Thesis (M.S.C.I.T.)--Regis University, Denver, Colo., 2008. / Title from PDF title page (viewed on June 10, 2008). Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin, 1963. / Extension Repository Collection. Typescript (carbon copy). Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 203-205).

Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Louisville, 1996. / UMI dissertation order no. 9709455. Includes bibliographical references (p. 144-155).

Thesis (M.A.)--Northern Kentucky University, 2009. / Made available through ProQuest. Publication number: AAT 1465745. ProQuest document ID: 1827257551. Includes bibliographical references (p. 35-39)

Thesis (M.A.)--Northern Kentucky University, 2006. / Made available through ProQuest. Publication number: AAT 1435897. ProQuest document ID: 1163267151. Includes bibliographical references (p. 54-55)

This dissertation fills a gap in the historiography of southern higher education by focusing on five university presidents and their role in the desegregation of a non-elite flagship university in the Upper South. While historian Melissa Keane has studied the presidential role at elite private southern universities during the initial phase of the desegregation process, no study has yet examined desegregation from the president’s office at a southern land-grant university. Building upon historian Peter Wallenstein’s thesis that desegregation is not a single event in an institution’s history but rather an ongoing process, I argue that it was also process that clearly involved the university presidents. Though much has been written about desegregation in Kentucky generally and the University of Kentucky specifically, and the pioneering African American students who desegregated UK, almost no scholarship has focused on the specific role of the UK presidents in the ongoing desegregation process. In much of the existing literature, the presidents are portrayed as spectators, they occupy a backseat, or they sit on the sidelines as the action unfolds. Often their story ends with the initial desegregation of UK’s graduate and undergraduate programs. Passive observers they were not, however. Herman Lee Donovan, Frank Graves Dickey, John Wieland. Oswald, Albert Dennis Kirwan, and Otis Arnold Singletary implemented policies that impacted the course of desegregation at the University of Kentucky.

The need for licensed teachers and specialists in the area of moderate to severe disabilities has been a point of concern for the past two decades; however, technology is increasingly being used to deliver instruction and assist in providing supervision and consulting for students in need of certification in diverse fields through synchronous online learning environments (Luna & Medina, 2007; Spooner & Wood, 2006). The use of these technologies, such as video and web conferencing, are an increasingly popular and viable option for educators and teacher candidates living in rural locations or that have schedules that may not allow for travel to on-campus meetings. In response to this need, the University of Kentucky (UK) Department of Early Childhood, Special Education, & Rehabilitation Counseling, has been delivering instruction through satellite, interactive video, and web-based course management systems for 30 years. This chapter describes how UK has increased their capacity to serve students by using distance education technologies not only for course delivery, but practicum supervision as well (Collins & Baird, 2006).

This dissertation explores how student housing impacted the college campus of the University of Kentucky in the Progressive Era. Student housing has long been part of the college ideal but lacked full engagement by many administrators. Through three examinations, housing will be shown to have directly influenced the administrative, social, and staffing elements of the college campus. The role student housing played in the interaction of political, rural, and sociological changes on the campus during the time period allows exploration in detail while addressing the changes within those areas of the state as well. While housing was an afterthought by the administration due to oversight and lack of funding throughout much of the examined history (1880-1945), its consideration was still an essential part of student life and part of the college ideal. Housing was a place wholly of the student – while administrators set policies and the government had a concern for it at various times, it was also a place where, originally, a “boys will be boys” mentality slid by, unapproved, but unthreatened. However, how did the politics of the state shape the college and its housing experience? How did the addition of women students, the first of many major additions that were foreign to the original student population of mostly rural males, change the campus and its structures? Originating in the “environment” of student-centered housing – be it boarding houses, Greek houses, or dormitories, the students who populated these facilities would cajole, alter, and sometimes force the campus through both intentional and unintentional engagements and interactions. This dissertation shall establish an understanding of how the administration, particularly the presidency, viewed student housing. Following the introduction, three sections shall detail instances of housing influencing the campus climate in ways previously understudied. First, an examination of the political climate of the state interacted with concerns about student housing as a key factor in ending the presidency of Barker. The second section will show how a judicial ruling created new forms of student services – granting in loco parentis control but also creating the need for the diversification of services beyond what had existed previously. The third section will denote, in detail, how housing women changed the college campus – expanding its borders and the need for services. Through such examinations, a previously unexplored role of student living quarters as affecting the growth and development of the University of Kentucky into the institution it is now shall become apparent.

This dissertation explores the University of Kentucky’s efforts to develop and implement an “action program” in eastern Kentucky in the 1960s. By the late 1950s, Kentucky’s political, business, and academic leaders had identified eastern Kentucky as the state’s problem area, and they sought strategies to bring the region into the economic and cultural mainstream. This generation of post-war leaders had an uncompromising faith in the power of knowledge, technology, and planning, and University leaders saw their action program as a university-wide effort to address what most would argue was Kentucky’s ugliest problem. This study begins with an examination of the rushed and disorganized Kellogg Foundation-funded Eastern Kentucky Resource Development Project (EKRDP) in 1960. With the national “rediscovery” of Appalachia in the early 1960s and the passage of the Equal Opportunity Act (EOA) and the Appalachian Regional Development Act (ARDA) in 1964 and 1965, University leaders reframed their thinking about how to engage eastern Kentucky in the midst of a War on Poverty. Institutional support for the EKRDP dwindled, and administrators tried to shift the responsibility of the eastern Kentucky program to the newly developed Center for Developmental Change (CDC). However, the leadership of the CDC lacked stability, the faculty who had been the driving force behind the Center did not want to be tied down to Appalachian projects, and the changing expectations for faculty ushered in by the “Oswald Revolution” did not reward interdisciplinary work.