THE MATRIX:

An Organizational Study

Of

Southwestern University

Produced by

Dr. Bob Bednar's

Organizational Communication Class

Fall 1999

Table of Contents

As a scholastic organization that exemplifies a postmodern approach to undergraduate education, Southwestern University (SU) fosters a community in which the administration, faculty, staff, students, and alumni participate in a culture consisting of both formal and informal interaction. In order to study this university and the ways in which it operates, we have taken a multi-faceted approach to analyze the image and identity, power structure, and communication networks inherent in this organization.

Image, as defined by Eric M. Eisenberg and H. L. Goodall, Jr., refers to the insiders’ evaluation of what outsiders think, while identity refers to what the group members themselves view to be the character of their organization (311). Image and identity serve to represent an organization’s internal assessment and impressions of external assessment, respectively. Often these are juxtaposed in order to determine the alignment or disagreement of an organization’s real and perceived persona. Southwestern University places much importance on its own image and identity, especially in its pursuit of status as a respected national liberal arts university. Image can be clearly seen in documents produced by the admission office, but less clearly identified is the actual identity of the various groups represented within the Southwestern community. Our study attempts to ascertain the image and identity of the university, as interpreted by the administration, faculty, staff, students, and alumni, as well as recognize the strategic alignment (or lack there of) existing between these two organizational communication concepts.

The power structures contained within an organization are derived from many sources. Power is often granted to the higher echelons of an organization through the form inherent to it. Mission statements, business plans, and even simple orders are all ways in which power flows from the top to the employees. However, as employees are people too, the flow of power is often subject to the interpretations of those on the lower end of the ladder. Organizational members must balance the constraint of the organization with the creativity they need to express. Looking at Southwestern University from an organizational perspective mandates the study of its internal power structures. An outside force grants much of the power any given person possesses in an academic environment. All members of the campus community enter into the organization with an understanding that they must give up a portion of their freedom, and live within the constraints of the University. The amount of control that the school allows an individual varies greatly from role to role. In studying the power structures contained within Southwestern University, and their interpretations within the organization, we sought to identify the individual members’ reactions and understanding of the power structures of the campus. We actively looked for the individual’s perspective on how the school enforced its policies, how much power any given individual had, and the means in which feedback could travel through the communications networks to implement change.

Another important aspect to the study of Southwestern University is its emergent communication networks. These networks "emerge from the formal and informal communication among people who work [and live] together" (Eisenberg, Goodall, 295). The goal of our study is to recognize and interpret the formal and informal paths of the university’s communication structure. To do this entails identifying the communication roles of administration, faculty, staff, students, and alumni. These roles include bridges and liaisons who have contacts with disparate sub-organizations of Southwestern. By observing the various cross-functional communication patterns of members of the S.U. community, we can make assessments in order to better understand the distribution of informal power and dissemination of information within the organization.

In an organizational study done to determine the image of a small, four-year, religiously-affiliated liberal arts college, D.F. Treadwell and Teresa M. Harrison (1994) found organizational image to be subjective and personal. College students and affiliates first entered the university setting with pre-conceived notions of image, taken from organizational literature, recruiters, and other sources. Once assimilated, diverse feelings of identity were articulated. These "multiple shifting images within organizations tend to imply sub-cultures and individuals with an above-average level of autonomy in how they visualize and presumably respond to their organization." The collection of images can be viewed as both positive and negative for the organization.

In an independent extension of this study, we, students of Southwestern University, attempt to identify the collective, shared, and dissimilar versions of Southwestern's image represented by the members of this similar, small, four-year liberal-arts college. Our findings will hopefully contribute to those of Treadwell and Harrison as well as creating further opportunity for exploratory study in the field of organizational communication.

After great deliberation, our Organizational Communication class chose a system in which to study Southwestern University as a organization. The matrix, as it was named, was structured to simultaneously maximize individual empowerment/responsibility and collaborative cross-functional communication. Our matrix structure incorporated attention to five specific facets of Southwestern: 1) administration, 2) faculty, 3) staff, 4) students, and 5) alumni. In addition to these subdivisions, there were also three types of organizational communication patterns and processes upon which we focused our research: A) image and identity, B) power structures, and C) communication networks.

In order to effectively study each facet and area of focus, a variety of different methods were implemented. These included surveys, interviews, participant observation, and ethnography.

For the purposes of this study, we have defined the administrators at Southwestern as the people who govern sections of the university. Decision making, problem-solving, budget manipulation and the like are examples of the responsibilities of people in the administration. The research group set out to discover how administrators identify with Southwestern, structure themselves in terms of power, and communicate with each other and with other members of the Southwestern community. Interviews and surveys were used to accomplish this task. None of the fifteen surveys sent to various administrators on campus were returned by the date requested. Perhaps this was due to the busy time of the semester; but it could reflect the wish of some not to "rock the boat." Therefore, the information provided is based solely on six interviews with administrators throughout the university.

Faculty, fundamental in the formation of Southwestern’s values and community, is seen informally as the people who teach, mentor, and assist in the cultivation of young minds, working closely with students to create the crux of Southwestern. To study the influence of faculty within the university, group members interviewed professors from each discipline as well as distributed surveys to faculty, students, and staff regarding the faculty’s role in the organization. Also, much observation was done, significantly impacting the results of research.

The staff research group chose to conduct personal surveys with Southwestern employees, including those associated with Physical Plant and Information Technology Services. These interviews were used to analyze the defined roles of staff, as well as the implications of such roles within the larger university structure.

In order to discover the organizational characteristics of Southwestern from the perspective of students, a survey was sent out via campus-wide e-mail asking questions regarding each attribute of the study. Among the approximately seventy responses, several themes emerged, discussed later in this report. Most students responded along the same lines for many questions — perhaps a reflective symptom of a small, liberal arts college. Other methods of study included observation and personal interviews with Southwestern students.

The alumni group interviewed alumni currently employed by Southwestern, as well as sent out a survey to alumni via e-mail list-serves. Alumni were asked questions concerning the image and identity of SU, their means of communication, and issues of power. Responses were examined and compiled. One bias with this form of sampling to be addressed is that alumni who subscribe to the list-serves obviously care about Southwestern (since they took the time to subscribe to the list-serves), and are most likely not representative of the entire alumni population. Further, as a general rule, we found that the people who responded to our surveys tended to be either really satisfied or really upset with the surveyor or the topic at hand. Therefore, the responses obtained may not be completely representative of SU alumni.

Using this matrix of research, our Organizational Communication class has made several assertions regarding the image and identity, power structure, and communication networks of Southwestern University from the perspective of administration, faculty, staff, students, and alumni. Our research, however, cannot be deemed as a complete and comprehensive study of the organization. We recognize that the inner-workings of a university set forth too broad a scope of analysis for twenty-three people to fully evaluate in such a short amount of time. Despite these limitations, our hope is that this study proposes valid conclusions and raises further research questions leading to a better understanding of the true organization of Southwestern University.

Chapter III: Image and Identity

Tricia Mein

*****

Through interviews done with six members of the Southwestern administration, a commonly expressed theme found was that SU has the image as "academically excellent, elite, white, and [has a] difficult admission process, but is solid"... "And [outsiders] are impressed with it," as stated by one administrator. Several other administrators mirrored this comment, saying the image of SU really depends on whom you speak to. According to one administrator, many outsiders would say that it has good "resources, high academic standards, wealthy, well-endowed," but that all these traits "can be viewed either positively or negatively by outsiders." Another administrator commented on the local image versus the image from magazines, saying that the "magazines have a very positive image of SU; it has grown from a regional to a national liberal arts school," and that this is looked upon favorably. While the local image has become more of "elitist, rich, spoiled brats from Houston/Dallas attending the university" and that the people who live in Georgetown "very rarely participate in SU-sponsored events on campus because they feel like they aren't welcome here." Another administrator expressed that older Georgetown residents either see the campus as a great area to walk or as an impenetrable place, while younger town residents see it as a great resource to the community, as respected regionally and as an up-and-coming university. As for potential students, this administrator thinks Georgetown residents see Southwestern as "a good academic college and that it is a safe backup choice" i.e. "if I didn't get in somewhere big — I’ll go there." However, by far the most incisive comment I received while doing an interview, was when one administrator said that if you do not know what Southwestern is, then it is "just a sign on the highway."

During the interviews, the question of identity was asked and all six interviewees said they were proud and felt very lucky to work here at SU. One even said that it is "a privilege to work here" and that people treat him/her better than others once they find out that s/he works at Southwestern. Another said that according to the administration, SU is "the 'Harvard of Texas', and is one of the best liberal arts schools" in the state. However, this same administrator said that the faculty sees Southwestern as a "solid university and good place to work with students," but that faculty are also frustrated by administration’s unrealistic goals, structures, etc. Another said that this is a "life-long learning community, that [teaches] being true to oneself and others." One administrator said that they saw SU as a "growing institution in its reputation and academic programs, and [that SU is] trying to create a niche in Texas and in national higher education programs." Most said something to the effect of this being a great place to work. One administrator hit the nail on the head when they said that now is "a good time to be here, [that we] have a lot going for us: salaries are in the 90th percentile, facilities are great, there is a major city nearby [which provides] entertainment, a high academic situation, and a good residential atmosphere."

As is evident in the above comments, the image and identity of Southwestern differs greatly. One administrator reasoned that this is due to the lack of a personal, Southwestern experience. Another said the reason why image and identity differs is because it "depends on whom they get their information from," as well as their motives behind knowing what SU is about. One more reasoned that "a lot of people here take this organization for granted and outsiders wish they were here." When asked why image and identity would differ, one administrator said "insiders are not concerned about the difference because we don't see it as that." They also said that when you take a small conservative town and bring in big city kids, you are going to get different opinions.

*****

As an institution of higher learning, Southwestern University takes pride in the academic accomplishments of their faculty. In fact, the image the university portrays of their faculty is heavily focused on academic rank. In all of the university literature found, it is mentioned that more than 90% of Southwestern's faculty are tenured or tenure-track faculty, and hold doctorates or the highest degrees in their respective fields. In truth, the only information that was commonly mentioned in conjunction with the academic status of the faculty was Southwestern’s student/faculty ratio of 11:1, the frequency of collaborative research faculty exercise with students, and the honorable award for U.S. Professor of the Year, 1993: Dr. Vicente Villa. However, not all the faculty consider their academic status to be the quintessence of their image. The professors I spoke with shared a completely different image of themselves, one that parallels what the students' had to say about them rather than the academic standings glorified by the university.

As I arranged to meet with various professors on campus, I realized that scheduling appointments with them was much easier than I expected. Because of the stressful and hectic time of year, I anticipated that most of their schedules would not allow me the opportunity to meet with them, as I wanted. Nonetheless, every professor I asked to interview was more than willing to participate, and set time aside within the next day or two of my phone call. I had the privilege of talking with professors from six different departments, and met them at their offices. Each of their offices, although vastly different from one another, had one commonality: they were all covered in pictures, posters, and paraphernalia of their respective fields. Every visit was very welcoming and lasted longer than I expected. Our conversations seemed to go way beyond the explicit interview questions and were far more telling than any piece of literature written about the faculty.

When asked to describe the image they feel they portray and their actual identity as faculty, each of the professors I spoke with stressed the improbability of only one kind of image or identity existing among the faculty. They explained that their diverse personalities and vastly different interests create many images for the students, administration, and staff to have of them. They also correlated those images they portray with their actual identities. "What you see is who we are," said one professor. However, they each said that, in general, they as faculty believe they portray themselves as being proud to be a part of the Southwestern community, in which they can be sources of information and support, provide accessibility for all academic endeavors, and have a great deal of care and concern for their students. As one professor said, "Our professions are centered around the development of our students. We work to provide them with knowledge and opportunity, and we do so because we love to." "This community," said another professor, "is made up of professors who challenge their students to take risks and go beyond their comfort zone so that they can be as successful as possible. And in doing so, we guide and support them 100%. At the same time, this community is unique in that we, professors, sincerely care about the well being of our students. I think they mean more to us then they know."

The faculty also stressed their efforts to portray an image of working closely with students. "We try to be as down-to-earth as possible," one professor said, "I think most of us professors see ourselves as working with students, not over them." According to another professor, "We as faculty try real hard to be in-tune with everything going on with the students. It's important for us to be with it and have a strong sense of understanding for our students. After all, they are more of our colleagues than anything else."

When asked about the image their particular department portrays, they interestingly all used the term "service" and explained that their individual departments provide a service of expertise that every student can benefit from. "Our image as faculty of a department is much different than the image of the faculty as a whole because, as a department, we represent a subject/certain field of knowledge. Within our department we provide service and a specific kind of knowledge, and the students who want that service or knowledge come to us with certain expectations," one professor explained. They also described the image of the faculty within specific departments to be more susceptible to stereotypes. "Students expect us to be a certain way because of the subject we teach," said one professor, "Image is easy to assume. It’s great, though, when students tell us we turned out to be so much more than they expected, because that means we broke the stereotypical image they had of us."

Five students of each year were asked to describe their own image of the faculty. Interestingly, most of them had a positive image in mind. Some students mentioned certain professors in their responses; others talked about the faculty in general. Overall, the students had quite a bit to say about their professors, and were actually very willing to share their perspectives on faculty image with me. According to one senior, "Our professors are life-influencing people who care about students the most. They are all so smart but casual, and that just makes them even better." "Most of our faculty are extremely skilled, knowledgeable, friendly, and caring. There are better professors than others, but I see our faculty as great and generally under-appreciated," said a first-year student. According to one junior, "Most professors are very friendly, willing to take time to get to know students well, and help them with what they need. I’ve never had a problem with a professor being unavailable." Another junior explained, "I think that the good image of the faculty has a lot to do with the fact that they are more interested in imparting knowledge than in publishing articles and gaining personal acclaim."

On the other hand, there were some students who expressed a conditional appreciation for the faculty. As one junior illustrated, "Not all professors are real winners. Occasionally you run into a bad egg that is difficult to deal with, but they are definitely the exception here at SU." Another junior said, "Some professors are the best in their area, others don’t seem to truly care about the students." One sophomore explained, "My image of the professors varies among them. Some are understanding, challenging, and always willing to give to their students, especially to those who give back. Others are removed from having much student interaction, while others drive students away." In the words of one sophomore, "Every tenured professor I have ever had here has been great. However, the visiting/off-campus professors have been awful, with the exception of maybe one or two."

I was very interested in the comments made by three particular students in regard to academic status and Southwestern’s portrayal of the professors. According to one senior, "I think the school puts too much of an emphasis on qualifications, like PhD's, etc. They don’t put enough focus on the teaching ability of the professors, especially the ones without their doctorates." A first-year student explained her frustration with the image she was lead to believe of the faculty, "Southwestern made the professors sound like stiff, strict intellectuals who, with their doctorates, were going to make my first-year as difficult as possible. By trying to make them seem extremely knowledgeable in their fields and distinguished academics, they made them seem so scary. They are knowledgeable and distinguished, but they’re not scary at all!" Finally, a junior explained, "The administration wants to show the faculty as pretentious and conservative. I don’t think they are either."

Getting staff members to participate by answering questions and filling out surveys about faculty image was much more difficult than anticipated. In fact, the way in which certain staff members responded when asked to take-part in our study was incredibly surprising. All of the office staff members that we approached with a few questions and/or a survey were eager to learn about what we were doing and willingly shared their thoughts about the faculty (most of which were not positive). On the other hand, when we approached the maintenance and cooking staff, they became fearful of saying anything, and refused to take a survey or answer any sort of question. Not only were they incredibly curious as to why we wanted their input, but they were also nervous and quick to refuse to participate. "I don’t think I’m allowed to say anything about things like that," said one maintenance staff member. "I can’t answer those questions for you. You may want to go and ask someone else," said another maintenance staff member. When we approached one cooking staff member, she immediately looked around and checked to see if anyone was watching her before she quickly jotted down a few one-word responses to our survey. Their reactions told us so much about where they feel they stand within the Southwestern community, and how devalued their opinions have been made if they feel like they are not allowed to respond to a few subjective questions about the place where they work and the community in which they belong. As one of my classmates explained, "it’s so interesting that we, as students, are taught to critique and share our thoughts and opinions about everything, while the maintenance and cooking staff are apparently made to feel like they should not and do not have a voice, nor do they have the right to their opinions about things concerning Southwestern University."

Unlike the maintenance and cooking staff, the office staff was very opinionated. Some of them said that their image of the faculty was one of professional, intelligent, diverse, and communicative individuals. Others said they were "kind, concerned, outgoing, and very involved in the SU community." Still another staff member said, "Most of the professors care very much about their students. They also try to associate with others on campus in the same manner." Nevertheless, there were staff members who didn’t hold such a high opinion of the faculty. In fact, one staff member had quite a bit to say about the image of the faculty:

Another staff member said, "Too many of the faculty are distant with or removed from the staff. SU is more of a family/community than most organizations, so we should all try harder to work together, as far as the staff and faculty are concerned." In discovering the image and identity of the faculty at Southwestern, I learned more than ever expected. I feel as though I was able to grasp the information I was looking for, and much, much more. As I look back on the hours I spent talking with professors, students, and staff members about their images of the faculty, I happen to develop my own. My newfound image was not so much of the faculty alone, but of Southwestern as an organization and as a community comprised of faculty who influence students, students who influence faculty, and staff who are affected by both the faculty and students, but are much less influential.

*****

The university staff views themselves as an important factor in projecting Southwestern’s overall image. The general opinion of the various staff groups maintains that their roles significantly contribute to the university’s image. Generally, Southwestern’s targeted image is to be a small but emerging academic treasure with highly qualified professors and a campus with character. Members of the physical plant, information technology systems, and the library, all feel that they play an important part in building Southwestern’s image. The following questions were asked in an informal interview that was conversational in format:

1. What is the image and identity of the staff? Of Southwestern?

2. How do you view yourself? (identity)

3. How do other members of the campus community view you?

4. What is the relationship between the projected image and actual image of the staff?

5. What is the staff’s role in the overall image and identity of Southwestern?

6. Does Southwestern’s projected image accurately portray each group’s actual identity/image?

One member of the physical plant feels that the projected image and actual identity of the housekeepers and various other members of the physical plant are very similar. The identity of her sector of staff seems to be as people that are more than custodians. According to her, she is actually a "substitute parent" for many Southwestern students. Indeed, many students feel that the staff are friendly people who often are the most down-to-earth people on campus and most willing to listen. The image of the physical plant is also portrayed in a similar fashion. The staff is presented as a service on campus that maintains the beauty and everyday details to keep the SU campus and its members functioning. In this manner, the relationship between the staff’s image and its identity is surprisingly correlated.

Members of the physical plant feel that doing their job well and being dedicated through years of service, contributes to their image as staff and also to the image of Southwestern. One said that the physical plant greatly contributes to the environment Southwestern portrays through its targeted image. The staff’s role is essential to the beauty, character, and personality of Southwestern as an organization. The friendly, personal, home-like quality of Southwestern’s image could not be maintained without the friendly attention the staff provides to the upkeep of the physical campus and its actual students.

Library staff view Southwestern as mainly an institution of higher education and secondly, as having an environment promoting diversity. One member of library staff feels that the staff "greatly influence the image of Southwestern. The staff itself is composed of people from diverse personal and educational backgrounds." Their identity is perceived by actual members to be chiefly a public service to serve the research needs of students. The staff feels that they are a vital player in students’ academic lives and through this, they contribute to Southwestern’s actual and projected image as an elite institution heavily geared toward academic achievement.

A staff member for information technology views her department as a support system that allows Southwestern to boast its image of a school with the latest multimedia academic equipment and the newest technologies. ITS feels that their staff gives students the personal attention and help that is focused on as an essential part of Southwestern’s image.

Although these groups’ contributions are not widely recognized or frequently acknowledged by students, faculty, and other members of the Southwestern community, their roles remain important factors in Southwestern’s organizational image. The staff identifies itself as a group that creates and maintains a splendid study environment for the students. Indeed, most can agree that a chief part of Southwestern’s image comes from the visual quality of the campus environment, its academic emphasis, and its personal supportive environment. The personal attention given by the library staff, the members of the physical plant and ITS staff, contribute to Southwestern’s image of a school that cares and affords its students personal attention during their education. Members of staff feel that for the most part, their efforts give Southwestern the ability to function efficiently, supplying the details and mechanics needed in order to maintain the image that has been set forth by the organization.

*****

From a survey sent out via campus-wide e-mail, popular answers regarding the identity of Southwestern were a small, liberal arts college, gossip-filled, smart/strong academics, and a place where everyone knows everyone. For image, the most popular response was a "state school in San Marcos." Also, the terms rich, white, snobby, prestigious, and small were seen often in answers. These are just a few of many, but the same themes appear over and over. In general, the students who responded to the survey did not have glowing comments or feelings about this school. This may be tied in with their sense of powerlessness.

"It’s a good school." "Lack of diversity." "No social life." These are the most common responses of students when asked their general identity given to Southwestern University. Upper classmen and minorities were the least likely to "buy into" what Southwestern tries to portray to the general public while freshman were more in agreement with the image projected by S.U. One African-American female Junior described Southwestern as the "typical upper-middle to upper class school," and a "baby Ivy League school." Envy of ivy league schools, and a general attitude of "we’re better than the next school (The University of Texas)" were mentioned in almost half of the interviews.

Southwestern tries to put out to the world that it is a diverse campus where all are welcome, and that this is a "perfect" place to be. Insiders have a slightly different view on this picture as well. A white senior female commented that "when I first came here, I thought I would be able to meet all different kinds of people, but since I’ve been here I have really noticed a lack of diversity in the people here." Many of the students here do come from higher-class backgrounds.

*****

Imagine a bubble. A bubble filled with diverse, intelligent minds that speak of their alma mater with such pride, yet can tear it apart like nothing else. It is perceived that Southwestern’s image is liberal as a whole, but deep within, conservativeness exists as well. Most people have found it a bit annoying that we carry a liberal aura, but when it is a matter of conflicting views between administration and students, most students do not stand up for what they believe in.

Faculty is mostly recognized as being open-minded, genuinely interested, and easily accessible towards students/alumni. With a positive image, the faculty, now and then, are held in high regards. Because Southwestern is such a small school, students are appreciative of the smaller classrooms and ability to endure more personal relationships with professors. The school is dedicated to enriching the minds of intuitive students as well as encouraging participation both in and out of the classroom.

Reflecting upon their days as students at Southwestern, alumni recalled the student body as mostly socializing in so-called cliques and apparently, according to one, the "pretty and party people were having fun at UT and A&M." Despite the partying elsewhere, students at Southwestern still managed to study hard AND party hard. As for the cliques, stereotypes segregated the talents of individuals from similar economic strata according to interests and majors. For the most part, students presented a friendly image. In terms of economic backgrounds, some alumni think that students today must either get more financial aid now or come from wealthier families.

When asked to discuss the role of Southwestern staff, survey respondents reflected that alumni generally define staff as housekeepers, groundskeepers, physical plant, etc. Most alumni recalled a staff image of efficiency, helpfulness, and excellence. In whatever staff position, alumni saw the staff’s goal as desiring to help the students in any way possible.

Most alumni said that the administration tended to aim for political correctness, while maintaining an invisible status and focusing on money. On one hand, the administration did not make decisions that were student oriented and usually made ones that were concerned with how things would appear to the outside, rather than focusing on solutions to the problems in Southwestern’s community. To many alumni surveyed, the administration seems detached from the rest of the community, which causes communication problems between the administration, faculty, and students. One alumnus, who now works for Southwestern, mentioned that the reason for the miscommunication between administration and students is that the students do not know or understand enough about the history of Southwestern and the decisions made in the past. Since students are here for a short-term period, it is easy to be more critical of the administration with only a "short term" understanding rather than looking at the whole picture.

While still maintaining the image of a "top-notch" educational institution, SU has also become more nationally recognized. More minorities are represented and the students are smarter. The more successful graduates from Southwestern, the more its reputation is respected and known. It is also mentioned that the college experience not only includes the classrooms and faculty, but also out-of-classroom experiences. Most learn from the relationships; people do not realize the influences made by the people who cross each other’s paths.

*****

Chapter IV: Power Structures

Sean Hunter

Exiting a car in the westside parking lot of Southwestern University, the first thing a person sees is the center of operations on the Southwestern Campus. Certain clues point to the fact that the Cullen Building is more than a simple academic building, containing the nerve center of the school. The signs in the few parking spaces directly in front of the building proclaim, "15 Minute Parking," an exclamation of officialness. Inside the building, hardwood floors squeak underfoot, and a visitor is first greeted with a free-standing sign, welcoming students x, j, and y to Southwestern from their respective hometowns. Every door has an official sign, designating room number, office name, and the person contained therein. It is all quite official. Even "open door" offices, such as Admissions, Financial Aid, and Business have either a secretary’s desk or countertop to keep visitors at arm’s length. There seem to be lines suggested for people to stand in, even though no rope dividers force a person to conform. There are several classrooms contained in the building, but they seem almost a holdover from the past when the building was more concerned with academics than administration.

In studying the emergent power structure within the administration organization of SU, it was recognized that those in high authority have individual power, but work with others in making decisions. In doing this study, interviews with administration were conducted in which the following questions were asked:

1. How do you exert power over others in your organization, as well as over members of other organizations?
2. How do ideas flow between administration and: (Are suggestions taken into consideration? Can these other organizations speak freely with the administration?) SU Faculty?, SU Staff?, SU Students?, SU Alumni?

Upon interviewing several members of the administration, in reference to how each felt they exerted power, it was found that many do not like to "exert power" or dictate power when talking with others in trying to make a decision; they like to initiate communication. Members of the administration that were interviewed said they try to create a team-like atmosphere, where everyone has a say. They are open to questions and ideas, but at the same time, they let everyone in the group make a decision as a whole and one that would be beneficial to the people involved. When in a power situation, the administration usually sits down and talks with the people involved to try to come up with a consensus or an agreement.

In an interview with a member of the administration, s/he said "I don't like to say [you have] to do it this way... I say we can do it this way because it is easier, or we can do it the other way." S/he also said that they usually do not make the decisions, s/he gives advice and it is up to others to take that advice and apply it.

The administration is a systems theory oriented group. Though they give orders and deal with complex issues, they take on a personal approach when working with others and are open to feedback. Within the administration of SU, though, everyone has different goals, they come together and share their perspectives in how to organize situations and make decisions.

How does the information flow? Most members of the administration replied that ideas and opinions flow freely and are usually communicated through voice mail, e-mail, personal contacts, etc. The administration seems to take suggestions very seriously and they like people to speak freely, because that is the only way they can know what their needs and wants are. In interviews, a member of the administration said: "The administration may not be so open with the staff." S/he sees and knows that they are frustrated, that they feel left out. At the same time, between the faculty and administration, they communicate very well. One person also said that students have a lot of potential, if only they could create a coalition.

Within the interviews people were very open and willing to talk. Administrators were also very busy. In one of my interviews, I had to walk around campus with a member of the administration and the interview was rushed, while another interview was very relaxed and the member had a lot to share. She took her time and even offered to meet again if I wanted further information, but we had to end because people were waiting outside for meetings as well.

The administration of SU works very hard and has many tasks to perform daily. Even though they are in charge of others, others are in charge of them as well. Several of the tasks the administration performs are: to advise others, look and watch over different campus organizations and services, hold offices on boards, represent departments, hire people, and evaluate others.

Throughout this research, I found that the administration does have power, but they are also willing to work with others to make decisions, because the decisions they make will not only effect them, but others as well. Though we don't always know the outcomes of the decisions they help and advise others to make, they do it in their best interest and to that of the rest of the SU community. The administration has a vital role in the power structure of the SU organization as a whole, serving sometimes as the leaders and other times as as the most visible facilitators of power among the constituencies within the community.

*****

The faculty section of this interview focused primarily on individual interviews given on a one-on-one basis to individual members of the faculty. I tried to interview a varied cross section of faculty, in order to represent the widest number of opinions possible. While standardized questions formed the core of the interview process, I tried to remain flexible within each interview. Each professor’s responses were as important in their individuality as in any sort of cohesive whole.

I began the process by interviewing a professor of foreign languages, and was told, quite frankly, that faculty members are very aware of the difference in the power wielded by each of the educational departments. The subtle differences in power and influence became most apparent in his/her eyes when departments began advocating 4 hour courses. The science department had no trouble arguing the case that they needed extra time in the laboratories, in order to give the students a hands-on approach to the curriculum. The language department, however, had a much harder time convincing the committee that lab time was needed in the foreign language classes as well, and that language courses should be raised to 4 hour status. Dr. X stated that other faculty members claimed there was "no meat there," when it came to teaching languages. The foreign language department is considered a "service department," as foreign language is a degree requirement to almost all majors offered at the school. As language requirements dictate a full four semesters for all students, they are associated as being a "service" to the student body. I was given the impression that the language department is not a highly respected department, as they had to fight so hard for four hour credit approval.

When dealing with the administration, this particular professor seemed cynical. S/he observed that a clear, top-down hierarchy exists between the administration and the faculty. While some professors believe that they are "movers and shakers," actively advocating their opinions in public forums, Dr. X believes that they actually exert considerably less influence than they believe. Dr. X did not believe him/herself to be a strong advocate, but did feel that the administration called on him/her for opinions.

My second interview focused on a department head. S/he focused on power issues relating to the tenure program, and the process of hiring new faculty. Faculty, in his/her opinion, is very active in the hiring process. Also faculty is very involved in the Status Committee. The Status Committee is charged with "recommending reappointment or dismissal, and assisting in the hiring procedures" of the faculty for the University. However, there are only four members of this committee (Faculty Handbook, 31). This professor felt that there is a place for increased collaboration between the administration and the faculty. S/he suggested that the divided campus e-mail list serves are a source of disunity. The separate e-mail communities between the students, faculty, and administration create three, separate e-mail worlds. S/he believes that these should be combined, if "campus-wide e-mail" is to be truly "campus-wide."

This particular department chair feels that s/he acts more in a facilitator role than a hierarchical "boss" when dealing with members of his/her department. Meetings in this department are a rarity. As a department head, this professor would rather meet individually with members of the faculty. S/he stated that power among the faculty is evenly dispersed, as all members of this department teach both lower and upper level courses.

For the third interview, I wanted to get the perspective of a part-time professor who was not a Ph.D. His/her opinion on part-time and adjunct faculty was very clear. S/he stated that s/he felt that, according to the administration, adjunct and part-time faculty are an embarrassment to the University, and must be gotten rid of. Their effect on the administration is seen as negligible. Rumor has it that a former Provost would crack jokes about the power differences between the Science department, and the rest of the academic departments, as Southwestern has a strong reputation as a fine Pre-Medical school. This Provost stated at a meeting that his goal for the semester was to personally visit every professor on the campus to talk, but adjunct and part-time faculty were never visited. When this particular part-time professor began teaching at Southwestern, s/he taught a single class, and was not given an office. The provost lacked an explanation, and was not forthcoming with any solutions. This professor ended up sharing an office with another professor s/he had met in graduate school, and was forced to steal a chair in order to give her/his students a place to sit during individual meetings. S/he has moved up in the hierarchy, and now has his/her own office. This professor said that faculty members are not rewarded just for doing a good job. They have to be in the right circumstances to be recognized. The Southwestern Academia is a hierarchical institution, according to this professor, much like the archetypal, church-run schools.

This professor also noticed a specific shift in status in departments at Southwestern. S/he observed that when a department is a sub-category of a larger department, it is often overlooked and under-funded. However, once that department becomes an autonomous organization, it gains power, money, status, and recognition from the administration. Also, the number of students majoring in a department give it a certain status and visibility. The particular department this professor is in has begun gaining status and funding since its divorce from a larger department.

The final interview I scheduled was with a second department chair. This department chair was considerably more optimistic about his/her place in the organization. When identifying the paths in which the faculty can influence the policy and direction of the university, s/he strongly supported the committee system that is in place. As an active member of several committees, this professor felt that the forums created for the faculty are a positive arena for discussion. S/he did feel that an emphasis needed to be placed on developing informal means of communication for the faculty, both internally and directed towards the administration. This professor felt that the avenues of communication have not necessarily kept up with the rapid change that Southwestern has undergone.

As a department chair, this professor straddles the line between administration and faculty, leaving him/her in a somewhat awkward position when it comes to advocating policy. S/he does have some power as an administrator, but this can easily be overshadowed by the fact that s/he is a faculty member, primarily focused on the job of educating students. When asked how seriously this professor felt s/he was taken by the administration, this faculty member felt that s/he was taken seriously, but did have to go out of his/her way to be heard. However, within the department that this professor chairs, s/he felt nurtured and encouraged. The actual systems in place seem to satisfy this professor, especially if they were expanded upon to reflect the changing nature of the school.

The adjunct faculty issue was also of extreme importance to this professor. S/he felt that the situation is not as bad at Southwestern as it is at other schools, but it is an issue. S/he feels that Southwestern does need to rigidly define the terms of adjunct faculty contracts. However, this professor did point out that the school does try to go out of its way not to "bust careers," and that a professor who is not tenure-tracked is always helped in finding a position at another institution.

Each professor interviewed was very forthcoming with information and opinion. The wide varieties of viewpoint offered served to remind me of the various perspectives that Southwestern has to offer. Although there do seem to be some problems inherent in the power structure of Southwestern, the fact that the faculty members interviewed felt comfortable in speaking out points to the fact that there is open room for faculty to advocate opinions without fear of negative consequence. I did feel some necessity to protect the anonymity of the professors, but did this more out of courtesy than any real fear of repercussions for the interviewed parties.

As students at Southwestern University we see them everywhere we go. These people clean our rooms, gymnasium, student center, class rooms, and our campus landscape. These people are always smiling. They smile even when we unavoidably disturb them in the midst of their daily routines. I wanted to look deeper, beyond the friendly and polite greetings and smiles that I so often see. I wanted to know if these smiles were genuine or the result of an existing power structure that requires this expression of its employees.

My research consisted of ten interviews of staff members from each of the following departments: physical plant, housekeeping, custodial, and groundskeepers. Instead of conducting a series of formal interviews I involved myself in informal conversations. From these conversations I retrieved the information that indicated what staff members thought the power structure was in actuality. Since I strayed from a traditional interviewing style I did not have a set questioning guideline.

The obvious hierarchy between staff categories has physical plant at the top. Next are groundskeepers, and at the bottom are housekeepers and custodians. Physical plant takes care of the structures on campus; if something is broken they can fix it. They also do the set up for the sporting events, graduation, pre-registration, and many other events on campus. They have the power of maintaining the campus infrastructure. Groundskeepers are charged with maintaining the aesthetic appeal of the campus. They have the power to effect the physical image of the campus, for the better or for the worse. Housekeepers' main responsibility is to keep the residence halls clean. Many members in this department, when asked about how they felt about their work, said they felt like "surrogate mothers." Their power relies on the fact that they posses keys that grant them automatic entrance into the private realm of a student’s room. Custodial staff does not work as many hours as housekeepers. They are responsible for cleaning the classrooms, the athletic center, the library, and the student center. Their power also lies in the power of the keys they posses.

This hierarchy is justified by the fact that the head supervisor over all the staff departments is the head supervisor of the physical plant. The point also must be made that departments at the top of the hierarchy, physical plant and groundskeeper, are comprised almost only of men, while those on the bottom, housekeeping and custodial, are comprised of mostly women. This structure is a clear reflection of our society in which male normative culture is dominant. Our social culture propagates the idea that those positions that are labor intensive, or male, are more powerful and important than those positions that are considered domestic, or female.

All of the staff members asserted that they had open contact with their supervisor, but that there wasn’t much contact with the head supervisor. This is significant because it is the head supervisor who has contact with the administration. The administration exerts it power through the creation of policy. The head supervisor serves the role of liaison between the administration and the staff department managers. The managers are like police officers in that they make sure policy is implemented and enforced. All of the staff members I conversed with said their supervisor did not train them, but another staff member who had some years of experience. This implicates that there exists a referent power structure in which those who have more experience are granted a higher level of responsibility and respect.

In all of my conversations, staff members said that they smiled because the campus is really friendly and that they felt appreciated. There is no policy that says they must stop working when a student is walking by, but when staff members do this they do it generally out of a social expectation of courtesy. I conclude that Southwestern’s friendly atmosphere and social expectation of courtesy does impose some covert power over staff members. The pressure for staff members to smile and act as if everything is okay when sometimes it is not represents the power of social norms and expectations. I wonder what has happened to those staff members who refused to conform to these pressures?

Southwestern University, as a whole organization, has granted the power to rule and make decisions to a select group of individual students. These roles are required to ensure the proper balance of power between the student and the administration or faculty is maintained. The empowerment of these students assures that the voice of the student, in regards to important campus issues, is channeled through the right people. These roles exist to guarantee that we actually have a chance to make a difference, as well as assuring that the integrity of the honor code is maintained, so that we may enjoy the freedom it allows. Along with these clearly stated roles of power within the student body there are some less obvious, less official ways that students gain power within their peer group. These power structures find their ways into everyday conversations and are noticed by many people. I feel that with a look at these two kinds of power, formal and informal, you can get a clear picture of the emergent power structures within the Southwestern student body.

The formal power of the students is clearly defined in the Student Handbook and in the Southwestern University Catalog. There are three Student Organizations who govern the whole student body, Southwestern Student Congress, Student Judiciary, and the University Program Council. The 19 Student Congress members are elected by students enrolled in SU with the purpose of realizing the voice of the students to both the administration and the faculty. They are responsible for representing the voice of all the students as they address the university to try to bring about change in areas that students feel most strongly.

The Student Judiciary is responsible for holding up the Southwestern Honor Code that has stood since 1907. With this responsibility, they are granted the power to judge fellow students on their academic integrity. These students work with the whole student body to regulate this system. All students, not just those on the judiciary, have power and responsibility to help maintain the integrity of the honor code by reporting any academic dishonesty they observe. The members of the judiciary have the power to state innocence or guilt in academic disputes, as well as the following punitive and practical powers:

1. To recommend an academic penalty to be given by the professor.
2. To apply disciplinary probation to the student in question.
3. To recommend that a case be referred to the University Committee on Discipline.
4. To recommend suspension or expulsion from Southwestern. The University Committee on Discipline must approve such a recommendation before it is final.
5. Any other penalty deemed suitable providing it is not in conflict with any university policy.

This power is real and can affect the grades of fellow students as well as their enrollment at Southwestern.

The third group that has formal power over all of Southwestern Students, as defined in the handbook, is the University Program Council. Students volunteer for this council and are given power to establish the on-campus activities that are available for the student body to enjoy. The student body does not have to attend a single event or even have knowledge about the event, but is still considered a governing body, as described on page 8 of the Student Handbook. This is the weakest of the three powers, because it is up to the students to determine if the power is going to effect their lives.

There are many power structures of students that are formally laid out, but that do not apply to the whole student body. This power effects the students who choose to join a group equally to the above listed power structures. All first year students, as well as all students who choose to continue living on campus, are under the power of Residence Life’s Residence Assistants and Sophomore Advisors. Note: Residence Life as a whole rules over the dorms, but only the RAs and SAs are students. Residence Assistants are upper classmen who provide direct assistance to the students in their living area by providing information, helping to ensure that university community standards are met through brief counseling and/or referrals, offering acquaintanceship, fulfilling basic administration tasks, and helping organize interesting educational, social and recreational events and program. Sophomore Advisors work under the RAs in the freshman dorms, but still have power over the residents and are responsible for helping the first year students adjust to dorm life.

Students who decide to join a fraternity or a sorority are not only under the power of the individual group, but also the national group, as well as the Men’s Interfraternity Council or the Woman’s Panhellenic Council. The two councils above are another example of formal power that has been laid out by the University. These groups are in place to rule over all activities and to help improve relations between the Greek Organizations, as well as with the entire school.

There are many formal obvious power structures that I have shown above, that are easy to see, but there are some more formal power structures that are not as clearly laid out. Upperclassmen at Southwestern have power. They have power over the lower classmen going from seniors with the most power to freshmen with the least. Upperclassmen are allowed to register before lower classmen, leaving the freshmen with whatever classes they can find. Upperclassmen also get first pick at the dorms and get the nicest ones like the apartments, leaving the freshmen to live in dorms like Ruter.

Athletes and women have more power at Southwestern. Athletes because they can register just after the seniors, and due to the fact that they get many more excused absences from class than non-athletes. The power of women comes from the old saying there is power in numbers, and with women having a 2 to 1 advantage their voice is heard more in the classroom changing viewpoints and making the campus less sexist. There is also a power that exists in the fraternity/sorority system. These groups have a power over all first year and independent students who might wish to join the fraternity/sorority. This manifests itself most clearly during rush, where the groups use their power over the people joining to make them want to join and become part of the group.

The power of the student at Southwestern is a very real power. It is one that can get things done around the university, as well as effect others' lives. The power of the student has a very large place in the make up of the organization we call Southwestern.

The alumni group of the matrix was faced with an interesting dilemma when attempting to survey alumni: how do we survey alumni when the vast majority of them rarely venture onto campus? But with the wondrous amount of technology at our fingertips, we decided to send out surveys via alumni list-serves. On our own accord - consulting no one outside of our group - we sent out our survey.

Power can be defined as the right, ability, or capacity to exercise control. With this in mind, the goal within the study of alumni and power was to find out exactly how much power alumni have (and how much they believe they have). Alumni have power in several ways. Come Homecoming, walls are painted, grass is mowed, and floors are mopped, so alumni have the indirect power to change the look of the campus at least once a year. Some may also have the power to change the look of the campus when they donate millions of dollars for new buildings. But what power do alumni hold exactly?

One theory of alumni power is that the amount of money an alumnus donates to Southwestern correlates with the amount of power s/he has when it comes to university dealings. When alumni were asked about this certain issue, there were different views. Most of the responses received indicated that the alumni did in some way believe that alumni power was related to the amount of money they give to the school. Those who thought money equaled power also seem to feel as though they are not consulted as much as they should be concerning the university. Many felt alienated and unwanted by the university when it came to ideas and opinions. Some also felt that the "average" alumnus wasn't represented by the university on certain committees or boards.

Alumni who did not agree that money and power correlated seemed to have a very idealized view of the university. Many felt that even though they did not give a lot or any money that their views and ideas were taken into consideration. Others believed that the reason they are important to the University is because they give money, but they did not see this as relating to power.

Still other alumni felt that people who give large amounts of money to SU may have been (or are) more involved in the University than those who do not donate money. And one thing that Southwestern considers most when it comes to alumni is continued involvement with SU. Giving a lot of money can get you a building on campus with your name slapped on the front (do not count on it being there for more than 25 years though), but giving even small amounts consistently gives an alumnus credibility (as an individual from the Development Office shared with us). For example, if an alumnus has a complaint about SU and if that person has donated even ten dollars a year consistently, he is going to be taken more seriously than someone who has never donated. Financial donations are how the institution determines alumni involvement and personal connection. This also gives alumni an underlying power because the alumni participation through giving affects Southwestern's national ranking and adds to the prestige and credibility of degrees obtained at SU.

But are alumni themselves good judges when it comes to the amount of power they have? To look into this we interviewed several alumni who are now employed by Southwestern. One employee stated that certain alumni who had donated large sums of money assumed that their children or other family members would be accepted to the university — even if they did not meet admission requirements. It may come as a surprise to some alumni that their money does not purchase an automatic admission, as the Admission Office does not accept students who do not meet the admission requirements — regardless of who they are related to. Another employee said that alumni also tend to feel that they have more power then they really do. They believe that since they have graduated they have more of a voice in Southwestern happenings. However (as we were told), alumni are more of a suggestive body than a body with real policy changing power. As individuals, alumni do not have much real power (and not near as much as a student would). But if alumni were to unite on a certain topic and submit it to the Board of Trustees then they would have a much more powerful voice.

On the whole alumni want some power within their former university. Some do not see that as something they can achieve until they write out large checks. Some believe they already have power whether they donate money or not. It appears as though alumni power is not really defined. Alumni power is something that is constantly changing and also changes from alumnus to alumnus. It is up to the individual to determine how much power he or she will have.

Chapter V: Communication Networks

Erin Bobruk

*****

To conduct a somewhat thorough and comprehensive study of the administration at Southwestern University, key heads of different offices within the administration were interviewed and observed. Focusing on the Communication Networks within the administration, the following questions were asked:

1. Which office titles would you classify as your "bosses" and which would you classify as your "subordinates?"
2. How often do you communicate with SU Staff, Faculty, Students, and Alumni?
3. Through what channels do you communicate with other organization structures on campus? E-mail, voice mail, etc?
4. Evaluate the communication within the administration at Southwestern…open/honest?
5. How do ideas and opinions flow between administration and SU Staff, Faculty, Students, and Alumni?

Cross-functional communication occurs on a daily basis for the administration. However, the communication that takes place is usually informal. Nevertheless, constant communication occurs with those who fall under the category of "administration" at Southwestern. Most of this communication occurs at meetings, only attended by members of the administration. Any other communication, if urgent, takes place by means of telephone. Non-urgent or time-sensitive communication takes place via e-mail or memos.

Through the administration research subgroup’s attempts to schedule interviews with them, it can be inferred that the administration keeps very busy hours. Not all of them have personal secretaries that handle appointments, etc., but their accessibility is rather limited, at least to students. Their accessibility to coworkers, colleagues, maybe strained as a result of their schedules, but they generally maintain that this is the only impediment. Otherwise, they claim to be highly accessible to one another. SU administration is basically a group of "leaders" at the university; therefore, in a matter of speaking, they are all leaders. Nevertheless, the "leader" of this group depends on what part of the administration they make up. For example, for the departmental deans, the provost is their leader or "boss." Moreover, each one of the administrators interviewed made it clear that "boss-leader" titles were not emphasized in their own job because they like to work on a "team" level.

*****

By interviewing several faculty members, several "nodes" of communication networks were discovered that have formed amongst the Southwestern faculty through either overt or covert means. The interviews presented the following questions:

1. Who explained the "way things work around here" to you and how did they go about doing it?
2. Are there any gangs of friends around here that seem to have bonded and how did that occur?

Faculty members are formally assimilated into Southwestern culture once they have become a committee member. Gathering informally for campus-wide presentations on subjects they find interesting enhances this acclamation. Librarians become very important in this function. While possessing a broad knowledge of research skills, they also know who is interested in what fields and what will be appropriate for interdisciplinary study. They choose special topics to exhibit such as 'banned books' or 'millennium madness' that may attract the attention of a variety of scholars. In sponsoring a campus organization they can become more in touch with students outside of the classroom. Faculty also get to know other colleagues and students through shared interests in sports such as faculty tennis, ultimate Frisbee, flag football, and afternoon basketball scrimmages.

In order to insure the continuing of education, tenured professors conduct sessions on applying for funding through the Cullen foundation to gain a sort of "expert" or "referent power" for the development of subject specific informal organizations. I did not find anyone who admitted to finding out information about grants for these programs through 'bull sessions' with department heads, however. They reported that they did a lot of that while in graduate school. Several informal groups of professors who share common interests meet on a regular basis. These committees include environmental studies, international studies, and women’s studies.

Some networks are systematic to all universities. The linkage between the provost’s office and faculty members is strong only in the sense that the provost coordinates central planning and mission statements, while courting professors. Department heads make recommendations after conferring with the rest of the department, but usually find that the provost will automatically comply with the faculty recommendations. Problems arise when a candidate has multiple job offers and must try not to make anyone upset.

New faculty members are found and hired in different ways depending on the specific department’s needs and the type of position to be filled. The connection with the University of Texas for filling adjunct teaching positions remains strong. Oftentimes a department head will coordinate with their corresponding department head at UT to find graduate students who are strong teachers but ABD (all but dissertation). However, the tenure-track positions are filled only through a national search advertised in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Many find out about an open position from a posting on the Internet. However, word of mouth travels fast and the applications stream in for months before any interviews are conducted. I did not find any examples of people who entered the organization because of the work of a headhunter.

A tenured faculty member ushers in new faculty members to acquaint them with policies by conducting mini-workshops for the new faculty. One professor even includes a dance workshop to better acquaint new faculty with proper formal behavior. New faculty luncheons also serve as a meet-and-greet session for faculty members to encourage communication across departmental boundaries. Even informally, many faculty members just seem to bond by eating lunch in the commons at the same time, which stimulates camaraderie throughout the faculty as a whole.

Many faculty seem to become affiliated to one another through a communication network that developed by shared staff secretaries. They must coordinate with staff secretaries to arrange for mass copies of materials and audio-visual equipment. The language instructors work with the Language Learning Center, the social science professors must work with Kathy Buchhorn, the education faculty must work with Barbara Sappington, while most of Mood-Bridwell works with Elaine Spencer.

Technologically, professors maintain links to their colleagues in their fields often through list serves. They find out the books that they should be reading and discover the current hotly debated subjects in their field. They also learn about promotions and job openings at other institutions.

*****

When studying communication roles and networks among staff at Southwestern, it became necessary to interview various staff members that aid in the functioning of Southwestern as a community. These members all play significant roles in helping the campus to communicate with administration, faculty, staff, students, and alumni.

The following questions were asked during the interviews of two staff members:

1. Who is your boss?
2. How does your job help towards the final effort in making Southwestern function as a community?
3. Where do you facilitate ideas, in order to better the effects of your job on campus?
4. How do you communicate to administration, faculty, other staff members, students, and alumni?
5. How do you communicate with your boss to make necessary adjustments to better the effects of your job within Southwestern?

Information Technology Services plays a vital role in helping the campus to communicate information campus wide. An important staff member within ITS is Sharon McEuen who works in the area of technology support. Her boss is the Associate Vice President of ITS, Bob Paver. Her department helps to ensure that all the hardware and software on campus is operating correctly. Technology support also serves as a help desk for the rest of the faculty, staff and students. Sharon answers questions and helps people troubleshoot problems on their own personal computers, as well as the computers distributed throughout various locations on campus. The overall focus of her job is to work with the rest of her staff in order to make sure everything runs smoothly.

Technology services belong to an organization known as Resnet. This is an organization that many universities nation wide take part in. Resnet allows our technology department to communicate with other universities about new ideas and concepts that might better the services that technology support provides Southwestern. Sharon said that they are also involved in an organization called Educanse, which is strictly designed for departments within universities in technology and information services. Lastly, she communicates with other faculty, staff, students, and alumni through e-mail. For her department, this is the easiest way to communicate effectively because it is directly involved with her job.

Other important staff members that help our campus communicate with others within Southwestern, and with the outside world are the phoneoperators. Most communication between operators and their bosses occur in "one on one" atmospheres, where suggestions are expressed with ideas that will help things operate more smoothly.

The operators’ position is what I call the "wheel of Southwestern." When people on or off campus call Southwestern, the first person they speak to is the operator. This is sometimes difficult when external factors effect the personal mood, but the operator must give an enthusiastic and professional impression to those who they come in contact with. This position is an important one in that the impression given effects what those who call Southwestern initially think about the campus.

In order to facilitate new ideas to better the operator’s effect on campus, the operators along with their superiors meet to discuss problems and concerns. For example, the operator makes decisions about the importance of calls and these must be discussed so that all operators work within the same limits and expectations. The reason an operator controls the entrance to the computer lab at night is because somewhere along the line, a safety concern was brought up both for the students and the staff in the building after hours. Then, the issue was discussed in order to come to a decision to monitor those who may enter the computer lab at night. The telephone is a primary means of communicating with the rest of the campus; it is most effective and least time consuming.

The role of the operator is significant in helping the campus communicate and function as a network. Their jobs allow administration, faculty, staff, students, and alumni to stay in contact with one another, so we can maintain our communication network both on campus and off.

*****

In the student survey sent via e-mail, there was an overwhelming number of people that felt that the communication between faculty and students was very strong. In fact, no one characterized them as "weak." The communication between students and staff was rated as fair by most. Most thought that the communication between students and alumni was weak or fair, not strong. Finally, communication between students and administration rated pretty equally between weak, fair, and strong. This may be because some people interact with administration on a more regular basis than others. A strong majority of students feel that living on campus is key to communication at S.U. Given its central geographical and social placement on campus, it is surprising that most people only rated the commons as fair when it came to its importance in communication networking. To judge the importance of voice mail and e-mail to student’s level of communication, we asked how often people check these two. An overwhelming majority answered that they check these two things more than once a day. This statistic highlights the important role these forms of communication are to the members of this community.

STUDENTS: Patti Gutierrez

As a student, I feel I have a great understanding of our role at Southwestern University. After doing a significant amount of qualitative research, I am able to define and discuss the communication networks found among the students here at Southwestern University. When starting my research, I decided that I did not want to do the basic survey, questionnaire, or formal interview as my research method. I felt that students would be more truthful and honest if they do not know that they are part of research. Instead of using the methods mentioned, I used informal interviews and participant observation. Basically I incorporated questions about networking communication (i. e. how often do students informally communicate with faculty?) into conversations that I had with my suitemates, friends, classmates and "random" individuals in the library or commons. At the end of the conversations, I would tell them about this research project and ask if I could use the information that they had given me. I told them I would not disclose any names.

Participant observation simply means I analyzed conversations that I actively took part in, as well as analyzing e-mails and voice messages. I took previous observations, as well as just "people watched" in areas that I considered highly trafficked (i. e. the commons). I found that, students at Southwestern University know their role on campus in relation to each other and to the administration, faculty, staff, and alumni. Although the communication network may seem complicated, it is quite simple. As with most people, the students used what they were given to their advantage, whether voice mail, e-mail, or everyday informal conversation.

Southwestern University encompasses the students’ life. Many talked about "living in the Southwestern bubble." One female student went as far as to say that she didn't know about current events but rather "who did who" where and when and how intoxicated they were. A male senior, who has lived on campus for four years said, "I am better informed on what professors to take classes from than on the credentials of political candidates." Basically, students communicate with each other on an hourly basis via voice mail and e-mail to transfer information, or by meeting in the commons. Besides sharing on the agony of finding decent edible food, the students tend to share information about what is going on during the upcoming weekend, as well as just catching up on what everyone is doing. One female said, "It is at the commons where we shove down food and then stick around to talk and see what is up." The commons being such a central gathering place could be a research project of its own. Overall, Southwestern creates a communication network among the students. The size and environment contributes to the open and honest communication that is found.

Students at Southwestern create the majority of the population in the community. The communication networks are not as strong and open with the administration, faculty, staff, and alumni. "There is no reason to communicate with the administration, staff, and alumni unless I am in need of something from them," was one student's statement. Unless the organization involved them with the administration, staff, or alumni students did not have a daily contact with them. I realize that there are many exceptions to this; I could have easily talked to the few that feel otherwise. I know and talk to many of the staff; however, when I think about it, it was only because of an initial confrontation when I needed something that this contact occurred. A fraternity member only talked to alumni that were in their fraternity and those that remain in contact with them. In general, students will talk to everybody formally when the time calls for it but will only talk informally with faculty and students.

Communication between the faculty and students is quite evident as well. Faculty and students have contact at least every other day if not every day. It seems that students here at Southwestern University are split on the issue of why they communicate with the faculty. Some only communicate with faculty when it directly concerns them. However, others enjoy talking to them on a more informal level. It all depends on the initiative of the students. One sophomore said that he wished he "had more time to talk to his professors on a more personal level," while another sophomore said he "visited his professor at least twice in the semester so that they knew who [he] was." It also seems that students call and e-mail professors to let them know about what is going on, or if they are having trouble. One said that she felt more comfortable talking to a professor through a series of e-mails rather than direct confrontation.

Overall, students have effective, open, and clear communication with everybody. I believe that the resources at Southwestern such as e-mail and the Octel voice mail system allow for this open communication. Most importantly, although we, the students, may not have the much power here at SU, we are the primary concern and focus of Southwestern. In a sense, this university exists for the sole reason that we attend it; without us, there is no purpose for Southwestern as an organization. We are its product.

*****

Alumni have a unique connection with Southwestern. Unlike administration, faculty, and students, who are constantly on campus, their association and connection with the school and one another is much different. Communication and interaction with the other groups (faculty, administration, students, and staff) is quite limited.

A survey was sent out to all present list serves that alumni are a part of. The list serves were created to encourage communication between alumni and to present students in their particular areas of interest. We had over 15 separate responses from alumni from all sorts of disciplines that participated in our survey.

One of the easiest ways for alumni to keep in touch with all that occurs at SU and with other alumni is through the SU Quarterly. Everyone who responded with the exception of one person said they read it regularly. Most everyone said they would contribute if asked and a handful had already made submissions to the Quarterly. This indicated their eagerness and willingness to stay connected with SU and its alumni.

Most alumni do not really have a reason to return to SU except for one time during the year, Homecoming. Of those surveyed, 2/3 have taken part in Homecoming. At least 3 of those people who responded came for a class reunion. This time allows alumni the opportunity to visit with old professors, friends (if they are recent alumni), and a chance to see any construction changes or improvements occurring around campus.

Most of the alumni, when questioned about communicating with professors said they talked to them when they were students on a regular basis. Only a few said they still keep in contact with their professors. One person said they went to church with an old professor and another said they used an old professor to help find names of graduating seniors looking for a particular job. Those who still kept in contact said they did so mostly through e-mail or at alumni association activities. One person said, "Since I graduated, I have found the professors have a strong sense of community with the alumni and welcome continuing friendships." Another said, "I am still in contact with two different SU professors and have come to be a sort of colleague with them. Therefore, their impact on my life is invaluable and very much appreciated."

Besides communicating with professors and other people during Homecoming or being updated through the Quarterly, alumni communicate with other alumni. Most involved in Greek organizations or sports teams said they still kept in contact with those friends via e-mail and regular mail. If they are near enough, it is more common to spend time with them or converse frequently on the phone. But e-mail seemed to be the most popular means of communication. One person stated they felt it was important for young alumni to keep in contact.

Some alumni have the advantage of working together. About 2/3 of those answering the survey said that they had never used Southwestern alumni for networking purposes, but at least a third of those people said they would network if given the opportunity. One actually mentioned the inactivity of the list-servs and was concerned about its lack of activity. They felt that the list serves would be an excellent method for networking. One alumnus said, "I have offered to help other SU grads through the online network, but to date no one has contacted me. I wonder how well the school is utilizing its alumni to place students in the workplace. This is an important resource that may be underutilized."

About half of the surveyed individuals work with other alumni; almost all of them said they talked about Southwestern with each other. One person mentioned she worked with about twenty other SU alumni. She said although she does not run into them often, they do talk about SU occasionally. At her particular company, the abundance of alumni does give them the opportunity to be more in touch with one another and the school. Another person from the same company mentioned being on top of all the juicy gossip. Another alumnus from out of state (Missouri) mentioned that when she was living in San Antonio she had the opportunity to attend SU parties and happy hours which kept everyone connected. "There aren’t that many of us out there," one alumnus said, "so when you meet someone else from SU, you have a common bond." Another alumnus said this about bumping into other alumni: "We talked about SU a lot. It’s exciting to find an alumnus through a work situation, especially by accident. We jabbered about rolling."

Some alumni have the unique experience of working with other alumni at Southwestern. One person interviewed was a faculty member from the athletic department. Because their communication has been crucial for each department’s success, his connection with other young alumni in admissions helps make his job easier and enjoyable. He said that now that he works at SU, he communicates more with his previous professors. He mentioned it was interesting to go to "happy hour" with other professors and faculty members.

So, as demonstrated by our results, most alumni are willing to stay in contact with Southwestern and its community. They are willing to actively participate in networking with one another and helping current students get ahead in the world after graduation. The connection that is built as a student at Southwestern with professors and other students continues on into adulthood. Through things like the Quarterly and Homecoming, all of our alumni have the opportunity to keep in contact.

*****

Chapter VI: Discussion

IMAGE AND IDENTITY

Creation of the image and identity of Southwestern University has proven to be a multidimensional process. Formally, it is represented through documentation like SU’s missions, goals, and vision statements; informally, it is represented through the advent of opinions and assumptions of many, displayed in the various sub-cultures of the university. No two people present this place of work, study, and play in the same way. Each contributes their own identity, but each also shapes the overall image and identity of the complex organization that is Southwestern University.

There is an apparent competitive strategy at work within this structure, as there is with many academic organizations. This competitive strategy is the attempt by University Relations, public relations, and the Admission Office to seek out and court students to the university. The focus of the university’s identity is one of differentiation. We continually differentiate ourselves from surrounding institutions by promoting our intimate size, high academic standards, and quality education. Finally, the image and identity of Southwestern is culminated by its reputation and its continual development of this reputation as a nationally esteemed selective liberal arts university with a lot of character.

The overt ideology behind Southwestern University is that it is an institution that fosters and promotes learning both collectively and independently. Beneath this surface lies evidence of the more covert ideology of the university: a system led by administrative officials, and cultivated by the mentors and participants in its community. Through our research, evidence of hierarchical and linear power structures emerged. In the administrative and support disciplines a hierarchy exists, where a pyramid of power trickles down from the top. Alternatively, in the areas of faculty, students, and alumni power is determined more by participation, and coupled with hierarchical structures. Through the discovery of hidden myths, metaphors, and stories, the power of the university has been revealed.

For the most part Southwestern University is a postmodern institution who remembers and embraces their past, but also recognizes the advantages and needs of looking into the future. The university as a community works within and without power structures to convey ideas and possibility to its students. Empowerment of responsibility and structuring of roles are two key factors in this university.

Such detailed description of the patterns of interaction between subcultures at a small liberal arts university may appear to be as much sound and fury as signifying nothing. Indeed, this is the critique launched by many pragmatists who not only want to understand organizational communication (as we have done here in this study) but also to influence it. While the observations included in this section may reflect patterns of interaction, they do not offer much in the way of a theoretical underpinning for changing the struture of the organization. However, as Clifford Geertz, a proponent of the kinds of "thick description" and ethnographic symbolic analysis that we have made the center of our study, has argued, a quest to alter culture is both inappropriate and virtually impossible (Griffin, pp. 292-293).

The aim of symbolic analysis is to create a better understanding of what it takes to function within a given culture. A description of communication networks underscores those patterns of interaction between disparate components of a given culture. It is enhanced, however, by the technological innovations that were predicted by Marshall McLuhan to be the most important features affecting social interaction. Unlike that sort of analysis, an examination of communication networks highlights the people actively engaged in the transmission of information throughout an organization. According to Carl Rogers, humanistic scholarship is good when it offers fresh insight into the human condition (Griffin, p. 38). This research and explanation of communication networks urges us to recognize the cause and consequence of what we observe.

We would like to acknowledge all of the administration, faculty, staff, students, and alumni who contributed their time and opinions to our study. We would also like to give a special shout-out to Bobby B for forcing us to open our eyes to our community, to work cohesively as an entire class, and for all the "words" of wisdom.

Eisenberg, Eric M., and Goodall, Jr., H. L. Organizational Communication: Balancing Creativity and Constraint. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997.

Goodall, Jr., H. L. Casing a Promised Land: The Autobiography of an Organizational Detective as Cultural Ethnographer. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press, 1994.

Griffin, Em. A First Look at Communication Theory. New York: McGraw Hill, 1994.

Treadwell, D.F., and Harrison, Teresa M. "Conceptualizing and Assessing Organizational Image: Model Images, Commitment, and Communication." Communication Monographs 61 (1994): 63-85.