Search Results

This is an era in which academic units in higher education are expected to do more with less. State- and institutionally-appropriated funding streams are generally decreasing or stagnant. Federal grant funding is at its lowest level in years, and unlikely to rebound anytime soon. Institutions are restricting tuition increases to allow greater accessibility to students of limited means as well as to heed public demand for more accountability in the “educational product”. Enrollment growth adds pressure to academic units but rarely results in immediate resources directed to the affected units. To compound this problem, kinesiology is one of the fastest growing majors nationwide. With such mounting pressures on academic units and their leaders, creative entrepreneurial resourcefulness is not only rewarded, but required. This paper presents a series of successful and practical resource-generating strategies from the unique perspectives of units at several different institutions.

Over the past decade, institutions of higher education have been forced to become more innovative and entrepreneurial, seeking creative solutions to budget challenges. This has been particularly important within kinesiology programs, which represent one of the largest growing sectors of higher education over the past 10–15 years. In preparation for the 2016 American Kinesiology Association (AKA) Leadership Workshop, a survey was administered by the AKA to capture key institutional classifications (i.e., Carnegie classification, institutional size, public vs. private designation) and department chair or designated administrator perceptions on entrepreneurial issues relevant to their unit. Sixty-eight of 881 units surveyed responded, yielding a response rate of 7.7%. The majority of respondents (67%) indicated a unit funding model that was based on the previous year’s level (i.e., historical budget model). While the majority of respondents reported that their unit is provided with “adequate to plentiful” resources (59%), this varied widely based on institutional classification. Specifically, baccalaureate institutions (Chi-square 18.054, p < .001) and institutions with < 5,000 students (Chi-square 10.433, p & .015) had the least favorable perceptions of unit resource allocation. For the majority of entrepreneurial activities and partnerships (5 of 8 targeted questions), ≥ 50% of the respondents reported “no involvement.” There was a significant mismatch between actual vs. expected time spent by the department chair on fundraising activities (Chi-square 4.627, p = .031), with higher expectations than actual time spent on fundraising. In summary, the AKA survey suggests that there is tremendous heterogeneity in perceptions of and participation in entrepreneurial activities within kinesiology, and that there remains strategic areas of opportunity within the field.

Building departmental visibility and support is essential to the success of any kinesiology unit. This paper provides an overview of different strategies taken by three American Kinesiology Association member departments to advance their respective units. Each program was faced with unique institutional goals and structures, yet each institutional example highlights the shared theme of building strategic partnerships and cultivating a culture of entrepreneurship and innovation. Common strategies across the three institutions included a genuine understanding of university priorities and politics, chair and faculty leadership, strong internal and external communication, a willingness to lead and think creatively, and maintaining a focus on academic and educational excellence.