THE RISKS OF EXCELLENCE: 
THE ROLE OF RESEARCH AT MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY 
by . 
KENNETH HENRY WESTERN 
A professional paper submitted in partial fulfillment 
of the requirements for the degree 
of 
Master of Public Administration 
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY 
Bozeman, Montana 
June, 1984 
\ 
APPROVAL 
of a paper submitted by 
Kenneth Henry Western 
This paper has been read by each member of the thesis committee 
and has been found to be satisfactory regarding content, English usage, 
format, citations, bibliographic style, and consistency, and is ready for 
submission to the College of Graduate Studies. 
/tMV ( /9&</ 
Date Chairperson, Graduate Committ 
Approved for the Major Department 
Head, Major Departmen 
Approved for the College of Graduate Studies 
Date Graduate Dean 
STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO COPY 
In presenting this paper in partial fulfillment of the requirements 
for a master’s degree at Montana State University, I agree that the 
Library shall make it available to borrowers under rules of the Library. 
Brief quotations from this paper are allowable without special per¬ 
mission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. 
Permission for extensive quotation from or reproduction of this 
paper may be granted by my major professor, or, in his absence, by 
the Director of Libraries when, in the opinion of either, the proposed 
use of the material is for scholarly purposes. Any copy or use of the 
material in this paper for financial gain shall not be allowed without my 
written permission. 
Signature: 
Date: -£/ /ffy 
IV 
PREFACE 
The author became interested in the subject of this paper while 
employed at Montana State University in the Office of Publications and 
News Services. He served an internship, required of MPA students, in 
the Office of the Vice President for Research and helped to prepare the 
1980 annual report on research activities. Most of the primary 
information in the paper was compiled during this period. Completion 
of the paper has been delayed by a career change, relocation to 
Colorado and family responsibilities. Therefore, it is possible that some 
elements of the research climate addressed in this paper may no longer 
exist at MSU. Nonetheless, the paper meets the requirements of 
demonstrating familiarity with a method of policy assessment as outlined 
in the professional paper guidelines. 
The paper contains many generic prescriptions for developing a 
balanced research program at MSU. The following should be noted, 
however. 
First, the author does not speak as a representative of the 
administration or any other part of the university and the paper should 
not be regarded as an internal planning or assessment document. 
Second, the presence of recommendations is not meant to imply 
that the administration is unaware of problems nor that it has failed to 
address problems. These recommendations should be regarded as 
ongoing guidelines for balancing research with other commitments at 
MSU. The paper is meant to provoke thought and discussion among 
those parties responsible for ensuring that research is an integral part 
of university life. It is a timely reminder that the initial phase of the 
Montanans On a New Trac for Science (MONTS) program is nearing 
completion and a systematic review of its impact needs to be addressed, 
raising many of the questions posed in this paper. 
The author owes a special debt of gratitude to Dr. Lauren 
McKinsey for his enduring support and advice. Special thanks to the 
faculty and staff of the Department of Political Science, as well as the 
Office of the Vice President for Research, for their assistance. 
V 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Page 
LIST OF TABLES   vii 
ABSTRACT ' . . . . .     . ... . ..... ... . viii 
Chapter 
1 INTRODUCTION .     1 
2 MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND 
THE LAND-GRANT MISSION . .   8 
Introduction  8 
Historic Perspective  8 
Montana State University: An Overview .... 10 
Research Mission ............... 12 
On the Threshold of a Dream  16 
Encouraging Research Activity  18 
Concluding Comment    19 
3 RATIONALE FOR UNDERTAKING RESEARCH 
AND UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ........... 24 
Introduction .    24 
Reasons for Conducting Research ....... 24 
Selling the Value of Research ......... 27 
Research as a Measure of Prestige   . 28 
Financial Sides of Research  29 
Federal Funding .   31 
University-Industry Partnership ...... . . 34 
Renewing Old Ties  34 
Forging New Ties  36 
A Question of Balance  36 
Balancing the Question   39 
Who Needs Whom?  41 
Concluding Comment  44 
4 THE UNIVERSITY AS AN ORGANIZATION ...... 49 
Introduction  49 
Ambiguous and Complex Organizations ... . . 49 
Models of Governance 
Bureaucratic Model   52 
Collegial Model    . 54 
Political Model . . . .   55 
Organized Anarchy  56 
Role of President ............ 57 
Presidential Power and Research 58 
Concluding Comment .  59 
vi 
Chapter Page 
5 OBSTACLES AND STRATEGIES FOR EXCELLENCE 63 
Introduction . . . . ... . ..... . . . . . 63 
Research Expansion . ... . . .... .... 63 
Implications of Declining Enrollment ...... 64 
Constraints on Research ............ 65 
Selective Excellence and General Conflict .... 68 
Strategic Decision-Making ........... 70 
Future Scenarios  72 
Principle of Substitution ............ 74 
Clashes Over Priorities ............ 75 
Need for Organizational Fluidity   . 77 
Concluding Comment  78 
6 CONCLUSION: LOOKING BACK AND BEYOND ... 81 
REFERENCES ...... .   89 
Vll 
LIST OF TABLES 
Table Page 
1 GROWTH OF RESEARCH SUPPORT AND TOTAL 
SPONSORED PROGRAMS AT MONTANA STATE 
UNIVERSITY  14 
2 R&D PERFORMED BY UNIVERSITIES 
AND COLLEGES, BY SOURCE OF FUNDS  42 
vm 
ABSTRACT 
Many of the nation’s colleges and universities are confronted with 
the problems of declining enrollment and dwindling resources, leaving 
these institutions with some hard choices to make about their individual 
futures. Changing conditions will undoubtedly force some institutions 
to close their doors, while others struggle to maintain their current 
levels of operations or selectively cut back programs. Still other insti¬ 
tutions are expected to grow by restructuring their services and 
developing potential areas of growth in curriculum and research. 
The challenge facing many institutions, including Montana State 
University, is how to prepare for a future for which there are no easy 
answers. The path to survival will vary among institutions, with MSU 
among those universities attempting to surmount steady-state conditions 
in part by expanding their research programs. MSU has established an 
ambitious set of research goals, but administrators must reckon with 
such factors and constraints as enrollment, economic climate, the 
legislature, faculty talent, and the need for more facilities and 
equipment. 
A significantly expanded research program - if realized - could 
boost revenue, enhance institutional prestige and contribute to the 
benefit of society, but at a possible cost to the university’s land-grant 
mission, ethics, programs, and faculty morale. MSU administrators, 
who operate under a hierarchical style of management, must continue to 
fully weigh the potential risks of emphasizing research in the hope of 
securing additional funds and building institutional prestige. By means 
of a literature search and analysis, this paper is intended to help alert 
university administrators and others to potential problems and obstacles 
in pursuing the current course. 
It is the conclusion of this paper that MSU’s move to enhance its 
research program is risky given the constraints on growth. If the 
university is set on this course, however, administrators should direct 
their efforts toward • establishing areas of excellence through selective 
retrenchment and substitution. This should be undertaken with a 
continuing appreciation for and understanding of the land-grant mission 
of teaching, public service and research. 
1 
Chapter 1 
INTRODUCTION 
That these are not the best of times for colleges and universities 
is reflected by the number of institutions struggling to cope with the 
problems of a declining student population, declining financial resources 
and declining faculty morale. The promise of unending growth has 
been dashed by various realities, but none so striking as the realization 
that higher education has arrived at a critical juncture in its history 
and must begin responding to changing conditions with new strategies 
for survival. This paper explores these strategies as applied to the 
conduct of research at Montana State University, an institution whose 
style of prefectoral or hierarchical management helps explain its 
research productivity and the recent move to bolster the research 
program. 
One can post a dichotomy between the hierarchical pattern of 
Montana State University and the collegial pattern of management at its 
sister University of Montana, as well as other models of governance at 
other institutions, to suggest that the type of model affects the mission 
of the university. This may be seen at Montana State University, 
where a strong, central administration is encouraging faculty members 
and administrators to acquire research grants and contracts to help 
secure additional funds during a period of uncertain resources in higher 
education. The potential ramifications of this emphasis on research at 
2 
MSU, which faces severe constraints in terms of competing for monies 
and becoming a center of research activity, will be discussed at length 
in this paper. 
In many respects, the wonder is not so much that institutions of 
higher education are confronted with economic and enrollment problems, 
but that they failed to see them coming. Or, if they did, that they 
chose to believe that their institutions were impervious to them. Even 
a cursory examination of conditions and trends would have suggested 
that their faith in unabated growth was misplaced or, at best, required 
some tempering. Demographic studies clearly showed that the products 
of the post-World War II "baby boom" would pass through the school 
systems by the early 1980s, leaving colleges and universities with a 
smaller pool of the traditional college-bound group from which to draw. 
The decline in state, federal and private financial support was perhaps 
more difficult to foresee, but reason should have suggested that the 
golden era of the 1960s could not be sustained. Finally, it should 
surprise nobody that faculty morale would drop at institutions where 
sagging enrollments and financial resources have led to program cut¬ 
backs and the firing of professors. 
To a large extent, the nation's 3,000 colleges and universities are 
caught in a dilemma of their own making. It is a dilemma stemming 
from the simple, unwavering belief that growth is good and the only 
real measure of success. Until recently, institutions had little reason 
to question that belief as they enjoyed the fruits of a steadily ex¬ 
panding economy and student enrollment. An expanding pie was 
divided among all participants within the university organization, a 
3 
practice which enabled administrations to keep most interest groups and 
clients satisfied or at least placated. Today's austere environment, 
however, is forcing a radical rethinking of that style of management 
and approach. 
Colleges and universities have discovered to their dismay that the 
limits to growth may have been reached, but their exponential ex¬ 
pectations remain. The 1960s, a decade when spiraling enrollments 
fueled an unprecedented building boom on campuses, has long since 
passed, leaving most institutions with some hard choices to make about 
their individual futures. Growing financial constraints and slipping 
enrollments have raised the issue of survival for some institutions and 
prompted others to re-examine their goals and priorities and the ways 
in which they are managed and financed. 
Planning for decline has emerged as a major consideration among 
many colleges and universities in this new era of limits. In a sign of 
the times, the three "R's" are depicted by some observers as repre¬ 
senting reduction, reallocation and retrenchment.1 Indicative of this 
trend, a great deal is being written of late on planning and retrench¬ 
ment, with various authors urging institutions to take stock of their 
positions and, perhaps, to revise their roles and missions. 
While planning for decline is appropriate for some institutions, it 
may unnecessarily limit planning to questions about how to manage cut¬ 
backs and retrenchment. Other strategies, including expansion of 
selected programs, may warrant careful, studied consideration by at 
least some institutions, including Montana State University. 
4 
At Montana State University, a land-grant institution where 
enrollment continues to climb, the administration is preparing for modest 
but continued growth. MSU’s position is not unique, but it is an 
enviable one at a time when some institutions are struggling for 
survival and others are striving to maintain stability. Among the broad 
areas targeted for growth at MSU is research, an emphasis that in part 
represents an attempt to find more resources. While it offers some 
promising possibilities, such a plan is fraught with dangers and 
questions more easily raised than answered. These questions embrace 
such key issues as ethics, university excellence and the level of 
responsibility to the state. They begin with: What kind of research 
program is consistent with the aims, responsibilities and potential 
capabilities of Montana State University? 
Given MSU’s apparent intention to strengthen - itsresearch 
program, a basis exists for exploring the problems and challenges 
facing the administration in rationally planning such a significant 
expansion in an uncertain environment. It is the basic thesis of this 
paper that an emphasis on research has significant implications for 
MSU. To understand these implications will provide us with an insight 
into the university as an organization and its characteristics, and it will 
help to alert the university to potential problems and obstacles in 
taking this path. 
Specifically, the paper is arranged as follows: Chapter 1, an 
overview, begins with a look at the land-grant mission and briefly 
traces its history. The chapter also examines MSU's role as a land- 
grant institution and its evolving research programs. The expansion of 
5 
these programs raises philosophical questions about growth and service 
to the public. These questions and why universities undertake to 
conduct research are examined in Chapter 2. The problems of 
acquiring funding also are explored in this chapter, which suggests 
that there is little reason for most institutions to be unduly optimistic 
about gaining a larger share of federal support. Chapter 2 also takes 
a close look at the new relationship between university and industry in 
the area of research. While these burgeoning relationships are viewed 
as being of mutual benefit, questions are being raised about their effect 
on traditional academic values, institutional autonomy and the potential 
for abuse. These concerns are examined along with the apparent 
willingness of many universities to comply with industry guidelines that 
they would never adhere to if set down by the government. 
The focus of Chapter 3 is on how the problems that administrators 
face in managing institutions are heightened by the nature of the 
university organization. The university organization differs from 
virtually every other organization, including those in the public sector. 
Four models of university organization are detailed in this chapter, with 
emphasis on MSU’s hierarchical structure and the influence of this model 
on decision-making. 
The problems that enrollment-driven institutions like MSU face in 
maintaining funding and planning ahead are outlined in Chapter 4. 
Also examined are the major constraints that MSU must grapple with in 
trying to build its research program. The growing popularity of 
strategic studies among universities attempting to plan ahead is also 
presented. 
6 
The importance of addressing questions of growth and quality in a 
university's programs are stressed in the conclusion to this paper. 
The strength and success of MSU's land-grant mission is reviewed as 
well as the need to adapt to changing times. The institution is 
cautioned that to base an overall survival strategy on an expanded 
research program is risky. 
7 
FOOTNOTES 
1
 Kenneth P. Mortimer and Michael L. Tierney, The Three "R’s" of the 
Eighties: Reduction, Reallocation and Retrenchment (Washington, 
D.C.: American Association for Higher Education-Clearinghouse on 
Higher Education Research Report No. 4, 1979), p. 1. 
8 
Chapter 2 
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY 
AND THE LAND-GRANT MISSION 
Introduction 
Research and the land-grant university are virtually synonymous 
in America and for good reason. As will be discussed in this chapter, 
research is one of the major functions of land-grant schools and the 
schools have repeatedly proven their ability to search for new 
knowledge and disseminate that knowledge. Montana State University 
has built a commendable record in acquiring research dollars in recent 
years, but the renewed emphasis on research at MSU raises difficult 
questions about the impact on the institution's traditional goals of 
serving the student and state. 
Historic Perspective 
Because an understanding of the land-grant institution is central 
to any discussion of MSU and its future, it is useful to begin with a 
look at the land-grant mission and briefly trace its history. The 72 
land-grant institutions in the 50 states and three territories represent a 
unique system of American higher education and owe their creation to 
the Morrill Act. The Act, which was passed in 1862 in the midst of the 
Civil War and over the opposition of some Western congressmen, was 
intended to help the states meet immediate and practical problems, 
especially in the area of agriculture.1 
9 
Reflecting on more than a century of progress among land-grant 
institutions, David Madsen observes: 
In a sense, the aims of the Morrill Act were clear enough. 
Colleges were to be created "where the leading object shall be 
. . . to teach such branches of learning as are related to 
agriculture and the mechanic arts . . . in order to promote 
the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in 
the several pursuits and professions of life.2 
Another major contributing factor in the development of land-grant 
colleges was passage of the Hatch Act in 1887, which provided for the 
creation of experimental stations to perform agricultural research and 
service. Notes Madsen: 
The later success of the colleges was due in part, at least, to 
the activities engendered by the experiment stations with 
their well-equipped barns, their carefully nurtured fields, 
their laboratories and demonstration facilities, and to the 
services they provided through correspondence with persons 
seeking answers to questions having to do with agriculture.3 
Clark Kerr, former president of the University of California, terms 
creation of the land-grant movement "one of the most seminal pieces of 
legislation ever enacted."4 He credits the movement along with federal 
support for scientific research as having had the greatest impact in 
molding the modern American university system.5 The land-grant 
movement opened the doors of higher education to all qualified comers 
in a democratization that now characterizes the college and university in 
America. The land-grant movement also championed the concept of 
applied research conducted to benefit not only the agricultural 
community, but all citizens. The movement also has been instrumental 
in fostering basic research, whose payoffs often are years or decades 
in the future. The practical nature of land-grant schools has tended to 
10 
reinforce the applied side of research, a position supported by many 
state officials and taxpayers who seek the biggest return on the dollar. 
Responding to local and national needs and demands, the land- 
grant system has evolved over the years and today fulfills a significant 
role in the nation through its three-fold function of teaching, research 
and public service. With a focus on these three concepts, the most 
prestigious land-grant universities have taken their place among the 
nation's elite institutions of higher education. Leading land-grant 
universities include the University of California at Berkeley, Wisconsin, 
Cornell, Michigan State, Illinois, Minnesota, Purdue, Pennsylvania 
State, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 
Montana State University: An Overview 
Montana State University, with a 1983 fall enrollment of 11,447 and 
a solid research program, is a middle-tier institution with marked 
aspirations. Established as an agricultural college in Bozeman by 
legislative action in 1893, the university today offers programs in the 
liberal arts, the professional areas, agriculture, engineering, and the 
basic sciences. Instruction leading to bachelor's degrees is offered in 
42 fields, with graduate instruction in 38 fields and 16 fields at the 
doctoral level. 
Although research is among the least understood missions of the 
land-grant institution, it is a distinctive element that has expanded 
greatly since World War II. Montana State University's commitment to 
research begins with the recognition that, as a land-grant institution, it 
11 
has certain responsibilities in the area of agriculture as well as in 
striving to meet the changing economic and social needs of the state 
and nation. 
The 1974 report of the Montana - Commission on Postsecondary 
Education details five specific missions for MSU. It recommends that 
MSU: 
(1) ’’Should offer a broad range of undergraduate programs in 
the liberal arts and sciences, teacher training, agriculture, engineering 
and selective professional areas, as well as the associate degree.6 
(2) ’’Should provide graduate instruction, research and public 
service.7 
(3) "Should share with the University of Montana exclusive 
authority in public higher education to award the doctorate. However, 
doctoral programs should be offered in a limited number of carefully 
selected disciplines except for such specialized programs which may be 
retained at Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology.8 
(4) "Should provide four-year and graduate programs in engi¬ 
neering and have exclusive:, jurisdiction, oven .the. Ph.D.^.-jer::.'; ;.;rj 
(5) "Ph.D. and Master's programs should emphasize the special 
character of the land-grant university and the special needs of the 
state and region."10 
The commission further recommended that the primary mission of 
each of Montana's six units of higher education be the education of 
undergraduate students.11 It also recommended that the University of 
Montana and Montana State University "carry on with their heavy 
research emphasis and offer advanced graduate and professional 
degrees."12 
12 
By supporting six units of higher education and allowing both MSU 
and the University of Montana to "carry on with their heavy research 
emphasis,"13 the commission reinforced the built-in conflict over scarce 
resources. The possibility of a center of excellence emerging at any of 
the institutions is reduced by the simple reality that a limited number 
of resources must be spread among six institutions, the smallest of 
which have had problems sustaining enrollment. Further, it becomes 
difficult for any one discipline or institution to flourish without doing 
so at the expense of others. The danger is that while all six units may 
survive, they do so at a less than desirable level in terms of enroll¬ 
ment, academic excellence and fiscal soundness. 
Research Mission 
Despite various obstacles in its path, Montana State University has 
become increasingly active in the area of research. The university's 
Agricultural Experiment Station boasts the main station on the Bozemen 
campus, three research farms and seven research centers spread across 
the state. The station's areas of research include crops, crop 
diseases, soils, livestock, livestock diseases, economics, range 
reclamation, insects, environment, wildlife, and people.14 The 
university also operates such traditional land-grant programs as the 
Cooperative Extension Service and the Engineering Experiment Station, 
which utilizes the talents of the engineering faculty on problems 
requiring research not available from private firms.15 
Virtually every department within MSU claims to have an interest 
or stake in performing research. In a recent report on research. Dr. 
13 
John W. Jutila, vice president for research, notes that nationally- 
recognized programs in immunobiology, surface physics, plant 
pathology, and coal technology have been developed at MSU, with some 
individual faculty members achieving world class stature.16 
Although the earliest faculty members at MSU engaged in research 
at various levels, the first recorded sponsored research at the 
university began in 1947 with the award of .a $13,000 grant from a 
private company.17 Sponsored activity grew slowly and not until 1965 
did the university generate $1 million in research expenditures.18 
Since then research activity has accelerated with funding from federal, 
state and private sources. 
The last decade, in particular, represented a period of significant 
growth for MSU in terms of research funding and total sponsored 
program activity (Table 1). Research funding increased from $1.3 
million in 1970 to $6.7 million in 1980, and $7.7 million in 1981. 
However, this dropped in 1982 to $6.8 million and again in 1983 to $6.75 
million.19 Total sponsored program activity grew from $3 million in 1970 
to $9.7 million in 1980.... It reached $11.25 million in. 1981, but declined 
in 1982 to $10.12 million and in 1983 to $9.8 million.20 Significantly, 
the decline accompanied a drop in federal support of program activity 
from 75 percent in 1980 to 65 percent in 1983.21 The drop in research 
and program funding after years of steady growth is an ominous sign 
for MSU, which has set its sights high as outlined later in this 
chapter. 
MSU has depended heavily on federal funding for its research, but 
14 
Table 1 Growth of research support and total sponsored 
programs at Montana State University (in millions). 
Total 
Year Research Support Sponsored Programs 
1970 1
 $1,321 $ 3,056 
1971 1,512 3,024 
1972 1,712 3,481 
1973 2,171 4,097 
1974 2,248 3,880 
1975 2,516 4,007 
1976 4,742 6,204 
1977 5,696 7,383 
1978 5,539 7,086 
1979 5,296 7,663 
1980 6,664 9,707 
1981 7,748 11,248 
1982 6,800 10,120 
1983 6,750 9,824 
Source: Office of the Vice President for Research, Montana 
State University. 
Jutila and others acknowledge that the outlook for sustaining these high 
levels of funding is bleak. He observes: 
During this policy and funding hiatus the university must 
seek to preserve the momentum and quality it has generated 
over the last decade. Federal sources, of course, will con¬ 
tinue to be sought wherever possible, but the state must also 
be encouraged to accept its responsibility to support a high 
quality research effort that will, at the same time, complement 
and support economic development in the state. Funding 
opportunities will also be sought in the private sector and 
private fund-raising activities involving friends and alumni of 
the university will also be key to preserving the core of the 
research enterprise.22 
Instrumental in attracting funding are such scientists as Dr. Gary 
Strobel, a plant pathologist whose research has included experiments to 
15 
control Dutch elm disease. MSU joined the Freshwater Biological 
Research Foundation and the Ortho Consumer Products Division of the 
Chevron Chemical Company in pursuing an exclusive, worldwide license 
agreement to develop the Dutch elm disease control product. Other 
researchers in the Department of Plant Pathology are credited by Jutila 
with helping to lead an international effort to improve the control of 
barley diseases.23 
Researchers with the Agricultural Experiment Station often are 
cited for their work in developing top-performing crop varieties in 
Montana, and for developing vaccines for diseases that strike calves 
and sheep.24 
Few programs on campus are more active in research than the 
Department of Physics, which has established a regional laboratory for 
surface science and submicron analysis with a $1.4 million grant from 
the National Science Foundation. The department also is active in 
research programs in relativity and astrophysics, atomic and solid state 
physics, and laser spectroscopy.25 
Within the social sciences, faculty members have published books 
and articles in national publications within such disciplines as English, 
history, economics, sociology, philosophy, and political science. 
Overseeing and extending support to these research efforts is the 
Office of the Vice President for Research, which was established in 
1965. The office, while comparatively small, has grown administratively 
and includes or deals with the following units: Museum of the Rockies, 
Grants and Contracts Office, Agricultural Experiment Station, Engineer¬ 
ing Experiment Station, Magnetohydrodynamics Research Office, Water 
16 
Resources Research Center, Center for Terrestrial and Atmospheric 
Systems Research, and Office for Research and Development. Other 
units include the Bureau of Education and Research Field Services, 
Center for Social Data Analysis, Electron Microscope Laboratory,26 and 
the 49th Parallel Institute. 
On the Threshold of a Dream 
In light of this growth in research at MSU and various scientific 
and scholarly achievements which have drawn national and international 
recognition, the administration views the institution as standing on the 
threshold of becoming a first-class research university in the Rocky 
Mountain Region.27 To what extent the university succeeds in realizing 
this vision will depend on a number of interrelated factors that include 
enrollment, economic climate, the legislature, facilities, faculty talent, 
and the acquisition of sophisticated instruments. 
Planning and institutional evaluation are essential if Montana State 
University is intent on building its research program at a time when 
financial pressures have forced such western institutions as the Univer¬ 
sity of Idaho, Idaho State University, Boise State University, Univer¬ 
sity of Utah, Colorado State University, Washington State University, 
and the University of Washington to make budget cuts by eliminating 
staff positions and selected programs. Other institutions are de¬ 
emphasizing research in the face of stiff competition for federal dollars 
and the growing cost of conducting research. Some are delaying the 
purchase of new laboratory equipment or dropping research in certain 
fields of study. 
17 
While cognizant of funding trends and the pitfalls dotting the 
landscape, MSU officials were thinking expansion rather than retrench- 
ment in setting out the following five-year research goals for the period 
1980-1985: 
(1) Grants and contracts income of $18 million by 1985. Total 
research and development expenditures of $28 million, which it is pro¬ 
jected would rank MSU among the top 80 institutions in the United 
States in terms of expenditures.28 
(2) Increased research space totalling 200,000 square feet. 
Proposed or planned facilities include an experimental animal facility, 
engineering research center, and biomedical/biological research 
center.29 
(3) At least 100 new research professionals added to staff.30 
(4) Nationally-recognized programs in water resources, food tech¬ 
nology, reclamation science, surface physics, immunobiology, coal 
utilization, biofuels technology, and molecular mechanisms of disease.31 
(5) Establishment of new institutes and centers to support 
research in transportation, natural resources, food technology, and 
solar energy.32 
(6) Establishment of close ties with state agencies and the private 
sector to promote the use of better data and new technologies.33 
These goals, which emphasize the natural sciences and engi¬ 
neering, reflect in many respects an evolving interpretation of the 
land-grant mission. In making a strong commitment to research, the 
administration has made it clear to faculty members that promotion, in 
18 
part, will require at least a modest performance in research.34 
Frequent verbal declarations of this commitment have been made by MSU 
President William Tietz with the reasoning that research is indeed part 
of the university’s mission and important in helping to frame its 
image.35 * 
Encouraging Research Activity 
To encourage research activity, the university has undertaken 
various strategies to: 
(1) Encourage professional or faculty development by offering 
’’seed" grants to young faculty or to those who desire a fresh start in 
research.36 
(2) Train selected faculty members in proposal preparation, 
develop channels for communications with funding agencies, and screen 
proposals to keep within institutional policies.37 
(3) Establish a research information system to provide data on 
current research being performed at MSU and attempt to match faculty 
members' interests with funding opportunities.38 
Given the administrative decisions to step-up research, one of the 
most difficult policy questions is likely to center around how much and 
what kind of research Montana State University will conduct. In light 
of current economic conditions, the institution may soon be faced with 
decisions about which disciplines to emphasize in terms of research and 
which to neglect for funding. The setting of the five-year goals 
directs the university toward the areas of natural sciences and engi¬ 
neering, leaving perhaps only the question of which programs and 
curriculums in these areas will flourish. 
19 
An unsparing appraisal of individual motives and institutional 
needs and responsibilities is necessary if MSU is determined to enhance 
its research program, possibly at the expense of other programs 
serving the state and students. It is legitimate to ask whether MSU, in 
pursuing a greater research role, is following a road that stymied other 
institutions during the "academic revolution"39 of the 1960’s. Gross 
and Brambsch note that the decision to emphasize research carries 
certain costs: 
There are definite and predictable sets of goals which 
characterize universities of high and low productivity. High 
productivity means focusing on research and graduate study 
and placing less emphasis upon traditional goals such as 
producing well-rounded students, loyalty to the local 
institution, or satisfying the needs of persons in the local 
areas.40 
Concluding Comment 
The aforementioned concerns surrounding an emphasis on research 
need to be regularly addressed by administrators at MSU. In this 
ongoing review of MSU's missions and priorities, President Tietz, 
faculty members and others can draw on the rich tradition of the land- 
grant university in serving the public through such avenues as 
instruction, research and the extension service. It is true, as G. 
Lester Anderson asserts, that "land-grant colleges and universities 
today bear only a modest resemblance to what they were seventy-five or 
even fifty years ago."41 What remains unchanged are the concepts and 
values that comprise these institutions and continue to guide faculty 
and administrators. As a land-grant university, MSU’s mission clearly 
encompasses teaching, research and public service. Striking a balance 
20 
between these missions, however, provides fertile ground for conflict 
both within and outside the university. Whether a changing university 
can achieve that balance without tearing the institutional fabric or 
turning its back on the needs of students and others deserves 
continued, thoughtful consideration. 
21 
FOOTNOTES 
1
 Edward Danforth Eddy, Jr., Colleges for Our Land and Time (New 
York: Harper and Brothers, 1957), p. 35. 
2
 David Madsen, "The Land-Grant University: Myth and Reality," 
Land-Grant Universities and Their Continuing Challenge, G. Lester 
Anderson, ed. (East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University 
Press, 1976), p. 34. 
3
 Ibid, p. 38. 
4
 Clark Kerr, The Uses of the University (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard 
University Press, 1964), p. 46. 
5
 Ibid. 
6
 Final Report: Montana Commission on Postsecondary Education, by 
Ted James, Chairman (Helena, Mont.: Montana Commission on Post¬ 
secondary Education, May 1980), p. 58. 
7
 Ibid. 
8 Ibid. 
9
 bid. 
10 Ibid. 
11
 Ibid, p. 51. 
12
 Ibid, p. 52. 
13
 Ibid. 
14
 Greg Northcutt, Ag Research: Your Harvest of Dividends (Bozeman, 
Mont.: Montana Agricultural Experiment Station, 1980), p. 3. 
15
 Office of the Vice President for Research, Montana State University, 
Self-Study Report of Montana State University to the Commission on 
on Colleges (Bozeman, Mont.: Montana State Universitv. October 
1980), p. 250. 
16
 Office of the Vice President for Research, Montana State University, 
Report on Research 1980 (Bozeman, Mont.: Montana State Univer¬ 
sity, 1981), p. 4. 
17 Ibid, p. 6. 
22 
18
 Based on a review of growth of total sponsored programs and research 
support at Montana State University. Data provided by Office of 
the Vice President for Research. 
19
 Ibid. 
20
 Ibid. 
21
 Ibid. 
22
 Office of the Vice President for Research, Montana State University, 
Report on Research 1981 (Bozeman, Mont.: Montana State University, 
1982), p.3. 
23
 Report on Research 1980, pp. 16-17. 
24
 Report on Research 1981, pp. 9-12. 
25
 Report on Research 1980, pp. 35-36. 
26
 Self-Study Report, p. 225. 
27
 Ibid, p. 224. 
28
 John W. Jutila, "An Outline of Research Activities at MSU," a sup¬ 
plement to the 1980 Self-Study Report of Montana State University, 
Bozeman, Mont. May 1980. 
29
 Ibid. 
30
 Ibid. 
31
 Ibid. 
32
 Ibid. 
33
 Ibid. 
34
 Self-Study Report, p. 256.    
35
 Ibid. 
36
 Ibid, p. 257. 
37
 Ibid. 
38
 Ibid. 
39
 Christopher Jencks and David Riesman, The Academic Revolution (New 
York: Doubleday, 1968). 
23 
40
 Edward Gross and Paul V. Grambsch, Changes in University Organi¬ 
zation: 1964-71, p. 100, quoted in Bruce L.R. Smith and Joseph J. 
Karlesky, eds.. The State of Academic Science: Background Papers 
(New York: Change Magazine Press, 1978), p. 52. 
41
 G. Lester Anderson, ed., Land-Grant Universities and Their Con¬ 
tinuing Challenge (East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University 
Press, 1965), p. 1. 
24 
'• Chapter 3 
RATIONALE FOR UNDERTAKING- RESEARCH 
AND UNANSWERED QUESTIONS 
Introduction 
While research is part of the land-grant mission, there are many 
reasons as to why Montana State University and other institutions of 
higher education undertake to do research. These reasons, which 
range from service to others to seeking personal and institutional 
recognition, are explored in this chapter along with an overview of the 
benefits and drawbacks of conducting research. The 1983 federal 
budget for research also will be presented with the argument that most 
colleges and universities benefit very little from federal expenditures 
for research and are unlikely to benefit from them in the future. In 
addition, the developing relationship between university and industry 
will be reviewed along with potential problems in the two institutions 
working together. 
Reasons for Conducting Research 
The university emerged from the 19th century as "the principal 
home of science"1 in America and has continued to fulfill its role as an 
institution where research and development occur. That is not to 
suggest, however, that the value and direction of scientific work 
undertaken at universities - both within Montana and across the 
nation - command unanimous agreement. Support for and belief in the 
25 
value of research appears to vary widely among the public, their 
elected officials and within the educational establishment. 
Discussing the university's need for a rationale for its research 
activities, Dael Wolfle suggests that such a rationale should be "both 
politically persuasive and intellectually honest."2 Wolfle clearly 
recognizes the political realities of research and a partial erosion of the 
scientific community's credibility in stating its case for funding that 
never seems to stretch far enough. 
Wolfle notes that there are three central reasons for conducting 
research: "to educate students, to maintain and enhance the scientific 
capabilities of the faculty, and to undergird the university's role as an 
informed and objective social critic."3 That assessment is shared by 
many educators, as well as others, and is lofty and broad enough to 
encompass a wide range of activities and interests. 
Wolfle's description of the three central functions of research apply 
to Montana State University. For example, it is generally recognized 
that students benefit when their professors are on the leading edges of 
their disciplines. A student who leaves the university with specialized 
skills and knowledge is of greater value to society and more employable. 
An apprenticeship, or even exposure to a professor doing research, 
certainly contributes to the growth of the student. 
In the area of faculty competence, it is generally acknowledged 
that a professor's skills and abilities are maintained and enhanced if 
there is access/to research facilities and a quality library. An out¬ 
standing research program can be expected to attract outstanding 
researchers, which contributes to an improved climate for learning. 
26 
Increased emphasis on research should not mean a de-emphasis of 
teaching, however. A department committed to both teaching and 
research may be in the position to formulate schedules which allow the 
researcher to spend extra time on scientific work and the teaching 
professor to spend more time in the classroom. This model has been 
adopted to some extent at MSU by the physics department, which boasts 
some outstanding researchers and teachers. Other departments on 
campus expect their faculty members to balance the responsibilities of 
teaching, research and public service. 
Nationally, it is evident that many of the elite institutions 
emphasize the researcher role because they are able to attract dollars 
for research. At MSU, a middle-tier institution, faculty members fill a 
mixture of roles in teaching and research. With the increased emphasis 
on research, MSU faculty members could have reason to be concerned 
that they will be expected to shoulder their traditional responsibilities 
of teaching and, to a lesser extent, public service, while assuming 
greater responsibilities for research. The university has taken steps to 
lighten the teaching load by awarding grants to selected faculty 
members to give them additional time to pursue their research or 
creative projects. The program is scarcely comprehensive, however, 
nor are all faculty members at MSU or any other institution suited for 
or particularly interested in carrying out research. 
The role of the university as critic is the last leg of the tripod 
supporting Wolfle's rationale for research.4 In the fullest sense, this 
can be expanded to include the search for knowledge through basic 
research, which lays the foundation for later practical applications. 
27 
Because of its political and social ramifications, this is perhaps the 
hardest role to convince the public that a university should fill. But 
notes Wolfle: 
Society is ever at the mercy of the demagogue, the 
charlatan, the slick advertiser, or the unprincipled 
self-seeker. For its own protection, society needs the 
antidote of objectivity, the clear-headed analysis of 
trends and alternatives, and sometimes the unmasking of 
false claims.5 
Selling the Value of Research 
Robert Oppenheimer, posing the question of why scientists seek 
new knowledge, concludes that new knowledge is useful and its pursuit 
ennobling.6 However, why taxpayers should support a scientist’s 
ennobling experience - particularly if it is difficult to see any returns 
for society - is precisely the kind of question that can lead to public 
opposition to increased research. When taxpayers ask what their 
support of research is worth or has yielded, the response has been to 
cite such practical returns as hybrid seed corn, polio vaccine and the 
Pill. Such examples, especially the development of hybrid corn, ’’have 
been cited so often that they have lost much of their political 
influence.”7 Yet, these and other examples continue to be cited by 
universities and with proud justification. 
In attempting to sell the value of research to Montanans, Montana 
State University has built much of its argument around the theme that 
research is a good investment, with returns that are better than stocks 
or savings accounts. A Montana Agricultural Experiment Station 
pamphlet states that "agricultural research has meant literally millions of 
extra dollars each year to Montana.”8 It quotes a USDA economist's 
estimate that each dollar invested in agricultural research can earn as 
28 
much as 25 to 50 cents.9 While farmers and ranchers are the main 
recipients of this research, the underlying theme clearly is' that all 
Montanans are better off for this research and that a rising sea of 
prosperity lifts all boats. This dollars-and-cents sales pitch is 
intellectually repugnant to more than a few MSU researchers, but it is 
an approach that recognizes the political and practical realities of 
selling reserach to the general public. 
In its 1980 report on research, the Office of the Vice President for 
Research notes that a research investment of slightly over $1 million on 
the crops wheat, barley and potato has improved the production of 
these crops by an estimated $66 million over a ten-year period.10 Vice 
President for Research John W. Jutila suggests in the report that: 
The ultimate applications of research are not always immediate 
or so readily apparent, but the cost-benefit analyses of 
medical and agricultural research speak to an important public 
policy issue: that of investing in the research and creative 
efforts of the universities of this country and the public good 
that derives from these humane and beneficial endeavors.11 
Research as a Measure of Prestige - . ... .... : 
Prestige is another factor in attempts to strengthen or expand 
research programs at Montana State University and other institutions. 
Jutila, discussing the rationale for research, notes that, ’’It has been 
said that the quality of research conducted by the faculty is the most 
important factor contributing to the eminence of a University.”12 
That it is extremely difficult to gain that eminence and break into 
the inner circle of the nation's top research universities is reflected in 
a study sponsored by the ad hoc Conference Board of Associated 
Research Councils. The 1983 study revealed that the academic prestige 
of the nation's top research universities has changed little over the last 
29 
ten years. Virtually all of the graduate facilities rated in the top 20 
continued to hold that honor, although some positions changed. The 
study, based on a polling of 5,000 faculty members at 228 colleges and 
universities, rated the University of California at Berkeley as the 
strongest across-the-board graduate institution. Other top institutions 
included Stanford, Harvard and MIT.13 
A factor in the drive for prestige is the number of administrators 
and faculty members in colleges and universities who were educated at 
large research universities. This background is viewed as influencing 
their research goals and perceptions. Comments John D. Millett: 
Because they have often received their graduate education in 
leading research universities, many faculty members enter 
their academic careers enamored of research. Research has 
been a principal pathway to academic recognition in the past 
30 years.14 
Dr. William Tietz, president of MSU, received his doctorate from 
Purdue University while Jutila received his doctorate from the Uni¬ 
versity of Washington, both major research universities. Furthermore, 
various department heads and deans at MSU received their doctorates 
from such institutions as Stanford, Purdue, Lehigh, Wisconsin, Illinois, 
Oregon, Oregon State, Ohio State, Texas, and Washington.15 The 
linking of one’s academic background to research goals may be an 
unfair characterization in the case of Tietz and Jutila, but the relation¬ 
ship has been commented on by so many observers in higher education 
that it appears to have some merit. 
Financial Sides of Research 
Other, more down-to-earth reasons exist for MSU to attempt to 
maintain and upgrade the conduct of research. Perhaps the most basic 
30 
reason from the standpoint of many is financial. Research monies can 
be used to help MSU improve the fiscal conditions of various depart¬ 
ments and programs. Additional federal, state and private funding are 
viewed as vital if the university is to purchase new equipment in the 
sciences, and materials and time for faculty members in the humanities 
and social sciences. 
Conversely, an intensified effort to acquire more research dollars 
can draw down the fiscal resources of departments, whose faculty 
members and staffs must devote greater amounts of time to preparing 
grant applications. The many hours that professors once spent pre¬ 
paring for classes or meeting with students is diverted toward trying to 
attract more money for projects that may hold little interest for anyone, 
including the researcher. Society may wind up paying for research 
that yields no real dividends while stealing time from students and from 
more legitimate research that brings in fewer dollars. If it is not 
careful, the university can find itself in the vicious circle of conducting 
research that is dictated solely by the kinds of research dollars 
available. 
The process also can wind up as a zero sum game if recovered 
indirect costs are diverted to the state treasury or if they prompt lower 
proportional state funding. In either case, the university may find 
that it has to generate ever greater amounts of dollars in the hope of 
keeping just a share. In addition, the university runs the risk of 
becoming over-reliant on research monies at a time when a growing 
number of institutions are entering the competition for research 
funding. These institutions, like MSU, are looking for new sources of 
31 
funding and boast some promising and proven researchers. A back¬ 
ground paper circulated to the Stanford University Board of Trustees 
notes that: 
The capacity to do good research is becoming more and more 
widespread in this country. This is due largely to the fact 
that, graduate programs at the best institutions have been 
turning out people with doctorates faster than this same class 
of schools can absorb them as faculty members. The average 
quality of faculty at a broad spectrum of colleges and 
universities, both public and private, has been growing 
significantly in recent years. Principal investigators at 
relatively unknown institutions are becoming increasingly 
competitive for sponsored reasearch support.16 
While increased competitiveness among institutions is a healthy sign 
of research capability, fewer than 100 colleges and universities out of 
3,000 institutions receive the bulk of money for scientific research and 
development. MSU was ranked 113th in fiscal 1980 (the last year for 
which figures are available) in terms of R&D expenditures, well out of 
range of such elite institutions as Stanford, MIT and Harvard.17 
Federal Funding 
In its study. Scholars, Dollars, and Bureaucrats, the Brookings 
Institution observes that federal research managers seek out those 
universities that have the academic strength, commitment and facilities 
to conduct specialized research. More often than not, those 
universities are the elite research institutions which traditionally snare 
the lion's portion of grants and contracts.18 Beyond that, the study 
notes: 
The R&D enterprise is the one area of federal higher edu¬ 
cation policy where old-fashioned meritocratic norms are still 
significant. Where is the ablest scholar or research team in 
the country that could undertake a particular inquiry? Which 
among ten applicants shows the greatest promise of making a 
valuable contribution to human knowledge in a stated field?19 
32 
The elite research institutions, as well as MSU, depend heavily on 
the federal government for research support. ThisjsuppurUhas grown 
dramatically since World War II, although universities have seen a drop 
in real increases in federal funding. Still, they have fared generally 
better than many other areas in recent budgets. Observes Robert M. 
Rosenzweig: 
A fair reading of the record will show that research and 
higher education had an unusually long run of governmental 
favor and that, in fact, they have not really fallen from favor 
so much as they have suffered from increased competition for 
it. To be precise, funding from academic research and 
development grew (in constant 1972 dollars) at an annual rate 
of 12 percent from 1953 to 1969, 14 percent from 1960 to 
1968, zero percent from 1968 to 1974, and 4 percent from 1974 
to 1978. 
Fifteen years of such high rates of growth is an extra¬ 
ordinary record of abundance, a record that made the drop to 
zero both shocking and unconscionable. The small real 
increases of recent years rank academic research and 
development as among the more favored of the discretionary 
objects of governmental patronage.20 
Most observers agree that federal funding for research and 
development in fiscal 1983 was better than many had hoped. Congress 
approved an estimated $44.3 billion for research and development 
spending - about one percent less than the Reagan administration had 
initially asked for. Willis Shapley of the American Association for the 
Advancement of Science said the one percent change largely reflected a 
$1.8 billion cut in funds originally earmarked by the administration for 
defense programs.21 Shapley remarked, MOur general assessment is 
that Congress really treated the (research and development) business 
and science very well. I don’t think the R&D community could have 
expected anything better out of the budget than they got.”22 
33 
Defense funding for 1983 increased 13 percent from fiscal 1982 and 
35 percent from fiscal 1981. While large, that increase represents about 
60 percent of what the administration had sought. Proportionately, 
nondefense programs fared less well, but they were up an average 7 
percent. In terms of constant 1972 dollars, however, the nondefense 
share of the research budget fell more than 10 percent from fiscal 1981 
to fiscal 1983.23 
With the final determination of funding for fiscal year 1983, it is 
clear that colleges and universities face continued constraints in many 
areas of federal support. The Reagan administration expects the 
private sector to assume a greater percentage of support for research 
and development, and has moved to relax some government regulations 
and enact favorable tax changes for corporations. 
Rosenzweig suggests that universities falsely expected to enjoy 
favored status from the federal government.24 
In the coldest and clearest view of the matter, research 
universities have no more claim to ’partnership1 with the 
government than do farmers, merchant shippers, highway 
builders, or any other group that has established a claim on 
government patronage.2 5 
Federal funding will continue to play a major role in the support of 
research and development. But middle-tier institutions like Montana 
State University need to guard against pinning too much of their trust 
in securing federal monies for research. The apparent shift in funding 
priorities and entry of similarly competitive colleges and universities 
into the research arena could undercut the efforts of a number of 
institutions. Rosenzweig and others urge universities to explore new 
ways to make business a more active participant in research and 
development.26 
34 
University-Industry Partnership 
In fact, many of the nation's universities are rediscovering 
business and industry as potential sources of research funding. The 
developing relationships between university and industry are particu¬ 
larly evident in the areas of bioengineering and microelectronics, where 
the promise of rich dividends beckon. While such joint ventures are 
typically viewed as being of mutual benefit, the partnerships are 
raising questions about traditional academic values, institutional 
autonomy, the direction of research, and the potential for abuse within 
the scientific community. Further, university expectations that private 
funding sources can be substituted for lagging state and federal monies 
appear to be unrealistic. 
Renewing Old Ties 
That many universities are turning to industry for new research 
funding (after years of oversight or even disdain for the private 
sector) has some historical justification. Up until World War II, the 
private sector provided much of the money to support research 
(excluding agriculture) at the university level. That changed 
dramatically with the outbreak of World War II as the nation poured 
money into defense research and "produced a dazzling array of new 
technologies - the atomic bomb, mass production of penicillin, radar, 
and long range missiles . . ."27 
The renewed pursuit of private research support reflects the 
current state of government funding and the Reagan administration's 
attempts to shift more research and development funding to the private 
35 
sector. The research university is driven to the private sector now by 
its need for dollars to support research and upgrade scientific instru¬ 
mentation for its laboratories. Such collaboration also "can bring 
important advantages to graduate students and young scientists, both 
in terms of support for graduate study and in postdegree employ- v 
ment."28 
Explaining the motivations for universities to seek industry 
support for research, the presidents of five major research universities 
summed it up this way following a two-day conference on biotechnology 
in March, 1982: 
First, there is a genuine interest in facilitating the transfer 
of technology - from discovery to use - to contribute to the 
health and productivity of society; second, there is interest 
in ongoing dialogue between academic and industry which 
could improve the level of applied science by close association 
with industry applications; and, third, academic institutions 
and their faculty members are feeling particularly hard- 
pressed financially and see such cooperation with industry as 
a way of compensating for a small but important part of the 
support lost from federal sources.29 
For its part, industry is looking to exploit knowledge for 
commercial gain - to improve productivity and bring out innovative 
products. By creating an alliance with research universities, industry 
gains access to students and professors as well as university facilities 
and technology. Such a relationship, particularly with a leading 
university, also may enhance a company’s image or lend credence to a 
project. If nothing else, the distribution of $22 million in grants to 
educational institutions in 1982 is good public relations for a corporation 
like IBM. 
36 
Forging New Ties 
The signs of an increased university-industry research connection 
are numerous. In recent years, multimillion-dollar research agreements 
have been struck between such institutions as Harvard and Monsanto 
(as well as Du Pont), MIT and Exxon, Washington University in St. 
Louis and Mallinckrodt Inc., and Westinghouse. Ongoing associations 
between university and industry have produced the prestigious 
Research Triangle Park in North Carolina and the Stanford Industrial 
Park. In addition, leading chemical companies have banded together to 
form a Council for Chemical Research to fund projects and the Semi¬ 
conductor Industry Association has established a nonprofit subsidiary to 
encourage long-term semiconductor research between manufacturers and 
universities.30 
Montana State University is among many institutions working to 
forge new relationships with industry. About one out of every five 
research dollars at MSU comes from such private sources as Monsanto, 
General Electric, Shell Development Corp., Conoco, Peabody Coal Co., 
Decker Coal, Great Western Sugar Co., Holly Sugar Corp., Continental 
Grain Co., International Harvester, Diamond Shamrock Chemical Corp., 
Dow Chemical Co., and Du Pont.31 The sources of funding reflect 
MSU's land-grant orientation, with many of the private companies 
funding research in agriculture and engineering. 
A Question of Balance 
The increased cooperation between industry and university has 
prompted debate about traditional academic values and the role of 
professor and institution. Difficult and searching questions are being 
37 
asked about conflicts of interest, preserving the traditions of open 
research, the propriety of universities aggressively seeking patents and 
licenses, the impact of industry support on research priorities, and the 
ethics of universities holding stock in companies owned by faculty 
members. .. .r ;I: ' .. . . .. . .. .. .; . 
The bio boom, as it has been called, illustrates perhaps more than 
any other recent development, the emergence of the professor who acts 
not only as researcher and project manager, but as business executive 
and stockholder. Biotechnology companies have offered stock and top 
positions to sought-after biologists, some of whom have formed their 
own companies while remaining employed by their university.32 
Stanford University President Donald Kennedy, whose own university 
relies heavily on research dollars, has sharply attacked the "appalling 
lack of restraint by some biomedical scientists in responding to 
commercial opportunities based on their research."33 
Kennedy has warned that unless scientists firmly reject the 
temptation to commercially exploit their research, "the public will be 
perfectly entitled to conclude that the scientists are more interested in 
profits than results."34 Newsweek magazine echoed that concern in a 
story on the commercialization of biology, asking, "Will the sound of the 
t 
cash register drown out the clink of test tubes in university biology 
labs?"35 The magazine noted that the commercial potential of biology was 
affecting research practice and priorities and creating conflicts of 
interest with professors leading double lives as researchers and 
businessmen.36 
38 
Critics and friends of the university may well question the morality 
of it all and ponder whether the institutions are morally strong enough 
to withstand the powerful - but not necessarily negative - influence of 
industry and reject grants or contracts that do not fit the university's 
mission. Will the utilitarian demands of industry increasingly divert 
university attention away from basic research and the sharing of 
results? How much control can universities expect to have over 
privately-funded research projects and the uses of those projects? 
The bio boom has prompted some researchers to guard their 
research closely, refusing to share their information with colleagues. 
Concerns also have been raised about professors redirecting the work 
of graduate students in order to explore areas of commercial interest.37 
With patents and ideas at stake in this multimillion-dollar business, 
researchers and the companies backing them see a compelling interest in 
keeping their findings private. Time magazine notes that some 
observers are skeptical that "the pursuit of pure knowledge (can) be 
compatible with the pursuit of profit."38 
Most contract grants between business and universities allow 
the donor corporation to review findings before publication, 
ensure exclusive patent rights and sometimes keep key data 
secret so competitors will not get them. While many tech¬ 
nological breakthroughs have resulted from purely theoretical 
research, corporations tend to be more interested in 
encouraging short-term solutions to specific problems or in 
developing products. Concedes Wilbert Ferguson, a 
Westinghouse engineering director, discussing his firm's 
arrangement with Carnegie-Mellon: "There may be an element 
of support for academic research, but we really are trying to 
get as much out of it as we can."39 
MIT historian David Noble and others suggest that universities 
have permitted "corporate America" the kinds of privileges involving 
39 
scientific research that they would never yield to government. Noble 
notes that while university administrators and researchers rail against 
any kind of government inquiry into research, they have been slow to 
raise their voice against similar private questions or even control. 
Noble suggests that universities should be required to demand contracts 
that give the public some return for its investment with research that 
leads to somebody's profit.40 
Balancing the Question 
The problems that have developed in the relationships between 
universities and industry were explored in the conference on bio¬ 
technology mentioned earlier. The conference was attended by the 
presidents of five leading research universities: Donald Kennedy, 
Stanford; Marvin Goldberger, California Institute of Technology; David 
Saxon, University of California; Derek Bok, Harvard; and Paul Gray, 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Also attending the Pajaro 
Dunes, California conference were faculty scientists, industry 
representatives and other university administrators.41 
Such issues as patent licensing and professorial conflict of interest 
were discussed and guidelines set out as part of an effort toward 
formulating policy at universities. A draft statement released by 
participants included the following highlights: 
1) "Universities are a repository of public trust and, in 
many cases, of public funds as well, and they have an 
obligation to the public as well as to their students and 
faculty to ensure that they remain devoted to their primary 
goals of education and research, and that their resources be 
properly used in the pursuit of these goals.42 
40 
2) "It is important that universities and industries maintain 
basic academic values on their research agreements. Agree¬ 
ments should be constructed, for example, in ways that do 
not promote a secrecy that will harm the process of science, 
impair the education of students, interfere with the choice by 
faculty members of the scientific questions or lines of inquiry 
they pursue, or divert the energies of faculty members from 
their primary obligations to teaching and research.43 
3) "The traditions for open research and prompt trans¬ 
mission of research results should govern all university 
research, including research sponsored by industry. Those 
traditions require that universities encourage open communi¬ 
cation about research in progress and research results. 
However, as discussed below, it is appropriate for institutions 
to file for patent coverage for inventions and discoveries that 
result from university research. This action may require 
. brief delays in publication or other public disclosure.44 
4) "It is important that universities not influence the nature 
of the research proposed by professors, postdoctoral or fellow 
students by pressing them to do work of potential commercial 
importance or to become involved in other commercial 
activities. Professors may choose to delay the publication of 
research findings for a brief period to permit the timely filing 
of patent applications, but, absent a contractural obligation, 
universities should not try to prevent faculty members from 
publishing or disclosing their research findings in order to 
preserve the universities' patent rights.45 
5) "Professors' relationships with commercial firms should 
not be allowed to interfere with their overriding obligation to 
the university to fulfill their primary responsibilities of 
teaching and research."46 
Participants to the private conference stressed that they viewed 
this set of principles as a "contribution to further consideration" of 
those issues confronting the university-industry partnership. Each 
university should address the problems, participants said, suggesting 
that "(d)ifferent rules and procedures may well be appropriate to suit 
the special circumstances and traditions of different institutions."47 
In other words, one might conclude, it's business as usual for 
universities which always can cite a special circumstance or tradition 
41 
(essentially saying "we’ve always done it that way”) to justify a 
questionable practice. High-minded ideals, can fall quickly when dollars 
are involved, even in the university world. Noble/s among others, took 
issue with the fact that the meeting between university presidents and 
industry representatives was closed to the press and critics of the 
growing influence of business. "What right do universities, private 
citizens known as scientists, have to sell, to make deals with public 
resources," Noble said.48 
Who Needs Whom? 
While universities rightly boast of their "mindpower" and access to 
the "best people," industry is not dependent on universities for 
research and development. For the most part, the university needs 
industry more than industry needs the university. In most cases, 
industry does not look to the university for those technological break¬ 
throughs that can be translated into profits. Still, most of the basic 
research carried on in this country is at the university, laying the 
groundwork for future applications of those discoveries. 
Indicative of the relationship between industry and university is 
the comment by Herbert Fusfeld, director of the Center for Science and 
Technology Policy at New York University: "While industry is 
receptive, it is clear that the university is selling, not receiving."49 
The American Association for the Advancement of Science cites figures 
which show that despite recent well-publicized agreements between 
university and industry, there has been a small decline in real dollars 
spent by industry for university research and development.50 
42 
Table 2 R&D performed by universities and colleges, by source of 
 funds* (in millions) .  
1967 
Actual 
1972 
Actual 
1980 
Actual 
1981 
Est. 
1982 
Est. 
Current Dollars 
Federal government $1409 $1795 $4093 $4400 $4600 
Industry 48 74 235 260 275 
Universities & colleges 345 574 1313 1490 1600 
Other nonprofit 119 187 408 450 475 
Total $1921 $2630 $6049 $6600 $6950 
Constant 1972 dollars 
Federal government $1939 $1795 $2194 $2094 V $2010 
Industry 66 74 126 124 120 
Universities & colleges 475 574 704 709 699 
Other nonprofit 164 187 219 214 208 
Total $2643 $2630 13242 $3142 $3037 
Source: National Science Foundation, data for National Patterns of 
Science and Technology Resources: 1982. Conversion to con¬ 
stant 1972 dollars by authors based on 0MB deflators. 
*Amounts represent current operating costs, based on data by performers 
of R&D, and do not correspond exactly to the figures for R&D in the 
federal budget used in the text. Capital expenditures are generally 
excluded. 
Reprinted from Research and Development AAAS Report VII: Federal Budget 
FY 1983 Impact and Challenge (Washington, D.C.: American Association 
for the Advancement of Science, 1982), p. 148. 
A review of the table shows that the federal government provides 
about two-thirds of the money spent for research and development at 
universities and colleges. The institutions themselves provide the next 
largest amount followed by nonprofit organizations and then industry.51 
Clearly, the private sector cannot begin to provide the level of funding 
that universities have grown accustomed to receiving from the federal 
government. While the university’s share of those private dollars could 
43 
grow, the institutions are left with the difficult, but not insoluable, 
problems of what type of research they will conduct and on what 
grounds. . 
Edward E. David Jr., president of the Exxon Research and 
Engineering Co., believes that the nation is entering a new era 
characterized by the growth of industry-supported research at the 
university level. Calling increased industry funding for research 
economically and socially desirable, David projects that industry's 
support will triple this decade to about $600 million a year. That would 
result in an increase from about four percent to 15 percent of the 
funding provided by the federal government, assuming government 
support remains constant in real dollars.52 
If such growth is to take place, David suggests, then both 
company and campus will have to find ways to accommodate their 
cultural differences. Academic science must recognize that "the over¬ 
riding goal for industry is the delivery of goods and services to the 
public, governments, and other consuming institutions," he notes. 
Industry must recognize that educational values are important and that 
the primary aim of university researchers is the creation of knowledge, 
he adds.53 
David is confident that industry and university can work together, 
noting that Exxon is involved in numerous ways with universities 
through programs and jobs for students and faculties, consultancies, 
contract research and faculty advisory groups. He suggests that both 
institutions explore the possibility of creating more research consortia 
similar to those at Carnegie-Mellon, University of Delaware, Cal Tech, 
44 
University of California at Berkeley, MIT, and Stanford.54 The 
advantages of such a relationship are mutual, he contends: 
The research consortia is clearly popular with industry. It 
represents a low-cost, low-risk option for ensuring that basic 
research of importance to industry continues or expands. It 
also represents a low-cost, low-risk option for the uni¬ 
versities, because it scarcely threatens their traditional 
concerns, values, and interests. With many companies 
involved, none is in a position to exert a strong influence on 
research directions. For similar reasons there are few 
problems with publishing results, though there can be delays 
to allow for patent filings. Industry participants are almost 
always willing to allow universities to hold the patents.55 
David cautions, however, that it is not clear whether such 
consortia are making enough scientific progress and coming up with 
enough technological innovations to justify the millions of dollars being 
poured into them.56 Industry appears willing to foot the bill for 
various educational programs and research, but it expects something in 
return. David echoes the view of other business leaders that the 
single most important activity of the university is producing a steady 
supply of well-educated, well-trained graduates. That is followed in 
terms of priority by an emphasis on ’’relevant basic science, and 
scientists able to offer fresh insights; and, sometimes, technological 
ideas and leads.”57 
Concluding Comment 
If they are to become good partners, the university and industry 
must acknowledge basic differences in their priorities and interests, and 
work from there to strike a balance. It is the responsibility of the 
university to protect its integrity and ensure that its professors are 
45 
free of both internal and external pressures in their conduct of 
research. To even expect industry to act as the conscience for the 
university is unrealistic and unfair. The university must assert itself 
and be willing to turn down research funding, however needed, if that 
funding carries an unacceptable pricetag. In its pursuit of dollars, the 
university must guard against striking some sort of Faustian bargain 
that would place the campus under the indirect control of outside 
interests that have little regard for the public or institutional ethics. 
It is one of the prime responsibilities, after all, of the university to 
unmask false claims and rail against "unprincipled self-seekers." The 
bitter irony is that some universities could find themselves acting 
unprincipledly in the name of survival and at untold cost to institutional 
values and interests. 
There are many good reasons for MSU to conduct and even expand 
its research program, thereby benefitting not only the institution, but 
students and the state. If MSU keeps the latter two interests upper¬ 
most in mind, it can justifiably argue that what is best for MSU is also 
in the best interests of Montana. 
46 
FOOTNOTES 
1
 Dael Wolfle, The Home of Science: The Role of the University (New 
York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1972). 
2
 Ibid, p. 131. 
3
 Ibid, p. 134. 
4 Ibid, pp. 134-135. 
5
 bid. 
6
 Robert Oppenheimer, quoted in Dael Wolfle, The Home of Science, 
The Role of the University (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 
1972), p. 131. 
7
 Ibid. 
8
 Greg Northcutt, Ag Research: Your Harvest of Dividends (Bozeman, 
Mont.: Montana Agricultural Experiment Station, 1980)), p. 1. 
9
 Ibid. 
10
 Office of the Vice President for Research, Montana State University, 
Report on Research 1980 (Bozeman, Mont.: Montana State Uni¬ 
versity, 1981), p. 4. 
11
 Ibid. 
12 Ibid. 
13
 "Study Shows Academic Prestige Hasn't Changed Much in Last 
Decade," Released by Associated Press, 1 January 1983. 
14
 John D. Millett, Management, Governance and Leadership: A Guide 
for College and University Administrators (New York: AMACOM, 
1980), pp. 65-66. 
15
 Based on review of academic backgrounds of faculty as outlined in 
1982 college catalog. 
16
 "Private Universities Face Growing Competition for Research Fund¬ 
ing," Stanford University News Service release, 2 February 1983. 
17
 National Science Foundation, "R&D Funds Fiscal Year 1980," Surveys 
of Science Resources Series, NSF 82-300. 
18
 Chester E. Finn, Jr., Scholars, Dollars and Bureaucrats (Washing¬ 
ton, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1978), p. 112. 
47 
19
 Ibid. 
20
 Robert M. Rosenzweig, Research Universities and Their Patrons 
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982), pp. 16-17. 
21
 Willis H. Shapley, "Congress Tempered Reagan on ’83 Federal 
Research Budget," Science News 123 (29 January 1983), p. 72. 
22
 Ibid. 
23
 Ibid. 
24
 Rosenzweig, p. 19. 
25
 Ibid. 
26
 Ibid, p. 46. 
27
 Colin Norman, Knowledge and Power: The Global Research and 
Development Budget (Washington, D.C.: Worldwatch Paper 31, July 
1979) p. 15. 
28
 Rosenzweig, p. 49. 
29
 Draft statement by participants in the Pajaro Dunes conference. 
Released through Stanford University News Service, 29 March 1982. 
30
 Lewis M. Branscomb, "America's Rising Research Alliance," Enterprise, 
August 1983, p. 5. 
31
 Office of the Vice President for Research, Montana State University, 
1983. 
32
 Ivars Peterson, "Academic Questions: Campus and Company Partner¬ 
ships," Science News 123 (29 January 1983), pp. 76-77. 
33
 "Kennedy Urges Greater Self-Regulation Among Scientists, Scholars," 
Stanford University News Service release, 19 October 1982. 
34
 Ibid. 
35
 "The Big Bucks of Biology," Newsweek, 5 April 1982, p. 69. 
36
 Ibid. 
37
 ^id, p. 70 
38
 "Pure Knowledge vs. Pure Profit," Time, 28 September 1981, p. 63. 
39
 Ibid. 
40 No title, Stanford University News Service release, 30 April 1982. 
48 
41
 Draft statement from Pajaro Dunes conference. 
42
 Ibid. 
43 Ibid. 
44
 bid. 
45 Ibid. 
46
 bid. 
47
 Ibid. 
48
 Stanford University News Service release, 30 April 1982. 
49
 Peterson, p. 77. 
50
 Willis H. Shapley, Albert H. Teich, and Jill P. Weinberg, Research 
and Development AAAS Report VII: Federal Budget - FY 1983 Impact 
and Challenge (Washington, D.C.: American Association for the 
Advancement of Science, 1982), p. 148. 
51
 Ibid. 
52
 Edward E. David, Jr., "The Corporation on Campus - Supporting 
Research with a Commercial Mission," Change, (September 1982), 
p. 26. 
53
 Ibid, p. 27. 
54
 Ibid, pp. 27-28. 
55
 Ibid, p. 28. 
56
 Ibid. 
57
 Ibid, pp. 27-28. 
49 
Chapter 4 
THE UNIVERSITY AS AN ORGANIZATION 
Introduction 
Many of the problems that administrators face in managing colleges 
and universities during this period of financial austerity and internal 
stress are heightened by the structural or functional makeup of the 
university. The type of organization in which administrators and 
faculty members work dictates to varying degrees how and what kinds 
of policies and decisions are made. This can be both a positive and 
negative experience for all parties involved as this chapter will examine 
in presenting four models of university governance. The tremendous 
impact of enrollment on public funding of the university also will be 
explored in terms of its effect on the decisions that are made about 
institutional survival. 
Ambiguous and Complex Organizations 
Colleges and universities are unique and complex organizations 
which have many goals, some defined and some assumed, and which 
serve a variety of interests. They differ in many respects from the 
business firm, government bureau and such Third Sector organizations 
as the hospital, foundation and service institution. Colleges and 
universities also differ among themselves in terms of public or private 
control, system of management, funding, clients, priorities, missions, 
50 
and needs. Some observers have gone so far as to suggest that 
colleges and universities do not know what they are doing, leading 
J. Victor Baldridge to observe: "If at times colleges and universities 
do not know clearly what they are trying to do, they often do not know 
how to do it either."1 
Baldridge describes goal ambiguity as one of the chief character¬ 
istics of academic organizations. Questions about just what it is they’re 
supposed to do are not a problem for most other organizations. The 
business firm, for example, is in the business of making a profit. 
Hospitals treat sick and injured people, deliver babies and - it could be 
argued - increasingly are in the business of making a profit. Govern¬ 
ment bureaus carry out their duties as prescribed by rules and 
regulations. Virtually alone among these organizations is the uni¬ 
versity, which "often tries to be all things to all people."2 
As noted earlier, land-grant institutions like Montana State 
University have a three-fold mission of teaching, research and public 
service. But few academics would argue that the university's mission is 
limited to those three specific areas. In displaying an unwillingness to 
say "no" to any number of new responsibilities, universities have 
assumed such tasks as promoting the arts, managing institutes or 
scientific facilities and sponsoring a host of intercollegiate sports 
programs that, at the highest levels, turn a profit and attract more 
publicity than all research programs combined. 
Not only are most university goals ambiguous, but they are carried 
out by faculty members who demand autonomy in their work and have 
split loyalties to the institution and their discipline and peers. Further, 
51 
faculty members chafe at the suggestion that anyone but their 
colleagues are qualified or knowledgeable enough to judge their research 
and teaching:3 .Their independence, which creates any number^-of 
problems for administrators, is strengthened' through tenure and 
obtaining research grants. Richard Cyert observes: 
The faculty member not only has independence in the class¬ 
room but also gains additional independence because he is a 
source of revenue to the organization through his research 
efforts. By getting outside grants he pays for part of his 
salary and part of the overhead expense of the university. 
If indefinite tenure is added to the other elements of inde¬ 
pendence, it can be seen that the concept of "managing a 
faculty member" can be difficult.4 
Colleges and universities also are vulnerable to an environment 
that includes government agencies, politicians and interest groups which 
can range from students to taxpayers. The influences or pressures 
that these groups can bring to bear on an institution can dramatically 
alter its goals, norms and curriculum. Comments Baldridge: 
Although colleges and universities are not entirely captured 
by their environments, they are steadily losing ground. As 
their vulnerability increases, their governance patterns 
change significantly.5 
Universities, then, are complex organizations with ambiguous goals 
that serve a variety of interests. Although they sometimes seem iso¬ 
lated, they are subject to external pressures and the independence of 
their faculty members. When combined with fiscal constraints and 
shrinking enrollments, it becomes clear why managing a university is a 
difficult task that can wear down even the strongest president. 
Underpinning all of this is the structure of academic governance in 
place at a particular university. Four models of governance - bureau¬ 
cratic, collegial, participatory democracy and organized anarchy - will 
52 
be examined in the following pages with an assessment of their 
strengths and weaknesses. 
Bureaucratic Model. Max Weber’s classic model of bureaucracy, 
with its power and authority situated at the apex, is a familiar starting 
point for any discussion of the college as a complex organizational 
system. Typical characteristics of bureaucracies include a chain of 
command, division of labor, specialized responsibilities for trained 
experts, governance by a consistent set of rules and regulations, and 
employees hired for their knowledge and who are politically neutral. 
Suggesting that university governance could be more fully under¬ 
stood by applying the bureaucratic model, Herbert Stroup notes that 
some characteristics of the academic organization fit Weber's description 
of a bureaucracy. They include: 
1. "Competence is the criterion used for appointment.6 
2. "Officials are appointed, not elected.7 
3. "Salaries are fixed and paid directly by the organization, 
rather than determined in "free-fee" style.8 
4. "Rank is recognized and respected.9 
5. "The career is exclusive; no other work is done.10 
6. "The style of life of the organization’s members centers on 
the organization.11 
7. "Security is present in a tenure system.12 
8. "Personal and organizational property are separated."13 
Expanding on those observations, Baldridge notes that the 
university operates under state charter, like most other bureaucracies; 
that the university has a formal hierarchy that includes not only 
53 
presidents and deans, but professors, instructors and research 
assistants; that formal channels of communication exist; that there are 
bureaucratic authority relations with some officials exercising authority 
over others; that formal policies and rules that govern much of the 
institution's work exist; and that routine decisions often involve 
bureaucratic decision-making processes.14 
While acknowledging these characteristics, Baldridge maintains that 
there are weaknesses in the bureaucratic model, especially as applied to 
decision-making processes. 
First, the bureaucratic model tells us much about authority - 
that is, legitimate, formalized power - but not much about 
informal types of power and influence, which may take the 
form of mass movements or appeals to emotion and sentiment. 
Second, it explains much about the organization's formal 
structure but little about dynamic processes that characterize 
the organization in action. Third, it describes the formal 
structure at one particular time, but it does not explain 
changes over time. Fourth, it explains how policies may be 
carried out most efficiently, but it says little about the 
critical processs by which policy is established in the first 
place. Finally, it also ignores political issues, such as the 
struggles of various groups within the university.15 
For the most part, academicians reject the bureaucratic model as 
an accurate description of university governance, but acknowledge that 
many of its elements can be found in the university. There is little 
question that a bureaucracy is at work when students are admitted to 
college by the admissions office; arrange to live in a residence hall 
through the housing office; schedule classes through the registrar; and 
pay their bills to the business office. Further, faculty members must 
deal with formal policies and rules, budget guidelines, and various 
administrators in a hierarchy of departments, colleges, senate and 
enough committees that a Committee on Committees exists at Montana 
54 
State University. The bureaucratic structure is an affront to many 
professors who, priding themselves on their professionalism and 
individuality, chafe at a formal hierarchy. Still, it is the contention of 
this paper that no model comes closer than the bureaucratic pattern to 
reflecting the system of governance at MSU. The university operates 
under a strong central management with faculty members more or less 
accepting that role to the extent that they are nonunionized and 
relatively content in carrying out their research and teaching. 
Collegial Model. On a national basis, many faculty members clearly 
prefer the collegial decision-making model. While this model exists in 
varying degrees, it would be a mistake to embrace its apparent 
attractions or ideals as reality. The collegial model, which has been 
associated with the Unfversity_ of Montana, is also called the ’’community 
of scholars" model. The model encompasses three themes: decision¬ 
making by consensus, the professional authority of faculty members, 
and the call for more humane education.16 
/ This approach argues that academic decision-making should 
not be like the hierarchical process in a bureaucracy. 
Instead there should be full participation of the academic 
community, especially the faculty. Under this concept the 
community of scholars would administer its own affairs, and 
bureaucratic officials would have little influence.17 
The collegial model is viewed as an alternative to the impersonal 
bureaucracy and places authority with professionals who' value their 
autonomy, are self-motivated and resent organizational oversight. John 
Millett, a proponent of a strong faculty role in governance, believes 
faculty members should play a major role in "formulating purposes, 
policies, programs and budgets relating to instruction, research, and 
public service . . ."18 
55 
As the university has grown and become an increasingly complex 
operation, the collegial model has been supplanted by more practical 
models. Faculty members at the nation's larger institutions, those with 
20,000 or more students, can scarcely expect to resolve issues in a 
town meeting atmosphere. We live in an era of specialists and experts 
and there is little room for the professor to dabble in management. 
Even at smaller institutions like MSU and the University of Montana, the 
problem still remains one of too many voices with little chance of 
reaching a sweeping consensus on most issues. At some point, de¬ 
cisions and policies must be hammered out and orders given. Burton R. 
Clark, discussing the shift away from the "community of scholars," 
notes: 
The professor retains a few interests in common with all 
others, such as higher salaries, but he has an increasing 
number of interests that diverge. Even salary is a matter on 
which interests may diverge, as men bargain for themselves, 
as departments compete for funds, as scientists are paid 
more, through various devices, than the men of the 
humanities. 
The modern campus can no longer be coordinated across its 
length and breadth by informal interaction and by the coming 
together of the whole. .Campuswide coordination increasingly 
moves toward the means normal to the large-scale organi¬ 
zation, to bureaucratic means.19 
Political Model. The third model that experts identify is the 
political, which asserts that conflict is a very real part in the debate 
over university issues. This model suggests there are "interest group 
dymanics and conflicts similar to those in cities, states, or other 
political entities."2 0 
Baldridge notes that the political model focuses on policy-forming 
processes, which largely determine an organization's goals and sets 
56 
strategies for reaching those goals. The political model is characterized 
by the inactivity of many participants, with policy making often left to 
administrators. Interest groups such as faculty, students or citizens 
may mobilize on aYparticular issue, with decisions often made based on 
\ \ 
the actions of the most persistent groups.21 
While one can applyxthe political model to certain processes, many 
decisions are the result of routine bureaucratic processes. "Many, 
perhaps most, decisions are made not in the heat of political contro¬ 
versy but according to standard operating procedures," Baldridge 
notes.22 The political model, like the others, offers a way at looking 
how decisions are made, and is not all-encompassing. 
Organized Anarchy. While each of the three models - bureau¬ 
cratic, collegial and political - can be found within the university, 
Cohen and March, among others, contend that none satisfactorily 
conveys the character of the college organization. In their view, the 
academic organization is an "organized anarchy" with little central 
coordination or control.23 They believe the college and university 
exhibit the following properties: 
It does not know what it is doing. Its goals are either vague 
or in dispute. Its technology is familiar but not understood. 
Its major participants wander in and out of the organization. 
These factors do not make a university a bad organization or 
a disorganized one; but they do make it a problem to 
describe, understand, and lead.24 
Baldridge responds that the term "organized anarchy" is probably 
exaggerated and that it suggests more confusion than actually exists. 
Still, he acknowledges, it serves to challenge existing conceptions and 
describes a looser kind of organization than many administrators might 
admit.25 
57 
The organized anarchy differs radically from the well- 
organized bureaucracy or the consensus-bound collegium. It 
is an organization in which generous resources allow people to 
go in different directions without coordination by a central 
authority, leaders are relatively weak and decisions are made 
by individual action. Since the organization’s goals are 
ambiguous, decisions are often by-products of unintended and 
unplanned activity. In such fluid circumstances, presidents 
and other institutional leaders serve primarily as catalysts or 
facilitators of an ongoing process. They do not so much lead 
the institutions as channel its activities in subtle ways.26 
Role of President 
The characteristics of the bureaucratic, collegial and political 
models of governance are perhaps best exemplified by the role of the 
university president in each. Under the bureaucratic model, the 
president stands at the apex of power and holds much of the organi¬ 
zation's power. He is expected to bring problem-solving skills and 
technical ability to his office. Baldridge suggests that he is looked to 
as the hero, but that this image is out of context in an organization 
whose power is more diffuse than in business organizations.27 
Under the collegial model, the president is viewed as "first among 
equals" in a community of scholars. He is expected to treat faculty 
members as valued colleagues and peers, not employees. He listens, 
rather than commands, and hopes to reach decisions through negotiation 
and compromise.28 
Under the political model, a president must pull various groups 
together to achieve change. He is a statesman who relies on a 
"cabinet" form of administration and negotiates between power blocs.29 
Clearly, the college and university embody a mixture of these 
three models and the organized anarchy model, with presidents called 
upon to lead, cajole, negotiate and mediate. A good president will seek 
58 
input and advice from others, including his cabinet, faculty members, 
students, alumni, legislators, and others, depending on the issue. 
Assessing the elements of these approaches, one may argue that they're 
all found at MSU: the rational problem solving of the bureaucratic 
model, the political model's emphasis on mediation, the collegial model's 
compromise, and the fluidness of organized anarchy. 
/But it is the bureaucratic model that perhaps best fits the style of 
\ 
governance at MSU/ as evidenced by the decision to emphasize re¬ 
search. This decision clearly was made at the top, undoubtedly with 
input from leading researchers who understandably would like additional 
assistance and recognition. The question of research was not viewed as 
an issue for debate, with town hall-like meetings to discuss the rami¬ 
fications of increased research on such areas as the budget and staff 
time. Most faculty members at land-grant institutions appreciate and 
value the role of research, but certainly they also prize the missions of 
teaching and public service. Upon becoming president of Montana State 
University, William Tietz apparently believed that the mission of 
research at MSU had slipped and that this imbalance between the three 
traditional missions could best be addressed by moving decisively to 
encourage and reward research.30 
Presidential Power and Research 
It is interesting to note that some academic observers believe that 
a push for increased research and dollars can lead to a shift in power 
from the administration to the faculty. Kenneth P. Mortimer and T.R. 
McConnel suggest that "faculty recipients of large research grants have 
greater status in the academic community than presidents and other 
59 
administrative officers and resist administrative ’domination.M’31 Cohen 
and March contend that where the research reputation is strong, 
universities tend to have presidents who are weak and relatively minor 
figures.32 They note: . 
Outstanding faculty at major institutions control substantial 
resources directly through research grants; they can and do 
use that control and the threat of departure (with consequent 
loss of funds and reputation as a device for influencing the 
allocation of other resources). In recent years at major 
universities the teaching load in physics has very rarely been 
as great as the teaching load in French.33 
Conversely, greater budgetary control generally would flow to most 
presidents in times of financial constraint or duress. At an institution 
like MSU, the president enjoys great latitude in deciding questions of 
finance and allocation of resources. One of Tietz's early moves was to 
help bring about the formation of three programs designed to enhance 
faculty excellence in three areas: research, teaching and creativity. 
A total of $285,000 was disseminated by faculty committees under the 
three programs. Convinced that MSU must do more to fulfill its land- 
grant commitment to research, Tietz also re-emphasized the importance 
of research as the university moved to fill various vacant administrative 
positions.34 
Concluding Comment 
The actions of Tietz reflect the range of powers that presidents in 
a bureaucratic model enjoy and can utilize to realize their goals and 
priorities, sometimes to the consternation of some faculty members. In 
times such as these, a president may argue, the university which acts 
and speaks with one voice can protect its position and perhaps gain a 
step on its competition. The danger, of course, is that in moving too 
60 
swiftly internal cries of dissent or simple questions may be ignored or 
never heard. And that can lead to the creation of unrest and turmoil 
among faculty members which even a president with broad powers may 
not be able to quell without destroying his own base. 
61 
FOOTNOTES 
1
 J. Victor Baldridge et al., "Alternative Models of Governance in 
Higher Education," in Governing Academic Organizations: New Prob¬ 
lems, New Perspectives, eds. Gary L. Riley and J. Victor Baldridge 
(Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan Publishing Corp., 1977), p. 4. 
2
 Ibid, p. 3. 
3
 Ibid, p. 4-5. 
4
 Richard M. Cyert, "The Management of Universities of Constant or 
Decreasing Size," Public Administration Review, 38 (July/August 
1978), p. 344. 
5
 Baldridge, p. 6. 
6
 Herbert Stroup, Bureaucracy In Higher Education (N.Y. Free Press, 
1966), quoted in Baldridge, p. 9. 
7
 Ibid, p. 10. 
8
 Ibid. 
9 Ibid. 
10
 bid. 
11 Ibid. 
12
 bid. 
13 Ibid. 
14
 Ibid, p. 14. 
15
 Ibid, p. 11. 
16 Ibid, p. 15. 
17
 bid, p. 11. 
18 John D. Millett, Management, Governance and Leadership: A Guide 
for College and University Administrators (New York: AMACOM. 
1980), p. 154. 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
62 
Burton R. Clark, "Faculty Organization and AuthorityZ1 in Governing 
Academic Organizations: New Problems, New Perspectives, eds. 
Gary L. Riley and J. Victor Baldridge (Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan 
Publishing Corp., 1977), pp. 70-71. 
Baldridge, p. 14. 
Ibid, p. 14-15. 
Ibid, p. 18. 
Michael D. Cohen and James G. March, Leadership and Ambiguity 
(New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1974), p. 2. 
Ibid, p. 3. 
Baldridge, p. 25. 
Ibid, p. 8. 
Ibid, p. 21. 
Ibid, pp. 21-22. 
Ibid, pp. 22-23. 
Lauren McKinsey interview with Montana State University President 
William Tietz for Montanans On a New Trac for Science report, 
Bozeman, Mont., 6 September 1979. 
Kenneth P. Mortimer and T.R. McConnel, Sharing Authority Effectively 
(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 1978), p. 159. 
Cohen and March, p. 100. 
Ibid. 
Interview with Montana State University President William Tietz, 
Bozeman, Mont., 5 April 1984. 
63 
Chapter 5 
OBSTACLES AND STRATEGIES FOR EXCELLENCE 
Introduction 
Planning at the university level characteristically has been marked 
by preparation for ever growing enrollments, but this is changing with 
the decline in the college-age population. Shrinking enrollments are 
creating severe problems for institutions whose budgets are tied to 
enrollment, forcing them to explore such alternative sources of funding 
as research grants and contracts. The pursuit of research monies is 
explored in this chapter along with the constraints on research at MSU, 
questions surrounding planning and what appears to be the growing 
popularity of launching strategic planning efforts to forestall cutbacks 
that may be inevitable. 
Research Expansion 
Montana State University's plan to expand research at a time when 
the national focus is on contraction in higher education may be viewed 
as falling somewhere between vision and delusion. At the worst, a 
university president who appears to emphasize research above such 
responsibilities as teaching and public service risks antagonizing faculty 
members and his own governing board. That may or may not be 
happening at MSU. It should be remembered that the path to survival 
will vary among institutions. A growing number, for example, are 
64 
turning away from research in an attempt to focus their efforts on 
holding their share of a shrinking 18-year-old college student popu¬ 
lation. A second target for these institutions is attracting an older, 
less traditional clientele. Other institutions, meanwhile, are shifting 
their sights toward attracting research funds in the hope of offsetting 
the loss of students and the money they bring. Under this scenario, 
an institution can't help but become a little more of a research institute 
and a little less of a university. 
Implications of Declining Enrollment 
The root of the problem for many institutions is the simple passing 
of the last of the baby boom from the nation's high schools. Under an 
enrollment-driven system, a decline in enrollment can easily result in 
loss of funding and a cutback of faculty members and services. From 
there it is an easy jump to closure or yielding to temptation to lower 
admission standards to try and keep enrollment up. 
The Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education notes 
that: 
Such a system (the student-driven funding model) works 
better in a period of expansion than of contraction: and we 
now face a time of contraction. In a period of expansion, 
among other things, money can be more easily siphoned off to 
support academic guild interests. Declining costs per ad¬ 
ditional student help this with state financing based upon 
higher average costs, with a resultant gain for the institution 
in between. In contraction, costs climb back up the steeper 
marginal cost curve, as fixed overhead is spread over fewer 
students, and put on pressure to cut into nonessentials - 
nonessentials in attracting and holding students.1 
In its report, the council projects a decline in undergraduate 
enrollment ranging from 5 to 15 percent from 1978 to 1997.2 Others 
65 
predict a decline as steep as 40 to 50 percent, a plunge that would 
sweep almost all institutions into trouble.3 Montana State University 
continues to buck national projections of declining enrollment. ..How¬ 
ever, the university is projecting a moderate decline in the number of 
students starting in 1984. The Office of Institutional Research 
projected an enrollment of 11,359 for 1983 (which was on target with 
the 1983 fall enrollment hitting 11,447) as well as the following: 1984, 
11,241; 1985, 11,029; 1986, 10,717; and 1987, 10,702.4 
While enrollment has been healthy at MSU and officials do not 
foresee the sharp drops in enrollment predicted for other institutions, 
the Montana Legislature continues to refuse to fully fund enrollments at 
MSU - or any other unit of the university system, for that matter. This 
has placed the institution in the position of having to stretch its budget 
and reallocate resources. The university, in effect, is penalized for its 
success in attracting students to Bozeman. Since the institution must 
accept Montana high school graduates virtually regardless of their 
academic standing, it is all but impossible to hold freshmen enrollments 
down. Rigorous academic programs, however, are used to "weed out” 
students in certain areas. 
Constraints on Research 
Given the tight fiscal situation it operates under, MSU is pressing 
for other sources of revenue and has identified research as an area 
that can both enhance and enrich the university. This emphasis on 
research has brought into sharp focus the constraints that MSU and its 
researchers face. Major constraints or those on the horizon include: a 
66 
period of dwindling resources, uncertain enrollments, the state's re¬ 
luctance to fund basic research, geographic isolation, dilution of 
resources within the state with the six units of higher education, 
federal budget cuts, and the state's interest in funding full-time 
teachers, not researchers. 
A 1979 report on the National Science Foundation faculty development 
program Montanans on a New Trac for Science (MONTS) described a 
perception that "research at Montana State University is in pretty good 
shape considering the external constraints in operation."5 It went on 
to note: 
The physical isolation of Montana will always stand as a real 
barrier, costly to break down. Montana State University will 
probably never grow out of middle-size status, falling short 
of the critical mass necessary to achieve a major research 
reputation; research excellence will have to be selectively 
developed. The Montana social climate and political culture is 
unlikely to change from its emphasis on training Montanans 
for jobs and solving Montana related problems: basic re¬ 
search will have to be supported largely by the never-ending 
search for extramural funding.6 
The university, in formulating its goals, must acknowledge that 
the cost of operating a research-oriented institution is high. Such 
universities need high-caliber libraries, laboratories, equipment, 
technical support personnel, and graduate students. An increasingly 
austere funding environment and the political and social climate of 
Montana raise some unavoidable questions for MSU if the institution is 
determined to expand and upgrade research. 
The underlying question clearly remains: Should MSU attempt to 
emulate the major research universities by focusing more resources on 
laboratories and graduate programs? Or should it remain a service- 
oriented institution whose applied research program and history of 
67 
training students for careers principally within Montana is well- 
documented? The MONTS report, written by MSU political scientist Dr.' 
Lauren McKinsey, outlined the liabilities of blindly pursuing grants and 
contracts and opts for selective research excellence and retrenchment.7 
That assessment, or perhaps a far more narrow sentiment, probably 
would still be found among most Montanans. 
It would be safe to venture that few Montanans have aspirations to 
build Montana State University into an institution that ranks among the 
top research universities. Basic research is generally viewed as being 
outside the university’s sphere of responsibilites - or, if included, it is 
considered the funding responsibility of the federal government and 
private business. The university, while perhaps representative of the 
state’s conservative and practical outlook, does not inspire the kind of 
cherished support that Nebraskans, for instance, bestow on the 
University of Nebraska in Lincoln. The issue goes far beyond athletics 
as a statewide review of daily newspaper and television coverage of the 
University of Nebraska indicates. The University of Nebraska’s 
chancellors and presidents are virtually household names in that state 
and are regularly honored by various organizations. The state's 
leading newspaper, the Omaha World-Herald, regularly carries stories 
on Nebraska's research programs and professors. The university's 
governing board holds its meetings at sites around the state and those 
meetings are covered by the media as major news events. When 
Nebraska professor John Janovy pens a best-selling and critically- 
acclaimed book, the story is featured on the cover of the World-Herald's 
68 
Sunday Magazine and Nebraskans seem to share a sense of accomp¬ 
lishment.8 For their part, Montanans seem to expect MSU to educate 
students first and focus research on "seeking solutions to the immediate 
problems of Montana's citizens."9 It may well be that Montanans, as 
independent a group as any in the nation, do not rely on any of their 
universities for a sense of identity as Nebraskans seem to do. 
Selective Excellence and General Conflict 
The MONTS report raised the issue of selective research ex¬ 
cellence, recognizing that a comprehensive program in all major sciences 
will be difficult, if not impossible, to attain at MSU.10 Which major 
fields will be encouraged and on the basis of what criteria? Those 
departments that bring in the greatest amount of grants contend - with 
some justification - that their productivity merits continued and even 
increased university support. The "have-nots" argue that if they are 
to become more competitive in the pursuit of research monies, they will 
need help to upgrade equipment, purchase computer time and generally 
improve their research capabilities. 
Obviously, there is a real potential for a growing rift between the 
"haves" and "have-nots" in a time of selective retrenchment. The 
potential for conflict also exists among faculty members within the 
colleges and departments of the university organization. Richard I. 
Miller suggests that "large land-grant universities have a built-in 
contradiction between those who manage or manipulate the internal 
rewards system and those who mold the institution's image for its 
external constituents."11 Miller perceives an emphasis on research in 
the rewards system of faculty committees that make the recommendations 
69 
on tenure and promotion. Such committees are typically "dominated by 
comparatively conservative senior faculty members, who hold on to a 
research bias even if they themselves have not been particularly good 
examples of its practice.”12 
Miller suggests that two factors may be changing this pattern. 
First, he contends, the decreasing mobility resulting from austere fiscal 
conditions has given younger professors a greater voice in personnel 
decisions, although one could certainly argue that the reverse is true. 
It would seem young faculty members have few places to turn if they 
disagree with the internal politics of a university. Miller also contends 
that a declining student pool has forced faculty members to place a 
greater importance on teaching in order to retain students.13 That 
argument carries greater weight, but in many cases - as suggested in 
this paper - that has accompanied greater emphasis on obtaining 
research monies. 
Miller believes that from the standpoint of land-grant university 
presidents and their board members, the most obvious evidence of a 
successful university to state legislators is one which provides effective 
public service and teaching. Legislators are more apt to reward public 
service and teaching than successful research with payoffs that may be 
diffuse and long-term. Miller aligns the president with board members 
in emphasizing public service and teaching in order to continue levels 
of funding.14 It is worth speculating that under this scenario, a 
president who emphasizes research above other responsibilities risks the 
possibility of alienating his own governing board and jeopardizing 
funding. That is, unless the president can successfully attract outside 
funding or conduct research with immediate payoffs for the state. 
70 
One temptation in pursuing research grants is to accept research 
that should not be done at the university because it threatens the 
integrity of the institution. The MONTS report warned: 
Preoccupation with dollar awards can lead to prostitution of 
both the individual researcher and the university itself. A 
shift from basic research to applied, program or targeted 
research in areas such as agriculture, energy and the envir¬ 
onment can signal collusion with forces which conceivably 
could dramatically alter the way of life in Montana. More 
money is not the answer if it means selling the soul of the 
University to either the prevailing dominant forces of 
production in this nation or the growing regulatory machine 
of the federal government. Let it not be pretended that 
research dollars are somehow neutral.15 
In order to keep the university on the right track, a president 
and his cabinet have a responsibility to chart the direction the 
university should head. As noted earlier, the president should act in 
conjunction with faculty members and others in planning and deter¬ 
mining policy. Faced with an enrollment shortfall and looming financial 
problems, a growing number of colleges and universities are turning to 
strategic studies. The basic principles of this approach appear to have 
been adapted from warfare. 
Strategic Decision-Making 
One can almost hear the fanfare of trumpets in George Keller’s call 
to universities ”to embrace the new form of strategic decision-making. ” 
Keller, a senior vice president of a Maryland institutional, marketing 
and communications firm, reports that: 
An "almost revolutionary” new managerial strategy is being 
introduced into American higher education. The new manage¬ 
ment for higher education is being hammered out blow by 
blow under the duress of financial deficits, cutbacks, 
enrollment declines, and the demands of the paying clients. 
71 
Clearly, the simplistic, highly rational plans and the 
lethargic, highly political incrementalism of the past are not 
appropriate for higher education today.16 
Carole Frances, chief economist of the American Council on 
Education, is among the strongest proponents of strategic planning. 
Frances advances a model based on strategic planning and contingency 
budgeting, describing it as a broad and flexible approach to the 
planning process. Suggesting that the "debate on the best way to 
prepare for the 1980s is polarizing into two sharply different 
approaches," Frances contends that strategic planning - which numbers 
retrenchment among possible outcomes - "cuts the risk - and cost - of 
being wrong."17 
Frances describes the alternative approach as "apocalyptic" 
planning, with supporters of that approach resigned to drops in 
enrollment and calling for the management of decline.18 She contends: 
The management of decline approach looks at the future and 
determines that almost the only possible outcome is large 
enrollment contractions and then sets out to manage that 
contraction in a way which transforms the most probable 
outcome into the only possible outcome. If you plan, manage, 
and budget for decline, that is precisely what you will get. 
You may get that result in any event, but with this 
approach, you make sure you will.19 
A strong element of hope appears to underlie Frances' inter¬ 
pretation of strategic planning, with the institution urged to consider 
not only what is, but what might be if everything fell into place. That 
is a less than realistic approach during a time of financial constraint 
and retrenchment. 
The University of Maryland, a land-grant institution, is among the 
colleges and universities that have undertaken long-range strategic 
studies. Maryland is using its 295-page study as a guide toward 
72 
realizing its goal of becoming one of the nation’s ten best state 
universities. While planning, or at least talk of it, has been in vogue 
for years in higher education, Maryland administrators are convinced 
that "strategic planning" is of the utmost importance if their institution 
is to evolve as a university second to none.20 Explains University 
President John S. Toll: 
We believe planning may well be the most important activity in 
higher education in the 1980s. Except for several dozen of 
the most prestigious colleges and universities, any institution 
that does not look ahead, analyze the new environment and 
new clienteles, and prepare for academic shifts and new fiscal 
realities, may have a rocky ride through the decade. Quite a 
few colleges may not survive.21 
Toll goes on to define strategic planning as: 
[A] departure from previous planning in that it concentrates 
on the changing environment surrounding one’s institution as 
much as it pays attention to internal hopes and needs. ..It 
analyzes the threats and opportunities from the emerging 
demography, technology, economic and financial trends, 
political and legal developments, international conditions, and 
the concerns for changing values and quality of life. It 
matches department and collegiate wish lists with the probable 
realities of the society that universities hope to serve.22 
Future Scenarios 
The authors of Three Thousand Futures echo Frances' contention 
that policies based on current perceptions or views can affect the 
future for better or worse. The fears include a drop in the college-age 
cohort (18-21) of up to 50 percent; a deteriorating financial situation 
caused by tax limitation movements, inflation and a decline in endow¬ 
ment; an erosion in public confidence spurred by false advertising and 
easy academic credits; growing rigidity among an aging and tenured 
faculty; students exerting a greater influence simply by choice of where 
73 
and in what they enroll; greater public intervention in university 
affairs; campus governance turning to one of competition and mistrust; 
and the impairment of research "because young scientists are no longer 
hired and older scientists tend to become less productive."23 
At the other extreme, the more optimistic outlooks include: a 
possible rise in enrollment of up to 40 percent as older persons and 
foreign students take the place of the traditional college-age cohort; 
increased student financial aid and unemployment keep youths in 
college; the end of expansion forces institutions to concentrate on 
improving the quality of education; faculty members place the long-term 
welfare of their institutions above private interests; trustees work 
harder to raise more private funds; students are intelligent consumers 
who will choose the best institutions and programs, thus ensuring the 
survival of the fittest; government will exercise self-restraint and allow 
the institutions autonomy; and federal support of research will be 
stepped up.24 
Whose scenario is the most realistic? Even the most optimistic 
would be hard pressed to defend many of the hopeful outlooks given 
the economic environment, human nature and current trends. It is 
likely that aspects of both scenarios are realistic, leaving administrators 
with the task of selecting (or guessing) which are most pertinent to 
their institutions. Not to be overlooked are the elements of chance and 
circumstance which invariably throw the best-made plans awry. 
74 
Principle of Substitution 
Up to this point, the concepts of planning and selective retrench¬ 
ment have been stressed. Related to this is the principle of substi¬ 
tution , with the university abandoning or trimming back programs 
where applicable. Peter Drucker notes that abandonment is difficult 
because universities and other service institutions are not want- 
oriented, but "are concerned with good works and with social or moral 
contributions."25 The results or products of a university are not 
easily measured, although one can point to the number of students 
graduated, research dollars generated and papers published in 
discussing a university's contributions to society. Not so easily 
translated to the public is the interaction in a classroom between 
professor and student or scientific experiments whose payoffs may be 
years off. 
Drucker suggests that the manager of a service institution - the 
president of a university - must constantly ask: 
"Knowing what we now know, would we get into this activity, 
this service, this effort if we were not already in it? If the 
answer is 'no,' one does not say, 'Let's make another study.' 
One says, 'How can we get out or at least stop throwing 
additional resources in?"'26 
Such an approach requires flexibility and the ability to move 
faculty members to areas of growth that remain true to the ideal of the 
university. It means trimming programs where necessary, rather than 
allowing the sheer weight of faculty members in a discipline to dictate 
curriculum simply on the basis of tenure. While that assessment is not 
shared by most faculty members, it is difficult to see how a university 
can expect to survive at public expense when student interests and 
75 
societal needs are shifting. This is not to suggest that faculty 
members should not have as strong a say in the direction of their 
institution as the administration or various constituencies. It is to 
suggest that rare is the faculty member who will voluntarily step down 
for what might be considered the good of the institution - if such a 
consensus could be reached among all interested parties. 
Clashes Over Priorities 
Recent incidents at several universities illustrate what can happen 
when faculties and administrations clash over priorities. The opening 
of a computer science department at Sonoma State University drew 
angry protests from laid-off professors, including a former physical 
education teacher who lamented, "The faculty is supposed to control the 
curriculum. The curriculum isn't supposed to control the faculty."27 
A computer sciences department also figured in an incident at 
Colorado State University, where a report recommended that the 
department be moved from the Natural Sciences College and placed in 
the Engineering College. The report was attacked as a "waste of money 
and time" by the chairman of the computer sciences department,28 who 
can be viewed as at least partly protecting his turf in what is a familiar 
stance even in times of expansion. The report, drawn up by faculty 
members, students and staff members, also recommended eliminating two 
colleges through merger and trimming seven of the 57 departments to 
help streamline the operation.29 
The third example of faculty in-fighting over priorities is Auburn 
University, where the faculty is being torn apart in a bitter fight over 
V 
76 
whether the university is moving from offering a "comprehensive’1 
education to a focus on engineering and agriculture.30 Similarly, at 
MSU there is a possibility that faculty members in the humanities and 
social sciences could view any strong emphasis on the hard sciences as 
evidence of an administrative prejudice against the liberal arts. 
It is not the intention of this paper to suggest areas which MSU 
might abandon, but to suggest that selective retrenchment and substi¬ 
tution are important options that can trigger disruption. The entire 
campus community should be involved in any discussions and studies of 
possible areas to cut. Guiding any self-assessment should be Drucker’s 
admonition that an institution like MSU "has to be the right size for its 
market, its economy, and its technology; and the right size is whatever 
produces the optimal yield from productive resources."31 
The potential elimination or merging of programs raises fundamental 
questions about the purpose of a university. For example, is MSU 
deluding itself by maintaining a small theatre arts department? Or is 
such a department a necessary part of university life and an important 
contributor to the university's reputation? The College of Business has 
shown significant growth in the last several years, reflecting a nation¬ 
wide trend. Should faculty positions be pulled from the humanities and 
reallocated to the business college? One could justify the move in terms 
of numbers and increase the student-professor ratio in the humanities. 
While the liberal arts are an integral part of the land-grant university, 
they often are seen as not being accorded equal status with the 
professional schools, which university budgeting tends to benefit. 
77 
Need for Organizational Fluidity 
Increasingly, the emphasis in planning for institutional survival is 
on flexibility to respond to various enrollment and funding shifts. 
Flexibility is needed if institutions expect to place themselves in a 
position to shift resources, trim programs and attract new sources of 
revenue in order to respond to a changing environment. All of this, it 
might be said, while paying homage to that traditional trinity of 
research, teaching and public service. 
In their study of successful management in the private sector, 
Thomas J. Peters and Robert H. Waterman, Jr. determined that 
America's best-run companies are marked by organizational fluidity.32 
They note: 
We have observed few, if any, bold new company directions 
that have come from goal precision or rational analysis. While 
it is true that the good companies have superb analytic skills, 
we believe that their major decisions are shaped more by their 
values than by their dexterity with numbers. The top per¬ 
formers create a broad, uplifting, shared culture, a coherent 
framework within which charged-up people search for appro¬ 
priate adaptations. Their ability to extract extraordinary 
contributions from very large numbers of people turns on the 
ability to create a sense of highly valued purpose. Such 
purpose invariably emanates from love of product, providing 
top-quality services, and honoring innovation and contribution 
from all.33 
The university, as noted earlier, admittedly is a different 
organization than those found in the private sector. But, if Peters and 
Waterman are correct, surely some of their findings about what makes 
an organization successful in the private sector also apply to the 
university. Certainly, the academic community shares a sense of 
"highly valued purpose" and history. Generally speaking, however, it 
is unclear whether the university organization is either willing to allow 
78 
or equipped to provide the flexibility in planning that this and coming 
decades will require. The values, attitudes and structures that are so 
much a part of the university organization seem to virtually ensure 
myriad problems for an administration or faculty bent on fostering 
change. Administrators are faced not only with the university's 
ambiguous organizational character, but an institutional inertia that 
makes change difficult even in the best of times. That these are not 
the best of times is evidenced by budget shortfalls and other problems 
that have forced the University of Washington, University of Colorado, 
and University of Northern Colorado, among others, to review their 
tenure policies and, at UNC, to fire 47 tenured faculty members. 
Concluding Comment 
Conflict is inherent within any organization and should be viewed 
as a potential source of ideas to be carefully considered. Those ideas 
and many other elements make up strategic decision-making, which 
admittedly may be little more than traditional planning with a formal 
title. Whether it really represents a "revolution" or not, strategic 
studies have forced more universities to consider and begin facing up 
to a changing world in which students and funding are no longer so 
plentiful. A selective growth strategy coupled with organization fluidity 
appear to offer institutions the best hope for coping with a changing 
environment. Within this environment, the university that holds to its 
fundamental goals and missions while adapting to change will stand the 
best chance of emerging with an enhanced program. 
79 
FOOTNOTES 
1
 Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education. Three 
Thousand Futures: The Next Twenty Years ofr Higher Education 
(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 1980), p. 30. 
2
 Ibid, p. 34. 
3
 Ibid. 
4
 Information drawn from enrollment projection model by the Office of 
Institutional Research at Montana State University, April 1983. 
5
 Lauren McKinsey, Perceptions of Science Research at Montana State 
University: A Component of the Montanans On a New Trac for Sci¬ 
ence (MONTS) Project (Bozeman, Mont.: Montana State University, 
October 1979), p. 28. 
6
 Ibid. 
7 Ibid, pp. 35-36. 
8
 Observations based on working for a daily newspaper in Nebraska, 
1975-78, and periodic travel through the state. 
9
 McKinsey, p. 2. 
10 Ibid, pp. 35-36. 
11
 Richard I. Miller, The Assessment of College Performance (San 
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 1979), p. 14. 
12
 Ibid. 
13 Ibid. 
14
 Ibid. 
15
 McKinsey, p. 35. 
16
 George Keller, "The View from Four Colleges," Change, March 1983, 
pp. 34-35. 
17
 Carol Frances, "Apocalyptic vs. Strategic Planning," Change, July/ 
August 1980, p. 19. 
18 Ibid. 
80 
19
 Ibid, p. 39. 
20
 The Post-Land Grant University: The University of Maryland Report, 
by Malcolm Moos, Director (Adelphi, Maryland: The University of 
Maryland, 1981). 
21
 John S. Toll, ’’Strategic Planning: An Increasing Priority for Colleges 
and Universities,” Change, May/June 1982, p. 36. 
22
 Ibid, p. 37. 
23
 Three Thousand Futures, pp. 2-3. 
24
 Ibid, pp. 4-5. 
25
 Peter F. Drucker, The Changing World of the Executive (New York: 
Truman Talley Books, 1982), p. 100. 
26
 Ibid, p. 111. 
27
 "Getting Off the Tenure Track,” Newsweek, 31 January 1983, p. 50. 
28
 ’’’Hit list' Revealed for CSU," The Denver Post, 3 February 1983, 
p. 1-B. 
29
 Ibid. 
30
 "Auburn U. in Turmoil Over President," USA Today, 18 February 
1983, p. 7-A. 
31
 Drucker, p. 87. 
32
 Thomas J. Peters and Robert H. Waterman, Jr., In Search of Ex¬ 
cellence: Lessons from America’s Best-Run Companies (New York: 
Harper and Row, Publishers, 1982), p. 51. 
33
 Ibid. 
81 
Chapter 6 
CONCLUSION: LOOKING BACK AND BEYOND 
The selection and development of a survival strategy by insti¬ 
tutions of higher education will play a large part in determining the 
roles they play through the remainder of the century. Some institu¬ 
tions will not survive, falling victim to shifts in enrollment and a 
changing world. Others will emerge with new mandates or missions, 
with some of the more desperate institutions catering to the whims of 
students and becoming essentially vocational schools. Still others will 
emerge with relatively strong programs, having selected certain areas of 
promise and accomplishment in which to devote some of their resources 
while continuing to fulfill their responsibilities as colleges and uni¬ 
versities. There is no reason that Montana State University cannot be 
part of this last group, promoting areas of excellence and carrying out 
its threefold mission of teaching, research and public service. 
One of the strongest things that MSU has going for it during this 
time of uncertainty is its land-grant values. These values of service to 
others through teaching, research and extension programs have served 
both the institution and state well, and should continue to do so for 
many more years. It is no small tribute to the land-grant institution 
that many other colleges and universities have adopted much of the 
land-grant mission and undertaken to provide similar services. The 
82 
land-grant institution can take great pride in having opened the doors 
of education to all qualified students and in championing the concept of 
applied research. 
In charting its research program and future, MSU would be well- 
advised to follow Drucker's suggestion that an institution "has to be the 
right size for its market, its economy, and its technology; and the 
right size is whatever produces the optimal yield from productive 
resources."1 Call it a strategic study, or just simple planning and 
evaluation, but MSU faculty members and administrators need to 
periodically step back and assess what is central to them and what 
aspirations are feasible for the university. 
MSU must regularly address the questions of growth, of quality 
and of size. There must be a constant realization that size - measured 
solely in terms of research dollars, enrollment and buildings - is not 
the only measure of a university. A university exists to educate and 
graduate students who will contribute to society as citizens and leaders; 
to support intellectual and artistic creativity; to ensure educational 
justice; and "to provide ever more constructive evaluation for national 
self-renewal."2 
A major part of planning is the development of goals and objectives 
that go beyond nebulous platitudes or diversionary tactics. Goal¬ 
forming is an appealing exercise in academia, where the temptation often 
is to delve into time-consuming details, failing to grasp the overall 
picture. At the other extreme exists a tendency to develop a set of 
goals so bland as to be acceptable to all and to be just as ineffective. 
Suffice it to say that goals can be reworked or altered to fit any 
number of perceived needs. MSU's traditional land-grant goals are so 
83 
broad as to be virtually all-encompassing. Within reason, a university 
working within those parameters can recommend almost any course of 
action and argue that it is meeting its mandate. 
Yet regardless of MSU's internal plans and goals, students may 
well have the last say as to what kind of institution MSU and others 
will be in the 1980s and 1990s. In their book The Academic Revolution,3 
Christopher Jencks and David Riesman described how the values of 
research-oriented professors shaped the college and university world. 
In a recent followup to that book, Riesman notes that this faculty 
dominance has waned under the weight of a new student consumerism in 
which institutions court a dwindling number of students.4 The 
students, who increasingly are career-oriented, are opting for programs 
in law, medicine and business, and rejecting the humanities. One 
conclusion is that students and faculty members will increasingly find 
themselves at odds over which programs and degrees will be offered. 
Administrators will undoubtedly find themselves caught between the two 
factions, torn between meeting the perceived needs of students, faculty 
members and the institution. In some cases, the issue could come down 
to choosing between institutional survival or remaining faithful to 
traditional academic values at the risk of closure. If the choice is 
between prostitution and closure, the institution can only opt for the 
latter out of respect for its values. 
Fortunately, MSU is not faced with this kind of choice and has 
shown a strong willingness to remain in command of its programs of 
study and curriculum. MSU is facing enrollment pressures in business 
84 
and engineering. Nonetheless, within this consumer climate the 
university has recently adopted the general education curriculum model 
for, at least, the College of Letters and Science. That same balanced 
commitment needs to be maintained in the area of research, where any 
questionable offers that threaten the integrity of the professor and 
institution should be spurned. The university must guard against 
sacrificing its responsibility to conduct basic research in order to meet 
the more practical-oriented demands of the state and industry. 
The path to an expanded research program is strewn with 
obstacles ranging from the university's geographical isolation to the 
state's reluctance to fund basic research. These problems are 
addressed in the MONTS report with a number of sound suggestions 
offered by its author. MSU also is confronted with an increasingly 
competitive environment in which not only the traditional research 
universities, but middle-tier institutions are aggressively pursuing more 
research grants and contracts. While the major research universities 
remain as powerful as ever, other institutions are improving their 
programs by bringing in young, talented professors who have been 
forced by market conditions to consider working for institutions that 
they would have ignored in the past. MSU could find itself in the 
position of having to improve its research efforts to simply stand its 
ground, let alone striving to surge ahead. 
MSU administrators maintain that their approach to strengthen 
research ought not to be considered as a conscious survival strategy as 
the term is used in this paper. Certainly, it would be extremely risky 
85 
for MSU to base its strategic planning on an expanded research pro¬ 
gram that would be expected to attract increasing amounts of monies. 
Beyond the constraints that MSU faces in building its research 
program, it seems virtually certain that enrollment will remain the key 
element in funding for MSU as well as most of the nation’s colleges and 
universities. Michael Cohen and James March estimate that only one 
percent of the colleges and universities depend on institutional and 
research reputations - not enrollment - to develop their budgets. 
Mostly these are the prestigious private universities that rank among 
the nation's leading institutions. A third category encompasses those 
major public universities and some private institutions which rely on 
both the enrollment cycle and research reputation for funding, a 
strategy MSU administrators are weighing heavily. The last budgeting 
type is the prestigious, small (often liberal arts) college that depends 
on enrollment and on institutional support and endowment.5 
One of the keys to MSU's continuing health and prosperity is 
enrollment, which should remain comparatively strong with possibly a 
leveling off at around 10,500 to 10,700 by the end of the decade. A 
"steady state" enrollment would provide MSU officials the opportunity to 
plan their budgets without having to cope with the heavy increases of 
enrollment of recent years. Officials might want to consider ways of 
changing state laws to revise admissions standards in order to reduce 
the large freshmen classes that have drained university resources. 
Such a policy would divert some students to other state institutions, 
improving their slumping enrollments. Many of those students who 
86 
attended other institutions could enroll at MSU their junior year, 
arriving more mature and prepared to undertake college-level work. 
While I have stressed throughout this paper the importance of serving 
students, the institution also has a responsiblity to itself to ensure that 
the quality of its program steadily improves. This is difficult to 
accomplish when the institution is burdened with large numbers of 
students at the freshman and sophomore levels. 
With enrollment holding steady, administrators would have 
additional time to concentrate on designs to selectively expand and 
upgrade the research program. Research is a healthy and productive 
responsibility for a university to assume. The concern is that by 
striving to enhance its research program, MSU could wind up doing so 
at the expense of all levels of instruction and public service. In an 
era of fiscal restraint, it is probably impossible to emphasize one 
land-grant mission without upsetting the balance among all three 
missions. As Clark Kerr notes, there seems to be a "point of no 
return" after which research becomes so absorbing that faculty members 
can no longer concentrate their attention on undergraduate instruction.6 
Another potential key to MSU’s ability to avoid painful retrench¬ 
ment is its hierarchical system of management, which can allow the 
university to move more swiftly than is often possible at collegial 
institutions. Administrative moves are less likely to be challenged by 
the faculty at MSU, where professors are generally more conservative 
by nature and willing to grant the administration greater responsibility. 
Too, the relationship seems to work as faculty members have enjoyed 
job security and, in many cases, drawn at least adequate research 
87 
funding. Faculty members have maintained a generally high standard of 
teaching and performed research of a quality ranging from satisfactory 
to exemplary. 
While MSU's hierarchical system allows the university to forge 
ahead when other institutions might still be debating the issue, it is 
reasonable to question how much input faculty members had in the 
administrative decision to place more emphasis on research and the 
reasons for doing so. The administration does not appear to have the 
full support of all professors in this endeavor but, it can be argued, 
few moves of any scale or consequence ever do. Much of the faculty 
appears to welcome some sort of increased emphasis on research within 
reason and with pursuant rewards. The situation could become more 
competitive than many expect, however, if faculty members are virtually 
forced to compete for monies and time to carry out the increased 
workload they are now expected to assume. 
The administration needs to ensure that it maintains a dialogue 
with faculty members and provides for their participation in the 
formulation of policy. That policy-making should be undertaken with 
the firm conviction that MSU performs a valuable role in the state 
through its missions of teaching, research and public service. These 
missions have evolved over the years and will continue to do so for the 
foreseeable future. It must be realized that just as the American farm 
family, which once epitomized life here, has changed with the times, so 
must the land-grant university continue to adapt while remaining 
faithful to its roots. Those roots, I am convinced, are deep enough to 
allow Montana State University to pursue new directions while taking 
care to maintain its institutional integrity. 
88 
FOOTNOTES 
1
 Peter F. Drucker, The Changing World of the Executive (New York: 
Truman Talley Books, 1982), p. 87. 
2
 Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education, Three 
Thousand Futures: The Next Twenty Years for Higher Education 
(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 1980), p. 94. 
3
 Christopher Jencks and David Riesman, The Academic Revolution 
(New York: Doubleday, 1968). 
4
 David Riesman, On Higher Education: The Academic Enterprise in an 
Era of Rising Student Consumerism (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. 
Publishers, 1980). 
5
 Michael D. Cohen and James G. March, Leadership and Ambiguity 
(New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1974), p. 101. 
6
 Clark Kerr, The Uses of the University (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard 
University Press, 1964), p. 65. 
REFERENCES 
Argyris, Chris, and Cyert, Richard M. Leadership in the *803: Essays 
on Higher Education. Cambridge, Mass.: Institute for Educational 
Management, 1980. 
Anderson, G. Lester, ed. Land-Grant Universities and Their Continuing 
Challenge. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, 1976. 
"Auburn U. in Turmoil Over President." USA Today, 18 February 1983, 
p. 7-A. 
Baldridge, J. Victor; Curtis, David V.; Ecker, George P.; and Riley, 
Gary L. "Alternative Models of Governance in Higher Education." 
In Governing Academic Organizations: New Problems, New Per¬ 
spectives , pp. 2-25. Edited by Gary L. Riley and J. Victor 
Baldridge, Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan Publishing Corp., 1977. 
Bartlett, Thomas A., and Vaughn, John C. "The Recapitalization of 
Research Universities." National Forum, Winter 1981, pp. 11-12. 
Benveniste, Guy. Bureaucracy. San Francisco: Boyd & Fraser Pub¬ 
lishing Co., 1977. 
"The Big Bucks of Biology." Newsweek, 5 April 1982, pp. 69-70. 
Blyn, Martin R., and Zoerner, C.E. "The Academic String Pushers: 
The Origins of the Upcoming Crisis in the Management of Aca¬ 
demia." Change, March 1982, pp. 21-25, 60. 
Bowen, Howard R. Investment in Learning: The Individual and Social 
Value of American Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass 
Inc., Publishers, 1977. 
Branscomb, Lewis M. "America's Rising Research Alliance." Enterprise, 
August 1983, pp. 4-7. 
Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education. Three Thousand 
Futures: The Next Twenty Years for Higher Education. San Fran¬ 
cisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 1975. 
"A Case of Fraud at Harvard." Newsweek. 8 February 1982, p. 89. 
Clark, Burton R. "Faculty Organization and Authority." In Governing 
Academic Organizations: New Problems, New Perspectives, pp. 
34-43. Edited by Gary L. Riley and J. Victor Baldridge, Berkeley, 
Calif.: McCutchan Publishing Corp., 1977. 
Cohen, Michael D., and March, James G. Leadership and Ambiguity. 
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co, 1974. 
90 
"Congress Tempered Reagan on '83 Federal Research Budget," Science 
News 123 (29 January 1983):72. 
Cyert, Richard M. "The Management of Universities of Constant or 
Decreasing Size." Public Administration Review 38 (July August 
1978), pp. 344-349. 
David, Edward E., Jr. "Thei Corporation on Campus - Supporting Re¬ 
search with a Commercial Mission." Change, September 1982, 
pp. 26-29. 
Draft statement from Pajaro Dune conference, Stanford University News 
Service release, 29 March 1982. 
Dressel, Paul L., and Faricy, Wiliam H. Return to Responsibility: Con¬ 
straints on Autonomy in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey- 
Bass Inc., Publishers, 1972. 
Drucker, Peter F. The Changing World of the Executive. New York: 
Truman Talley Books, 1982. 
Eddy, Edward Danforth, Jr. Colleges for Our Land and Time. New 
York: Harper and Brothers, 1957. 
Final Report: Montana Commission on Postsecondary Education. By Ted 
James, Chairman. Helena, Mont.: Montana Commission on Post¬ 
secondary Education, May 1980. 
Finn, Chester E., Jr. Scholars, Dollars and Bureaucrats. Washington, 
D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1978. 
"Fiscal Constraints Emphasize Need for Planning." WICHE Reports on 
Higher Education in the West," Autumn 1981, pp. 2-3. 
Frances, Carol. "Apocalyptic vs. Strategic Planning." Change, July/ 
August 1980, pp. 19, 39-44. 
Frederickson, H. George. New Public Administration. University, Ala.: 
The University of Alabama Press, 1980. 
"Getting Off the Tenure Track." Newsweek, 31 January 1983, p. 50. 
Greenberg, Daniel S. The Politics of Pure Science. New York: The 
New American Liberty, Inc., 1967. 
"Higher Education: Tough Times Ahead." WICHE Reports on Higher 
Education in the West, Autumn 1980, pp. 5-7. 
"'Hit List' Revealed for CSU." The Denver Post, 3 February 1983, 
p. 1-B. 
91 
"Idaho Warned It Could Lose 100-Year Investment in Colleges." The 
Chronicle of Higher Education, 26 January 1983, p. 9. 
Jencks, Christopher and Riesman, David. The Academic Revolution. 
New York: Doubleday, 1968. 
Jutila, John W. "An Outline of Research Activities at MSU," a supple¬ 
ment to the 1980 accreditation review of research at Montana 
State University, Bozeman, Mont., May 1980. 
"Kennedy Urges Greater Self-Regulation Among Scientists, Scholars," 
Stanford University News release, 19 October 1982. 
Kerr, Clark. The Uses of the University. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard 
University Press, 1964. 
Ladd, Dwight R. Change in Educational Policy: Self-Studies in Selected 
Colleges and Universities. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1970. 
McKinsey, Lauren. Montana State University, Bozeman, Mont. Interview 
with William Tietz, 6 September 1979. 
 ,  . Perceptions of Science Research at Montana State 
University: A Component of the Montanans On a New Trac for 
Science (MONTS) Project. Bozeman, Mont.: Montana State Uni¬ 
versity, October 1979. 
Miller, Edward L. "University Leaders: Having Style Rather than Sim¬ 
ply a Style." Change, January/February 1983, pp. 10-11. 
Miller, Richard I. The Assessment of College Performance. San Fran¬ 
cisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 1979. 
Millett, John D. Management, Governance and Leadership: A Guide for 
College and University Administrators. New York: AMACOM, 1980. 
Mortimer, Kenneth P., and McConnel, T.R. Sharing Authority Effec¬ 
tively . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 1978. 
Mortimer, Kenneth P., and Tierney, Michael L. The Three "R^" of the 
Eighties: Reduction, Reallocation and Retrenchment. Washington, 
D.C.: American Association for Higher Education-Clearinghouse on 
Higher Education Research Report No. 4, 1979. 
"MSU Officials Say Grants Pay Off." The Billings Gazette, 17 February 
1981, p. 4-B. 
National Science Foundation. "R&D Funds Fiscal Year 1980," Surveys 
of Science Resources Series, NSF 82-300. 
Norman, Colin. Knowledge and Power: The Global Research and Devel¬ 
opment Budget. Washington, D.C.: Worldwatch Paper 31, July 
1979. 
Northcutt, Greg. Ag Research: Your Harvest of Dividends. Bozeman 
Mont.: Montana Agricultural Experiment Station, 1980. 
92 
Office of the Vice President for Research, Montana State University. 
Report on Research 1980. Bozeman, Mont.: Montana State Uni¬ 
versity, 1981. 
 Report on Research 1981. Bozeman, Mont.: Montana 
State University, 1982. 
  . Self-Study Report of Montana State University to the 
Commission on Colleges. Bozeman, Mont.: Montana State Uni¬ 
versity, October 1980. 
Peters, Thomas J., and Waterman, Robert H., Jr. In Search of Ex¬ 
cellence: Lessons from America’s Best-Run Companies. New York: 
Harper and Row, Publishers, 1982. 
Peterson, Ivars. "Academic Questions: Campus and Company Partner¬ 
ships." Science News 123 (29 January 1983): 76-77. 
The Post-Land Grant University: The University of Maryland Report. 
By Malcolm Moos, Director. Adelphi, Maryland: The University 
of Maryland, 1981. 
"Private Universities Face Growing Competition for Research Funding." 
Stanford University News Service release, 2 February 1983. 
"Pure Knowledge vs. Pure Profit." Time, 28 September 1981, p. 63. 
Riesman, David. On Higher Education: The Academic Enterprise in 
an Era of Rising Student Consumerism. San Francisco: Jossey- 
Bass, Inc., Publishers, 1980. 
Rosenzweig, Robert M. Research Universities and Their Patrons. 
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982. 
 . "What Can Colleges Expect from the Reagan 
Administration?" The Chronicle of Higher Education, 19 January 
1981, p. 64. 
"Serious Financial Problems Facing States Portends a Lean Year for 
Public Campuses." The Chronicle of Higher Education, 17 Feb¬ 
ruary 1981, pp. 1, 5-7. 
Shapley, Willis H.; Teich, Albert H.; and Weinberg, Jill P. Research & 
Development AAAS Report VII: Federal Budget - FY 1983 Impact 
and Challenge. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the 
Advancement of Science, 1982. 
Smith, L. R., and Karlesky, Joseh J., eds. The State of Academic 
Science: Background Papers. New York: Change Magazine Press, 
1978. 
93 
Stadtman, Verne A. Academic Adapations: Higher Education Prepares 
for the 1980s and 1990s. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Pub¬ 
lishers, 1980. 
"Stiff CSU Cutbacks Ordered in Face of Deficit." The Denver Post, 
14 April 1982, p. 5-B. 
"Study Shows Academic Prestige Hasn't Changed Much in Last Decade." 
Released by Associated Press, 1 January 1983. 
Tietz, William. Montana State University, Bozeman, Mont. Interview 
with author, 5 April 1984. 
Toll, John S. "Strategic Planning: An Increasing Priority for Colleges 
and Universities." Change, May/June 1982, pp. 36-37. 
"Universities Trim Research Programs in Agriculture." The Chronicle 
of Higher Education, 2 February 1983, pp. 1, 10-11. 
"U-System 'Funding Has Fallen Behind.'" The Billings Gazette, 11 
February 1981, p. 1-B. 
"Western Leaders Formulate a Plan for Action." WICHE Reports on 
Higher Education in the West, Winter 1981, pp. 2-3.