This qualitative study examined how eight adult degree program administrators negotiate power and interest while planning programs in specific higher education settings: small, private, nonprofit, higher education institutions. The conceptual framework was grounded in Cervero and Wilson’s program-planning model in combination with Bourdieu’s concept of cultural and social capital and Raven’s consideration of types of power at play in organizations. The primary means of data collection were in-depth interviews and qualitative questionnaires. There were four primary categories of findings dealing with how these adult degree program planners negotiate power and interest, centering on (a) moving the institutional interest in adult learners from the margins closer to the center, (b) gaining influence by drawing on multiple forms of capital, (c) building a bridge of common interests among key players as a way of leveraging power, and (d) balancing institutional expectations for growth with resource limitations.
Aronowitz, S. (2001). The knowledge factory: Dismantling the corporate university and creating true higher learning. Boston: Beacon.
2.
Bendixen-Noe, M., & Giebelhaus, C. (1998). Nontraditional students in higher education: Meeting their needs as learners. Mid-western Educational Researcher, 11, 27-31.
3.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood.
4.
Brown, L. (2001). Leading leadership development in universities: A personalstory. Journal of Management Inquiry, 10, 312-314.
5.
Bruins, J. (1999). Social power and influence tactics: A theoretical introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 55(1), 7-14.
6.
Burton, E. (2003). Distance learning and service-learning in the accelerated format. In R. Wlodkowski & C. Kasworm (Eds.), Accelerated learning for adults: The promise and practice of intensive educational formats (pp. 63-72). New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, No. 97. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
7.
Cervero, R. M., & Wilson, A. L. (1994). Planning responsibly for adult education: A guide to negotiating power and interests. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8.
Cervero, R., & Wilson, A. (Eds.). (1996). What really matters in adult education program planning? New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, No. 69. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1998). The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
Donaldson, J. (1993). A triangulated study comparing adult college students’ perceptions of effective teaching with those of traditional students. Continuing Higher Education Review, 57, 147-165.
11.
Fine, M. (1998). Working the hyphens. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research (pp. 130-155). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
12.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge. New York: Pantheon.
13.
French, J., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies of social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
14.
French, M. (1986). Beyond power. New York: Ballantine Books.
15.
Gay, G. (2004). Navigating marginality en route to the professoriate: Graduate students of color living and learning in academia. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 17(2), 265-288.
16.
Gould, E. (2003). The university in a corporate culture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
17.
Hendricks, S. M. (2001). Contextual and individual factors and the use of influencing tactics in adult education program planning. Adult Education Quarterly, 51, 219-235.
18.
hooks, b. (2000). Feminist theory: From margin to center. Boston: South End Press.
19.
Husson, W., & Kennedy, T. (2003). Developing and maintaining accelerated degree programs in traditional institutions. In R. Wlodkowski & C. Kasworm (Eds.), Accelerated learning for adults: The promise and practice of intensive educational formats (pp. 51-62). New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, No. 97. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
20.
Kasworm, C. (2003). Adult meaning making in the undergraduate classroom. Adult Education Quarterly, 53, 81-99.
21.
Kasworm, C., Polson, C., & Fishback, J. (2002). Responding to adult learners in higher education. Malabar, FL: Krieger.
22.
Kipnis, D., & Schmidt, S. M. (1983). An influence perspective on bargaining. In M. Bazerman & R. Lewicki (Eds.), Negotiating in organizations (pp. 303-319). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
23.
Kleiber, P. (1996). Leveling the playing field for planning university based distance education. In R. Cervero & A. Wilson (Eds.), What really matters in adult education program planning (pp. 59-68). New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, No. 69. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
24.
Lewin, K. (1997). Resolving social conflicts. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. (Original work published 1947)
Marcy, M. (2004). When diversity and dollars collide: Challenges for higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 28(3), 205-218.
27.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
28.
Merriam, S. B. (Ed.). (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
29.
Miles, M. S., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
Moss, P., Debres, K., Cravey, A., & Hyndman, J. (1999). Toward mentoring as feminist praxis: Strategies for ourselves and others. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 23(3), 413-428.
31.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2003). Digest of education statistics, 2003. Retrieved January 16, 2005, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d03/tables/dt215.asp
32.
Online dictionary. (2005). Labyrinth. Retrieved September 11, 2005, from http://www.dictionary.com
33.
Raven, B. H. (1992). A power-interaction model of interpersonal influence: French and Raven thirty years later. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 217-244.
34.
Raven, B. H. (1999). Influence, power, religion and the mechanisms of social control. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 161-186.
35.
Schwandt, T. A. (1998). Constructivist, interpretist approaches to human inquiry. In N. K. Denzin& Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 221-259). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36.
Smith, D. (1997). The tenure labyrinth. Black Issues in Higher Education, 14(17), 120.
37.
Sork, T. J. (1996). Negotiating power and interests in planning: A critical perspective. In R. Cervero & A. Wilson (Eds.), What really matters in adult education program planning? (p. 81-90). New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, No. 69. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
38.
Tisdell, E., Hanley, M., & Taylor, E. (2000). Different perspectives on teaching for critical consciousness. In A. Wilson & E. Hayes (Eds.), The handbook of adult education 2000 (pp. 132-146). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
39.
Umble, K. E. (1998). Negotiation of power and interests in continuing education program planning: A case from public health. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.
40.
Wlodkowski, R. J., & Kasworm, C. (Eds.). (2003). Accelerated learning for adults: The promise and practice of intensive educational formats. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, No. 97. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
41.
Yang, B. (1999). How effectively do you use power and influence? In M. Silberman (Ed.), The 1999 training and performance sourcebook. New York: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
42.
Yang, B., & Cervero, R. (2001). Power and influence styles in programme planning: Relationship with organizational political contexts. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 20(4), 289-296.
43.
Yang, B., Cervero, R. M., Valentine, T., & Benson, J. (1998). Development and validation of an instrument to measure adult educators’ power and influence tactics in program planning practice. Adult Education Quarterly, 48, 227-244.
