A Synopsis of “FCS in Higher Education: An Open Summit on the Future”

Dorothy I. Mitstifer

The Summit held February 3-6, 1999 in Arlington, Texas was planned by representatives of seven associations related to Family and Consumer Sciences in higher education: Board of Human Sciences, Council of Administrators of Family and Consumer Sciences, 1890 Council of Administrators, Higher Education Unit/American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences, Kappa Omicron Nu, National Association of Teacher Educators of Family and Consumer Sciences, and Phi Upsilon Omicron. Esther Glover Fahm, Frances E. Andrews, and Dorothy I. Mitstifer served as co-chairs; other members of the planning committee were Amelia Brown, Virginia Clark, Billie Collier, Karen Craig, Nina J. Dilbeck, Ruth Dohner, Sally Fortenberry, Gearldean Johnson, Kathleen A. Lodl, Julia R. Miller, James D. Moran, III, Ralphenia D. Pace, and Marilyn Sampley. Carol E. Anderson and Mary Lou Davis of Carol E. Anderson and Associates of Ann Arbor, Michigan, served as the consultants for the planning and facilitation of the Summit. Lisa Wootton, KON Executive Assistant, contributed to the on-site management of the Summit.

Interactive Process for Designing Summit

The process for designing the Summit was an interactive one from start to finish. The Steering Committee began forming in March 1998 after two years of discussion by members of the Council of Administrators of Family and Consumer Sciences following the charge by Gladys Gary Vaughn to define the future of the profession in higher education with intention rather than in reaction to external forces. A Summit Committee first headed by Karla Hughes and then Frances E. Andrews reviewed possible approaches to fulfill Vaughn’s challenge.

In February 1998 the Steering Committee met in Albuquerque at the Annual CAFCS Meeting, and the CAFCS membership authorized the substitution of the Summit for its 1999 meeting. The co-chairs were named and the associations were identified for naming Steering Committee members.

The Steering Committee’s first action was to agree upon a Call for Proposals for Summit consultants. Following selection of Carol E. Anderson and Associates, the consultants conducted interviews with Steering Committee members and other representatives of the leadership in higher education at the 1998 AAFCS Meeting in Atlanta. The goals of the interviews and meetings with the Steering Committee were to identify desired outcomes of the Summit as well as potential barriers to a successful summit.

Other business of the Steering Committee was conducted through e-mail and conference calls. The following discussion reviews the design and implementation process of the Summit (adapted from document, “Process for Designing Summit,” by Carol E. Anderson and Associates, 1999) in the following sections: desired outcomes, potential barriers to success, key elements of the Summit, vision survey, data analysis, design of the Summit, and Summit packets.

Desired Outcomes

Agreement on desired outcomes for the Summit provided focus for the Summit agenda. Four proposed outcomes for the Summit included:

• Identify future roles and opportunities for the field as a whole in higher education.
• Develop an understanding of what impacts higher education from an external and internal perspective and collaborate in developing strategies to respond to those impacts.
• Honor the diversity of various programs in higher education and increase appreciation for our collective whole.
• Leave with an internalized sense of commitment to action toward agreed upon issues that will produce alignment and mutual benefit to diverse institutional models in higher education.

Potential Barriers to Success

Discovering potential barriers to a successful Summit allowed for thoughtful planning. Potential barriers included:

• The constraints and politics of academic and state cultures could interfere.
• Personal factors in resistance to the Summit or to change could interfere.
• The Summit could be inadequately attended or focused, or process inadequate.
• Alignment of participants achieved by the Summit might not lead to action.

Key Elements

In order for the profession to thrive in all of its various forms, it was critical that participants focus on shared concerns that affect the whole. Therefore the Summit should:

• Focus on external/internal factors that affect all institutions of higher education.
• Emphasize creating alignment of common strategies among institutions rather than agreement on details.
• Develop support and appreciation for the diversity of this community.
• Seek common ground and build from there.

Vision Survey

In order to develop a process in which colleagues could engage in dialogue that would encourage alignment in developing a common chosen destiny, the Summit Steering Committee agreed upon a process to create a survey for participant input. The assumptions that guided the process included:

• Academic institutions are autonomous agents governed by local and state guidelines and policies. There is no single authority that governs the whole of higher education and therefore, participation in a shared vision must come from an internal commitment by inspired individuals rather than an imposed edict by an external body.
• There is broad diversity among institutions that house programs originally known as Home Economics. This diversity includes size, type, focus, and name preferences.
• There is fertile ground for collaborative effort where shared visions of the future exist.
• To succeed in finding common ground, participants must look at issues from a systemic perspective and not just from a local point of view and seek alignment rather than agreement.

The categories for the Vision Survey were developed from vision statements submitted by volunteer Steering Committee members and selected leaders. From this input, the consultants identified eight categories of factors that would affect FCS in Higher Education in the Year 2015.

• External trends
• Internal trends
• Characteristics of leaders
• Trends affecting the profession
• Strengths of professionals
• Significant contributions of practitioners
• Driving forces for student enrollment
• Critical competencies of curriculums (content and perspectives/processes)

The draft survey was developed as a graphic (see Figure 1) showing interrelated parts of the system. It was based on the following assumptions:

• It is important to understand the interrelated parts that affect the higher education system in order to find places of leverage for change.
• Visual constructs help people see how things are interrelated and to think more systemically.
• The goal of the survey was not only to identify the highest and lowest priorities for creating a shared vision but to encourage a systems perspective.
• It is important to acknowledge that higher education is one system nestled in the midst of other larger systems that affect it in many ways.
• Success of higher education in the 21st century will depend on the ability of members to respond to external and internal forces that impact the destiny of educational institutions.
• The more you can find common ground and develop a shared vision for the future, the greater the likelihood that multiple programs will thrive and survive.

Figure 1:

Following changes based on feedback from the Steering Committee and identification of stakeholders, 360 surveys were sent to all administrators and selected undergraduate and graduate students, faculty, alumni, and business representatives on advisory committees. Approximately 130 surveys were returned in time for analysis. It should be understood that this survey was interactively developed from the visions of selected leaders in the profession and that the only refinement was to assure parallel format of items. In other words, there was no attempt to remove similar items or to make judgments about individual items. The process of validation was planned in two steps: through the survey and then by participants in the Summit. The process might be labeled as a “modified action research model.” Highlights of the survey findings are described in the following section.

Data Analysis

The Facilitators and Steering Committee thought it was important to have some data as grounding for Summit conversation. The survey factors were developed from visions of selected administrators and were framed as a system. Respondents were asked to select the top 3 items of highest significance and the bottom 3 items of lowest significance. 365 surveys were distributed to 260 administrators, and 105 surveys were distributed to 15 institutions (each institution distributed surveys to 2 faculty, 1 undergraduate student, 1 alumni, 1 employer, and 1 upper level administrator). Overall, a 35% return was realized, although some categories of respondents were lower. The responses in the categories other than administrator were too small for analysis, so all responses (129) were compared to administrator responses (78). Each ranked item in the survey was converted to a score, and the overall score of each item was produced by adding all scores. Ranks were converted to scores according to the following means:

Survey respondents were instructed to rank the significance of items (the top 3 and the bottom 3) within each segment of the survey. The survey findings are discussed below, but it must be remembered that this analysis was the first stage of validation and that the purpose of the survey was to begin to narrow the issues (regarding vision for the field) for discussion at the Summit.

Respondents had an opportunity to write their conclusions about the overall impact of the survey factors on higher education. Responses were categorized as described below:

Design of the Summit

Following review of the data, the Steering Committee and consultants agreed upon the Summit program elements:

• Review of e-mail questionnaire data.

• What is most meaningful in your work?
• What is the legacy you want to leave behind?

• Challenge for the Summit—Keynote address by Gladys Gary Vaughn.
• Validation of the survey data.
• Identification of priorities.
• Open Space Technology process to identify opportunities for collaboration.
• Identification of follow-up collaborative activities.

This program plan was based upon the assumptions that:

• The personal meaning of one’s work is critical to consider in developing strategies for the future.
• The legacy we leave behind is one of the greatest gifts we have to offer to future generations. It must be considered in light of external and internal trends and pressures if the core of what is valuable is to be preserved.
• It is important to validate the data that have been collected and see if they resonate with participants as the most relevant information upon which to build strategies.

The Open Space Technology process was selected because it is a method of creating dialogue that allows participants to gather around topics that are most compelling to them and to utilize all the wisdom in the group to develop new possibilities. Open Space creates a place for all participants to contribute and offers great flexibility for participation.

Summit Packets

Registrants were supplied with several documents for their advance preparation. In addition to a cover letter and detailed agenda, registrants received the following:

• Process Map depicting the process for designing the Summit.
• Survey raw data.
• Survey highlights: top rankings among the three most important and three least important priorities.
• Survey similarities and differences for land-grant respondents and respondents in other institutions.
• Article about Open Space Technology.
• Publication: Strategic Leadership of the Profession: Agenda for Change by Dorothy I. Mitstifer and Julia R. Miller (contributed by the Kappa Omicron Nu Leadership Academy).

The Summit Program

The Summit opened the morning of Thursday, February 4, 1999 with a welcome to the 160 registrants and an overview of the rationale for the Summit by Esther Glover Fahm, Chair of the Steering Committee. She introduced the Facilitators, Carol E. Anderson and Mary Lou Davis of Carol E. Anderson and Associates, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Carol E. Anderson reviewed the desired outcomes and agenda and introduced the Group Development Model (Anderson, 1996) as framework for the Summit.

The Group Development Model includes three parts:

1. Membership - Membership develops trust and enlists one’s spirit to participate.

Who are you? Who am I? Do you want to be here? Why did you come? Do you feel like you belong?

2. Control - Control equalizes power and provides opportunities to influence what is important.

What are the norms for how the group operates? Do you feel like you have a say in the process? Can you influence the outcome? Is the power distributed appropriately? Do you have a chance to add value and make a difference?

3. Goals - Goals provide direction for the group and keep the project on course.

Why has this group come together? What are we trying to accomplish? Do I believe in what we are doing? Are the goals clear? Are the goals worthwhile?

The remaining elements of the Summit program are discussed below: data scroll, keynote address, process map and survey data, open space technology, and closing.

Data Scroll

The next part of the program focused on review of the Data Scroll and its rationale. The importance of meaning in work relates to connection to our life, purpose, food for our soul, contribution to the world that matters. “It is easy to get disconnected from the real meaning of our work and why we set out to do it in the first place. We can easily become inundated with administrative details, get caught up on political webs, and focus on myriad distractions that remove us from what we care most deeply about. Returning to the meaning we derive from work is a way to begin thinking about the future and what is of importance to retain as we move into the 21st century” (Summit Program, 1999).

In response to the e-mail questionnaire prior to the Summit, registrants responded to “What is most meaningful in your work?” and “What is the legacy you want to leave behind?” Carol E. Anderson, Summit Facilitator, documented the responses in a multicolor data scroll (3 x 72 ft.) in her inimical “star people” art style. Her approach uses art and graphics to tell the deeper stories beneath the surface chaos. The responses were grouped in several categories:

• Meaning related to

• Students, e.g., Seeing students and faculty grow through self-directed efforts.
• Family/community/society, e.g., Knowing I am preparing next the generation of FCS leaders to strengthen families, empower individuals, and engage communities using integrative approach.
• Department/program/profession, e.g., Creating systems change that will better prepare universities for the future.
• Collaboration/empowerment/mentoring, e.g., Sharing an insight—working jointly with students/colleagues to learn new things.

• Legacies related to

• Personal characteristics, e.g., Touching the lives of others, making the world a better place, seeing the good in everyone.
• Students/colleagues, e.g., Providing students with a meaningful college experience that will teach them to think and be flexible.
• Commitment, e.g., Contributing to public policy which enables families to be self-sufficient.
• Department/Program/Institution, e.g., Putting into place a viable system that can respond effectively to the needs of future constituents at all levels.

Table groups were instructed to listen to a review of the Data Scroll and then to conduct introductions by individuals sharing why they do the work they do and the legacy they hoped to leave behind. Because of participant request for the data scroll, a black and white quarter scale version was produced for sale.

Keynote Address

Gladys Gary Vaughn, National Program Leader for Human Sciences, Families, 4-H & Nutrition Unit, CSREES/USDA, challenged the group with the Keynote Address, “Today’s Courage, Tomorrow’s Hope,” which features the story “Sweet Clara and the Freedom Quilt” (Hopkinson, 1993). Her speech will be published in the Spring issue of the Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences. Dr. Vaughn’s presentation completed the cycle of leadership: from challenging the higher education community to take charge of our professional destiny by charting our course for the future and developing a shared vision for who and what we want to be, to calling for the community to create a map, just like “Sweet Clara,” to account for the hazards and obstructions of the journey, but which ensures that the vision thrives and that we begin a journey with courage and hope.

Process Map and Survey Data

Carol E. Anderson reviewed the process of developing the summit and the survey data of the top three most important things across eight categories and the bottom three categories. Table groups discussed the data to validate the findings. Dialogue centered on the questions: Do you agree with the top three priorities? What observations support your answers? Do you agree with the least important priorities? What observations support your answers? Content analysis of the flip chart highlights of dialogue indicated that the following topics were uppermost in the minds of participants (in order, most to least): holistic, integrative focus (9); accountability (7); advocacy of families (6); core (6); learning environments (5); global perspective (4); diversity (4); history of the field (3); research (3); restructuring (3); technology (3); and policy (2). This analysis simply indicates the passions that arose from review of the data and should not be interpreted as a formal ranking of priorities. The highlights also indicated the following perspectives:

• We need to re-articulate our values.
• Collaboration should be extended.
• Curriculum needs to focus on leadership development.
• The survey sends a strong call for ethics in curricula.
• Education needs to be client-based rather than faculty-based.
• Perhaps we would feel less externally controlled if we were really focused on the most important issues in society and on our mission.
• Chaos is part of a diverse society—and will not abate.
• Data/survey mirrors complexity of profession.
• We need to be developing the service model as an industry.

Open Space Technology

The last session on Thursday afternoon was convened in open space format to learn about Open Space Technology (OST), to give opportunity for volunteer conveners to identify topics of interest and the time to convene on Friday, and to give all participants opportunity to sign-up for their sessions of choice.

Open Space Technology is recognized and used internationally as an innovative approach to creating whole system change and enhancing performance. It is a process that enables people to dialogue, learn, grow, and build a community. The experience is under the control of the attendees, who determine the topics for small group work within the theme of the meeting. The Open Space process utilized the question, “What burning issue provides the passion for your leadership of a group dialogue?” This Summit community meeting generated 30 session topics.

Thirty sessions were convened on Friday morning and afternoon. The dialogue was organized according to the following format:

• State the issue.
• Clarify vision for future.
• Identify steps toward the vision.
• Commit to initial action.
• Identify “point person” for follow-up.

The Open Space process of the sessions included synthesis of the discussion session and reporting to all participants. Each convener typed a summary of the above elements into a computer database for production of the proceedings.

The author categorized the content of the topics and abbreviated the session topics in a parallel format. The thirty topics for Open Space discussion are listed in the following four categories:

• History, Mission, and Philosophy

• Defining our values to clarify our beliefs
• Exploring whether colleges and departments of FCS share the same mission and issues given the reorganizations in higher education
• Meeting the need for undergraduate national assessment
• Determining the relevance and importance of policy development and a legislative agenda to our future
• Exploring the problem of knowing where we’re going if we don’t know where we’ve been
• Integrating global concerns
• Promoting the value of family as primary transmitters of culture
• Dealing with the growing shortage of FCS teachers in secondary education
• Determining the identity of allied, affiliated, and related areas for membership in honor societies

• Intellectual Foundations: Scholarship, Research, and Instruction

• Promoting the need for “highly respected scholarship and research” for the continuing existence of the profession
• Strengthening and articulating the integrative and holistic perspective of the profession
• Identifying the dynamic conceptual framework for the integrative and holistic perspective for the profession
• Developing a thinking and learning environment for continuous development of the integrative and holistic perspective of the profession
• Integrating across the teaching, research, and outreach missions
• Promoting hands-on (experiential) learning
• Exploring the role of research in the undergraduate experience
• Promoting acceptance of qualitative research
• Promoting the contribution of critical science to FCS
• Maintaining an appropriate, effective core curriculum
• Promoting a course in communication that builds on common needs of FCS majors and addresses important issues identified in external trends
• Exploring the implications of “mass aging” for curriculum development, professional development, and educational delivery strategies

• Leadership

• Exploring the benefits of having a federation/coalition that would provide a united voice for FCS
• Determining how to structure and support leadership opportunities so that students choose to become actively involved and develop leadership abilities
• Combating the reconfiguration of FCS Programs
• Recruiting and retaining quality and diversity among students in FCS programs
• Increasing participation of males in FCS
• Socializing new faculty
• Determining questions for a possible FAEIS placement study
• Dealing with the pressure on FCS administrators to be fund raisers

• Partnerships

• Building partnerships between two-year and four-year institutions
• Building collaborative partnerships for research
• Sharing FCS Internet courses

Interested parties who were not involved in the Summit can participate by making a direct contact with the point persons identified in the Summit Notes.

Closing

Prior to the closing session of the Summit, participants were asked to write a letter to be returned in three months to remind themselves of their commitments to follow-through. They also submitted a written commitment to follow up on Summit dialogue. Participants shared the following intentions:

• Apply Summit Outcomes to my Unit - 45
• Share with Colleagues - 32
• Explore National Assessment - 19
• Develop Conceptual Frameworks - 15
• Lead/Participate in Follow-through with my Summit Group - 14
• Promote Holistic/Integrative Perspective - 14
• Develop Collaborative Relationships - 13
• Focus on Leadership Development - 13
• Reflect on the Summit Experience and Consider My Follow-through Activities - 10
• Revisit Core Concepts - 9
• Share with College Executive Officers and Other Agencies - 9
• Develop a Distance Learning Collaborative - 8
• Promote a Global Perspective - 8
• Focus on Public Relations - 8
• Enhance Recruitment/Retention Strategies - 6
• Focus on Teacher Ed Enrollments - 6
• Conduct Collaborative Research - 5
• Share the monograph, Agenda for Change - 5
• Write about the Summit - 5
• Plan for CAFCS Follow-up of Summit issues- 4
• Promote Undergraduate Research - 4
• Report at Professional Meetings - 4
• Promote a Fast Response Network to Support Survival of Threatened Units - 2

Five responses indicated miscellaneous activities, varying from developing a placement study for FAEIS to concern about mass aging and the participation of men in FCS meetings. Three responses were indicative of concern about the Summit approach to change; those individuals felt the discussion was too parochial: not a think tank approach with new ideas and attention to the indicators for change. Further concern was expressed that “another layer of power needs to support change.”

Carol E. Anderson convened the Saturday morning session with an overview of the possible models for next steps. She cautioned that there is a natural tendency to create structure, which will have the impact of killing off the creativity and the process of change. Instead, an organic process treasuring passion, energy, and excitement creates a fluid environment which will continue the effect on FCS in Higher Education.

Participants were invited to offer public insights and affirmations during the Community Open Space by responding to the question, “What insights, opportunities, and learnings are you taking away with you?” On behalf of the Steering Committee, Karen E. Craig, Dean, College of Human Resources and Family Science, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, made closing comments: “Ode to the OST - FCS Summit.”

The Summit was then adjourned with distribution of the FCS Summit Open Space Session Notes and the announcement that the Steering Committee would continue for at least a year to track the progress of action plans, facilitate communication among action groups, and document follow-up actions. It was also announced that the Summit Link of the Kappa Omicron Nu Web site would serve as an information source for participants and others interested in the outcome or involvement.

Personal Word

Permit me to share my personal observations. I have never been to a professional meeting that displayed so much passion and energy. The intentions for follow-up were thoughtful and indicative that the experience had made an impact. Although I’m not naïve enough to believe that everyone liked the format, the energy and passion of participants appeared to generate even more engagement. The diversity of issues demonstrated “caring” for the field that was certainly invigorating. It was hard not to gain optimism that we will use our human resources to revitalize our field—not by returning to the “glory days of old” but to a new day in the sun. It was reassuring that participants took responsibility and didn’t expect “them” to do it. It is my fondest hope that each of the Summit participants understands the “power of one” and follows through on commitments. Perceiving that others have the power is a dangerous notion; each of us can “expend energy”—that’s what power is. I’m convinced that we must continue the spirit generated at the Summit to develop an agenda for change. The community spirit developed at the Summit must be nourished by all of us.

Appreciation is extended to the Members of the Steering Committee and to the following donors to the Summit:

• Organizers ($10,000 and up) - Council of Administrators of Family and Consumer Sciences, Kappa Omicron Nu/Betty Jane Johnston Fund
• Supporters ($5,000 to $10,000) - Higher Education Unit/American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences, Kappa Omicron Nu
• Friends (under $5,000) - 1890 Council of Administrators, National Association of Teacher Educators of Family and Consumer Sciences, Phi Upsilon Omicron
• In-Kind Services - Kappa Omicron Nu
• Publication - Kappa Omicron Nu Leadership Academy - Strategic Leadership of the Profession: Agenda for Change - Dorothy Mitstifer and Julia Miller

Note: Further documentation of the Summit is planned by Kappa Omicron Nu. Sharon Nickols and Dorothy Mitstifer will serve as Co-Editors. Submissions can be sent to the Kappa Omicron Nu office at 4990 Northwind Drive, Suite 140, East Lansing, MI 48823-5031.

Goals of the FCS Summit Summit Home Page Browse Proceedings View Table of Contents for Proceedings Agenda for Change