This study looks at the dual enrollment program at Brevard Community College in the state of Florida. It uses new interview data to determine if the positive and negative aspects of the program established by the literature still pertain. Four main themes were identified by the study of dual enrollment students and the postsecondary institution: money, quality of students, quantity of students, and opportunities of students and the institution. A discussion of each side of the discourse are made in order to help the program retain its positive attributes. While quality, quantity, and money are all issues concerning the day to day problems that arise in the program, it would appear that the motivation and reason a student is in the dual enrollment program drastically affects all three of these themes as they have the ability to positively or negatively use the opportunity of being in the program. Recommendations are made which may allow the institution and those involved in the dual enrollment program, specifically the faculty, to run as smoothly, efficiently, and productively as possible

The presence of students with disabilities on university campuses is steadily increasing; however, their total integration and inclusion into campus life has not been as successful (Merchant & Gajar, 1997; Promis, et al., 2001). Canadian students with disabilities continue to be marginalized within universities, mainly because a framework for inclusion has not been firmly established (Promis et al., 2001). Although universities offer services to support academic success, other facets of campus life offered to the general student population, such as recreation or athletics, are often neglected for students with disabilities. These aspects of student life should not be considered trivial as they have many benefits and can enhance a person’s experiences and quality of life at university (Ashton-Shaeffer et al., 2001; Blinde & McLung, 1997; Blinde & Taub, 1999; Promis et al., 2001). Guided by critical disability theory and the concept of embodiment, this dissertation used a participatory action research approach that united key partners from the University of Guelph community in order to examine issues around accessibility and inclusion of students with disabilities in campus recreational and athletic opportunities. The team included representatives from the University’s Centre for Students with Disabilities and the Department of Athletics, an undergraduate student with a disability, and two university alumni. The ultimate goal was to develop a planning framework to guide universities in supporting the human rights and inclusion of students with disabilities in extra-curricular campus life. Interviews were conducted with five research team members and 18 University of Guelph stakeholders, including: students with and without disabilities, staff members from the Department of Athletics and the Centre for Students with Disabilities, faculty members, and senior administrators. A focus group was also held to share findings and generate feedback on a preliminary draft of the framework. What emerged from data analysis of the interviews, the focus group, team meetings, and journal entries was the development of a framework for Creating a Campus Culture of Compassion. This framework identifies how universities can implement programs, policies, services and practices that better respond to the changing and diverse needs and interests of students with disabilities in order to ensure their full engagement in all areas of campus life. The framework centres around six guiding principles that help guide universities toward developing a campus culture that is compassionate. Essentially, a campus culture of compassion values: (a) access for all; (b) diversity and uniqueness; (c) interdependence and social responsibility; (d) diverse knowledge basis, voices, and perspectives; (e) the power of learning and education as a tool for social change; and (f) the whole person. The framework also indicates three fundamental characteristics that a campus culture of compassion must possess. In essence, post-secondary institutions and their community members must be: (a) interconnected, (b) supportive and enabling, and (c) informed. Six process pieces are included in the framework which enables a campus culture of compassionate to be fuelled and sustained over time. These pieces include: (a) creating a vision for the future, (b) constructing a plan to achieve the vision, (c) securing funds to put the plan in place, (d) thinking critically and measuring actions against the vision, (e) being proactive to make change happen, and (f) reaching beyond compliance. The framework encourages university stakeholders to collectively reflect, dialogue, and collaborate in order to create broader systemic changes. These changes are necessary since constraints to campus engagement can threaten a student’s well-being and sense of self. This framework can serve as a starting point to initiate these conversations and inspire universities to use a participatory approach to encourage positive social change within the university context.

The presence of students with disabilities on university campuses is steadily increasing; however, their total integration and inclusion into campus life has not been as successful (Merchant & Gajar, 1997; Promis, et al., 2001). Canadian students with disabilities continue to be marginalized within universities, mainly because a framework for inclusion has not been firmly established (Promis et al., 2001). Although universities offer services to support academic success, other facets of campus life offered to the general student population, such as recreation or athletics, are often neglected for students with disabilities. These aspects of student life should not be considered trivial as they have many benefits and can enhance a person’s experiences and quality of life at university (Ashton-Shaeffer et al., 2001; Blinde & McLung, 1997; Blinde & Taub, 1999; Promis et al., 2001). Guided by critical disability theory and the concept of embodiment, this dissertation used a participatory action research approach that united key partners from the University of Guelph community in order to examine issues around accessibility and inclusion of students with disabilities in campus recreational and athletic opportunities. The team included representatives from the University’s Centre for Students with Disabilities and the Department of Athletics, an undergraduate student with a disability, and two university alumni. The ultimate goal was to develop a planning framework to guide universities in supporting the human rights and inclusion of students with disabilities in extra-curricular campus life. Interviews were conducted with five research team members and 18 University of Guelph stakeholders, including: students with and without disabilities, staff members from the Department of Athletics and the Centre for Students with Disabilities, faculty members, and senior administrators. A focus group was also held to share findings and generate feedback on a preliminary draft of the framework. What emerged from data analysis of the interviews, the focus group, team meetings, and journal entries was the development of a framework for Creating a Campus Culture of Compassion. This framework identifies how universities can implement programs, policies, services and practices that better respond to the changing and diverse needs and interests of students with disabilities in order to ensure their full engagement in all areas of campus life. The framework centres around six guiding principles that help guide universities toward developing a campus culture that is compassionate. Essentially, a campus culture of compassion values: (a) access for all; (b) diversity and uniqueness; (c) interdependence and social responsibility; (d) diverse knowledge basis, voices, and perspectives; (e) the power of learning and education as a tool for social change; and (f) the whole person. The framework also indicates three fundamental characteristics that a campus culture of compassion must possess. In essence, post-secondary institutions and their community members must be: (a) interconnected, (b) supportive and enabling, and (c) informed. Six process pieces are included in the framework which enables a campus culture of compassionate to be fuelled and sustained over time. These pieces include: (a) creating a vision for the future, (b) constructing a plan to achieve the vision, (c) securing funds to put the plan in place, (d) thinking critically and measuring actions against the vision, (e) being proactive to make change happen, and (f) reaching beyond compliance. The framework encourages university stakeholders to collectively reflect, dialogue, and collaborate in order to create broader systemic changes. These changes are necessary since constraints to campus engagement can threaten a student’s well-being and sense of self. This framework can serve as a starting point to initiate these conversations and inspire universities to use a participatory approach to encourage positive social change within the university context.

L’Université d’Entreprise est un objet peu traité par la littérature. Elle est ainsi majoritairement perçue comme une structure devant, notamment par la formation et le développement des compétences, contribuer à l’atteinte des objectifs stratégiques de son organisation-mère, mais également favoriser le renforcement d’une culture interne. Par-delà cette définition instrumentale, à quoi sert une Université d’Entreprise ? La dénomination même de ce type de structure interroge. Y aurait-il, outre la mission gestionnaire qui lui est confiée, des « fonctions latentes » pour l’Université d’Entreprise ? Comment dépasser la vision culturelle pour en questionner les motivations profondes ? Nous avons souhaité mobiliser au cours de ce travail un cadre interprétatif permettant de dépasser la fonction visible de l’objet et ainsi interroger sa dimension imaginaire. Pour ce faire, nous avons eu recours à deux plans théoriques différents, l’un prescriptif et l’autre analytique, afin d’interroger dans un mouvement itératif les différents rôles et fonctions qui pourraient être ceux de l’Université d’Entreprise. Un dispositif particulier issu de méthodes qualitatives a été construit. Il repose sur le recueil de deux types de discours différents, l’un contrôlé, l’autre spontané, afin de favoriser l’analyse des deux plans théoriques. Par ailleurs, nous avons souhaité interroger l’ensemble des parties prenantes de l’Université d’Entreprise. Dans cette optique, différentes techniques (données secondaires, entretiens, observation et recueil de dessins) ont été utilisées. Les résultats de cette recherche doctorale sont multiples. Ils permettent tout d’abord le dévoilement d’une institution seconde de l’imaginaire organisationnel, l’Université d’Entreprise. Celle-ci, créatrice de liens particuliers entre une organisation et les individus qu’elle emploie va favoriser l’effectivité de l’imaginaire organisationnel. Cela repose sur la formulation d’une promesse faite par l’organisation-mère aux individus. Le développement et la mise à disposition de leur capital humain permettraient ainsi de leur offrir des perspectives de carrière. Cette promesse repose sur trois principes imaginaires qui fondent le rôle de l’Université d’Entreprise : les valeurs promues par l’organisation-mère, le prestige procuré par le partenaire académique et les attentes de reconnaissance que manifestent les individus. C’est sur la base de ce triptyque imaginaire que nous proposons de repenser le rôle institutionnel de l’Université d’Entreprise. / The study of the Corporate University is a topic that has received little attention in the literature. It is thus largely seen as a structure dealing with training issues which has to contribute both to the strategic development of its parent organization and to foster the internal culture. Beyond this instrumental definition, what is really a Corporate University? The very name of this structure raises some questions. Is there, in addition to the visible managerial mission statement, some “latent functions” for the Corporate University? How is it possible to go beyond the cultural issue in order to question the hidden motivations? We have mobilized during this work an interpretative framework that helps to question the imaginary dimension of the object beyond its visible function.To do this, we used two different theoretical “frameworks” The first one is prescriptive and the second one is analytical. Our aim is to question in an iterative movement the different roles and functions that could be those of the Corporate University. A particular framework based on various qualitative methods was built. It is based on the collection of two different types of discourse, one controlled and one more spontaneous in order to mobilize the two theoretical frameworks we mentioned. Furthermore, we wanted to interview all stakeholders of the Corporate University. Different techniques (secondary data, interviews, observation and collection of drawings) were used to reach this goal.The results of this doctoral research are numerous. First, they allow the unveiling of a secondary institution of the organizational imaginary, here the Corporate University. It creates a special relationship between an organization and the people it employs and will promote the effectiveness of the organizational imaginary. This is based on the formulation of a promise made by the parent organization to individuals. By offering their human capital to the organization, individuals will expect career opportunities in return. This promise is based on three principles underlying the imaginary role of the Corporate University: the valuespromoted by the parent organization, the prestige provided by the academic partner and expectations of recognition shown by individuals. We propose to rethink the institutional role of the Corporate University on this imaginary triptych basis.

No description available.