From the 
Editor's Desk 

Barbara A. Holland 

Most people would agree that metropolitan institutions face unique chal-
lenges in the arenas of fund raising, alumni relations, public relations, and other 
university relations activities. Our alumni are different, our communities are huge 

and diverse. We compete with dozens of metropolitan-based nonprofit organizations 
who depend on philanthropists for their resources. Nationally, the nature of our 
students and alumni and the work of our missions can make us look a little different 
to major donors and foundations who are well-acquainted with more traditional insti-
tutions. However, we often find it difficult to develop unique responses to these 
challenges and, as in some other arenas of administration, we tend to rely on imitat-
ing the advancement models common to traditional institutions. Can or should we 
change that pattern? 

When you look at the wave of organizational change across higher educa-
tion, there is a massive amount of discussion (and variable amounts of action) on 
issues of change in curriculum, ''the undergraduate experience," faculty roles and 
rewards, and even in the characteristics of institutional missions. Finance and ad-
ministrative support functions have been the frequent object of various management 
reform strategies, such as total quality managment, quality initiatives, and continuous 
improvement, all meant to improve efficiency. 

An interesting question to pose is: "What's been the impact of the higher 
education change movement on university relations or institutional advancement units?" 
Most people I have talked with respond to this question with a look of surprise that 
conveys something on the lines of "Oh my, we forgot about reforming those depart-
ments!" Then they quickly realize they know little about how to critically assess or 
improve the performance of these units. All most institutions do is count bodies and 
dollars, which in and of themselves don't reveal much about what techniques work 
and why. 

This phenomenon is not completely surprising, given that academic work is 
the very heart of the organization and our reason for being. However, as external 
public and private support becomes an ever-increasing proportion of institutional 
revenues, it may be in our self-interest to subject institutional advancement to a 
similar level of scrutiny. While there are massive bodies ofliterature and research on 

the core academic and administrative functions of higher education organizations, 



4 Metropolitan Universities/Fall 1997 

there is no comparable scholarly exploration of the work of university relations . 

The functions of development, alumni, public relations, and like depart-

ments are often forgotten in university organizations. Detached from key academic 

activities, they are not readily visible and do not seem to have daily impact on faculty 

and students. Then comes the moment someone needs to endow a chair, build a 

building, publicize an important award, or cover a budget cut. The president, 

provost, dean, or faculty member needs and wants those units to operate quickly and 

responsively at the highest level of competency and cost-effectiveness. But what do 

we really know about the effectiveness of institutional advancement units, and are 

any changes or innovations needed to ensure success in the next century? 

Although fund raising, image development, and alumni behaviors have been 

the sporadic subjects of some dissertations or occasional studies, and various centers 

or associations have collected statistics and other descriptive data about institutional 

advancement operations, serious research has been random and diffuse at best. Much 

has been written about how to do the work of institutional advancement. Little 
qualitative and quantitative research has been done to develop the conceptual bases 

and theoretical perspectives needed to critically review the performance of advance-

ment units or develop new methods and strategies for effectiveness. A first and 

helpful step could be to coalesce existing research into an accessible and coherent 

body of work that can guide future studies. 

An important research issue for urban and metropolitan institutions involves 

the relationship of institutional mission and community context to strategies for insti-

tutional advancement. Do traditional strategies work in large metropolitan regions, 

or must we use different methods? If so, why and what would those be like? 

The articles in this issue could be thought of as a set of institutional case 

studies that explore the fundraising experiences of metropolitan institutions . Charles 

Ruch, president of Boise State University, has done an excellent job of building a 

team of authors who have critically considered their own institutional efforts and 

shared some lessons learned. Within these articles are the kernels of important re-

search questions that deserve thoughtful exploration if we are to continue to improve 

the outcomes of our institutional advancement programs. 

In this issue of Metropolitan Universities you also will find the announce-
ment of the 1997-98 research grant competition funded by the Coalition of Urban 

and Metropolitan Universities. I hope that these articles on fund raising will inspire 

proposals to conduct research on questions regarding institutional advancement ac-

tivities. Now, get out there and raise some money!