ABSTRACT
Organizational change is a complex and critical issue in higher education today. Changes experienced across institutional systems have both short-term and long-term impact, making this phenomenon ripe for educational leadership research. Many universities and colleges have applied Kotter's (1995) eight-step change model prescriptively to implement academic initiatives, curriculum revisions, and strategic vision. However, Kotter's (1995) model has not previously explored ad hoc changes over time and has not been used to study a college live mascot program. Although a decreasing campus tradition, college live mascots have a relationship and impact on a student's experience and college identification, as well as university engagement with alumni and the public. Therefore, understanding how change is identified and experienced by campus stakeholders of a college live mascot program describe the various complexities and issues that initiate a climate for institutional change. To explain the evolution of a college live mascot program, oral histories across twenty years of campus stakeholders, including student trainers, campus administrators, and external consultants were analyzed using Kotter's (1995) model. The findings of this study affirmed that the steps associated with Kotter's (1995) change model, with a specific focus on the first three steps, are relevant for ad hoc changes, and offer implications for higher education change.
ABSTRACT
Background: As greater career development support for doctoral students and postdoctoral researchers has been emphasized, the individual development plan (IDP) has become a recommended mentoring tool. However, little is known about the effect of IDPs on mentoring and career development. This study proposed two conceptual models to examine the interrelationships among the use of IDPs, mentoring support, and career preparedness with a diverse sample of doctoral students and postdoctoral researchers in the life sciences. Methods: The data leveraged for this study was collected over a three-month period, March 2016 to June 2016, as part of a cross-sectional, online survey. The survey was distributed through social media and direct email to participants enrolled in life/biological/medical or physical/applied doctoral programs at U.S. institutions. To test the proposed conceptual models, this study employed the design-based multilevel structural equation modeling. Results: The analytic sample comprised 660 doctoral students and postdoctoral researchers in the life sciences from 91 institutions. The results suggested that 1) using the IDP could enhance mentoring support and career preparedness of doctoral students and postdoctoral researchers; 2) greater mentoring support and career preparedness would motivate mentees to continue utilizing the IDP with their principal investigator (PI) or advisor; and 3) females, postdoctoral researchers, and international scholars might need more support throughout the mentoring and career development process. Conclusions: This research demonstrated the empirical evidence an IDP has within mentorship and career preparedness, and that an IDP is an important career development tool that enhances trainees' overall career preparation.
