How do members of a college community construct organizational learning?

Sub-questions

1. How do members of a college community describe facilitators of organizational
learning?

2. How do members of a college community describe inhibitors of organizational
learning?

The purpose of this chapter is to describe how this study was conducted. The chapter

begins with a discussion on qualitative research, the theoretical perspective for the study and the

methodology, followed by a discussion of the participants and setting. The chapter concludes

with a description of the data collection, data analysis and an examination of issues surrounding

validity, and researcher subjectivity.

Qualitative Research

Qualitative research design is typically utilized when little is known about a problem or

when a detailed understanding of a central phenomenon is required (Creswell, 2005). Denzin and

Lincoln (2005) offer the following definition,

Qualitative research is a situated activity that locates the observer in the world. It consists
of a set of interpretive, material practices that makes the world visible. These practices
transform the world. They turn the world into a series of representations, including field
notes, interviews, conversations, photographs, recordings, and memos to self. ...
qualitative research involves an interpretative, naturalistic approach to the world. This
means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make
sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them (p. 3)

Qualitative research is broadly characterized by (a) an investigation in natural settings

rather than those that are contrived; (b) a focus on participant's perspectives; (c) the researcher as









the data gathering instrument; (d) extended firsthand engagement; (e) an emphasis on the

centrality of meaning; (f) sensitivity to wholeness and complexity; (g) subjectivity; (h) emergent

design; (i) inductive data analysis; and (j) reflexivity (Hatch, 2002). As the research instrument,

the researcher engages with other participants to render the results of the study (Glesne, 1999).

This approach is appropriate because it may illustrate the contribution of organizational learning

to the community college setting.

Theoretical Perspective

The questions in this study were addressed from the social constructionist perspective, that

is epistemologically rooted in constructionism. This perspective holds that the world is socially

constructed, complex, and ever-changing (Glesne, 1999). Berger and Luckman (1966) point out

that conversation plays a central role in the determining, maintaining and changing of reality.

Language is the primary mechanism through which reality is constructed socially during human

activities (Berger and Luckman, 1966). Researchers in this paradigm join with participants in

constructing a view of the world around them. This assumption of joint pursuit of understanding

brings with it certain implications. Gergen (2002) states, "The terms and forms by which we

achieve understanding of the world and ourselves are socially derived products of historically

and culturally situated interchanges among people" (p. 7).

Each participant in the research activity brings with them experiences and understandings

that will "clash" at the point of contact to produce new meaning. The meaning does not simply

reside within the interviewee, it is constructed at the time of the interaction (Holstein &

Gubrium, 2003). Gergen's statement also draws attention to the socializing nature of human

interaction within a given context. The context provides a boundary for shared, socially

constructed meanings. The individual's identity in the context is constructed and re-constructed

in relation to others (Gergen, 2002).









The complexity of meaning-making in the social construction interview situation is

magnified when considering that participants in an interview may speak from different

subjectivities and voices during the course of one conversation, and that their view of the

interviewer during the encounter may also change and impact what is produced (Holstein &

Gubrium, 2003). For example, during an interview, an individual may shift from speaking as a

loyal employee to a prospective pensioner concerned about the future. These positions taken at

varying points in the conversation may impact the perspective of the interviewee and the

meaning produced.

To engage in producing meaning, the researcher spends extended time in the environment

or in contact with the study participants (Glesne, 1999). The researcher collaborates with

research participants in constructing the subjective reality being examined; that relationship is

central to the research process (Hatch, 2002; Ponterotto, 2005). From this perspective,

researchers may engage a limited number of participants for an extended period of time in the

search of multiple meanings. The extended exposure to research participants results in the values

and lived experiences of the researcher having a great impact on the co-construction of meaning.

These values should be acknowledged and described, as constructivists view attempts to

eliminate researcher values entirely as futile (Ponterotto, 2005). There is no search for a single

generalizable "truth" but the rigor of the study is measured more by adherence to methodology

and thick description (Ponterotto, 2005).

Research Design

Narrative compilation through interviews and their subsequent analysis formed the core of

this research study. Narrative research designs feature the collection of stories about the lives of

individuals, the production of narratives that chronicle their experiences and an exploration of









the meaning of those experiences (Creswell, 2005). Freeman (2004) contends that narratives

pervade life, and human life is itself, narratively structured (Freeman, 2004). He states:

Human action consists of events that are, essentially, "episodes in the making" -that is,
events that will become episodes, retroactively, by virtue of their interrelationship with
other events, both antecedent and subsequent, as well as with those "endings" that will
ultimately serve to transfigure them into the stuff of narrative. In a distinct sense, one often
does not know "what is happening" until the moment is past, until it can be located within
some broader constellation of events, read for its significance in some larger whole (p. 64).

Labov and Waletzkey (1967) posit that narratives are essentially stories with a

chronological aspect that possess a particular basic structure. The structure, according to them,

includes an orientation clause, complicating action, evaluation, resolution, and coda and each has

its specific function in the narrative. Chandler, Lalonde, & Teucher (2004) on the other hand,

report many conceptions of narratives that do not include such structures. Analytic insight from

narratives can be gained not only from what is said but more so, how it is structured by the teller.

The temporal order of events determines the plot, and in turn the power of the narrative, even

more than its truth or falsity (Czamiawska, 1997). Riessman (1993) surmised that "most scholars

treat narratives as discrete units, with clear beginnings and endings, as detachable from the

surrounding discourse rather than as situated events" (p. 17). A pilot study was conducted which

aided research design choices and the development of interview questions (Appendix G).

The analysis of the narratives also included studying how participants position themselves

when relating about their activities in the organization. Bamberg (2004) describes an analysis of

positioning where individuals are seen as not merely choosing positions based on available

discourses or master narratives but as being involved in the construction of positions during

conversation. He suggests three levels of Positioning Analysis. At Positioning Analysis Level I

the design of characters in the story are examined to determine the "identity claims" or

positioning of the teller. Level II is concerned with the interactional means for building the story.









At Level III a view is sought of how speakers and audiences establish particular notions of

selves. Participants in talk take positions in relation to the discourses in which they are

positioned. The community college environment exhibits multiple cultures (Levin, 1997) and

how individuals position themselves may lead to their action or inaction.

Narrative design was chosen for this study, because, through the interview process,

accounts were elicited about how learning takes place in the organization. I anticipated that in

obtaining information about communication flow, experimentation norms and quality of

interactions in the organization, and stories about the generation of solutions to problems and

challenges, the narratives necessary for analysis would be produced. According to Czarniawska

(1998) some of the ways that narratives enter organizational studies is through organizational

research that is written as "stories from the field", collections of organizational stories, and

research that views organizational life as story making.

Population and Setting

The setting for this study was a community college in the southeastern United States. The

assertion that all organizations learn (Dibella & Nevis, 1998) suggests that any community

college could be selected for this study. Learning capacity, however, differs among organizations

(Senge, et al., 1999) and hence it was beneficial to study a community college that has moved

along that path, or at least expressed interest in developing that capacity. From this perspective, I

pursued an extreme case sample as opposed to a typical sample, from among sampling strategies

outlined by Creswell (2005). Information from the school's website, such as mission and values

statements and strategic plans, statements by the President and the reputation of the institution

were used to gauge their level of commitment to organizational learning.

In selecting the site, I utilized resources such as recommendations from experts in the field

as well as publications that highlight efforts of community colleges at improvement. Advice was









sought from Dr. Dale Campbell, UF Professor and convener of the annual Community College

Futures Assembly and Dr. Larry Tyree, former Director of the National Alliance for Community

and Technical Colleges. I also contacted Dr. Gerardo de los Santos, President and CEO of the

League for Innovation in Community Colleges for his recommendations of institutions. I perused

the Learning Abstracts, a publication of the League for Innovation in Community Colleges, that

describes notable initiatives undertaken by community colleges and other similar publications.

Participants

Given the aim of exploring organizational learning in a community college setting, I

employed purposeful sampling to identify six participants for this study. Multiple interviews

were conducted with each individual to produce the meaning possible with prolonged contact. A

pool of candidates was sought with the aid of officers of the institution. In some cases I asked for

referral from individuals who were initially referred to me. In so doing, there was no one at the

institution who knew who all of the study participants were. This improved the probability of

anonymity.

In quantitative studies, generalization is often a goal, which leads to a need for random

samples. Qualitative researchers typically and purposely select participants with the potential for

giving rich data that would lead to a deep understanding of the phenomena under study

(Creswell, 2005). In selecting participants for this study, I was guided by strategies for selecting

research sites and participants that have been outlined by Creswell (2005), based in part on

recommendations of other methodologists. I employed, to some extent, maximum variation

sampling. This type of sampling cuts across some range of variation (Creswell, 2005). In this

study, this took the form of selecting faculty and administrators from the college preparation

division, workforce training division and student services. Two participants were selected from

each area. In each area one participant had supervisory responsibility and the other did not.









I also sought variation in the sample according to gender and length of service as both of

these variables may influence viewpoints. As recent hires may not have experienced enough to

contribute to the study, only employees with at least two years of service were considered.

Experience with decision-making and problem solving at the institution was also considered

when selecting participants.

There were four women and two men in the study. Both men were among the members of

administration in the study. One member of the study was at the College for more than twenty

years while another was there for just three. The other four participants ranged between seven

and ten years. There were four Anglo-Americans in the study and two from other ethnic groups.

Access and Entry

Access in qualitative research studies is a process that goes beyond initial consent to

conduct the study, to insuring that the desired individuals are willing to participate throughout

the study and that the required documentation or observation points are made available (Glesne,

1999). Gatekeepers, the individuals from whom a researcher obtains consent, must be identified

and convinced of the importance and relevance of the study (Glesne, 1999). In an effort to

establish personal contact at the chosen institution, I enlisted the support of my committee

members who were familiar with community college leaders in the area under consideration. I

was able to establish contact with a senior official who referred me to others in the organization.

I believe that the support of that individual was critical in the level of cooperation shown. In

some cases, a chain was formed that led to further referrals. After initial contact, all

communications were directly with the participants. Having the support of a key senior

administrative leader and access to someone who could act as liaison officer was critical to the

selection of the research site. Hatch (2002) concludes that ultimately the participants are the









gatekeepers because their degree of involvement will determine what is produced in the

interview.

Establishing rapport is another critical factor that contributes to sustaining access. The term

rapport speaks to the effectiveness of field relations (Glesne, 1999). She describes rapport as a

"distance-reducing, anxiety-quieting, trust-building mechanism that primarily serves the interest

of the researcher" (p. 96). In seeking to establish rapport in the selected research setting I paid

close attention to norms and other indicators of culture, and adjusted enough to make the

participants comfortable, while trying to ensure that I do not seem less than authentic. Following

suggestions from Glesne (1999), I was mindful of the difference between building rapport and

establishing friendships. Pseudonyms were utilized to ensure the anonymity of the participants

and the research site with the hope that it would increased participants' willingness to participate

fully.

Data Collection

The primary source of data for this study was the participants' accounts of their

experiences and their views concerning the relevant topics as elicited through interviews.

Relevant organizational documents were collected but given the preeminence of the story as told

by participants, they were used primarily for contextual purposes and to aid in the development

of rapport, building conversation and obtaining responses to interview questions.

Prior to engaging in fieldwork, permission was sought and granted from the University's

Internal Review Board to conduct the study (Appendix A). Participants were read a lay summary

prior to beginning the interviews (Appendix B). A checklist was also utilized to ensure that all

necessary steps were taken before, during and after the interview (Appendix B). Participants

were given the opportunity to read and sign the approved informed consent form (Appendix C).









Interviews were the main source of data for this study. I adopted the approach of Holstein

and Gubrium (2003) where "the interview is being reconceptualized as an occasion for

purposefully animated participants to construct (their emphasis) versions of reality

interactionally rather than merely purveying data" (p. 14). Semi-structured interviews were

conducted using open-ended questions (Appendix D). Less structure tends to give participants

more control during the interview (Riessman, 1993), thus encouraging free and open expression

within the scope of the research. Where narratives are sought, giving the participants latitude to

tell things based on their experience is critical.

While working within the confines of Institutional Review Board requirements for the

submission of primary questions, I sought to engage participants in interviews that approximated

conversations. Stage and Mattson (2003) suggest that, "conversations are based on common

understanding and are marked by a lack of explicit purpose, avoidance of repetition, balanced

turn taking, use of abbreviation, occurrences of pauses, expressed interest, and curious ignorance

by both parties" (p. 99). The general approach advocated by the aforementioned authors was

followed and I think it enhanced the co-construction of the data. Other strategies that Stage and

Mattson suggest are (a) pause to reflect and prepare, (b) pay attention to context and (c) balance

turn taking through reciprocal participation, and they were integrated in the interviews of this

study. These were followed to a degree (see Limitations).

In this study, multiple rounds of interviews were conducted with each participant. I moved

along a path from grand-tour or contextual questions to more detail-oriented mini-tour questions

(Spradley, 1979). Multiple interviews with preliminary analysis in between allowed me to offer

participants the opportunity to reflect on themes emerging from earlier interviews during later

interviews. The invitation to interviewees to reflect on what is produced is consistent with the









shift in the perception among some researchers of interviewees as subjects to interviewees as co-

participants or collaborators (Holstein & Gubrium, 2003). The existence of varying backgrounds

and experiences of all research participants is important to be aware of, given that, "interview

participants interpret their experiences through socially constructed roles that have been created

based on assumed identities within specific groups and disciplines" (Gubrium & Koro-

Ljungberg, 2005, p. 691). These experiences help determine the "borders" which must at times

be negotiated in the social constructionist interview (Gubrium & Koro-Ljungberg, 2005).

Multiple interviews may give the researcher enough opportunity to help participants challenge

the concept of the passive interviewee that is currently more typical of interview experiences.

The number of interviews was guided by the degree to which additional insight was produced at

each round of interviews. Most participants were interviewed three times with the exception of

one who was interviewed four times. The final interview was typically shorter than earlier ones

and involved member checking.

Six participants were selected for this study. After the first round of interviews, data was

roughly transcribed and preliminarily analyzed. This analysis served to inform the second round

of interviews. A similar process followed subsequent interviews. Each interview took

approximately one hour.

I utilized practical advice from Creswell (2005) while conducting the interviews, namely,

(a) take brief notes during the interview; (b) obtain permission and audio tape the interview; (c)

locate a quiet and suitable place for the interview; (d) have a general plan for the interview while

leaving room to be flexible; (e) use probes or follow-up questions to obtain additional

information; and (f) be courteous and professional throughout and particularly at the end of the









interview. All interviews were conducted in the offices of the participants and that proved to be a

good venue with very little interruption and the assurance of privacy.

Conducting multiple rounds of interviews aided in the building of rapport, and I believe,

the production of more insightful data by participants. All interviews were one-on-one. Creswell

(2005) notes that one-on-one interviews are best suited for participants who are articulate and

comfortable sharing the desired information. All participants fitted that description, though the

level of rapport established varied among individuals and this likely impacted how much each

participant was were willing to share with me.

Data Analysis

I used narrative analysis, as outlined by Riessman (1993), and positioning analysis as

outlined by Bamberg (2004), to analyze the data. Riessman (1993) describes the three major

steps in the narrative research process as telling, transcribing and analyzing. Telling involves the

careful attention to data collection through interviews as outlined above. Transcribing involves

converting the interviewee's words to text but in narrative work, decisions are made at this stage

that are largely analytical in nature (Riessman, 1993). These decisions include determining when

a narrative begins and ends and whether the re-transcription of the data should be done according

to a particular framework.

Two possible strategies for data reduction and interpretation are reduction to core

narratives and analysis of poetic structures (Riessman, 1993). The core narrative is derived from

a longer portion of the text and may be constructed around a framework such as Labov and

Waletzkey's (1967), briefly outlined earlier. Care should be taken to analyze the narrative for

structure and not simply for content (Riessman, 1993). The steps for analysis in this study were

as follows:









1. Produced a rough transcription of the interview data. This transcription focused on
capturing all the spoken words and other easily notable features of the conversation such
as laughter and very long pauses.

2. Conducted inductive data analysis on this data with the primary purpose being to inform
the generation of questions for the ensuing round of interviews and to begin the search
for themes. The data was analyzed to produce open codes. This step was an important
opportunity for the researcher to become familiar with the data as seen on the written
page. The search for themes was also critical because components of the answer to the
research questions began to emerge from the themes.

3. Conducted further rounds of interviews as outlined above, with preliminary analysis
taking place after each around and more importantly, prior to the succeeding round of
interviews.

4. Produced in-depth re-transcription of the portions of the interview data deemed central to
the study. In these transcriptions, closer attention was paid to pauses, voice inflections,
non-verbal sounds and any other interaction between the interviewer and the participants
in order to gain the greatest representation of meaning. At this stage the data was
organized into stanzas using phrases and pauses to determine the length of the line (Gee,
1999). Stanzas were labeled according to their topic or theme (Appendix E). This proved
to be a very useful analytical step.

5. Reviewed the interview talk with particular attention to narratives.

6. Checked data for suitability of Labov's or other framework and applied where possible
(Appendix F). Labov and Waletzkey (1967) suggest that all narratives comprise an
abstract, orientation, complicating action, evaluation and resolution and that there is
much meaning to be found in the way the narrative is structured. In this study, particular
attention was paid to evaluative statements. In some cases, statements that seemed
evaluative in nature were identified even when other components of the narrative were
not easily determined.

7. Searched for interpretive insights in the structure of the narratives. At this stage,
positional analysis was utilized to determine how individuals place themselves within
existing discourses in the institution, and how existing discourses shaped the talk of the
individuals (Bamberg, 2004). The result of the positional analysis was examined to see
how it relates to how people act or fail to act in situations that could produce
organizational learning.

8. Searched for themes within and across narratives. This step brought focus to how
individuals view themselves and their own situation and how those views relate to
organizational learning in the institution. It also identified the recurrence of themes
among the views of individuals sharing different perspectives across the campus.









9. Produced the narrative report. The report was structures along thematic lines and
included counter-narratives to the most frequently articulated views. In representing the
findings care was taken to ensure that the context in which the meaning was produced
was conveyed in order to allow the reader great insight as to why the particular talk was
produced.
Validity and Reliability

Rigor is required to ensure the worth and utility of research (Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson

& Spiers, 2002). The judgment of the validity of a research project lies ultimately with the

audience; hence, researchers must follow the guidelines of the traditions of the particular

perspective and paradigm and document the process in order to gain the confidence of the

audience. In seeking a distinction between more objectively obtained data, some qualitative

researchers tend to speak of the trustworthiness of the data when the issue of validity is raised

(Glesne, 1999). With reference to Lincoln and Guba's work, Creswell (2005) suggests that

prolonged engagement at the research site, alertness to researcher biases, member checking,

external audit, and identifying and reporting limitations enhance the trustworthiness of the data

and the validity of the research product. Morse et al. (2002) warn that many strategies for

insuring validity, such as member checking and external audit, end up as post-hoc evaluation

whether by design or by practice. This post-hoc evaluation, they argue, usually is too late to

affect the study. They advocate strategies that focus on research design and adjustments during

the research process. They suggest that the investigator needs to be responsive to the effects of

choices in the research process and their interaction with the actual research situation. They state:

Lack of responsiveness of the investigator may be due to lack of knowledge, overly
adhering to instructions rather that listening to data, the inability to abstract, synthesize or
move beyond the technicalities of data coding, working deductively (implicitly or
explicitly) from previously held assumptions or a theoretical framework, or following
instructions in a rote fashion rather than using them strategically in decision making. (p.
12)

Morse et al. (2002) advocates methodological coherence suitability of components of the

method to the research questions, appropriate sampling, and collecting and analyzing data









concurrently among strategies to improve validity. In reviewing, the contributions of other

authors on validity, Morrow (2005) pointed to fairness or solicitation of multiple constructions as

well as various levels of authenticity as needed for validity of researched based in

constructivism. Continuing advice to constructivists, she suggests that validity should also be

assessed by the extent to which participant meanings are understood and the level of mutual

construction of meaning between researcher and participants.

Particular attention was paid to member checking given its significance as a means to

validity in social constructionist studies. Participants were given the opportunity to check

interview data for accuracy and to comment on the emerging themes that I identified from the

interviews. Participants were also offered the opportunity to be involved in further data analysis

steps such as coding and theme identification but while some were enthusiastic at the prospect,

their schedules did not allow. Feedback at member checking indicated a high degree of

satisfaction with accuracy and identification of themes.

In this study, I brought an awareness of the issues outlined above and employed the

following strategies to ensure validity.

1. Ensured prolonged engagement with participants through multiple interviews with
key informants.

2. Conducted a peer and supervisor review of methods, procedures, and findings
throughout the study.

3. Conducted member checking to determine the accuracy of initial transcripts and
participants' views on how they have been represented in later summaries

4. Triangulated data through the use of multiple interviews with each participant and
through multiple perspectives that contributed to the collective story.

5. Provided rich, thick description.

6. Maintained methodological coherence.









7. Ensured appropriate sampling.

8. Collected and analyzed data concurrently.

9. Provided a clear statement regarding researcher bias.

10. Adhered to methodological standards.

Subjectivity

In qualitative research, the researcher is often the research instrument (Burck, 2005). The

researcher conducts interviews, makes observations, and reviews documentation in pursuit of

answers to the research questions. Disclosure of information about the researcher, assists the

audience in understanding decisions taken while conducting the research and aids them in

determining the confidence they will have in the findings.

My competence to conduct this study was based largely on in-depth study of the

methodology and experience as a researcher in graduate research methods courses and extensive

reading of relevant literature. I had experience in interviewing, which is the primary data

collection method for the study. I conducted a pilot study for the dissertation, which yielded

lessons that guided this study (Appendix G).

A constant awareness of the role of subjectivity in this research approach was vital.

Subjectivity, once viewed only as an element to be eliminated or reduced in research, is now

seen as holding some benefits (Glesne, 1999). It makes you aware of who you are as a

researcher your needs, interests, beliefs, attitudes, and values. This awareness also allows the

researcher to monitor ways that their own subjectivity may distort the research. Glesne (1999)

indicates that being attuned to your emotions helps in knowing when your subjectivities are

engaged. This realization presents an opportunity to look into your assumptions as opposed to

trying to suppress your feelings.









My approach to research is constructivist. I believe that meaning is situated and that the

varied experiences of individuals result in them deriving different meaning from the same

phenomena. I think that is particularly true in the study of organizational behavior. There are

some activities in organizations that are widely accepted as described in particular ways, and as

having particular features, but even in those cases, the ability of the individual to derive meaning

is critical. In investigating organizational behavior I am not motivated by a search for "truth".

However, I am interested in understanding the underlying assumptions that drive individual

behaviors which may be, and often is, different from the values that individuals espouse. In the

research process, I took care to analyze the meaning that is produced in the data collecting

situation and not what I think that participants "really mean". Given the issue of hard-to-surface

assumptions and values, I believe that investigation into organizational behavior must always be

prolonged, whether through interviews, observations or some combination of both, in order to

help the participants describe the deepest meanings possible.

My training in leadership and management roles both helped and hindered my capacity to

investigate educational organizations such as community colleges. Through my training and

experience, I have become aware of some of the issues facing organizations, which has guided

me to this investigation. On the other hand, my experience may have caused me to hold certain

assumptions, of which I might not have been aware. Preparation for leadership is largely about

finding what works and preparing to practice it. For me, "what works" includes tendencies

towards servant leadership, participatory leadership style, a focus on continuous improvement

and the practice of reflection on the individual, group and organizational levels. I hope that my

awareness of these views helped me to "bracket" them.









I selected this topic for investigation because of my long-held interest in organizational

performance, with particular focus on community colleges. I have worked for 12 years in a

community college in my native Caribbean country and have held mid and upper level faculty

and administrative positions. I am keenly interested in leadership and organizational culture. I

have held leadership positions as a student, in the community and in the workplace. Additionally,

I have read extensively in this area. My tendency towards being active in organizations probably

results from being raised in a Christian household and being taught to make a difference in any

situation to which my life may lead. These experiences have left me with certain views about

what is good for organizations, what effective leadership is, the need for continuous

improvement, and the importance of treating everyone with respect and dignity. I took care to

ensure that my views did attract me toward a particular type of participant or cause me to listen

for a particular viewpoint in the interview process. Informants who can assist in answering the

research questions were sought regardless of my initial impression of their points of view. In

short, I tried to listen to what was shared rather than super-impose my own values. I utilized

memos to help "bracket" my views. The use of memos-to-self assists the researcher in reflecting

and examining his/her own feelings (Glesne, 1999; Strauss & Corbin, 1998).









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to describe organizational learning processes at a

community college and what factors influenced it as perceived by selected members of the

college community. Participants were interviewed and the data analyzed using narrative analysis,

resulting in the identification of themes. Lakeside Community College was chosen for this study

partially because of its reputation for innovativeness, an indicator of a high capacity for learning.

Many of the findings supported the reputation. The findings showed that the stimulus for

organizational learning was strong and that it was influenced by internal and external factors.

The generation of knowledge that led to their organizational learning was an active process at

Lakeside that also drew on external and internal sources. There were ample mechanisms

promoting the spread of information and desired practices in the organization. Other factors such

as leadership and the availability of high-quality faculty positively influenced organizational

learning.

The findings of the study presented in this chapter are a form of a narrative report, a

collective narrative of the participants that highlights the themes. Where counter narratives were

produced, they are also presented in the relative segments of the findings. At the end of the

chapter, a summary of the findings in light of the specific research question and sub-questions is

presented.

Stimuli for Learning

Results of the study indicated that there were numerous stimuli for learning at Lakeside

Community College. Identifying the particular stimuli was necessary to understand why

Lakeside Community College was driven to learning and organizational improvement. The

mission of the college was mentioned most often as a stimulus and it seemed to have an









overarching impact. Meeting students' needs is closely associated with mission but is discussed

under a separate heading because of its prominence within participants' comments. Other stimuli

included maintaining reputation, encouragement from senior administration and external stimuli.

A discussion of these stimuli follows.

Mission

The study participants indicated that Lakeside Community College was driven towards

learning, improvement and innovation. One of the primary stimuli is the mission. Lakeside's

mission is "Adding value to the lives of our students and enriching our community".

Participants' comments suggested a strong belief that the mission is the right one for the

institution. Of the mission, Sarah said, "I'd say that this is our core, that's our centerpiece and

everything stems, comes from that."

The institution's mission seemed to be at the forefront of individuals' minds as they

conducted their everyday affairs, rather than some document that was tucked away in the

recesses of the minds of the members of the organization. According to participants, they

frequently referred to the mission when seeking guidance in decision making. Sarah stressed the

centrality of the mission in this way:

I think at the moment people look at it in the context of the college mission and they say,
"Ok, let's start with that. Let's put aside everything personal and look at it. Is it meeting
student needs?" Bottom line, that's the question. Then it's easier for people to look at
things objectively. Rather than, "Do we want it? Is it good for us?" "Is it good for the
students?" And I think that question tends to give a lot of clarity to a lot of things that are
done.

The data showed that there seemed to be a high degree of congruence between institutional

goals and values, and personal goals and values of the participants. Some of the goals and values

identified were not necessarily associated with this institution alone but with what was seen as

the more broad and generic mission of community colleges. Values such as taking students from









where they are and commitment to access are typically associated with community colleges and

participants indicated their presence at Lakeside. The nexus between institutional goals and the

personal goals and values of Lakeside team members seems to lead to a zealous pursuit of the

college's mission and a drive to learn in order to help achieve that end. Frank commented:

so I had this opportunity to start working in the community college system and that's when
I began to learn about it. Became pretty much immediately enamored with the concept of
the second chance idea, the open door policy, all those things were very attractive to me.
Seemed to fit well with my way of thinking.

The match between institutional and personal values seemed to influence Frank's overall

assessment of the workplace. He continued,

Lakeside is a pretty nice place to work. You feel as though you're part of something good.
You're not just working for somebody. As I said, I feel like I'm working for the good of
the institution, I'm part of this.

Most participants commented that the community college students themselves, as opposed

to students in other parts of the college system, proved to be a powerful driver of the faculty's

and staff's desire to innovate and learn. They described the community college students as more

mature, purpose-driven, responsible and bringing more to the classroom settings by virtue of

their lives' experiences. While recalling the beginning of their work at a community college,

several participants expressed that they were surprised at the breadth of the institution's mission,

the rich mix of students and the degree to which they felt they were making a difference in the

lives of individuals. Jane liked the students and said that the "the students were there because

they'd chosen to be there" and that "they were interested in what they were doing." Yvonne

expressed a similar affinity for community college students especially when considered relative

to other students with whom she had experience. She said:

and comparing the two I actually liked teaching at the community college better. So I kind
of focused on it. I liked the mix of students, the different ages, the different goals. I really
enjoyed them better than the strict 18-year old college freshman when they're in a major
university.









Sarah's drive towards working to achieve the institution's mission came out of a sense of

obligation. Lakeside College community members viewed their mission to improve lives as

extending to the entire community not simply those who came to the campus for courses. Sarah

took the view that individuals such as herself who have benefited from education are obligated to

help others. She said:

Because we are the more fortunate. We are in a position to, to be (excellent?). We're in a
position to and it's our responsibility as individuals and as professionals in the community,
in the college community to address that population, their needs too.

Meeting Student Needs

Participants also reported that meeting student needs was a driving force in the

organization. They viewed learning as an efforts to meet students' needs. Many of the campus

activities were focused on identifying student needs and determining the changes in

organizational practices needed to meet those needs. Participants discussed a recent Title III

grant and ongoing measurement initiatives as stimuli for organizational learning. Sarah said

"surveys and research work that we have here within the College ... suggest that some changes

need to be brought about." Mike described several initiatives in Student Services over recent

years, such as the introduction of legal services and evening services that were a result of efforts

to meet identified student needs. Mike described the College's effort to meet student needs.

because in this setting we really do take students and people where they are and help them
get to where they want to be. We accommodate their needs, whether its scheduling,
whether its, whether they go full-time or part- time, ... we're more responsive to their
learning styles than perhaps the SUS system and four year schools are.

This sentiment is clearly supported by Lora's expression of the sentiment that, "Well, I think

most things that we do here are guided by a real desire to serve people."









Reputation

Another stimulus for learning that participants articulated was the desire to maintain the

institution's reputation for innovativeness. There appears to be a common discourse on campus

focused on Lakeside's reputation as an innovative institution. At the center of the discourse is the

Lakeside's involvement as a founding member of the League for Innovations in Community

Colleges. They have been recognized numerous times for innovative practices. Participants

reported a strong desire of the institution to maintain that reputation. Mike said, "We're one of

19 community colleges that are part of the League for Innovation. We're very proud of that and

the fact that we're proud of how that affects the culture here." Illuminating the consistency of

views on this topic at Lakeside, Yvonne reported, "We have a reputation and we are one of the

great innovators in the League ... we kind of have a reputation to maintain, so that drives some

of it."

When asked about the stimuli for learning and innovation at Lakeside, Lorna identified

reputation as one stimulus, though she thought there were others that were nobler. She said:

I also think that there's prestige associated with being part of the League of Innovation.
And I think there's sort of bragging rights, "Look at our faculty who are doing this, this,
this and this." So I think that those things drive it and those are less than... Those aren't
the best reasons of course.

In addition to the national reputation, most participants described Lakeside as keen on

maintaining its reputation as one of the leading state community colleges. The prospect of

reporting evidence of this leadership at state conferences and publications drove community

college members to create initiatives that were worth telling about. Yvonne spoke to the

prevailing organizational attitude when she said, "...and we're real proud of being like one of the

first in the state to do something. So I think that does probably drive some of our innovation."

Jane and Sarah demonstrated this attitude in separate comments. Sarah bragged about the range









and quality of services offered to students when she said, "...because the kinds of things we do at

the community college level, you won't find them (everywhere) one, max two (community

colleges) in the entire state. In her particular area of instruction, Jane pointed out:

We really are way ahead of a lot of the other community colleges in the state as far as
making sure that we are turning out students that are ready to meet the global marketplace
as opposed to just their own areas of residence.

Senior Administration's Encouragement

Participants also indicated that senior administrators were integral in stimulating and

facilitating organizational learning. Through interaction with participants it became evident that

there was a discourse at Lakeside surrounding innovation. This discourse was driven in large part

by senior administrators. In addition to supporting conference attendance, providing forums for

the discussion of new ideas, and adapting the organizational structure to facilitate learning, the

leadership of the college articulated the value of learning and innovation at Lakeside. Yvonne

viewed the administration's attitude to improve and innovate as "really positive". She said,

"They are always looking for ways to improve and innovate." Jane explained that some of their

drive for innovation came out of necessity because of resources. She commented, "As our

numbers (students) have grown and our facilities aren't growing, we've been asked to come up

with new and innovative ways of handling more students with the same amount of time."

The overall attitude toward innovation at Lakeside seemed to be rooted in the institution's

history and culture but this was also a priority of the current leadership. Mike stated that "the

culture of the institution even when the doors opened in the 1960's was one of innovation and

creativity." Much of the current enthusiasm for innovation was attributed to the President who

made it a priority and his willingness to use resources to support it. Speaking of this input Mike

said, "The current president, of course is also very focused on change and improvement so and

that top down works its way through the institution." The President's establishment of a senior









office charged with leading innovation at the institution soon after his arrival, signaled to

members of the college community the important role that innovation would play during his

tenure.

Jane described the energy towards improvement and innovation in this way, I thinks it's

a blend, that we've got a President who is interested in that and we've got faculty and staff that

share that interest and so that comes together to be a driving force."

External Stimuli

The results pointed to the presence of some external stimuli driving the institution's

focus. In some instances, the college purposely looked outside and for others it was required to

do so. Participants shared that Lakeside was constantly scanning the environment for new ideas

that could further the institution's mission, or for information that could guide an idea in the

early stages of development. Information about what other schools were doing also served as a

catalyst for learning at the institution and as a source for new initiatives. Some participants

voiced the administration in general, and the President and Vice-President for Academic Affairs

in particular, as encouraging them to become aware of new trends and practices in other colleges.

Lakeside was also constrained to make changes to the practices, procedures and routines of

the organization because of the requirements of outside agencies. In some cases, state and federal

agencies as well as institution and program accrediting bodies determined changes that should be

made within the organization. Lorna stated:

My previous experience showed me that many things that go on here, I know, are driven
by outside agency requirements and for us to be able to get accreditation or funding and I
think that that's part of the drive for innovation.

Knowledge Sources

The initiatives which result in practice-based organizational changes, that is, organizational

learning, begin with some source. Given the high drive for learning in the organization,









participants identified several sources for new ideas and initiatives. These sources were external

and internal. The search for knowledge sources and solutions stems from the desire to improve.

Frank captured the sentiment in this way:

There's this atmosphere, as I said, has existed from the college's inception that its good to
look around. You got to be open to the possibilities just because, and I'm, I guess I should
back up a little and say that its not that everyone is, we're not just looking to change all the
time. And there is sometimes the attitude that if ain't broke don't fix it. Things are going
well, reasonably well. But, as I said, there has been this atmosphere that even when things
are going well, they can go better because we haven't arrived yet.

External Sources

Several external knowledge sources were cited. Conferences were most frequent. The

participants identified information from formal conference presentations as well as networking

opportunities at such meetings as useful knowledge sources. Faculty presentations during the

faculty-search processes were also cited as a supply of new ideas. Individuals who engaged in

something of interest to the college were regularly brought in to share their experience and

insight. These presentations were a source of new practices. The presentations were made in

varying forums such as, faculty colloquiums and Coordinating Council meeting. Additionally,

proceedings from events hosted by the League for Innovation were also useful for initiating new

practices. Sarah talked about the practice of looking outside at Lakeside and said:

We have a lot of people who are visionaries, who go outside and look at what they see and
if they find a model that seems to be working there they'll bring it in, and say, "There is
something that worked. Why don't we try it out?"

Jane spoke of the continuous encouragement to look around by one of the senior

administrators.

when our vice president has a project that she wants us to be working on like the weekend
college program that we're getting ready to bring up. She has all of us on the phone
calling, looking at websites and finding people, other groups that look like us and then
getting them on the phone and asking questions about what worked, what didn't work.
What kinds of results they're having, if they could do it all over again, what would they do
differently.









Lakeside Community College members also exposed themselves to the relevant literature

concerning their field. The academic vice-president sent a weekly e-mail message to faculty and

this frequently included links to articles that had implications for practice at Lakeside. Lorna

summed up the general attitude to sourcing new information at Lakeside Community College in

this way:

It seems as though it's just a network of wherever anybody gets any information or finds
out how other people are doing things or comes up with an idea that's a little bit different
and then pursues it, that seems to me how mainly that happens here.

Internal Sources

Of equal importance to organizational learning at Lakeside Community College was the

knowledge generated internally. Forums for discussion at Lakeside generated ideas as the

campus community grappled with issues of concern. Brain-storming sessions were common in

these forums, as solution to problems were sought or as the institution sought to take advantage

of opportunities. The ideas generated in such settings were enhanced by the cross-functional

nature of some forums. Additionally, the practice of promoting and transferring individual to

different functional areas resulted in the availability of many individuals in the organization who

had wide experience in many aspects of the operation. The wide experience of such individuals

in the organization enriched discussions. They could easily see how functions inter-related and

better predict what solutions were viable.

Lakeside's culture allowed for, and encouraged the generation of ideas from a variety of

internal sources. Mike attributed a number of initiatives in his area to contributions from

throughout the organization. He said, "a lot of the stuff we've added here has percolated straight

up either from the student body or staff members or other staff members at the institution....

They've grown out of the environment here."









Lakeside also gathered information in a systematic fashion that led to changes in practices

at the institution. Participants referred to surveying students extensively as part of a Title III

project that in some cases yielded results that were not expected. Administrators used that data to

make changes to relevant policies. Faculty surveys were also a significant source of feedback on

services provided by the institution. Faculty and staff in various departments rated the

performance of other departments and this information was used to guide improvement efforts.

Lora reported:

There are surveys that go out, evaluations that go out that people are asked to complete that
assess how different units, different areas are serving the campus and so they look for each
individual to assess the institution as a whole.

Participants mentioned several means of gathering feedback about various aspects of the

operation. Lorna mentioned unit assessment surveys, student assessment of the institution, and

faculty assessment of College services as sources of information that led to the development of

new practices at Lakeside. She also described the significance of information provided by the

academic information technology unit as well as information generated through trial-and-error in

the classroom.

Participants also emphasized the importance of evidence related to performance. Mike

reported that in addition to measures related to student and teacher performance, there were

reports that evaluated events and projects, and student organizations and their advisors. Even the

athletics teams were measured by their wins and losses in addition to the academic performance

of the student athletes.

Frank captured the institutionalized nature of the information gathering in the following

statement and gave an example of how it impacted one aspect of his work.

I think we've always had the attitude but I think now we're doing something about it.
What's that called? I think the term they use is "culture of evidence." We do have a system
in place. Institutionally we have an area of institutional research. That has probably existed









within the college but getting access to it has not always been very easy. .... We have
Crystal Reports now, which is a, I guess I call it software, a mechanism to capture, to take
all this data and create reports and make it available to the people who need to see it so that
we can determine those sorts of things, what is being effective, what you know, what has
been effective or how effective have the things we've been doing been as well as, since we
already have this culture of trying to do things better, because we know, we don't have all
of our students being successful... Sometimes you don't even realize, I mean a little thing
that occurred or that I became aware of the other day was the retention rate in one of the
classes or courses that we teach, which typically I would not have thought would have had
that high of a dropout rate, then suddenly realizing that it is and then looking for reasons
and then hopefully now trying to resolve that issue. But again, the system Crystal Reports
enables us to be able to do that sort of thing.

The President and senior administration encouraged the giving of feedback throughout the

institution. Participants reported that campus forums typically allowed for two-way

communication. They also spoke about the President's invitation for questions and comments at

faculty convocations at the beginning of the year when hundreds of faculty members were

present, as an example of the President's commitment to the open forum. Jane commented:

There are not many things we do, in fact I can't think of anything that I've been to that is a
one-way information being given. Even our President when he pulls everybody together
like at the beginning of the year when he finds out what the budget is going to look like,
even then he does open forum. To where he presents the information but open forum
allows anybody to ask him any question right then and there. And sometimes you'd be
very surprised at the questions faculty will ask a president in an open forum. Sometimes
they put him really on the spot and hold his feet to the fire. But no, two way
communication is definitely something that takes place.

Other administrators followed the President's lead and sought feedback at every

opportunity. One participant, however, questioned the genuineness of the requests for feedback.

She felt that although feedback was requested, the administration really wanted to hear a certain

type of feedback that reinforced what they were doing. Of the entire process she said, "I don't

have a sense that there's any kind of institutional follow-up, of gathering of assessments. Even

though I know, we do post-assessments. We do assessments post-projects. I don't have a sense

that much happens with that."









The President also encouraged the giving of feedback and raising issues in less formal

settings. He personally solicited feedback from students in the form of periodic coffee chats.

These events were designed to allow students direct contact with the President in a very casual

setting.

While all participants reported that there were ample opportunities to give input on

campus, the two faculty members in the study questioned the usefulness of the exercise at times.

They had concerns about what happens with their input and that of others similar to them after it

is made. Interestingly, they voiced their concern at two different levels. Lorna felt confident

about the impact of comments or feedback made at the departmental level while she was

skeptical about input made at the college level. Conversely, Yvonne had little confidence that

input made at the departmental level would be acted upon but felt that college-wide mechanism

offered much more hope in that regard. Describing her frustrations about making input at the

departmental level Yvonne said:

And I'll still give my opinion but I also have no, no delusions that anything is going to
come from it. Because things that I've said have always been ignored in the past and I
think everybody notices the same thing.

Continuing to speak of the department she said, "In our little area, I think nobody is very

comfortable criticizing. Do a lot of talking among ourselves but I really don't think that anybody

is... We'll ask some questions but never push it." She contrasted her department with the Senate

where she said the people are "incredibly comfortable" making input to conversations related to

the work and operation of the institution. She added, "They critique, they question, they put the

President on the spot, they put anybody on the spot."

Lora expressed doubt about the genuine desire for input in decision-making and policy-

shaping or whether it was primarily a cosmetic exercise. She commented, "(when) the initiative









is going forward, they view the feedback not as something that is going to shape the project but

just as a release valve to, "Yes, well listen to you" but then nothing's going to change.

Learning Processes

Numerous processes on campus that promoted learning were reported. Many of the

standard discussion forums on campus were reported as sessions where learning took place.

Some participants found off-campus retreats to be very useful learning sites as opportunities for

reflection were provided at these sessions. They also cited the greater tendency for open

conversations in those settings and how they contributed towards learning. Sarah conveyed her

experience at a departmental retreat as very gratifying and spoke of the challenging yet fruitful

conversations that took place. She commented:

or even in the context of certain professional discussions that can come out and if they're at
point where, unless you address it nothing's going to move. If it's bringing about certain
emotions that have to be addressed it is better to address it and I'm glad that we all did. I
know even though there were times when it got, it was hot, but just trying to stay through it
and follow up with some of the things that we learned from it, I think brought about a
different energy and makes us more productive, it makes us stronger as a team.

Jane also felt that the types of in-depth discussion needed for learning were taking place

within the organization. When asked she said, "I say today that they dig deep into problem areas.

We get into some real discussions, especially when we get away and we do the retreat types of

activities."

Sarah provided an example of the learning conversational skills evident among some

members of the organization. In this example she demonstrated the skill of balancing advocacy

and inquiry and in particular the willingness to invite others to inquire about her feelings. She

commented:

and expressed it more in terms of, "I felt this way. These are the responses that came up
and I wondered why it was coming up and I wanted to express it to you but I also want to
understand and these are some ways that I feel that that could be dealt with." And so we
were able to have an honest discussion about it.









Most participants felt that individuals on campus were able to have the conversations

needed to enhance organizational learning. They reported an appropriate level of skill in raising

difficult issues and engaging in discussions on them. Mike described one such strategy as well as

the alternative.

So I think if it is couched as an idea or as a suggestion it's going to go.... You know
somebody who is agitated in their complaint about something is going to make somebody
defensive and then people end up justifying themselves rather than listening to suggestions.

Mike also spoke about the individual skill level needed in communication even in a

supportive culture. He commented, "Even though I think the campus environment and climate

can favorably influence that to some degree.... Just because you're in the culture doesn't mean

you have the skill set to communicate effectively and non-confrontationally."

An integral part of the organizational learning process at Lakeside Community College

was the use of pilots to try out new practices. A pilot typically involves a scaled-down version of

an initiative where fewer resources are committed. The pilot itself has minimal organizational

impact, which is particularly important if it fails. Pilots involved the utilization of some resources

and it offered a more accurate prediction of the success of an initiative than projections based on

"gut feeling" or the experiences of others. During and after the pilot phase of an initiative

attention was paid to feedback and results and that determined whether the initiative would

continue at a greater scale. Jane made this comment about pilots at Lakeside.

We just have this process to where we do what we call pilots (Chuckles). And when we are
piloting something we recognize the fact that it may not always work and you would find a
lot of pilots. We've piloted different ways to load faculty, they haven't worked. Some of
them were extremely expensive. We come back we regroup. So you would find the word
pilot used a lot at Lakeside. And that's kind of how we denote that something is strictly an
experiment and that there's nothing magic about experiments.

Collaborative efforts on campus also aided in the organizational learning process. Lakeside

utilized cross-functional teams regularly in creating solutions to problems and in guiding the









execution of resulting practices. Varying perspectives, experiences and skill-sets among the

individuals who participated in such sessions increased the richness of discussions. Their

perspectives helped to foster multiple ideas in which the possible systemic effect of initiatives

could be projected.

Dissemination of Knowledge/Learning throughout the Organization

Lakeside Community College actively promoted the sharing of information and practices

throughout the organization. Various forums were utilized to present to faculty members

practices that were successful in a particular unit or classroom. Faculty made presentations at

"best practice" sessions about strategies that they had tried and found to be useful. Informal

sessions such as "brown bag lunches" were also arranged to allow faculty to share information

and experiences. The College's Professional Day activity was also identified as a forum where

"there's an opportunity to present something like that (innovative practice)." Forums such as

those just described were also used to disseminate knowledge gained from various sources

including conference attendance, classroom experience and reading of relevant literature. Jane

offered this comment to describe how information is spread at Lakeside Community College.

We several times a year have sessions to where we share best practices. So peers from
throughout the college are selected because we know they're doing something that's
different, new and innovative and they're asked to share that. We have faculty
colloquiums, once a quarter at least, where we share new practices or bring in speakers that
are doing something that's innovative so there is a lot of opportunities for faculty to get
excited about something and then there is always the support there for when they do get
excited.

As with the generation of knowledge, collaborations across campus also proved critical in

spreading knowledge and practices across campus. Collaborative efforts, both interdepartmental

and intradepartmental, brought individuals together for specific purposes but often,

serendipitously, proved to be an ideal site for the exchange of ideas and sharing of practices

beyond the initial focus of the session. The formal and the informal interaction, such as "catching









up" in those settings provided an opportunity for members of the college community to find out

about new practices in various departments.

Many examples of departments or units learning from each other were presented. Through

the course of everyday interaction individuals in departments learned what others were doing and

adapted them to their department when they thought it would be beneficial. Mike provided an

account of such learning and its reciprocal nature.

One, and its not that this is particularly novel, but we purchased, shortly, five years ago, we
purchased software, computers and a large printer that can print poster size paper in
color.... But anyhow, we made that expenditure because we understood that
communication on this type of campus is challenging. An 8 1/2 X 11 black and white
flyers, even on brightly colored paper is just completely lost in the blizzard on the bulletin
boards. So we bought ten A-frames that hold 24 X 36 inch posters. We bought the software
and equipment to make our own posters and we employed a graphic design student intern
from our graphic design program, so now we have (holds flyer) this is an 8 1/2 11
example of what we printed last week in 24 X 36. But we can add logos, we do, I mean
this is effective but we're a lot more complex than even that little example there. But we
began doing that and pretty quickly other folks including our campus' own marketing
group said, "Wow! Good idea. Where did you get this stuff?" We told them, you know.
"What have you liked? What's been the problems?" And then they went and they
purchased a piece of equipment that is probably next generation, even better than ours. So
they're able to do that. They in turn started putting some feather banners on campus, which
are these posts that stick in the ground .... You know and the text usually goes vertically,
and you know it might say "event today", or whatever. They began using some of those
and we said, "Oh, great idea." So we got some in our colors and in our, you know, and that
happened.

Other Influences on Organizational Learning

Thus far, stimuli for organizational learning, sources of knowledge and means of

knowledge and practice transmittal have been examined. The discussion now turns to factors that

do not fit in the above mentioned categories but through their presence or absence influence the

learning capacity of an organization. These factors may be categorized as environmental.

Tolerance for Failed Initiatives and Experimentation

The findings of the study indicate strong support for experimentation and a high tolerance

for failure at Lakeside Community College. Administrators encouraged faculty to try new









approaches in the classroom. Staff and faculty were supported in the development of any

initiative that might benefit students and further the mission of the institution. Furthermore,

when new initiatives were launched, whether by official pilot projects or otherwise, there was

clear communication that failure was a part of the learning process and was to be tolerated in the

process of improving the institution. Yvonne felt that the atmosphere at Lakeside allowed faculty

to present new initiatives aimed at improvement even if prior attempts failed. When asked about

it she said,

No, I think we have a great attitude to that. I really do because, we've had so many failed
ideas and people keep coming up with more (laughs) KD (laughs) LR: No, I'm
serious, I really mean it, now that I think about it. Its like, well we'll try this and if it
doesn't work we'll try something else and if it doesn't work we'll try something else and
there is really not much finger pointing like "So and so said this would be the answer to
our problems, what an idiot he was." We don't really do that, we just like, we tried and
maybe we needed to fix some part of it or maybe just toss it all out or whatever.
Sometimes maybe we don't identify quickly enough that an idea is failing but there's
really no, no reason to ever penalize.

Mike expressed a similar sentiment when he said: "...I don't see people having heavy duty

regrets about their failed experiments, you don't see people publicly criticized or rolling their

eyes over something that was a failed effort."

Lora's view on the attitude towards experimentation was different than the views of

others. She agreed that experimentation and innovation were encouraged at Lakeside but differed

in her view of "the end" of a failed experiment. She felt that failed experiments "died quiet

deaths" never to be mentioned again. She suggested that in such instances the opportunity is lost

for learning from error. She related, "My sense is the attitude towards the failed experiment,

here, it's kind of, "Let's just ignore it. Let's pretend it didn't happen.""

Lora then related an episode that helped lead her to the view she currently holds. She told

of a well-intentioned program that was put in place for faculty. The program was not suitable for









many faculty members and was eventually discontinued. She concluded her narrative with her

evaluation of how such situations are dealt with at Lakeside.

and then it just, no ever said anything more about it. It just went away. And I realized, and
then I saw it happen again and again and again. Things are going in a wrong direction,
people finally say something about it, get fed up enough about it. Administration never
really apologizes (chuckles), never explains it. It just stops.

Support from Senior Administrators

The research findings showed that the senior administration of Lakeside Community

College supported activities leading to organizational learning. Administrators regularly

advocated being innovative, seeking new knowledge, giving feedback and the sharing of

information among members of the college community. Several participants spoke to these

points.

As a member of faculty, Lorna felt confident that the support would be there for her and

other faculty who were innovative in their work. She said:

And that's part of why many projects for innovations get advanced here is that the
institution is... relatively eager to support faculty in their outside endeavors recognizing the
way that it can benefit the institution...those sorts of interests outside the classroom or
people wanting to do things a little differently.

She added:

They take chances on people here I think and sort of say, "Well that sounds interesting,
where will you go with it?" It seems they will often open up avenues, offer people support
where they can and then people turn around and end up with an initiative that really
benefits the college.

Lora also commented in a very personal way when she said, "But I do have a sense that

people want to support me in what I do and want to help me to do what I do even better." Jane

expressed a similar sentiment when she said, "So there is a lot of opportunities for faculty to get

excited about something and then there is always the support there for when they get excited."









Availability of Numerous Discussion Forums

The administration was also responsible for setting up various forums that facilitated

sharing information in the college community and adapting the organizational structure to ensure

that discussion forums included the holders of posts that were needed to ensure optimal

effectiveness. They ensured that the "right people" were at the discussion table. As noted earlier,

there were numerous opportunities for the sharing of ideas around campus. These include Senate

meetings, Senate sub-committee meetings, departmental and unit meetings, best-practice

sessions, brown-bag lunches, e-mail exchanges, faculty and staff retreats, and administrative

meetings such as Coordinating Council and Academic Heads meetings.

Participants viewed the College Senate as one of the most significant discussion forums on

campus as it gave faculty and staff an opportunity to be involved in the "shared governance" of

the campus. Participants described the Senate as being effective, respected by senior

administration and structured in a way to receive input from those faculty and staff members

who wish to give it. Through the Senate, relevant members of the college were able to affect the

changes in routines and practices on campus. Yvonne spoke to its representative structure when

she said, "We have I think two or three members from each area on campus. It's a commitment

that people take real seriously." She added, "And you have committees (of the Senate) that

actually do what they're suppose to do."

While participants spoke of the Senate's effectiveness, some also thought that it slowed the

rate of change on some occasions. Jane said, "I would say, yes, they are extremely open. Maybe

sometimes so open that we're slowed in getting business done because there is so much listening

taking place."

Yvonne, who has been personally involved with the Senate supported Jane's statement.

She commented:









On the negative side, sometimes things, innovations or change or new ideas are put off for
a while because we (the Senate) say, "Well, we don't know, we have to think about that."
The Senate says, "Give us another month, let us form a committee, let us look into it" and
it just sort of slows the whole process down.

Organizational Structure

According to participants, there have been purposeful steps taken relating to the structure

of the organization that have had a positive effect on how learning takes place in the

organization. The high quality of discussion on campus has benefited from decisions taken by

administration to ensure interaction between particular groups or officers. Human resources

policies that featured cross-training and cross-function promotions also contributed to individuals

having a greater sense of the whole institution.

Both heads of academic departments who were involved in the study emphasized the

impact of the reorganization of the academic department from two divisions with two different

leaders to one unit under the Vice-president of Academic Affairs. Previously, the liberal arts

division and the technical division had distinct heads where the department chairs or directors

reported. Under the new structure, collaboration, sharing of resources and mutual understanding

all increased, which has facilitated organizational learning. When asked about this impact Frank

replied:

Yes, emphatically, because this has definitely fostered (3.0) interchange and
communication, much more so and I think for the better certainly, between the two
different areas. So its definitely... I mean knowing what they need... Because we serve
one another, really. As I said, its been very positive.

Jane had this to say about the new structure.

Back a few years ago when the President made a transition where he brought all the
departments, academic departments under one vice-president...we used to... we were
actually divided out to two divisions. And he eliminated the two division concept a couple
years ago to where we all sit now at the same table and I think that has truly promoted a lot
more collaboration... as a result we have fewer layers and we all get together and talk a lot
more as a result of that.









A noteworthy initiative of the administration to promote interaction, which has been in

place for many years, is the physical location of faculty members in interdisciplinary work

spaces. Faculty work areas are located in various buildings across campus. Each unit may house

between six and ten faculty offices and the individuals assigned to those offices may come from

a range of disciplines as opposed to the more typical arrangement where academic departments'

faculty are grouped together. Each unit also includes a common lounge area which further

facilitates faculty engaging each other in discussions. Most participants praised the concept and

design of the interdisciplinary units, even when they did not actually work in that type

environment, as was the case with one department chair and one faculty member. Frank, who

worked in such a unit reported:

The structure of our buildings was intended, and the way that we're housed in
interdisciplinary units, to have a continual exchange of ideas and a mixing of people so
that you know, hopefully its to move forward.... Having had the opportunity to interact
and have exchange with faculty from so many varying disciplines, as I said it's just a very
wholesome thing.... And I think that enhances the ability to be able to change.

Lora's reflection on her experience in an interdisciplinary unit was not as positive. She

stated, "It's a lovely idea (hint of sarcasm detected) and I will also say that I think it works in

some units." She later added, "It's a wonderful idea about the interdisciplinary units but it has

not worked beautifully for me." She reported much better working relationships with her

disciplinary peers who were spread across the campus.

Relationships

An important feature that favors communication, and as a result organizational learning at

Lakeside is the positive relationships between various individuals on campus. While identifying

this feature, participants attributed the development of these relationships to several reasons.

Low turnover among the staff meant that there were many longtime employees at Lakeside who

had opportunities through the years to build relationships. Frank pointed out that "people that









come to Lakeside (to work) generally tend to stay." Due to the relatively small size of the

population in the area in which the campus is situated many individuals are known to each other

as spouses, siblings, neighbors and friends away from campus and the college benefits from

those relationships in the workplace.

Mike spoke of the relative casual nature of interaction at Lakeside when compared to a

four-year institution at which he had worked. He said:

but here I'm a lot more in a position to say, "Hey Jim", rather than Dr. Johnson. And again
it's not that we're so small here that you can attribute it all to that. I think some of it is the
culture here.

The administration's practice of promoting and transferring employees across functional

areas meant that numerous employees not only understood several functions on campus but also

knew employees in several functional areas. The tendency to approach issues using inter-

departmental groups also brought individuals together and facilitated the building of

relationships.

How members of the college community related to each other was also affected by the

strong commitment to the institution's mission and priorities across campus. College faculty and

staff were willing to set aside any personal differences and work together with whomever to help

achieve organizational objectives. The building of relationships resulted in a high degree of trust

and comfort among many individuals as they worked together on campus.

High-quality Faculty

Participants felt that the faculty at Lakeside Community College was a very talented group.

They attributed this in large part to the presence of a major and reputed university in the same

area. Trailing spouses of professors at the university and graduates who desired to remain in the

area contributed greatly to a strong applicant pool whenever faculty jobs were advertised. The

high quality of faculty and the zeal they brought to the campus facilitated the creative and









innovative spirit at Lakeside. Lorna compared them to the faculty at another community college

where she had recently worked and found Lakeside's faculty to be far superior. She said, "I think

that the faculty here are just, they're smart creative people." She commented further about some

faculty members. "These are people who are scholars which I think is rare to find at the

community college."

Mike emphasized the availability of quality faculty and said, "I think we've had the good

fortune of having an amazing candidate pool for this institution and part of that is our proximity

(to)... a very well educated and open-minded town." He also believed that the pool allowed

greater latitude in choosing faculty based on a range of attributes. He said:

Some of them are spouses of people at the University, so we have this incredible pool of
candidates. So that allows us to choose people who are not only proficient in their
discipline but also have the attitude we like.

Leadership

The findings from the interviews pointed out that leadership at various levels within the

institution was a contributing factor to organizational learning. The President of Lakeside

Community College was the source of several new initiatives. One respondent involved in

senior-level discussions pointed out that the "presidential" initiatives came about as a result of

input from various college forums. The president was also described as facilitating new ideas to

the campus. Coordinating Council Meeting, which is convened monthly by the President, often

took the form of brainstorming sessions on various issues or a presentation by an invited guest on

a topic related to a new initiative being considered or under way. In this way, the President

contributed to the generation of new knowledge, its refinement and adaptation, and its

dissemination throughout the organization.

Jane credited the President with starting many initiatives and creating the structure and

atmosphere to sustain learning. She commented that he "tried to reinforce an environment of









shared governance" and that in the interest of better communication he "brought all the academic

departments under one vice-president. When asked about the stimulus for innovation on campus,

she commented that:

I think our President had a lot to do with it. I really do. He started that department when he
got here. He developed several initiatives that he was extremely interested in, one of them
was the internationalization of our college, our faculty and students. Another one was our
partnerships within the community to make sure that everybody has the same, um, same
opportunities to go to school and to learn and to advance through careers.

Mike commented about the impact of senior leadership on activities in the organization.

He mentioned the focus of the previous president on improvement and innovation. He also said,

"The current president of course is also very focused on change and improvement so that to

down works its way through the institution." Similarly Sarah said, "... and the moment the

leadership takes an interest something then it trickles down to all the departments because every

department is charged to do something about it, address it."

Yvonne like all other participants mentioned the initiatives or priorities articulated by the

president regularly. She said, "I don't want to sound like a Pollyanna and say he's wonderful, but

he's impressed me a lot. He is willing to take risks." She added, "I think he is very driven for

improvement."

Frank pointed to the role that the President plays in setting the tone for the openness that

pervades the campus. He said, "And then of course there are, the President leaves his door open.

There's an atmosphere, as I said, here, of an openness and its not... Anybody can feel free to go

and talk to anybody and interact."

The interviews also revealed that the Vice-President of Academic Affairs played a

significant role in facilitating organizational learning. The Vice-President joined with the

president in encouraging innovation and curiosity about new practices throughout the institution.

The Vice President supported the introduction of new knowledge in the organization by









disseminating articles in her weekly email update that was distributed to all faculty. She invited

feedback and if needed, further investigation was conducted on the ideas presented in those

articles.

Jane spoke extensively of the impact of the Academic Vice-President. She felt that a lot of

her effectiveness was related to her personal attributes and style as a leader. She commented:

And all of that has to do with the Vice-President we now have. She comes from an
amazing background and she has a business degree as well and she also knows how to
facilitate in her role as opposed to directing and managing and it just opened a lot of
conversation that takes place.

She continued:

She has made all the difference in the world in our jobs in the last two years... She doesn't
micro-manage and she's just brilliant! She really has in the last couple of years been a
primary reason that a lot of these collaborative types of efforts are going on.

Other respondents in the study had varying experiences with leaders of their units in the

institution. Mike pointed out that even in a institution where there is generally good leadership

practices, they are not necessarily distributed throughout the organization. He said, "Just because

you're in that culture doesn't mean you have the skill set to communicate effectively and non-

confrontationally."

Yvonne, as discussed earlier, was very impressed with the leadership of the President but

had a nearly opposite view concerning the leader of her unit. She suggested that her unit lacked a

leader who could "see the forest from the trees" and who could "put pieces together and see what

change is needed.

Big Picture/Systems Thinking

An analysis of the interviews revealed that there was a strong appreciation of how various

activities at Lakeside fit into the "big picture". Participants' comments suggested that there was

unity of purpose at Lakeside. The strong, universal commitment to the institution's mission









seemed to be a key contributing factor in this regard. The mission was not simply the

institution's mission, it was "our" mission. The feeling of responsibility for servicing students'

needs seemed to go beyond the activities of the immediate unit to whether needs were being met

in the College as a whole. Individuals were asked to comment on services outside of their

functional area and given opportunity to serve on committees related to activities outside of their

primary assignment. Mike compared his experience at Lakeside with that at a four-year

university where he had worked and said, "I have an opportunity to have broader interests in the

educational process and to have perhaps a better comprehension of the big picture because of my

involvement that's a little broader."

The sense of commitment to one main goal also seemed to manifest itself in the lack of

competition between units. Participants described units as striving for effectiveness as opposed

to simply being better than their internal unit peer. Frank's comment seemed to represent the

views of other participants.

but as I've said I've found that some of institutions I've worked in the past it wasn't
subjugated enough. You felt like you had to be in competition for students, for attention,
for money, for everything. And I think we do a very good job of that here, not being in
competition. You know, they're not my students they're our students. You know
students...We work in conjunction, I mean we have, the math department is providing
prerequisites for the chemistry and biology and business. And we all need to work in this
together. We all have a part to play in the whole scheme of things.

Mike also spoke of this lack of competition on campus when he spoke of sharing ideas and

best practices around campus. He said,

people don't try and keep it for themselves because they want to make sure they got credit
for it, you see what I'm saying. People are more excited about sharing a good idea or a
good best practice than they are about being at all competitive about it.

There was ample evidence of units helping other units as opposed to hoarding resources

with a view to improving one's own unit at the expense of others. In discussing this practice at









Lakeside Jane used a well-developed narrative that was telling of a relevant experience. The final

portions are given below including the evaluative final sentence.

So there we were between departments "divi-ing" up what we had available and
departments that were actually willing to say, "I don't need that as badly as somebody else
does, I'll give up my turn, my round." And I just think that's a real different type of culture
when you're willing to look at things as a whole instead of as individuals.

Positioning Analysis

As participants produced their views during the interviews, it was often possible to glean

the position they took as individuals and how they positioned others in conversation about

organizational life at Lakeside Community College. The interviews did not involve dialogue

between two members of the college community where offering, acceptance or rejection of

positions would be evident; hence that aspect of the analysis was not available. However, the

way in which participants positioned themselves and others spoke directly to whether they saw

themselves or others as facilitating or inhibiting organizational learning. Some positional claims

were explicit and involved their self-analysis, however some were more subtle and required

analysis of the participants' statements at various points. Their positions, presented here, reflect

those most often taken by the participants. Unlike roles which are more static, individuals may

claim various positions during the course of an interview.

Sarah

Sarah positioned herself as having a high sense of moral obligation to help those she

considered less fortunate than herself. She positioned many community college students as being

in need of the help that she and the college were able to provide. She felt that because she

benefited from educational opportunities, that she needed to give to others. This sense of

obligation provided the stimulus for her to assist in organizational learning in an effort to better

meet the needs of students.









But what interested me in working in a community college was the ability to work at the
grass roots level. To work with people, and I always liked working with the student
population. That was a dream of mine to work with students anyway and to me community
colleges represented grassroots.

Sarah also positioned herself as having the necessary skill to have learning conversations,

and as the one with the courage to initiate troubling conversations. She viewed herself as being

able to inquire into the feelings and assumptions of others and open herself to similar inquiry.

This is an important concept in organizational learning. She gave an account of a difficult

conversation, a portion of which is reproduced here:

and I put the question to him in the context of some of the conversation he was having and
he was glad that I asked and I was glad that I asked because I could express, you know,
underlying feelings that I was having and he was able to explain and I said I wish more
people talked like this and we communicated.

Jane

Jane positioned herself and others in her area as skilled in certain processes that could

benefit organizational learning. She commented that working in business and industry required

more work to be done in teams and hence individuals from such backgrounds were poised for

collaboration. She positioned others from departments who had a background that was more

grounded in academic pursuits as lacking certain skills due to what she perceived as the norms of

isolation associated with teaching. She stated:

I think that the biggest thing I see is that for the most part [is] those of us who have come
in from a business background, no matter whether its just general business or its
construction or it's a medical field, all have more experience with administrative types of
skill sets. We're more used to working in teams because typically as a faculty member, you
don't typically work in a team.

Jane also positioned herself as a facilitative leader, one who would enable others to be

creative in performing their duties. In claiming this position she viewed herself as supporting

risk-taking and experimentation which are both critical to organizational learning. In addition to









the positions claimed for her, Jane positioned her supervisor, the VP of Academic Affairs as

having the skills needed to facilitate organizational learning. She commented:

And all of that has to do with the vice-president we now have. She comes from an amazing
background. She comes from an academic background and she has a business degree as
well and she also knows how to facilitate in her role as opposed to directing and managing
and it just has opened a lot of conversation that takes place.

Frank

Frank positioned himself as a loyal "company man" who strongly believed in the mission

of the institution and the need for it to be central to all activities of the organization. He felt that

there was a close match between the organization's mission and his personal values. He also

claimed the position of a servant-leader within the organization, seeking to serve students and

co-workers alike. He said, "My philosophy of leadership is really, I'm a servant. I have a servant

attitude and I think the best leaders are those who have that attitude." These position claims

impacted his role in organizational learning as he had the motivation to improve based on his

commitment to the mission and he was also willing to engage in collaborative work.

Lorna

Lorna positioned herself as having the ability to understand what was happening in the

organization and described some of her colleagues as lacking that ability. She saw herself as

knowing why certain things had to be done even when others at her level might not have

understood. In organizational learning terms, she positioned herself as a systems thinker who

saw the impact of actions beyond the immediately obvious effect. She said:

However, they didn't think about what this would mean within the institution and how this
could affect our department in the way that other departments were looking at us, the way
administration was looking at us and part of that is that most faculty, I don't think really
think like that. .... They just seemed not to look at the ramifications of a decision they
were making beyond just our own sort of narrow sphere. So that was a frustration for me.









These claims became obvious upon analysis, however, she made more explicit claims of

faculty in her discipline as dedicated professionals who were focused on improvement and on

faculty in general as smart and creative.

Yvonne

Yvonne positioned herself as being able to understand how things worked within her

department and as an "instrument of change" within the unit. Most of her positioning, however,

seemed to be based upon the claims that she made for others. She positioned the President of

Lakeside as a hard-working, risk-taker who was largely responsible for the learning and

innovations taking place throughout the college. Conversely she positioned her department head

as insecure, lacking the ability to "put the pieces together" and as not wanting feedback. Her

portrayal suggested his limited capacity for involvement in effective organizational learning.

This positioning is consistent with her view that most of the changes in the department were

driven by the changes in the industry or by mandates from senior administrators not by the

efforts of the department head.

Mike

Mike positioned himself as having a firm grasp of the "big picture". This claim is related to

his perception of his "broad involvement" at the college and the impact of his diverse

educational background on his ability to see the "big picture". He also positioned himself as a

creative, problem solver who embraced change. All these claims are aligned with high learning

capacity.

The Researcher

As the researcher in this framework it is appropriate that I examine my own position as I

joined with participants in the construction of their data. At various points I varied between emic

and etic stances (Pike, 1967). Having had more than ten years experience at a community college









I was able to engage them in an emic way as an insider. There are certain experiences common

to most community colleges and as I shared my experiences this allowed participants to see me

as understanding their point of view and I believe, to share even more. Contrastingly, at other

points in the interviews I positioned myself as an outsider, adopting a more etic stance. From this

position, while I had community college experience I did not have experience at that community

college and hence I had to learn from the experiences of those who were inside the setting. I also

stood outside as the researcher, having control of the "big picture" of the research project and

bringing knowledge of the theory and terms associated with the area of study. The following

quote represents an occasion that I connected with a participant as an insider to the community

college experience.

Yeah, you did and you answered mine because that has been my experience as well. Very
similar to yours. In a faculty position and then just taking on more and more administrative
stuff and then even being seen as part of the administration Lorna: Yeah, right. KD:
without officially being there. Lorna: right, right KD: Till eventually I became a dean
so then I was officially part of it but it happened long before, just making yourself
available. And I was concerned over the same thing as you because yes, I was involved and
really felt I made significant impact but there were a lot of people who I thought were just
as talented, had as much to say, had as much thought power or whatever and energy but
just didn't somehow feel that (.5) obligation or that (1.0) feeling invited, I don't know. No
one was stopping them but somehow they didn't feel invited and um...

Summary

The results of this study were presented as whole in order to present the interrelated and

story-like nature of the analysis. In this section the results will be summarized as they relate to

the research questions and sub-questions.

How do members of a college community construct organizational learning?

This question speaks to how organizational learning takes place and sought to assess the

quality of learning processes. There was ample evidence of learning processes at Lakeside

Community College. There were opportunities for corporate discussion of issues and searching









for solutions. Groups were able to use information that was received from outside and from

internal information sources such as from surveys that suggested a need to make changes to the

routines and practices of the organization. There was evidence of creative learning as some

discussion forums resulted in defining problems, opportunities and the proposal of appropriate

responses. Evidence that would distinguish single-loop and double-loop learning was not as

clear. While error was detected and corrected, the degree to which underlying assumptions were

examined in that process was not absolutely evident from this study. Recommendations to rectify

this in future research will be offered in chapter five. The level of reflection on past events for

the purpose of informing future practice seemed lacking. The participant who most explicitly

addressed lessons learned from past events felt that this was a weak area in the institution as

particularly projects that failed "just died" without examining what went wrong.

Lakeside displayed solid processes to spread knowledge and new practices within the

organization. Numerous opportunities for interaction through various discussion forums greatly

facilitated this aspect of organizational learning. There was also evidence of new practices being

utilized and becoming a part of the organization's routines.

In sum, the study indicated that the stages of organizational learning knowledge

generation, dissemination and utilization were all well attended to at Lakeside though the

quality of some learning processes could not be properly assessed in this study.

Sub-questions

1. How do members of a college community describe facilitators of organizational
learning?

The study was particularly useful in addressing this question in the study. Lakeside's high

capacity for learning meant that participants were able to speak more about what made learning

possible than the things that inhibited learning. They reported numerous stimuli for learning such









as commitment to the mission, desire to meet students' needs, encouragement from senior

administration, a desire to maintain the institution's reputation for innovativeness and external

stimuli. The means for generating or acquiring knowledge that would precede learning was also

evident at Lakeside. There were adequate forums for discussing issues at the college and there

was support for attendance at conferences where many new ideas were obtained. Forums also

proved to be an excellent means for spreading ideas and innovations throughout the institution.

The spread of new ideas occurred through both formal and informal means.

Participants also described numerous organizational environmental features that facilitated

organizational learning at Lakeside Community College. These features included a high

tolerance for failed initiatives, supportive senior administrators, availability of discussion

forums, facilitative organizational structures, positive relationships, high quality faculty and

sound leadership. Finally, the ability of members of the organization to see the "big picture" and

appreciate how things inter-relate also facilitated organizational learning.

2. How do members of a college community describe inhibitors of organizational
learning?

Given the high learning capacity at Lakeside, there was not as much talk about what

factors inhibited organizational learning at the college. Some participants did provide some

insights that surfaced as counter-narratives to the prevailing views of the others. Two participants

cited a possible obstacle to frank sharing in the problem identification process. They indicated

that identifying a problem usually meant having responsibility for seeing it through to solution.

Another participant felt that learning opportunities were lost when failed projects were not

examined to determine what went wrong.









CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION

A comparison of the theoretical stages of organizational learning with the results of this

study, showed that there was clearly a high capacity for organizational learning at Lakeside

Community College.. The collective narrative of participants in this study showed that there was

evidence of an individual awareness of the "big picture", tolerance for mistakes during learning,

a trusting and collaborative climate, a shared and monitored mission, and ongoing professional

development at Lakeside (Silins & Mulford, 2002; Tannenbaum, 1997). In a summary of

literature, and practices essential to organizational learning, Goh and Richards (1997) identified

five characteristics including clarity of purpose and mission, leadership commitment and

empowerment, experimentation and rewards, transfer of knowledge and teamwork and group

problem solving. These characteristics were also present in the environment and practices at

Lakeside.

In this chapter, I will provide a summary of the findings about the nature of Lakeside's

organizational learning and discuss the linkages between these findings and the research

literature. Included will be implications of the findings for other community colleges. The

overarching themes including the morally appealing mission, trust, communication, leadership,

and big picture/systems thinking will comprise this section. I will discuss the theoretical

implications of this study and conclude this chapter with recommendations for further study.

Stages and Types of Organizational Learning

A review of the nature of organizational learning reveals that there are key stages in the

process including how knowledge is acquired or generated, disseminated throughout the

organization, and utilized and retained (Huber, 1991; Crossan, Lane & White, 1999; Dibella and

Nevis, 1998 and Kruse, 2003).









At Lakeside, internal and external sources were used to ensure that, adequate knowledge

was generated. The leadership of the institution encouraged the acquisition of external

information by funding participants to attend conferences, purchasing subscriptions to literature

and hosting speakers on campus who could speak informatively about initiatives under

consideration. Discussion forums were held where knowledge acquired externally was shared.

Internal knowledge was generated through verbal interchange. Participants reported that they felt

that there were adequate opportunities to share experiences and to engage in discussions leading

to knowledge creation.

Access to information needed for organizational learning is not unique to Lakeside. Even

schools with low budgets for travel can access online resources to catalyze conversation about

trends and innovations. Providing forums for discussion on campus simply needs planning.

Underlying such initiatives requires that the institution place a value on such activities and that

the senior leadership signify its importance. Lakeside's senior leadership clearly placed a value

on accessing information.

Some theoretical frameworks applied in varying degrees to the type of organizational

learning at Lakeside Community College. For example, the detection and correction of error is

fundamental to organizational learning (Argyris, 1978). There was ample evidence to show that

Lakeside engaged in the collection of feedback data that could aid the detection of error,

although one participant questioned the use of the data in the decision-making process. That

participant felt that learning opportunities were lost because failed programs were allowed to

fade from the consciousness of the organization's members rather than be analyzed to see what

went wrong. Other participants did not express the same sentiment but neither did they

emphasize processes in the organization that focused on reflection on past activities.









Influences on Organizational Learning


Morally Appealing Mission

One significant impetus for organizational learning at Lakeside Community College and

potentially for all community colleges was its morally appealing mission. Lakeside's mission

was stated as "Adding value to the lives of our students and enriching our community." There

was wide consensus that the mission was the right one for individual participants and for the

campus as a whole. This particular mission/vision statement was well known to participants and

seemed significant in their eyes but the real force seemed to be in the meaning derived from it.

Drawing examples from physical science, Wheatley (1999) found that seemingly chaotic

systems are in fact organized around "strange attractors". She posits that in organizations,

meaning is the most powerful force of attraction. Meaning then, provides the answer to the

question, "Why we do what we do?" At Lakeside, the central theme seems to surround meeting

students' needs and student development. These themes appeared to be the "attractors" which

powered the drive among faculty and staff to continuously learn and improve the organization in

service of the students.

By adhering to its mission, the institution aimed to make a difference in students' lives.

Many participants specifically described the differences that they perceived between community

college students and the typical 18-22 year old at a four-year university. In comparison, they

claimed that community college students attended school by choice, had more by way of life

experiences, and felt a greater need to succeed at this point in their lives. Participants seemed to

feel that helping such individuals was more gratifying and self-fulfilling than teaching young

university students who were attending school as part of a long-designed path. Participants found

deep meaning in what they did and that same purpose that brought personal gratification was

also embodied in the mission and values of the institution.









Throughout this study it became apparent that there is a strong shared vision at Lakeside

Community College. Senge (1990) describes the phenomenon in this way. "A shared vision is a

vision that many people are truly committed to, because it reflects their own personal vision." (p.

206) Most participants articulated the values and goals that are important to them a personal

vision and found congruence between their own mission and that of the institution. Personal

vision leads to shared vision which is necessary for a learning organization (Senge, 1990). He

also found that shared vision uplifts people's aspiration and cultivates risk taking and

experimentation in an organization; both of which were evident at Lakeside Community College.

Community colleges are often seen as the "second chance" institution for non-traditional

students, though indicators suggest that more traditional college students are opting for the

community college as an entry point to higher education, due to escalating costs (Boggs, 2004).

The opportunity to do work that makes a difference in the lives of individuals was an important

stimulus for organizational learning at Lakeside and given the right conditions could be the same

elsewhere.

Trust

Another positive influence on organizational learning at Lakeside Community College was

the atmosphere of trust that seemed to pervade the campus. Many factors contributed to this

influence. For example, the President's promotion and practice of open communication was a

key component. Most of the participants felt that communication structures were open and that

one's own voice could be heard through forums and individual contact with leaders. This access,

combined with the belief that members of the campus community, including the leadership, were

aligned with the institution's mission fostered an atmosphere of trust.

Positive relationships between individuals and functional areas on campus also contributed

to the atmosphere of trust. The relationships were developed both serendipitously and through









purposeful action by the college's administration over the years. Given the relative small size of

the city in which the college is located and the high average length of service, there had been

opportunities for employees to get to know one another both during on and off campus

interactions. Those interactions mostly resulted in a positive impact on work relationships.

College practices such as the regular use of interdisciplinary and inter-functional committees,

and promotion across functional areas also helped bring persons into contact with each other.

Distributing faculty across campus in interdisciplinary workspaces also meant that relationships

were developed between department peers and location peers. A learning culture requires high

trust or at a minimum high functional familiarity (Schein, 2004). The leadership of an

organization is instrumental in both. Leaders must operate under the assumption that employees

can be trusted and they must create sufficient opportunities for interaction between

interdependent people and units to foster familiarity (Schein, 2004).

Another aspect contributing to trust was a sense of a psychologically safety in the

environment. Some elements of such an environment are support and encouragement to

overcome the fear and shame associated with making errors, norms that legitimize the making of

errors, and norms that reward innovative thinking and experimentation (Schein, 1993a). There

was congruence between these elements and the atmosphere at Lakeside Community College. At

Lakeside, innovation and experimentation were encouraged verbally and through the provision

of needed resources. Participants were united in describing Lakeside as an organization where

some failure was expected as a part of the learning process. Community members seemed

comfortable in making several attempts at initiatives thought to be of benefit to the institution.

No participant reported negative repercussions for failed experiments or initiatives on campus.









Comfort in experimenting and risk taking are essential elements in developing a facilitative

atmosphere for organizational learning (Mulford & Silins, 2003; Senge, 1990).

Communication

Participants agreed that there was good communication flow and opportunity for input and

exchange on issues related to the work of the institution. All stages of organizational learning

were positively affected by effective communication. Organizational learning was stimulated by

effective communication of the mission and vision for the institution by senior leaders of the

institution. Their willingness to support innovation and learning also seemed to be clearly

understood by the participants. Discussion forums were ample and adequate for the generation of

knowledge internally. The atmosphere at most forums seemed to be open and rich.

There were also systems for disseminating new ideas gained externally from conferences

and similar experiences or from internal deliberation and experimentation. The successful

diffusion of innovative practices across an organization depends in part on the permeability of

organizational boundaries and the information infrastructure (Senge, et al., 1999). Lakeside was

structured to bring together the people needed for discussion, regardless of their functional area.

The discussion forums themselves were integral to getting information across the institution.

This was achieved through the stated objectives of meetings as well as the informal interaction of

meeting participants. The fact that meetings often involved individuals from differing functional

areas also helped in the formal and informal spread of information.

Leadership

All the stages of organizational learning can be influenced by the leadership of the

organization. Effective organizational learning requires involved, learning leaders (Dibella &

Nevis, 1998; Schein, 2004). A high capacity for learning at Lakeside Community College can be

traced to the particular choices and actions of the administration. They stimulated the desire to









learn and adapt by bringing an awareness to the organization about what similar schools were

doing and by asserting that Lakeside needed to be among the best.

Lakeside's leaders encouraged and supported the generation of knowledge at the

institution. Organizational learning is facilitated when individuals seek information about

practices outside their own unit or institution and when curiosity about current practices and

possible innovations is encouraged (Dibella & Nevis, 1998). Lakeside's leaders urged faculty

and staff to look outside of the institution to find the best practices in the field that were suited

for adoption at the institution. In addition, they facilitated the creation of discussion forums in

which knowledge was generated internally. Many forums were interdepartmental or

interdisciplinary in nature, thus enriching the discussion. They also created opportunities for

faculty members to share innovative practices thus communicating a high value on

innovativeness in the institution.

Lakeside's senior administration emphasized the importance of feedback. In addition to

personally seeking feedback and exemplifying open communication, they systematized the use

of survey instruments to collect opinions from the entire college community on various aspects

of the operation. Assessment was built into projects and other activities as a means of

determining effectiveness and providing information for improvement. While feedback implies

reflection, there was no clear evidence from the data that the administration led team members in

reflective activities that examined assumptions underlying actions in the organization.

Big Picture/Systems Thinking

When Senge (1990) postulated the five disciplines of the learning organization he

suggested that the fifth one, systems thinking, was the most important as it brought all the others

together. While not fully developed, there was evidence of capacity for systems thinking at

Lakeside Community College. Systems thinking requires an appreciation of "wholeness" of an









organization, a sense of how things interrelate, and mechanisms for feedback within the system.

Human resource policies at Lakeside featured cross-functional promotion and cooperation that

resulted in a cadre of individuals across the institution familiar with how other areas worked and

hence were able to understand systemic interrelations. These individuals could use that

understanding within their units as well as in any cross-functional discussion forums of which

they were a part. Effective discussion forums at the highest levels, such as Coordinating Council

and Academic Heads Meeting, brought various units together and increased the understanding of

how things interrelated at Lakeside.

Based on the views of participants, employees of Lakeside seemed to have a strong sense

of the organization as a whole. Individuals seemed to be committed to the mission and goals of

the organization above unit or individual goals. In the academic units, people spoke of "our

students" and seemed to recognize a joint responsibility for all the students at Lakeside. This can

also be attributed to the sense of the mission being right for the institution and general

commitment followed as a result. This sense of joint responsibility for achieving the institution's

mission probably accounted for the high levels of collaboration and the lack of the type of

competition between units that yielded negative effects.

Lakeside practices systems thinking to some extent and certainly seems poised to improve

their capacity in this arena if there is investment in developing the skills of systems thinking.

While there was a level of skill in this discipline, comparison with the work of leading

researchers suggest that it is not optimized at Lakeside. For example, concepts such as

understanding the varying distances between cause and effect, identifying processes of change as

opposed to snapshots, and leverage for example, must be purposely developed.









Theoretical Implications

Argyris (1978) focuses on the detection and correction of error in organizations. He

suggests that the quality of learning depends on the extent to which the assumptions underlying

action are examined. He called the learning that includes such examination double-loop learning.

Without it, only single-loop learning could occur. Based on the experiences of participants

within different units at Lakeside as well as experiences at other institutions, it is clear that

learning capacity varies from unit to unit and among institutions. Argyris' classification is useful

in characterizing the quality of learning although whether all action in an organization will

require an examination of underlying assumptions may be questioned.

Argyris' approach seems to be based around problem-solving; organizations looking back

at past action with a view towards informing future practice. Community colleges and other

organizations are necessarily proactive in order to be competitive in today's marketplace; hence

a theory that projects forward is needed. Furthermore, some participants in the study described

conversations pertaining to seizing opportunities in addition to responding to perceived

problems. Argyris' ideas are still useful however, because the assumptions underlying

projections must also be unearthed in order to make high-quality decisions. A theory that

addresses how quality projections are made must include the role of vision and mission in

focusing and guiding those projections.

Ellstrom (2003) also addressed the quality of learning within organizations and classified

them as adaptive and developmental learning. His distinctions of learning in organizations relate

to the degree of control individuals have in determining the tasks, methods and results related to

their work. This approach allows for both problem-solving and learning associated with seizing

opportunities. The experience of participants at Lakeside required and evidenced such a flexible

framework.









Dibella and Nevis (1998) developed a framework for understanding how organizations

learn and for determining their learning capacity. While they designed it for applications across

organizational types, their application of the framework has led them to believe that there are

types of organizations that possess enough unique features to merit minor modifications to the

framework. They gave an example of modifications to healthcare organizations based on their

particular characteristics. Similar to healthcare systems, community colleges possess features

that may require adjustments in the framework in order to best assess their learning capacity. As

with healthcare, they are service providers, not manufacturers or retailers and as a result the

measurement must focus on the process of delivering the service. The provision of a service does

not easily allow for research and development apart from the actual delivery of the service.

Innovations are often piloted with the clientele.

Several adjustments made for healthcare systems seem applicable to community colleges.

They are both service providers with long-standing institutional purposes that are morally

appealing. Given the importance of mission demonstrated in this study, mission and vision

should be addressed explicitly among the learning facilitators. Another learning facilitator

identified within healthcare systems that is applicable to community colleges is learning

confidence. This facilitator refers to learning from past experiences, experience in trying new

things and the conviction that learning is possible. Results of the study do not suggest that this is

a significant attribute of learning at Lakeside Community College but it is possible that the

investigation's structure may have inhibited revelations in this area. Results from healthcare

systems caused the researchers to re-label their learning facilitator climate of openness, to

trusting relationships. This present study presents a strong case for similar labeling in community

colleges. Trusting relationships refer to both the ties individual have with each other in the work