MANUAL DE FUNCIONES Y DESCRIPCIÓN DE CARGOS Tabla 22 Manual de funciones

The first and most significant finding to emerge is that strategy selection varies according to the context of the university environment. Why was policy so significant as an initiator? Most of the programs discussed had their seeds planted in the 1970s and 1980s, during the civil rights era. Policy was shifting from being exclusive to inclusive for minorities. Funds were set-aside in a number of areas to counter the effects of previous discrimination. Federal government, reacting to policy and the change in societal attitudes, began to see a greater need for minority representation on decision- making boards and for minority input in areas that were disproportionately affecting minorities. As technology became more important, they sought more skilled personnel,

HBCUs was now offered, and HBCUs responded with new programs. Land-grant universities received the beginning of federal funding for land-grant services in 1972.

A policy opportunity existed during the 1970s and 1980s for HBCUs to develop science and technology related programs. This is analogous to the policy opportunity that existed for TWIs during the Golden Era of the 1960s, when the federal government dramatically increased science and research funding to TWIs. Federal involvement with HBCUs occurred later. Many of the programs that were discussed during the HBCU interviews evolved during the 1970s and 1980s. However, government funding does not generally continue for one program over a number of years. Thus, while policy could be credited with initiating the program, it was rarely responsible for maintaining or

sustaining the program. Policy’s influence in the equation waned.

For programs to be sustainable, HBCUs had to engage in development activities. As an example, FVSU-2 received initial funding from DOE to provide training to

minority businesses and, as an aside, a small portion went to students. FVSU-2 used the funds for students to start a student program. In order to maintain the program, however, he made cold calls to local corporations for financial assistance and job opportunities. In reaching out to these companies, he developed contacts and relationships. In the process, he built social capital. After a period of time, the program was able to offer scholarship money and a summer internship. Both the program and the scholarships attracted quality students. The corporations with whom he developed relationships, spoke on behalf of FVSU to other companies. Further contacts developed, and from those, a dual degree program emerged in another state on the other side of the country at the University of

initial program. The first level was the incidental money from DOE for students (initiation based on policy). The second level was the scholarship and summer intern program (impetus provided from leadership). The third level was the dual degree program (higher level benefits resulting from linkages and networks).

This ‘science and technology development’ occurred in many different ways at the various universities. Social capital grew from the networking and clustering that enabled HBCUs to sustain their programs. Linkages through social capital caused further programs not only to evolve but also to eventually build an infrastructure that became sustainable. This is how linkages emerged as a vital and critical strategy for science and technology development.

Linkages was not just significant when looking at expansion. The evidence for linkages came primarily from two universities – the medium productivity HBCU (Hampton) and the high productivity HBCU (FAMU). We infer from this that linkages are more likely to exist at HBCUs that have already achieved a level of development. This inference is supported by the science and technology index’s analysis. This author, from the results of this study, finds that, at HBCUs, there is likely not only a correlation between policy and early science and technology development, but also a correlation between linkages and more sophisticated science and technology development.

These findings can be summarized by stating that the selection of strategy must consider the maturity of the HBCU’s science and technology endeavors. An HBCU that is seeking to initiate a science and technology strategy should look to federal or state policy supportive of programs at HBCUs or they can find issues that disproportionately

has a foundation (meaning they’ve already exploited some policy opportunities and have some programs and infrastructure in place), and is seeking growth strategies in science and technology areas, should look toward collaborations and partnerships for the purposes of forming networks and clusters.

Why wouldn’t the HBCUs starting a program seek to form partnerships and collaborations as well as relying on policy? Lower-performing HBCUs have not yet developed the social capital to make collaborations and partnerships possible or fruitful. Trust, a critical component of social capital, takes time to develop. It is trust that leads an individual or organization to work on behalf of a university. Synergy among individuals or organizations that use their contacts to bring benefits to the HBCU explains how “the sum is greater than its individual parts.” For HBCUs initiating a science and technology program, greater productivity will result from energy expended toward exploiting policy initiatives rather than expending time and energy toward forming collaborations and partnerships.