“Using research to manage change at Arizona State University - A case study”

1. “Using research to manage change at Arizona State University - A case study” Wilma Mathews, ABC, IABC Fellow Wednesday, 29 June 2005 Washington, DC

2. Quick Facts Fall 2004 ASU unduplicated total enrollment 58,156 Undergraduates 46,670 Graduate Students 11,486 New Undergraduates First-time freshmen 7,719 New transfers 5,374

3. Employees - total 7,910 Full-time staff 5,642 Full-time faculty 2,268 Degrees awarded (AY 2003-2004) Baccalaureate 9,116 Masters 2,886 Doctoral 355 Law 169

4. Perspective: • ASU is one of three public universities in Arizona • Phoenix metro area (16 cities) only one in country served by one research institution • ASU awards more bachelor’s degrees annually than the other two public universities • ASU is a Research I university • ASU not ranked highly in U.S. News & World Report rankings • New president in July 2002 - new directions - new speed • Uneven reputation across the country

5. Key audiences: Prospective students Prospective/current faculty/staff Donors Alumni State legislators Funding organizations Opinion leaders

6. Five types of research: • Opinion Leaders longitudinal survey • National image/perception survey among prospective students (2 parts) • Internal perceptions of President’s vision for ASU • Peer University rankings (reputation) • Focus groups

7. Opinion Leaders/Community Perception Survey • Conducted in 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004 • Purpose: To determine opinion leaders satisfaction with ASU, its direction, leadership and operations. • Opinion leaders: People in leadership positions in government, commerce, education, community, non-profit, etc. [Maintain internal data base] • Number polled: 300-550

8. Key questions: • Are you satisfied with the direction in which ASU is headed? • Words that describe ASU • ASU’s greatest strengths • How could ASU strengthen the university • Quality of education at ASU [definition of “quality”]

9. Key questions (cont’d): • ASU’s most valuable contribution to the Valley [economy, quality of life] • Importance of ASU [several factors] • Faculty evaluations and performances [“emphasis should be...” vs. “emphasis actually placed on...”] • Demographics

10. Key driving force: 1992: 48% ranked education at ASU as high/very high; 52% low/very low. Change it! 1996: 74% ranked education at ASU as high/very high; 15% ranked low/very low. 2000: 81% ranked education at ASU as good/excellent; 23% ranked average/poor/very poor

11. Significant resulting action: “News You Need to Know” monthly one-page (8 ½ x 11), one-sided. Original distribution: 300 opinion leaders Today’s distribution: 9,000+ opinion leaders

12. Sneaker Tours™ • Invitation-only tours for VIPs, potential donors, opinion leaders, educators, executives, legislators • Small groups of 10-12 • 1/2-day immersion into the university • Powerful micro-marketing programs

13. Key findings 2004 study: • 69% very/generally satisfied with direction of ASU; no change since 2000 • 98% rate importance of ASU to the future of Arizona as very high/high • 96% rate importance of ASU to Arizona’s economy as very high/high • 92% rate their pride in ASU as very high/high

14. Key findings 2004 study (cont’d): • Main strengths of ASU: Leadership Quality of research being conducted Quality and affordability of the educational product being offered Size and diversity of student body Quality of faculty and teaching Relationship between ASU and the private/public sectors

15. ASU National Image and Perception Study Conducted by Stamats Communications, Inc. 2000 and 2003

16. Objectives: 2000: Develop benchmark image positioning of ASU Explore factors that are influencing college-choice decisions Identify ASU’s perceived position within a national model Contrast perceptions of ASU with a national competitive group

17. Method: Telephone survey of 1,200 prospective ASU students Seattle, California, Philadelphia, Chicago Four (4) focus groups – one in each geographical area

18. Findings: Many pre-conceived notions were blown away Previously considered competitors were not! Students could differentiate between ASU and University of Arizona Students liked web-based searching for information; hated CDs

19. Findings (cont’d): Students not as familiar with on-line registration/financial info sites Students focused on academic strength/availability Juniors have no concept of distance, size or value

20. Objectives: 2003: Detect trends from 2000 survey Check progress from 2000 survey

21. Findings: 9/11 skewed everything! Students less likely to go to school more than a 3-hour drive away Students wanted more holistic approach to education - academics, volunteer time, etc. Parents more involved in selection Web sites need to be extremely interactive/informative (less travel to visit campuses)

22. Faculty and Staff Perceptions of President Crow’s Vision for ASU Research to answer 8 questions Instrument to be completely unaided, un-prompted Heard about vision? Familiar with it? What is recalled? Agree/Disagree with Vision? Embrace vision? Probability of success for implementation. Suggestions to President? Where do you get info?

23. Astonishing results: 92% faculty/staff had heard of Vision 84% very/somewhat familiar with Vision 58% had attended at least one presentation by President Crow On unaided recall: Six (of 8) main messages could be recalled

24. 83% very/generally favorable toward Vision 89% very high/high priority on expanding research capacity 88% very high/high priority on becoming more embedded in community 70% very high/high priority on growing/expanding 86% felt Pres. Crow has high/very high probability of achieving Vision

25. Good news - Faculty/staff received most info about ASU from ASU Insight, weekly newspaper

26. Peer University Rankings Study U. S. News & World Report Rankings: Percentages vs. Numbers Peer institutions are voters Reputation - 25% of total score

27. Issue: How do people make decisions about Reputation?

28. “Academic excellence” determined by: • Strength of academic programs • Distinctiveness of faculty • Facilities (libraries, research facilities, lab space)

29. “Quality faculty” determined by: • Research they are involved with • What they publish • Professional recognition/awards • Unique ways of engaging students in learning • Whether or not they have a Ph.D.

30. “Quality programs” determined by: • Faculty/student interaction • Focus on teaching/learning • Whether or not they have a professional accreditation

31. One thing only to determine peer institution in these areas?: Faculty productivity/quality

32. Resulting actions: Influence peer votes using their identified preferences for receiving information: • Personal contacts at peer institutions • More media placements in national and professional publications • Provide research information, annual reports

33. Keep timely information short, to the point Informational postcards For in-depth information Strategic planning information Annual reports Research information

34. DON’T: Send marketing materials, glossy publications, promotional items, alumni news, magazines, newspapers

35. Focus groups • Easy to do • Credibility factor • Surprising • Validation

36. Summary Research easier/cheaper to use than ever so... USE IT!

37. Thank you!