In this practitioner's terms, campus ecology is the dynamic interaction of persons with the physical and natural factors and dimensions of the specific campus environment. The ecosystem design process and the management template are tools with which persons in the environment are empowered to make desired changes to achieve balance or improved ecological fit for themselves and their community.
There are unique strengths to the ecological perspective and methodology, and I do see it as key to the future (Banning, 1978); key because the modeling done in colleges and universities will impact all environments of society - today's students will ultimately design our society.
In support of that global vision, let me share some of the specific strengths to which I refer:
Diversity:
"One of the primary tenets of ecology is unity in diversity. Ecological stability, in effect, is a function not of simplicity and homogeneity, but of complexity and variety. The capacity of an ecosystem to retain its integrity depends not on the uniformity of the environment but on its diversity." (Bookchin, 1980)
Campus ecologist Leland Kaiser (1978) supports this natural fact with a "design ethic" stating that it is moral to design with people. Those affected by an environment have the moral right to participate in its design and redesign.
The implications for society, higher education and student affairs of employing such perspective and ethics are profound. They could include the long sought after end to racism, sexism and other forms of human bias; the expansion of resources for design, thereby increasing our opportunities for resolving economic issues; and, inject the possibility of truth and validity in information and curriculum content.
Real participation and inclusion would explode what Naisbitt (1982) calls the myth of the melting pot. And, I would further state, perhaps increase the possibility that "unconditional positive regard" (Rogers, 1961) for people, places, things and ideas might become reality for humanity in other than therapeutic environments.
On a personal level, the results of applying such a perspective could result in extended life, safety and security.
Valuing:
The first step of the ecosystem design process, that of generating values, is the qualitative difference between ecosystem design and all other management theories and systems I have experienced, including MBO, strategic planning and the more recent model posed by Argyris (1980) in his "single loop, double loop theory." In light of the material on changing societal values cited earlier, this factor alone warrants the consideration of all who would explore the implementation of the design process.
Flexibility:
The ecosystem design process is extremely flexible. It can be entered into at any step, and can also be utilized by institutions, organizations and individuals.
Non-hierarchical:
Ecosystem design does not require a leader. Certainly in the case of intentional design or redesign by an institution, there are appointed leaders already in place, and their participation and sanction is often helpful. However, what renders social ecology so important is that it offers no case whatsoever for hierarchy in nature and society; it decisively challenges the very function of hierarchy as a stabilizing or ordering principle in both realms (Bookchin, 1980).
It is my contention that Bookchin's point applies for campus environments as well.
Developmental Tool:
Aside from its potential for major societal and institutional change the ecosystem design process is by far the most effective program and life development tool I have utilized. The process has an accountability factor that can, if implemented, ensure success. Further, students with whom I have shared the process as a "life design" tool have grasped related advice and information readily and expressed a feeling of real personal empowerment.
Recognizing the need for balance in the environment within which my mind resides, I would like to share some concerns regarding campus ecology, its perspectives and methodologies.
Acceptability:
Most human ecosystems are rooted in patriarchal hierarchies and generate considerable dissonance when recognition and inclusion of the natural order and not the dominant or established order is observed. The implications are observable immediately when implementing the design process.
This problem can be overcome by the continual reference to the design ethic and the establishment of opportunities, support, and reward structures within the ecosystem, but as Bookchin (1980) puts it, "ideas reach only people who are ready to hear them."
Narrowness:
I believe it is important for proponents of "campus ecology" who have focused primarily on student service and development issues to expand their scope to the total campus and begin sharing their perspective and methodologies with chief executive officers and governing boards.
Due to the hierarchy that prevails in higher education, I don't believe the ecology of the campus will be considered seriously so long as it is focused on students alone as the primary participants. In reading the literature, it is clear that campus ecologists are victims of their own environments, in spite of the sense of freedom within their perspective.
Exclusiveness:
Another problem surfaces regularly when discussing ecosystem design perspective or process. That problem has its origin in the dualistic model of thinking that prevails in this society. John Naisbitt (1982) states society is moving away from dualism - the "either -or to multiple option" trend. But we have not yet arrived.
The problem is believing that if we have ecological perspective we don't need organizational development, MBO or any other tools. In fact, those individuals who have a broad repetoire of skills and models to draw from are far more adept at implementing ecosystem design creatively.
Limiting:
Questions remain as to the wisdom of our continuing to use the terms campus ecology. I am comfortable with ecological perspective and the ecosystem of the campus, but to limit conceptually the interactions of the people with their environment, be they students, faculty or staff, to the physical space of the campus is to ignore their interrelationships with ecology as a whole.
"Campus ecology" is helpful to our specific understanding in higher education, but ecological perspective then runs the risk of death by fragmentation. A parallel might be drawn to the segregation of social and natural ecology and the current set of problems precipitated by separating humanity from nature.
In conclusion, we might be wise to ponder the words of Wrnam Irwin Thompson in The Edge of History (Ferguson, 1980): "The university will most likely not grow into the size of a city, it will shrink as it realizes that it is the city itself (and not the campus) that is the true university."
References:
Argyris, C., and Cyert, R. M. Leadership in the 80's: Essays on Higher Education. Cambridge, MA: Institute for Educational Management, Harvard University, 1980.
Banning, J. H. ed., Campus Ecology: A Perspective for Student Affairs. Cincinnati, OH: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, 1978.
Bookchin, M. The Ecology of Freedom. Palo Alto, CA: Cheshire Books, 1982, 22-25, 37, 346.
Ferguson, M. The Aquarian Conspiracy: Personal and Social Transformation in the 1980's. Los Angeles, CA: J. P. Tarcher, Inc., 1980, 2, 317.
Kaiser, L. "Campus Ecology and Campus Design." In J. H. Banning, ed. Campus Ecology: A Perspective For Student Affairs. Cincinnati, OH: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, 1978, 29.
Naisbitt, J. Megatrends: Ten New Directions Transforming Our Lives. New York, NY: Warner Books, Inc., 1982, 24, 243, 231.
Rogers, C. R. On Becoming A Person. Boston, MA: Houghton MiSin Co., 1961.
Increasing evidence suggest that the nature of or the design of the environment has profound impact on behavior that occurs within the "space" of the environment. (Barker, 1964, Blocher, 1974). Kaiser (1978) speaks to the relationship between campus ecology and the ecosystem design process.
"Ecosystem design is first and foremost a design science. It asks - "How do you build spaces for people?. . . Campus design is the engineering arm of campus ecology. It is concerned with the intentional design of campus environments that facilitate student development." (Kaiser, 1978, p. 24)
Assumptions
The concept of ecosystem design contains a set of design assumptions, a step by step process, and levels of application (WICHE, 1973). The following set of assumptions are basic to ecosystem design on the college campus (WICHE, 1973):
1. The campus environment consists of all the stimuli that impinge upon the students' sensory modalities and includes physical, chemical, biological, and social stimuli.
2. A transactional relationship exists between college students and their campus environment, i.e., the students shape the environment and are shaped by it.
3. For purposes of environmental design, the shaping properties of the campus environment are focused upon; however, the students are still viewed as active, choice-making agents who may resist, transform, or nullify environmental influences.
4. Every student possesses capacity for a wide spectrum of possible behaviors. A given campus environment may facilitate or inhibit any one or more of these behaviors. The campus should be intentionally designed to offer opportunities, incentives, and reinforcements for growth and development.
5. Students will atempt to cope with any educational environment in which they are placed. If the environment is not compatible with the students, the students may react negatively or fail to develop desireable qualities.
6. Because of the wide range of individual differences among students, fitting the campus environment to the students requires the creation of a variety of campus subenvironments. There must be an attempt to design for the wide range of individual characteristics found among students.
7. Every campus has a design, even if the administration, faculty, and students have not planned it or are not consciously aware of it. A design technology for campus environments, therefore, is useful both for the analysis of existing campus environments and the design of new ones.
8. Successful campus design is dependent upon participation of all campus members including students, faculty, staff, administration, and trustees or regents. (WICHE, 1973, page 6)
Steps
The ecosystem design process is the design or engineering component of the campus ecology perspective. (Banning & Kaiser, 1974) There are seven basic ecosystem design processes. These are as follows:
Step 1. Designers, in conjunction with community members, select values.
Step 2. Values are then translated into specific goals.
Step 3. Environments are designed which contain mechanisms to reach the stated goals.
Step 4. Environments are fitted to the participants in the environment.
Step 5. Participant perceptions of the environment are measured.
Step 6. Participant behavior resulting from environmental perceptions is monitored.
Step 7. Data on the environmental designs success and failures, as indicated by the participant perception and behavior, is fed back to the designers in order that they may continue to learn about person/environment fit and design better environments.
(WICHE, 1973, page 7)
The design steps are interdependent and work may begin with any one of them. If one were designing a new environment, the ecosystem process would start with the selection of educational values (Step I) and follow on through the sequence of steps. However, quite often the environment is in place, but appears to the malfunctioning. In this case, the designers would likely begin the process at Step 5, measuring participant perceptions of the environments, and then work through the remaining Steps of 6 thru 4.
Level These steps apply to the process whether the environmental design is intended for the entire campus (macro level), groups within the campus community (micro level), or individuals on campus (life space).
References:
Banning, J. and Kaiser, L. "An Ecological Perspective and Model for Campus Design." The Personnel and Guidance Journal 52 (February 1974).
Barker, R. G. Ecological Psychology. Stanford, California. Stanford Press, 1968.
Blocher, D. H. "Toward an Ecology of Student Development," Personnel and Guidance Journal 54 (1975): 151-154.
Kaiser, L. "Campus Ecology and Campus Design" In Banning, J. H. ed Campus Ecology: A Perspective for Student Affairs. Cincinnati, Ohio NASPA Monograph, 1978.
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE). The Ecosystem Model: Designing Campus Environments. Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1973.
THE ACT STUDENT OPINION SURVEY
Publisher: American College Testing Program
2201 North Dodge Street
P.O. Box 168
Iowa City, Iowa 52243
Purpose: To collect information concerning students' impressions of an institution's programs, services and general environment.
STUDENT OUTCOMES INFORMATION SERVICE
Publisher: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems and the College Board
P.O. Drawer P
Boulder, Colorado 80301
Purpose: Student Outcomes Information Service is a comprehensive system designed to help two-year and four-year colleges collect and use information from their students about themselves and their experiences. Five question naires are available: Entering-Studenl Questionnaire Continuing Student Questionnaire. Former-Student Questionnaire. Program-Completer and Graduating Student Questionnaire and Recent Alumni Questionnaire.
COLLEGE STUDENT EXPERIENCES
Publisher:
C. Robert Pace Higher Education Reserach Institute UCLA,
Graduate School of Education
405 Hilgard Avenue
Los Angeles. California 90024
(Editors Note - this is now (1996) available from IU
see http://web.indstate.edu/dragon/ix-data.html#cseq)
Purpose: Provides measures of the quality of effort students put into using the facilities and opportunities provided for their learning and development in college. In addition. background information about students and their status in college, an index of student's satisfaction with college, characteristics of the college environment, and estimates of how much gain or progress students have made toward important goals of education are also provided.
COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY SCALES (CUES), 2nd EDITION
Publisher:
Institutional Research Program for Higher Education
Educational Testing Services
Princeton, New Jersey 08540
Purpose: To help in assessing the environment of the intellectual-cultural-social climate of the campus environment as students perceive it.
INSTITUTIONAL FUNCTIONING INVENTORY
Publisher:
Institutional Research Program for Higher Education
Educational Testing Service
Princeton, New Jersey 08540
Purpose: The inventory enables a college or university to describe itself in terms of a number of characteristics judged to be of importance in higher education. There are eleven dimensions covered by the inventory.
INSTITUTIONAL GOALS INVENTORY
Publisher:
Institutional Research Program for Higher Ecuation
Educational Testing Service
Princeton, New Jersey 08540
UNIVERSITY RESIDENCE ENVIRONMENT SCALE Publisher: Social Ecology Laboratory Department of Psychiatry Stanford University Veterans Administration Hospital Stanford, California 94305 Purpose: To measure the social climates of university living groups such as residence halls. sororities and fraternities.
This material resides is maintained by Will Barratt. Please forward any problems and comments to him.