Research Design Workgroup

1. Research Design Workgroup Carl Calkins, PhD, University of Missouri, Kansas City Margaret Nygren, EdD, AUCD

2. Workgroup Members • Brent Askvig, North Dakota Center for Persons with Disabilities, North Dakota • Carl Calkins, UMKC Institute for Human Development, Missouri • Elisabeth Dykens, Vanderbilt Kennedy UCEDD, Tennessee • Michael Gamel-McCormick, Center for Disabilities Studies, Delaware • Gloria Krahn, Oregon Institute on Disability & Development, Oregon • Fred Orelove, Partnership for People with Disabilities, Virginia • Sarah Rule, Center for Persons with Disabilities, Utah • Zolinda Stoneman, Institute on Human Development & Disability, Georgia • Barbara Wheeler, USC UCEDD, California

3. Purpose, Plan, and Intended Outcome • Purpose of Workgroup: To assist in the development of a research design to explore how universities are approaching the recruitment and selection of new UCEDD directors • Plan: • Phase I: Conduct a brief survey of the entire network to provide initial data and to inform phase II • Phase II: Conduct in depth interviews of a small cross-section UCEDD Directors and university officials on issues of importance in hiring at universities today • Intended Outcome: we hope to inform the next generation of leaders what credentials they might develop, provide opportunities to develop expertise in these areas, and to be better prepared to supply search committees with relevant information.

4. Timeline & Activities To Date • September-October 2007 • Workgroup identified areas of interest and discussed data gathering and analysis plan • November-December 2007 • Reviewed draft survey and suggested revisions • Determined that a focus group of former Directors and retiring Directors should be used to further inform the development of Phase I & II questions. • January 2008 • Focus group held • February 2008 • Survey modified in response to focus group comments • March 2008 • UCEDD Directors surveyed; Directors/Co-Directs of 44 UCEDDs responded, a 66% response rate • April 2008 • Initial results reviewed • Next steps in data analysis identified • Thematic areas for Phase II questions identified • June 2008 • Presenting initial findings at ADD TA Institute

5. Tools and Method • Focus Group • The focus group panel was held via a one-hour conference call. The group participated in a roundtable discussion directed by an experienced moderator and observed by members of the workgroup examining this issue and the ADD project officer.. • Survey • The survey included 8 quantitative questions, 2 qualitative questions, and 1 opportunity for general comments. • The survey was organized into 2 sections: • First, addressing elements related to the current director’s position • Second, asking respondents to predict how a search would be conducted for a new UCEDD Director if undertaken today

6. Focus Group • All UCEDD Directors who had retired in the past year or who had announced a plan to retire within the next 6 months were invited to participate in the focus group. • Of the 9 invited, 8 participated in the focus group. • The purpose of the focus group interview panel was two-fold, to: • Gather feedback on a draft survey designed to capture information from UCEDD Director/Co-Directors on their current job responsibilities and to gather their predictions on the candidate qualifications and recruitment processes if a new UCEDD Director/Co-Director were to be hired in the near future. • Provide a forum for emeritus and near-emeritus Directors to share their thoughts on the UCEDD Director recruitment and transition processes.

7. The Consensus of Focus Group Participants on the UCEDD Director Recruitment and Transition processes • UCEDD Director recruitment processes are determined by the university and often divorced from those with knowledge of the UCEDD. • Variables that affect recruitment are tenure status, perceived value of the UCEDD to the university (size, project, or infrastructure), processes for internal candidates to be considered, opportunities to develop or mentor junior staff to take on the role, and formal exit strategies for retiring Directors. • Assuring that UCEDD Directors have credibility in their university setting is essential to navigating the system, securing resources, and influencing processes that impact the UCEDD. Credibility is conferred by tenure in some settings, in other settings there are other currencies that confer credibility and respect. • The diversity of the network makes it impossible to have a one size fits all approach, but that it may be possible to develop profiles or types of UCEDDs for which candidate qualifications and recruitment processes could be tailored.

8. Consensus continued. • Changes in UCEDD leadership may reflect or provoke the university’s interest in change in the qualifications of the next director or intention to change the direction of the work of the UCEDD. The search may be part of a dynamic change that reconceptualizes the division of labor of the UCEDD Director and any other hats the current person wears. • Search committees need consultation to help them understand what the skills the UCEDD needs in a leader to be able to operate. • The search may take 9-12 months or longer. • The UCEDD is likely to be at its most vulnerable during the recruitment and transition processes, as forces in the university may act to appropriate UCEDD resources.

9. Focus Group Recommendations • Universities should engage in a self-study prior to initiating the recruitment, that is, determine its needs and set goals before it starts looking for a new UCEDD Director. • UCEDD faculty and/or outgoing director should be involved in the hiring of a new one. • AUCD, as an outside source that could not be perceived as influencing the search, should assist universities in the recruitment processes by providing • Director job descriptions from other UCEDDs • Consultation to help the search committee understand what expertise is required to meet UCEDD grant deliverables • A list of comparable UCEDDs, so that the search committee might engage in informational interviews with their Directors • Provide any “profile” information that might be developed on UCEDD types. • ADD should not offer nor require that its staff participate in the recruitment of new UCEDD Directors.

10. Initial Results of Survey: Current UCEDD Director Responsibilities • Scope of Responsibility • Most (60%) both manage the day-to-day operations and lead their UCEDD • Job Description • Most have a current job description (79%) • Among those with a job description, 53% of those descriptions were updated within the past 12 months; 25% reported their job descriptions were updated in the last 2-5 years • Tenure • Given where their UCEDD was administratively housed, 47% reported it was very important, 21% indicated it was somewhat important • Narrative comments strongly suggested that to be successful, UCEDD Directors need to have credibility within the host university, if not through tenure, then through alternative promotion schedules or other institutional currency

11. Initial Results of Survey: Predictions on the Necessary Qualifications and Recruitment Process for a new UCEDD Director at the University • Recruitment processes were predicted to very likely entail • A national search (74%) • The consideration of internal candidates (63%), • Inclusion of UCEDD staff on the search committee (64%) • Inclusion of non-university staff such as CAC members, community partners, etc. on the search committee (64%) • Respondents indicated that the use of a head hunting firm was either not very likely (44%) or not likely at all (46%) • Predictions on the likelihood of the current director’s inclusion on the search committee for the next director was • 28.5% very likely • 28.5% somewhat likely • 24% not very likely • 19% not likely at all

12. Initial Results of Survey: Predictions on the Necessary Qualifications and Recruitment Process for a new UCEDD Director at the University • Qualifications identified as very likely to be important • Capacity to bring in grants/revenue (91%) • Management/leadership credentials (86%) • Disability experience/expertise (82%) • Publication history (52%) • Community outreach/engagement experience (50%) • Tenurability (46%) • Qualifications identified as somewhat likely to be important • Familiarity with UCEDDs (55%) • research (52%) • Teaching (44%)

13. Next Steps • Further analysis of survey data • The survey responses will be matched with data on variables that might be relevant (administrative location of the UCEDD; university Carnegie classification, land grant status, public/private status). The resulting dataset will be examined to determine what, if any, correlations may be observed. • Begin Phase II • Themes suggested by the survey and focus groups will be used to gather data from in depth interviews with a small cross section of UCEDD Directors and University leaders • Report on findings at AUCD Annual Meeting