The Organizational Ecology of State Support for Public Flagship Universities

Abstract

Background/Context: Several studies have investigated state political and economic factors that explain differences in levels of state appropriations for colleges and universities. Few studies have considered how stakeholder beliefs or taken-for-granted assumptions about various institutions may impact budgeting decisions for specific campuses. A gap in the literature remains in understanding how normative agreements about various institutional types—such as public flagship universities—may influence levels of state appropriations for these institutions. Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study: This study investigates how levels of state support for research universities might relate to their formal, informal, or even contested status as public flagship institutions. The research question guiding this study is: How might flagship identity relate to differences in levels of state appropriations for public research universities across states? Research Design: This multicase study examines differences in levels of state support for four flagship universities between 1984 and 2004. Case institutions were generated from an analysis of outlier institutions that received lower- or higher-than-predicted levels of appropriations during the two-decade period. Outliers analyzed for this study include the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and University of Virginia (lower-than-predicted support) and the University of Connecticut and the University of Maryland-College Park (higher-than-predicted support). Qualitative data were collected and analyzed to investigate disparities in state support among these four institutions. Findings/Results: This study found that a “flagship ideal” exists across the four cases, which provides meaning for stakeholders as they consider levels of state funding for these institutions. Idealized views of flagships provided advantages to some institutions and disadvantaged others in state budgeting processes during the study period. In addition, normative beliefs about the case institutions were mediated by state culture, politics, and powerful regional influences. Higher education governance structure was less important than cultural and political context in making sense of variations in state support across the institutions. Conclusions/Recommendations: The study suggests that flagship university leaders must be mindful about taken-for-granted assumptions held by key stakeholders and resource providers as they create appeals for state support. Across all institutional types, leaders must be attuned to the historical, cultural, economic, or political factors that shape understandings about their institutions. In addition, leaders must evaluate the influence of allies or foes in shaping the narrative about the institution’s unique identity and need for funding. Strategic leaders leverage their institutional identities and unique governing arrangements in ways that expand resource opportunities.