gonzaga university student case study

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002)

OCTOBER TERM, 2001

GONZAGA UNIVERSITY ET AL. v. DOE

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON No. 01-679. Argued April 24, 2002-Decided June 20, 2002

As a student at petitioner Gonzaga University, a private educational institution in Washington State, respondent planned to become a public elementary schoolteacher in that State after graduation. Washington at the time required all new teachers to obtain an affidavit of good moral character from their graduating colleges. Petitioner League, Gonzaga's teacher certification specialist, overheard one student tell another that respondent had engaged in sexual misconduct. League then launched an investigation; contacted the state agency responsible for teacher certification, identifying respondent by name and discussing the allegations; and, finally, told him that he would not receive his certification affidavit. Respondent sued Gonzaga and League in state court under, inter alia, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, alleging a violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FE RPA), 20 U. S. C. § 1232g, which prohibits the federal funding of schools that have a policy or practice of permitting the release of students' education records without their parents' written consent. A jury awarded respondent compensatory and punitive damages on the FERPA claim. The Washington Court of Appeals reversed in relevant part, concluding that FERPA does not create individual rights and thus cannot be enforced under § 1983. Reversing in turn, the State Supreme Court acknowledged that FERPA does not give rise to a private cause of action, but reasoned that the nondisclosure provision creates a federal right enforceable under § 1983.

Held: Respondent's action is foreclosed because the relevant FERPA provisions create no personal rights to enforce under § 1983. Pp. 278-291.

(a) This Court has never held, and declines to do so here, that spending legislation drafted in terms resembling FERPA's can confer enforceable rights. FERPA directs the Secretary of Education to enforce its nondisclosure provisions and other spending conditions, § 1232g(f), by establishing an office and review board to investigate, process, review, and adjudicate FERPA violations, § 1232g(g), and to terminate funds only upon determining that a recipient school is failing to comply substantially with any FERPA requirement and that such compliance cannot be secured voluntarily, §§ 1234c(a), 1232g(f). In Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U. S. 1 , the Court made clear that unless Congress "speak[s] with a clear voice," and manifests an

"unambiguous" intent to create individually enforceable rights, federal funding provisions provide no basis for private enforcement by § 1983, id., at 17, 28, and n. 21. Since Pennhurst, the Court has found that spending legislation gave rise to rights enforceable under § 1983 only in Wright v. Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, 479 U. S. 418 , 426, 432, and Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Assn., 496 U. S. 498 , 522523, where statutory provisions explicitly conferred specific monetary entitlements upon the plaintiffs, and there was no sufficient administrative means of enforcing the requirements against defendants that failed to comply. The Court's more recent decisions, however, have rejected attempts to infer enforceable rights from Spending Clause statutes whose language did not unambiguously confer such a right upon the Act's beneficiaries. See, e. g., Suter v. Artist M., 503 U. S. 347 , 363; Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U. S. 329 , 340, 343. Respondent's attempt to read this line of cases to establish a relatively loose standard for finding rights enforceable by § 1983 is unavailing. Because § 1983 provides a remedy only for the deprivation of "rights ... secured by the [Federal] Constitution and laws," it is rights, not the broader or vaguer "benefits" or "interests," that may be enforced thereunder. Thus, the Court further rejects the notion that its implied right of action cases are separate and distinct from its § 1983 cases. To the contrary, the former cases should guide the determination whether a statute confers rights enforceable under § 1983. Although the question whether a statutory violation may be enforced through § 1983 is a different inquiry from that involved in determining whether a private right of action can be implied from a particular statute, Wilder, supra, at 508, n. 9, the inquiries overlap in one meaningful respect-in either case it must first be determined whether Congress intended to create afederal right, see Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U. S. 560 , 576. For a statute to create private rights, its text must be phrased in terms of the persons benefited. E. g., Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677 , 692, n. 13. Once the plaintiff demonstrates that the statute confers rights on a particular class of persons, California v. Sierra Club, 451 U. S. 287 , 294, the right is presumptively enforceable by § 1983. Conversely, where a statute provides no indication that Congress intends to create new individual rights, there is no basis for a private suit under § 1983. Pp. 278-286.

(b) There is no question that FERPA's confidentiality provisions create no rights enforceable under § 1983. The provisions entirely lack the sort of individually focused rights-creating language that is critical. FERPA's provisions speak only to the Secretary, directing that "[n]o funds shall be made available" to any "educational ... institution" which has a prohibited "policy or practice," § 1232g(b)(I). This focus is two steps removed from the interests of individual students and parents

275 Full Text of Opinion

• Opinions & Dissents

"No funds shall be made available under any applicable program to any educational agency or institution which has a policy or practice of permitting the release of education records (or personally identifiable information contained therein ... ) of students without the written consent of their parents to any individual, agency, or organization." 20 U. S. C. § 1232g(b)(1).

"In legislation enacted pursuant to the spending power, the typical remedy for state noncompliance with federally imposed conditions is not a private cause of action for noncompliance but rather action by the Federal Government to terminate funds to the State." Id., at 28.

"Careful examination of the language ... does not unambiguously confer an enforceable right upon the Act's beneficiaries. The term 'reasonable efforts' in this context is at least as plausibly read to impose only a rather generalized duty on the State, to be enforced not by private individuals, but by the Secretary in the manner [of reducing or eliminating payments]." Id., at 363.

"Far from creating an individual entitlement to services, the standard is simply a yardstick for the Secretary to measure the systemwide performance of a State's Title IV-D program. Thus, the Secretary must look to

the aggregate services provided by the State, not to whether the needs of any particular person have been satisfied." Id., at 343 (emphases in original).

"There would be far less reason to infer a private remedy in favor of individual persons if Congress, instead of drafting Title IX with an unmistakable focus on the benefited class, had written it simply as a ban on discriminatory conduct by recipients of federal funds or as a prohibition against the disbursement of public funds to educational institutions engaged in discriminatory practices." 441 U. S., at 690-693.

• Oral Arguments
• Download PDF Copy Citation

Get free summaries of new US Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox!

• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

  RSS Feed

Case study: eric cunningham inspires critical thinking at gonzaga university.

Ask Eric Cunningham , associate professor of history at Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington, about his teaching philosophy and he will respond simply: he is in it to cultivate the human soul. He wants his students to be better human beings through education. He feels his university environment – a smallish, Catholic school – makes it slightly easier to pursue that goal, but he is quick to point out that he is not alone: professors with similar outlooks are tucked into universities, big and small, keeping pure intellectual philosophy alive in higher education.

Championing education in its purest form plays an ever more important role according to Cunningham. He sees a growing chasm between the goals of faculty and university administrators. The number of faculty available to connect with and inspire students is shrinking, while administrative staff managing grants and other federal funding gets larger.

The impact on students is clear and distressing. As the cost of tuition skyrockets and the focus on developing intellect declines, students are increasingly pressured to think about their university education solely in terms of career and job – an idea that reduces learning to a question of return on investment. And without an environment of lively debate driven by a passion for knowledge, students “seem like they’re sleepwalking,” observes Cunningham.

Cunningham’s outlook informs his strategy in the classroom, where he works to counteract listless minds and to provide a payoff in sheer intellectual exercise: “The cheap trick to get them engaged is to go for politics, but I try to get them fired up about mental work.” Indeed, in Cunningham’s classroom, students press beyond simple answers to look at deeper, more nuanced “what ifs” that challenge their minds.

That focus on stretching and challenging gray matter puts a high priority on reading, analyzing and discussing the raw materials of history: its documents. Cunningham assigns two document readings per week along with some questions for thought. To assess students’ understanding (and diligence), Cunningham periodically collects notebooks in which they record their work. However, students are expected to come to every class prepared to discuss what they have read, what it means and its impact on history.

That can be a tall order for an undergraduate student, but Cunningham has found a unique resource that bolters his students’ ability to think critically about history. For the past four semesters, he’s used Milestone Documents , an upstart digital primary source reader that combines 1,200 key historical documents with expert analysis from a global network of scholars. Milestone Documents provides full text of virtually every work in its expanding collection, but it’s the analyses that change the dynamic of the classroom discussion and spur his students’ appreciation of these historic artifacts. “The students love the analyses. They’re the most comprehensive out there and they bring the students into the minds of the authors of the documents,” says Cunningham.

The quality of Milestone Documents’ content is supported by extraordinary flexibility. Via the online environment and an intuitive interface, Cunningham creates his own custom reader, built from only the documents he wants to teach in any given semester. While he likes the ability to create the perfect fit for his classroom, he finds students are responding to the simple access and have adjusted easily to reading a screen rather than a printed page. And overwhelmingly, they like Milestone Documents’ price tag (under $20 for a semester’s worth of unlimited access).

Cunningham relies on his lectures and Milestone Documents for the heavy intellectual lifting, but he also assigns a no-frills, concise and reliable survey textbook – Robert Strayer’s Ways of the World: A Brief Global History , published by Bedford/St. Martin’s. The combination of lecture, strong emphasis on document readings, and a framework provided by a survey textbook sets the stage for meaningful discussion (rather than sleepwalking) in class.

Cunningham’s pursuit of traditional values of higher education requires a willingness to buck trends driven by publishers relying on an archaic development program. He describes the standard textbook model as “gasping for survival. Publishers are going the wrong way. Prices are going up, they’re flooding the market with too many new books, too many new authors, and a new edition every six months. They have no real vision.”

Cunningham strictly avoids the expensive, colorful, and monstrously big textbooks that are produced by that 50-year-old model. He feels the combination of lofty price and wads of content that are inevitably left untouched by classroom discussion create aggravation among students. A recent study by the Book Industry Study Group ( BISG ) and Bowker Market Research shows the aggravation in real terms: more than 40% of students now don’t bother to buy the textbooks – new or used – assigned for their classes. About 11% rent their books, but the balance skip the text altogether or purchase a cheaper, older edition. It’s a stunning indictment of many publishers’ failure to serve the ultimate users of their products.

Just as faculty can keep the pursuit of intellectual prowess alive in higher education, they can pressure publishers to produce works that better fit the student in the digital age. For his part, Cunningham chose Strayer’s textbook not only for its high quality content and utilitarian format, but for its size as well – fewer chapters than the number of weeks in the semester, ensuring that Cunningham can cover it all. Further, he moved past print readers for one that reinvents that traditional classroom sidekick into a vastly superior core work that leverages the benefits of its online environment. The small price tag for Milestone Document makes its model of vast content a bargain in the students’ eyes. “They’re dazzled by the price. There’s no disconnect between what they pay and what’s used in class,” says Cunningham.

Ultimately, Cunningham has created a classroom format that he finds more fulfilling and moves him closer to his goal of helping his students become assets to society. He encourages his fellow professors who are reluctant to change their habits to give up their suspicions of new models and try something new . . . try something that champions the cause of intellectual growth in higher education and saves students from a four-year nap.

See more News >

• For Individuals
• Benefit Leaders and Health Plans
• Our Approach
• Learning Center

Gonzaga University and “whole-person care” for employees

How Hinge Health supports cura personalis

• Hinge Health Learning Center
• Gonzaga University Case Study

At Gonzaga University, digital health solutions address access challenges

Long wait times for care are the norm in greater spokane, a private, liberal arts university in spokane, wa.

7,000 undergraduate and graduate students

Workforce includes faculty and staff members

1,900 benefits-eligible employees

Many employees live in rural areas of Washington and Idaho

Member testimonial

“for over thirty years, i was told that i’d have to live with the pain. i believed that. now i know that’s false, that there are many things i can do to strengthen my neck and back and ease those muscles. many of my days are now pain-free due to hinge health and the exercises. that motivates me to continue exercising.".

– Gonzaga University employee and Hinge Health participant

About Gonzaga University

As a Jesuit educational institution, one of Gonzaga University’s core values is cura personalis – a Latin phrase that means “care of the whole person.” To support its 1,900 benefits-eligible employees, Gonzaga University’s Benefits team strives to take each individual’s unique needs into account.

In the spirit of cura personalis , the Benefits team has worked over the last five years to bolster the university’s employee wellness portfolio, adding programs like “doctor on demand” telehealth services, virtual physical therapy, virtual counseling, and more. 

Gonzaga University’s workforce and benefits challenges

Access to care can be difficult for many of Gonzaga’s employees who live in rural areas. Even in the greater Spokane area, it’s common for people to wait months to see primary care physicians, as well as physical therapists.

To promote awareness of wellness programs like Hinge Health, Gonzaga’s Benefits team uses a multi-dimensional strategy. The “Morning Mail” is a daily email that features information about one benefits program. Hinge Health is included once a week in the “Morning Mail.” “Benefit Bytes” is a bi-weekly email with benefits updates.

Based on claims costs, the Benefits team selects one topic to communicate about exclusively for a two-week period. If MSK claims are particularly high, each day employees will receive information about programs that deal with MSK pain. 

Gonzaga University’s MSK benefits program implementation

In addition to improving access to care, Hinge Health addresses the multi-dimensional nature of chronic pain. If an employee is struggling with MSK pain, for example, that can lead to depression and anxiety. Hinge Health addresses all those issues.

Gonzaga University’s employees have embraced Hinge Health. Over a 12-week period, participants:

Completed an average of 36 exercise therapy sessions (about 3 sessions per week)

Had 52 care team interactions (about 8 interactions per week)

Read 20 education articles (about 2 per week)

Experienced a 63% decrease in depression and a 57% decrease in anxiety

Saw a 43% reduction in employee absenteeism and presenteeism

Reported an 8.1 satisfaction rating, based on a scale of 1 to 10

Let's get moving

OPT OUT OF SALES, SHARING, AND TARGETED ADVERTISING

Manage consent preferences, strictly necessary cookies.

These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.

Performance Cookies

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.

Functional Cookies

These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then some or all of these services may not function properly.

Targeting Cookies

These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.

Cookie List

Schedule a Strategy Session

• Integration

• Case Study: Gonzaga University

Liberal Arts School Relies on Patient Partner to Build Solid IT Foundation

• Case Studies

Download Case Study

135 years ago, along Washington’s Spokane River, Father Joseph Cataldo founded Gonzaga College on the old Ignatian model of educating the whole person—mind, body, and spirit. Today, this holistic mindset has found an expression in a seemingly unlikely place—Gonzaga University’s IT Services (ITS) department, where Assistant Director of Systems Administration Tom Buck oversees a burgeoning array of technology that supports academic, research, and administrative applications.

RELATIONSHIP-BUILDING LEADS TO GREEN LIGHT FOR SIGNIFICANT SAN INVESTMENT

Several years ago, Tom’s team was looking down the road at a sizable investment in its storage area network (SAN). As it was shaping up to be a considerable expense, the team was engaging with several technology vendors and integrators, but wasn’t ready to invest.

That’s when Tom began to notice something different about the rep from Strategic Integrators. Unlike the other reps, Tom recalls, “he didn’t have a particular agenda. He was just getting to know us and what we did, and was offering possible solutions. He would make a suggestion, and we would toss it out, and he kept coming back with another option. This went on for three or four years until we made a purchase. He wasn’t pushy, wasn’t trying to make a quick buck; that gave me a lot of faith in Strategic.”

Eventually, Gonzaga decided to purchase a Dell Compellent SAN solution through Strategic. And though the University’s procurement office required competitive bids from other vendors and integrators, none was able to best the Dell Compellent offering that IT Services had selected.

DOCUMENTATION PROVIDES PROOF OF TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENTS

Tom believes one of the reasons his technology purchase requests have moved relatively smoothly through procurement is that he gets not only advice, but also detailed evidence from Strategic to support his selections. Case in point: When ITS raised concerns about its virtualized environment, Strategic brought in a VMware expert, who implemented a 5-day health checkup. “The VMware expert from Strategic did a deep dive into the metrics and statistics within VMware to show us where our bottlenecks were,” Tom says. 

It turned out that Gonzaga’s Dell servers lacked the levels of RAM and CPU capacity that it needed to support the virtual environment. Strategic suggested that Gonzaga beef up its server farm with higher performance machines, basing its recommendations on the results of the VMware health check. “Strategic not only gave us some good pointers about how to manage VMware, but they also left us detailed documentation backing our purchase decision, which we sent on to procurement.” Tom and his team now manage 20 Dell servers hosting more than 400 virtual machines.

ECONOMICAL SOLUTION ELIMINATES TAPE BACKUP, SAVES ADMIN TIME

After 17 years at Gonzaga, Tom is no novice when it comes to data center operations. Still, he’s come to rely on Strategic to save him time by narrowing down the field of options when selecting new technology. “Strategic will not recommend hardware to us unless it’s enterprise level,” he asserts. “If they say it’s good, I know it’s going to be good.”

Then again, “enterprise level” doesn’t necessarily mean high priced. When Tom wanted to do away with Gonzaga’s onerous tape backup processes, Strategic suggested he consider Veeam Backup and Replication on Nexsan E18 high-density storage arrays as a cost-efficient disk backup solution. Not ideal for an enterprise SAN, the low-speed Nexsan disk was perfectly suitable for enterprise backup.

In what Tom calls “a huge game changer,” the new backup solution has enabled Gonzaga to completely eliminate tapes from its environment. “Before, we had constant maintenance: grabbing tapes, putting them in the safe, hauling them off to a remote location once a week. All that’s gone now. We do a Nexsan backup with Veeam through a fiber link to an offsite data center, and we’re done. We save at least 20 hours a week.”

INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS SUPPORT AND ANTICIPATE GROWTH

Saving systems administration time is important, because Gonzaga’s lean ITS department has experienced tremendous growth over the past couple of years, adding new services or expanding support for existing services. To provide more efficient IT services with the current staff, Tom will continue to work with Strategic Integrators to improve its backend infrastructure, leverage the cloud, expand and enhance its VMware environment, and find better tools to measure and analyze its hardware and services.

“We’ve moved several contracts to Strategic,” Tom says, “because they’ve been so responsive. We just don’t have that kind of relationship with the other vendors. And with all those contracts in one place, I just have one number to call if I have a question.”

BUSINESS NEEDS SHOULD COME FIRST IN QUEST FOR ADVICE

After seven years of partnership with Strategic Integrators, Tom has this advice for making the most of the relationship: “Set up a meeting, talk about your pain points, and let Strategic find a way to help. You can call them with a specific problem, as we did with VMware. But I think Strategic’s strength lies is in listening to your business needs and finding solutions. They not only have a good feel for what’s out there, but they also vet the solutions they suggest. Everything I’ve purchased from Strategic has been rock solid.” 

GONZAGA UNIVERSITY

RELATIONSHIP BENEFITS

• Optimal technology selection aided by trusted, vendor-agnostic advice
• Purchase approvals facilitated by detailed documentation
• Rapid response to requests and queries
• 20 hours/week saved on backup administration

“We’ve moved several contracts to Strategic, because they’ve been so responsive. We just don’t have that kind of relationship with the other vendors.”

Contact us today for a low-key conversation about your current environment, pain points as well as long-term goals. Our national-caliber consultants look forward to speaking with you soon.

Systematic Reviews & Expert Reviews

• What are Expert Reviews?
• What Type of Review Should I Choose?
• Setting the Groundwork
• Finding the Evidence
• Selecting the Evidence
• Study Appraisal
• Data Extraction & Abstraction
• Reporting Your Findings
• Systematic Review Toolbox
• Librarian Involvement

Assess Studies for Quality and Bias

In this step, you will also be appraising the quality of each study. There are many validated checklists assess quality or risk of bias; here are a few examples:

• List of Critical Appraisal Tools List of select critical appraisal tools for both general use and specific study types.
• Joanna Briggs Institute: JBI Critical Appraisal Tools The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) provides access to critical appraisal checklists for specific study types or questions, such as Case Controlled Studies, Prevalence Studies, Quasi-Experimental Studies, etc.
• CASP: Systematic Reviews

If you choose to exclude any articles after appraising them, make sure to update your PRISMA diagram with the number of articles removed and the reasons for exclusion.

• << Previous: Selecting the Evidence
• Next: Data Extraction & Abstraction >>
• Last Updated: Apr 4, 2024 2:19 PM
• URL: https://researchguides.gonzaga.edu/systematic-reviews

Step into Your Future

Increase in paid social impressions

Paid search click-through rate

Cost-per-click on paid search

Gonzaga University

Gonzaga University is considered among the top value in higher education, offering small class sizes, employer connections, and a personalized experience that set students up for continued success.

We partnered with Gonzaga to create a robust yield campaign for its Spring 2021 Undergraduate programs, incorporating paid social media, paid search, and landing pages, to encourage enrollment confirmation among potential students.

Maximizing the value of higher education

After discussing their objectives, we proposed a customized campaign that included paid social media and paid search to encourage accepted students to confirm enrollment in the Spring 2021 semester. We also created two conversion-focused landing pages to assist in this effort. One allowed potential students to explore the culture at Gonzaga, and the other demonstrated the overall value of a Gonzaga degree.

In March 2021, we launched our initial project with a series of campaigns for the Undergraduate programs. We focused on two primary themes —what it’s like to #BeAZag and communicating the unique value of a Gonzaga education.

Perfecting the art of enrollment

Our comprehensive strategy helped drive accepted students to conversion-focused landing pages, increasing engagement, and the number of enrollment confirmations for Gonzaga’s Spring 2021 semester. Overall, Gonzaga saw a 25.38% increase in enrollments year-after-year – the second-largest first-year class in the history of the school!

Want to get amazing results like these?

Whatever marketing challenges you’re facing, Agital makes a profound impact that reverberates across your business.

What we do for Gonzaga

Advance with holistic marketing support and strategy.

• Digital Marketing Services
• Web Development
• Reporting & Analytics
• Conversion Rate Optimization & A/B Testing

Related work

Want to see more? Of course you do! Check out everything we can do for you.

40% increase in sales leads.

Highnoon + Valleywise COVID

1 Marketing awards

73% YoY increase in revenue

Subscribe to the marketing revolution.

Introduction

Case examination, case study questions, acknowledgments and funding, competing interests, supplemental material, navigating the science-collaboration interface for watershed management in aotearoa, new zealand.

• Split-Screen
• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Open the PDF for in another window
• Guest Access
• Get Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Tomas M. Koontz; Navigating the Science-Collaboration Interface for Watershed Management in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Case Studies in the Environment 5 April 2024; 8 (1): 2126467. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/cse.2024.2126467

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

Collaborative partnerships around the world address environmental challenges from a local perspective. At the same time, many of these efforts are based on scientific information. Local and scientific information are not always compatible, and numerous challenges arise at the science-policy interface in collaboration. This study identifies key factors affecting the science-policy interface, including credibility, salience, legitimacy, and communication, as well as two-way interactions and compatibility with local knowledge that are important in collaborative governance. The importance of these factors is illustrated in a case of collaborative watershed management in the Canterbury Region of Aotearoa New Zealand. The case tells the story of local community members’ contestation of science used by the government to determine the health risks of recreational swimming and the role of collaboration in bridging experiential and scientific knowledge. Evidence from meeting observations, documents, and interviews indicates points of contention and how the collaborative forum successfully served as a boundary spanner to navigate the science-policy interface.

I swim every day in the harbour. This summer was an embarrassment by all the governments involved, a real cock-up. Mismanagement of information has given lack of confidence by our community and many visitors, with signage based on flaky science—that’s our impression—and the timing of announcements. We’re tired of the embarrassments we’ve had with the shitty waters …[and] the non-science of a “trend” to put people off going in the water that we know is healthy. Maybe statistically it’s not, but we know it’s healthy; I swim in there every day . I’m a swim coach, I know nothing about science, but I’m an advocate for access to swimming. We do swim racing weekly at the bay…Water testing around our swims showed it was clean, but in January the signs went up saying it was unhealthy for swimming…If you only test once per week, this can affect average water quality readings. We need more regular testing…More people are now ignoring ALL the warnings, so it’s counterproductive .

These opening remarks about water quality for swimming set the stage for the scientific presentation and discussion that followed. The exchange at this meeting was a microcosm of the tensions between science and practice, or as it is sometimes called, the science-policy interface. Is scientific data collected in a way that is relevant to policymaking? What happens when science goes against experiential knowledge? How is science communicated to the public? How do measurements get turned into recommendations related to probabilities and risk?

The challenges of using science to inform policymaking have been well documented. Over the past several decades, scholars have described and explained the disconnect between problem-solving suggested by science and policies made by governments. To make matters more challenging, the swimming advocates in this case were speaking at a public meeting of a collaborative partnership, not a government body. They hoped the partnership would advocate for cleaner water and recommend that governments take a different approach in decisions about limiting swimmer access.

This particular collaborative partnership was one of 10 “zone committees” in the Canterbury Region of New Zealand. Like many collaborative partnerships around the world, this zone committee was not granted policymaking authority. Instead, its mission is to combine science with stakeholder engagement to make recommendations about how to manage the local watershed. Thus, this case is an example of the science-policy interface in collaborative governance.

This case study begins with a synthesis of prior research about the science-policy interface, and then provides additional theoretical insights from the collaborative governance literature. Next comes a description of the case setting, the Canterbury Water Management Strategy in New Zealand. This is followed by a description of the case study methods. Findings are presented to highlight several different challenges that surfaced in the case, to illustrate key factors identified from the literature, including how to successfully integrate science with local stakeholder perspectives. Finally, concluding thoughts and open questions in this field of inquiry are provided.

Literature Review: The Science-Policy Interface

The idea that policymakers should incorporate science into their decisions is widely advocated [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. For example, the United Nations Scientific Advisory Board stated, “It is critical for science to be engaged in the decision-making process more systematically, synthesized in ways that are relevant to current societal problems and challenges, and communicated to political leaders and societal groups in ways that are accessible and comprehensible” [ 4 , p. 19]. Scholars and practitioners have called for greater incorporation of science into wildlife conservation, watershed management, and marine ecosystems, among others [ 5 , 6 , 7 ]. Critics of the politicization of science have condemned instances of scientific reports being purposefully ignored or distorted during policymaking [ 8 , 9 ]. But incorporating science into policy can be impeded by a number of barriers, not all of them intentional.

To understand how science moves—or does not move—from scientists to policymakers, it is helpful to understand the communities inhabited by scientists and policymakers. Scholars have created the “two communities” framework to contrast the goals, time span, and communication styles operating within these different communities. As described by Caplan [ 10 ], goals in the community of scientists center on pursuing knowledge, finding “truth,” and building theories about how the world works. In contrast, goals in the community of policymakers center on solving problems, implementing laws, and improving the lives of their constituents or clients. The time spans differ as well, with scientists accustomed to working across several years to fund, design, conduct, peer review, and publish scientific studies, while policymakers often focus on decision-making within a shorter time span linked to annual and monthly budget cycles, regulatory deadlines, and immediate problems. Finally, communication styles in the scientific community favor peer-reviewed publications and often lengthy written reports, while policymakers favor two-way interactions, oral communication, and single-page memos. Thus, the science-policy interface can be problematic, and policymakers may not use the information generated by science because it is calibrated to different goals, time spans, and communication styles.

Researchers examining the science-policy interface have identified several factors that affect the uptake of science into policy. Two of the main factors are related to the scientific study itself: credibility and salience. Credibility refers to the robustness and trustworthiness of the study, for example if methods were appropriate, data were sufficient, conclusions were justified by the analysis, peer review checked the results, and the study was published in a reputable outlet [ 11 , 12 ]. Perceptions of credibility can also depend on whether the scientific information matches a policymaker’s experiential knowledge [ 13 ]. Salience refers to how well a study applies to a particular context in which policy is being decided, if it includes specific guidance for management actions, and whether it is available in time for management decisions [ 11 , 12 , 14 ]. Two additional factors affecting the uptake of science into policy are related to the process of conducting and disseminating the study: legitimacy and communication. Legitimacy refers to a study being produced in a transparent way, taking stakeholder values and perspectives into account [ 11 , 12 ]. Communication refers to how the study results are communicated and translated for policymakers. This can include explaining concepts without specialized jargon, summarizing and interpreting results, and establishing dialogue for two-way discussions between scientists and policymakers [ 15 , 16 , 17 ].

Collaborative governance research has identified scientific information as one important input into collaborative decision-making processes. But the inclusion of many nonscientists, with diverse ways of knowing, can complicate the acquisition and incorporation of scientific information into environmental planning and projects [ 18 , 19 ]. A key factor identified by several studies is two-way interactions between scientists and collaborative partnership members [ 15 , 18 , 20 ]. Rather than simply receiving a piece of scientific information, it is helpful for partnership members to be able to ask questions of the study authors. This allows the scientists to translate jargon, interpret results, and discuss the applicability of the scientific results to the local decision context. Such interactive work has been called “boundary spanning” and may be done with the help of intermediaries such as university Extension personnel, journalists, think tanks, and the like [ 12 , 17 , 21 ]. Collaborative partnerships themselves may serve as boundary spanners when they use science to inform recommendations they make to policymakers.

Collaboration by its nature draws on diverse perspectives and types of information. The inclusion of multiple stakeholders deliberating and learning together can generate solutions that are more effective and acceptable to the community [ 20 , 22 ]. Participants bring local and experiential knowledge to the partnership and use it, alongside science, to inform plans and policy recommendations [ 23 , 24 ]. Scientific information that complements rather than contradicts local and experiential knowledge is more likely to be seen as useful and credible [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ].

The Case Setting: New Zealand’s Canterbury Water Management Strategy

Like many places around the world, New Zealand governments have worked to encourage local watershed planning that is both collaborative and informed by science. As water quality declined in the Canterbury Region of New Zealand starting in the mid-1990s, efforts to address the causes of the decline—primarily the dairy industry—grew. This included the multiagency Dairying and Clean Streams Accord of 2003, under which some dairy farmers fenced streams and planted riparian vegetation to reduce stream contamination, and the Living Streams program inviting local communities to participate in local projects to improve water quality. Scientific monitoring provided information about the status and trends of watershed conditions.

In 2009 Dr. Bryan Jenkins, Chief Executive Officer of Environment Canterbury, led the creation of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. Dr. Jenkins drew from the social science work of Elinor Ostrom, whose pioneering research on governing the commons (including land and water resources) earned her the Nobel Prize in Economics. As an environmental planner, Dr. Jenkins also drew from the natural science expertise in Environment Canterbury, and his own experience in collaborative approaches to environmental management in Australia [ 29 ]. The Canterbury Water Management Strategy aimed to combine science with local stakeholder collaboration to improve water quality while addressing the needs of industry, recreation, and Maori who have stewarded the landscape for centuries. Under the strategy, 10 local watershed organizations, called zone committees, would convene stakeholders to develop collaborative watershed management plans (see figure 1 ). These plans were to be informed by science, place-based, and attuned to stakeholder needs. Each individual zone plan would subsequently be incorporated into the broader Environment Canterbury regional watershed plan, which created legally binding regulations for land and water management.

Canterbury region and its 10 zone committees.

Source: Environment Canterbury ( https://www.ecan.govt.nz/your-region/your-environment/water/whats-happening-in-my-water-zone/about-the-water-zone-committees/ ).

As the Canterbury Water Management Strategy played out, the local zone committees faced challenges in their work at the science-policy interface for collaborative governance. Scientific research is not always useful to policymakers and managers, as many studies in public policy and public management have concluded (see prior section). The challenges may be even steeper for multistakeholder collaborative forums, as this case explores.

Data for this case study were collected from the Canterbury region of New Zealand’s South Island. This region was selected because of its longstanding and institutionalized collaborative watershed program that aims to incorporate science and local stakeholder perspectives into watershed management. Such a setting is an apt venue to examine the interplay of science and other ways of knowing, in order to build understanding about the science-policy interface for collaborative governance. The author conducted a literature review, document analysis, interviews, and meeting observations to understand the case context and find evidence of how science was incorporated into collaborative planning processes. This article draws primarily on evidence from a zone committee meeting held in March 2023. During this meeting, extended deliberation between scientists and nonscientists surfaced many key insights from theories of the science-policy interface. Discourse as well as meeting artifacts (text and diagrams) provide engaging evidence that readers should find compelling in applying theory to practice.

The Canterbury Water Management Strategy began in 2009 with 10 local zone committees. These zone committees meet approximately once per month, usually on a weekday afternoon or evening at a local community center. In addition, the zone committees sometimes go on field trips to learn about local project sites. Zone committees are coordinated and supported by government agency staff of Environment Canterbury Regional Council. Committee members are selected by application, decided upon by Environment Canterbury Regional Council to represent a diverse range of stakeholders including industry, local residents, environmental interest groups, and Maori runanga (tribal councils) in the watershed.

Before each meeting the coordinator posts onto a public website the meeting agenda, including attachments related to agenda items. Many of these attachments are scientific presentations or reports about water chemistry, hydrology, pollutant sources, hazard assessments, land-water interactions, species populations, habitat conditions, groundwater levels, flood risk, invasive species, and so on. Meeting minutes describe numerous instances of committee members engaging in discussions with the presenters of the scientific information. These discussions have ranged from seeking clarification or additional information to questioning a particular finding to asking about the relevance of the science to the local watershed.

At the March 2023 meeting of one of the zone committees, the agenda included an attached report titled, “Monitoring of Water Quality for Contact Recreation in [this zone]” (author’s note: to retain confidentiality I have removed local place names throughout). The report included the following items (verbatim text from the report is included in Supplemental Material):

Agenda Item: Contact Recreation in Canterbury Region Waters, reported by Environment Canterbury Regional Council.

Summer water monitoring program: Environment Canterbury Regional Council (the local government environmental agency) tests coastal water samples for Enterococci bacterial levels.

The agency conducts weekly surveillance monitoring of 56 coastal sites, from which lab results are available within 9 days.

Health risk levels are determined based on Enterococci concentrations, set by New Zealand Ministry of Health:

Local health department receives lab results and decides whether to close areas for swimming.

In addition to weekly monitoring, because health hazards fluctuate daily, Environment Canterbury Regional Council also assigns a long-term site grade for each location.

Long-term site grades are based on data from the past 5 years and known sources of Enterococci discharging nearby. Where data are affected by recent rainfall, these data may be excluded if interventions can discourage swimming after rainfall. The agency stopped excluding such data after February 2022 because they observed swimming after rainfall, even after warning signs were placed. The grade for one popular swimming site is shown in figure 2 :

Long-term grade and Enterococci sampling for one bay.

Source: Environment Canterbury Regional Council, augmented by author with arrows and text.

At the zone committee meeting, two members of a local swimming group were invited to present their concerns, including the following points:

We organize weekly swimming in the bay throughout the summer months, enjoyed by at least 100 people regularly. Nobody in those events—over 1,000 people—reported getting sick last season. The water is not unhealthy. Swimming is one of the best things for physical and mental health.

Downgrading the bay’s long-term grade to “Poor” was due to changed methodology by the regulators, not by any real change in conditions. The agency decided to start including rainfall events, which bring increased Enterococci bacteria loads, thus raising the calculated 5 year average.

The regulatory agency uses rainfall data that are incomplete—there are not enough official rainfall gauges across the area. With the microclimates in our region, rainfall at one site does not mean it’s raining at another site. Having too few data points can lead to inaccurate scientific predictions. Why don’t they use additional data from the network of backyard rain gauges across the area?

Waiting nine days between sample collection and health department warnings is not useful information for deciding whether we should swim that day. The data are no longer relevant because water quality fluctuates daily.

We gathered our own water samples and took them to the lab and emailed results to the agency, but they did not acknowledge our input. They were hard to reach when we had questions.

Such questioning of the scientific basis for the recreational contact warnings does not mean the science is wrong. Although one of the community members did mention “flaky science,” the bigger point is that community members contested the science when it went against their own experiences and perceptions. The exchange between the scientific information provided by Environment Canterbury Regional Council and the local swimmers illustrates several elements of theories about the science-policy interface in collaborative governance.

For point 1, the swimmers expressed the mismatch between the scientific information and their experiential knowledge . The swimmers swam often at a site deemed by scientists to be of Poor water quality without getting ill. In fact, they touted the health benefits of swimming such that swimming at the site improved their health. Moreover, the swim club held swim events attended by many others, and to their knowledge none of these other swimmers got ill. In other words, their experience did not support the scientific conclusion that swimming at this site posed a health risk, so they discounted the value of the scientific information.

For points 2 and 3, the scientific findings were not seen as credible . Rather than being an accurate measure of changes to bacterial loads, the change in long-term grade for several swimming sites was caused by a change in methodology (point 2). Calculations no longer excluded bacteria count spikes after rainfall events, which generated a higher calculated average level of bacteria. Appropriateness of methods for a scientific study is one aspect of credibility, and it was criticized here by the swimmers. Another aspect of credibility is data sufficiency (point 3). A key driver of bacterial loads is rainfall, and since rainfall patterns are not uniform across the region, knowing the rainfall at one site is not a good predictor of bacteria loads at another site. This makes scientific conclusions for sites without rainfall gauges less credible. The swimmers suggested a way to collect data across a larger number of sites would be to include data from backyard rain gauges, which would include nonscientists in the production of science.

Point 4 refers to salience . In particular, the swimmers pushed back against the scientific findings for being too late to be actionable. If bacteria levels fluctuate daily, especially after a rainfall event, then making decisions to close a site based on data from up to nine days prior is problematic.

Point 5 refers to legitimacy . One way to increase legitimacy of science, in the eyes of potential users of that science, is to produce it in a way that takes stakeholder values and perceptions into account. This might mean bringing community stakeholders into the process, for example inviting them to participate in citizen science activities such as data collection. Here the swimmers took initiative to take water samples to a lab and share results with the regulatory agency, but they did not feel the agency acknowledged their input. They also said it was hard to get a response from the agency when they reached out with questions and concerns.

A key additional element of the science-policy interface for collaborative governance came into play in this case. The collaborative forum included factors that help bridge the divide between science and practice. The communication of the scientific findings was not only in a written report but also over an hour of the meeting agenda was devoted to oral presentations by the scientist and the swimmers and in-depth discussion by all participants in the meeting. This two-way interaction between scientists and nonscientists enabled clarification of scientific jargon, follow-up questions, and interpretation of results.

Collaborative settings are intended as places where stakeholder perspectives and scientific information are discussed. When participants engage in sharing and listening, trust can build and win-win solutions can emerge [ 20 ]. In this zone committee meeting, following the presentations, members of the regulatory agency, the swimming group, and the zone committee engaged in productive dialogue. Participants asked the agency scientist how they collect the water samples, whether it’s possible to identify sources of the bacteria, and how they communicate risks with the media and health departments. Participants suggested a helpful communication tool would be maps, which the agency now has the capacity to produce. The agency scientist asked the participants what other suggestions they had for effective communication, and what additional sites they would like to see monitored. When asked about enlisting local residents to help with monitoring, the agency scientist described the training required and challenges in ensuring consistent collection over time. One audience member suggested a local group that might be willing to do so. A wide-raging discussion included diverse suggestions about how to reduce bacteria loads, including removing Canada geese, reducing cattle near waterways, enforcing septic tank regulations, promoting alternatives to septic tanks, installing solar powered water gauges with signage to inform the public of risks in real time, changing interagency communication protocols, improving the data repository website, and changing signage text about risk. The discussion led to an action item to develop a workshop on the issue for further discussion and input.

Importantly, the tone of the discussion was respectful, even though the swimmers had a high level of frustration with the regulatory agency. The agency scientist expressed a desire to hear ideas from the community, and the community had suggestions about how to make the science more relevant and effective in guiding management decisions. After the meeting concluded, swimmers, agency staff, and zone committee members engaged in genial conversations together.

In this case, the collaborative partnership made space for this science-policy exchange even though it was not part of their original zone planning process. An interviewee from this zone committee later explained, “our action plan doesn’t say anything about recreational water quality, per se. So this really did come about because I was on holiday over summer, camping with my family. I ended up reading, every day in the media a new article about [our zone committee’s coastal area] so I was like, well, when I get back to work, I’m going to check if the zone committee is interested in this topic. And of course, they were.” Responding to the recreational swimmers’ concerns, the zone committee coordinator arranged for an agency scientist to come to the meeting to communicate the science and foster dialogue: “It would be difficult for the zone committee to figure out how they could add value in that space, if they didn’t first have a presentation on what the monitoring results show.”

The interviewee described the zone committee’s role as a boundary spanner, bridging scientific and other kinds of information: “Zone committees …value local community anecdotal information, or community data or community views or community values…The committee is pretty keen to keep hearing from the community members who are vocal, and some of them are mostly interested in swimming, and being able to run their swimming events. Now, that’s not necessarily the main purpose of this zone committee, but recreation is still part of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. And they will still empathize with people who would like to go swimming and don’t want to be totally confused about whether they should or whether they shouldn’t, irrespective of what our data might say.” In other words, the zone committee is a collaborative partnership where local community concerns and perspectives are brought into contact with scientific information.

But how did the partnership foster such a productive space for interaction? A stakeholder meeting with diverse perspectives must manage the tension between efficiently covering the agenda and allowing for open discussions among members with different values and interests. Hallgren et al [ 30 ] call this process “procedural framing,” where speakers in a dialogue negotiate the norms of which topics are allowed and which are not in the conversation space. For example, facilitators and other participants can sideline topics that are deemed too controversial or beyond the scope of what they think should be discussed in the meeting. The meeting agenda can be controlled by a facilitator or be open to topics suggested by the members. Prior research shows the latter is more conducive to social learning in the group [ 31 , 32 ].

Encouraging participation in a collaborative partnership can be fostered by attending to what Shindler and Neburka [ 33 ] call the “care and feeding” of participants, for example providing food at meetings (which did occur at this zone committee meeting). During collaborative partnership meetings, it is important for participants to have opportunities to not only hear presentations but also to directly question, challenge, and respond to concerns raised by others [ 33 , 34 ]. This can foster shared learning about new concepts and specialized knowledge among diverse members [ 22 ]. Once the features of the collaborative setting are established to promote open discussion, this sets the stage for two-way interactions to span the boundaries between scientific information and other kinds of information. This can include clarifying terms, probing deeper, questioning assumptions, and connecting to different stakeholder experiences. Importantly, such interactions go beyond the uptake of science by stakeholders and decision-makers, to include the exchange of information and ideas in both directions.

This case illustrates the challenges and possibilities of bridging science with other ways of knowing in collaborative governance. Ample scholarship about the science-policy interface has identified factors that foster the use of scientific information by policymakers, for example, credibility, salience, legitimacy, and communication. Studies in collaborative governance have found factors that are influential in settings where diverse stakeholders from a wide range of backgrounds and knowledge sets deliberate on governance decisions, including two-way interactions and scientific information that complements rather than contradicts local and experiential knowledge. When these factors are not present, the science-policy interface can become a divide.

In Aotearoa New Zealand, the Canterbury Water Management Strategy has been operating for over 15 years, with an aim to combine scientific information with local stakeholder collaboration to improve water quality while addressing diverse needs. When a government health directive warned swimmers to avoid contact with water at a popular local bay, a community group contested the science behind the directive. The collaborative zone committee became a forum for boundary spanning, convening a meeting where swimming enthusiasts were able to share their frustrations and perspectives in dialogue with government scientists. These points of discussion, along with meeting artifacts including scientific presentations, illustrate many of the challenges in bridging science with other ways of knowing. Key points of contention included questions about credibility, salience, legitimacy, communication, and mismatch with experiential knowledge. Two-way interactions in the collaborative forum, supported by a wide-ranging discussion with respectful listening and opportunities to suggest a variety of actions, led to an action item to develop a workshop on the issue for further discussion and input. As such, this can be considered an example of success in bridging the science-policy divide in collaboration governance.

This case suggests several avenues for further inquiry. Here, the scientific information was provided via in-person presentation, where stakeholders could converse with the presenter. But scientific information is often communicated in journals, typically behind paywalls and written for fellow scientists. How can such scientific information be meaningfully shared with the wider variety of stakeholders likely to be present in collaborative processes? In this case, swimming enthusiasts suggested greater use of citizen science. Involving community stakeholders in the production of science can increase the perceived legitimacy of the results among participating stakeholders, but what might it do to perceptions of stakeholders with different interests? Is there a downside, in terms of credibility, of having science conducted by nonscientists? Finally, navigating the science-policy interface is time and labor intensive. Which stakeholders are likely to have capacity to expend such resources, and which are not, and how can we ensure a greater diversity of perspectives are represented in collaborative forums?

It is important to note that “success” in navigating the science-policy interface is not clearcut. In this case, the exchange of ideas between scientists and nonscientists, evident learning by both sides, and plans to work together on a future science interface workshop are all positive. But other measures of success might be important. Did the nonscientists reduce their level of uncertainty about ecological phenomena? Did the scientists use the exchange to develop scientific outputs that are more likely to be used by collaborative participants? Was science more effectively used to generate better decisions about watershed management, and how might we measure “effective”? What should be the role of science, versus other ways of knowing, in watershed management? Such questions move us beyond strategic questions about how to bridge the science-policy divide to broader questions about knowledge integration across diverse stakeholders and ways of knowing—questions at the very heart of collaborative governance.

What are the biggest barriers to incorporating scientific information into policymaking and collaboration? How might the barriers differ between policymakers in government versus stakeholders in a collaborative forum?

What kinds of scientific information are most likely to be incorporated into policy?

What role can collaborative partnerships play in fostering a productive science-collaboration interface?

One way to increase data quantity is through citizen science, as mentioned here with the backyard rain gauges. What concerns might arise from data collected by nonscientists? What are some benefits of engaging nonscientists in doing citizen science through data collection? What if anything should be done to verify the accuracy of such data, and what should happen if these data are not accurate?

Water quality samples collected by nonscientists is another form of citizen science. How do water quality samples compare with rain gauge citizen science? Is one more likely to be useful than the other? What about accuracy and effort?

How would we know if science-policy interface navigation in collaborative governance is successful? What does success look like, and how might it be measured?

This research was supported by the University of Canterbury Erskine Fellowship and Waterways Centre for Freshwater Management. The author acknowledges zone committee interviewees who shared their time and insights, and assistance from Ed Challies and Rachel Teen.

The author has no actual or potential competing interests in this work.

Teaching Notes. docx

Teaching Slides. pdf

Supplementary data

Recipient(s) will receive an email with a link to 'Navigating the Science-Collaboration Interface for Watershed Management in Aotearoa, New Zealand' and will not need an account to access the content.

Subject: Navigating the Science-Collaboration Interface for Watershed Management in Aotearoa, New Zealand

(Optional message may have a maximum of 1000 characters.)

Citing articles via

Email alerts, affiliations.

• Recent Content
• All Content
• Special Collections
• Info for Authors
• Info for Reviewers
• Info for Librarians
• Editorial Team
• Prize Competition
• Online ISSN 2473-9510
• Copyright © 2024

Stay Informed

Disciplines.

• Ancient World
• Anthropology
• Communication
• Criminology & Criminal Justice
• Film & Media Studies
• Food & Wine
• Browse All Disciplines
• Browse All Courses
• Book Authors
• Booksellers
• Instructions
• Journal Authors
• Journal Editors
• Media & Journalists
• Planned Giving

About UC Press

• Press Releases
• Seasonal Catalog
• Acquisitions Editors
• Customer Service
• Exam/Desk Requests
• Media Inquiries
• Print-Disability
• Rights & Permissions
• UC Press Foundation
• © Copyright 2024 by the Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Privacy policy    Accessibility

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Popular Search Resources for

Interprofessional Case Study Event Elevates Patient Care Strategies

By Office of the President | Apr 2, 2024

The Sixth Annual Interprofessional Case Study event, organized by Downstate's School of Health Professions (SOHP) in collaboration with the College of Nursing and the School of Public Health, took place on March 21. Engaging over 160 students in-person and virtually, the event underscored the importance of healthcare professionals working collaboratively in interdisciplinary teams to improve patient care.

Case-based learning constitutes a crucial component of health education, equipping students with essential clinical skills, fostering active learning, and enriching their understanding of the complexities involved in patient care. Interprofessional education amplifies this by instructing students on how to operate effectively within intricate healthcare settings. The amalgamation of these methodologies provides a comprehensive educational journey to emerge as proficient, collaborative, and patient-focused professionals.

Students from various programs within the School of Health Professions, including Diagnostic Medical Imaging, Health Informatics, Midwifery, Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy, and Physician Assistant programs, alongside College of Nursing and School of Public Health students, actively contributed insights from their respective disciplines. They collaborated on treatment plans and discussed strategies to address complex health issues, advocate for patients, and identify supportive resources. Faculty from Health Professions, Nursing, and Public Health guided students through this immersive experience.

• Search Search Button

Gonzaga’s Jesuit, Catholic, Humanistic education will challenge and inspire you.

• Our Campus & Location
• In the Community
• Rankings & Recognition
• At a Glance
• Equity, Diversity & Inclusion
• Our Mission & Jesuit Values
• What Sets Us Apart
• President & Leadership
• News, Events & Stories
• Sustainability
• Offices & Services

Gonzaga offers 16 undergraduate degrees through 53 majors, 68 minors and 73 concentrations, 23 master’s degrees and 5 doctoral-level degrees.

• Undergraduate Programs
• Graduate Programs
• Online Graduate Programs
• Certificates
• Our Faculty
• College & Schools
• Global Engagement
• Centers & Institutes
• Research & Creative Inquiry
• Registrar's Office
• Academic Resources
• Regional Health Partnership

All the how-to's and why-you-should's for becoming a Zag.

• Undergraduate Admission
• Graduate Admission
• International Student Admission

Financial Aid

• Admission Contacts
• Virtual Tour
• Request Info

Student Life

The Division of Student Affairs is committed to creating an academically rich environment and fostering a strong sense of community.

• Housing & Dining
• Community Engagement & Service
• Career Services
• Student Support
• Health & Well-Being
• Arts & Culture
• New Student & Family Programs
• University Ministry
• Student Affairs Division

The Gonzaga spirit, blended with hard work and dedication in athletic endeavors, yields success both on the field of play and in the classroom.

• GoZags.com Athletics Website
• Kermit M. Rudolf Fitness Center
• Cheerleading
• Spike the Bulldog
• Intramurals
• Fitness Classes
• Gonzaga Basketball
• Future Students
• Current Students
• Military & Veterans
• Parents & Families
• Faculty & Staff
• Our Community
• Basketball Fans

Gonzaga Home

Facts and figures.

General Information about Gonzaga University

• Type: Private Liberal Arts
• Carnegie Classification: National University
• Religious Affiliation: Roman Catholic (Jesuit)
• Motto: Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam (For the greater glory of God)
• Established: 1887
• Location: Spokane, Washington
• Campus Setting: Situated in the Logan residential neighborhood along Spokane River, one-half mile from downtown business district
• Number of Buildings: 100
• Campus Size: 150 acres
• Pronunciation: Gone - ZAG (as in "bag") - uh

Gonzaga University Enrollment Fall 2023

• Total Enrollment: 7,306
• Undergraduate Students: 5,163
• New First Year Students: 1,254
• Master's Students: 1,330 (included 9 post-baccalaureate students)
• Doctoral Students: 259
• Law Students: 554
• Non-Credit Students: 259 (Workshop/Sabbatical/Cont. Ed, ELC, UW Medical)
• Percentage Students of Color: 37%

Incoming Freshmen Class Average GPA & Test Scores

• Average Unweighted GPA: 3.73
• Average SAT Evidence Based Reading and Writing: 647
• Average SAT Math: 649
• Average SAT Score: 1,296
• Average ACT Score: 28

* Gonzaga University has a test-optional policy

Academics: Degrees, Programs, and Schools/College

Gonzaga offers 16 undergraduate degrees through 53 majors, 68 minors and 73 concentrations; 23 master’s programs; and five doctorate degrees.

• College of Arts & Sciences
• School of Business Administration
• School of Education
• School of Engineering & Applied Science
• School of Health Sciences
• School of Leadership Studies
• School of Law

Academics: Class Size and Faculty Information

• Average Class Size: 18
• Student/Faculty Ratio: 12 to 1
• Full-time Faculty Members: 464
• Percent of faculty with a terminal degree in their area of teaching: 90%
• Staff Members: 857

Costs & Budget 

• Total Budget: $381.0 million
• Total Salaries: $131.0 million
• Undergraduate Annual Tuition 2023-2024: $52,540
• Cost per Undergraduate Credit: $1,750
• Cost per Graduate Credit: $680-$1,140 depending on program
• Cost per Doctoral Credit: $1,140 per credit
• Cost per Law School Credit: $1,752
• Room and Board: $15,080 (on average)
• Institutional Aid to Undergraduate Students: $134,530,094
• Federal Aid to All Students: $64,470,123
• Average Financial Aid Package: $35,911
• Average percent of need met: 77%
• Percent of Students Receiving Aid: 98%

Religious, Faith, and Community Service Statistics

• Number of faiths represented on campus: 32
• Spiritual retreats offered annually: 11
• Masses and other faith services offered annually on campus: 199
• Hours of student-provided community service annually: 87,363
• Division: NCAA Division I
• Athletic Conference: West Coast Conference
• Nickname: Bulldogs (Zags)
• Mascot: Spike
• Intercollegiate Sports: 18
• Men's Sports: Baseball, Basketball, Cross Country, Golf, Rowing, Soccer, Tennis, Indoor and Outdoor Track & Field 
• Men's basketball: 24 straight NCAA Tournament appearances, including two National Championship games, two Final Four, six Elite Eight and 12 Sweet 16 games
• Women's Sports: Basketball, Cross Country, Golf, Rowing, Soccer, Tennis, Indoor and Outdoor Track & Field, Volleyball
• Women's basketball: Nine NCAA Tournament appearances, including four Sweet 16 games and one Elite Eight game; Five WNIT appearances
• Boxing: 1950 National Co-Champions, including individual titles by Carl Maxey and Eli Thomas
• Student-athletes named to WCC Commissioners Honor Roll: 285
• Intramural Sports and Events: 16 (58% of students participate)

Notable Alumni of Gonzaga University

• Frank Burgess: Late federal judge and former Gonzaga basketball all-American
• Tony Canadeo: Late Professional Football Hall of Fame member
• Joseph Caravalho Jr., M.D. (Army Major General, Retired): President/CEO, Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Inc.
• Patrick Conroy, S.J., Chaplain, U.S. House of Representatives
• Bing Crosby: Late actor and singer who is one of the top-selling musical artists of all-time
• Thomas Foley: Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives
• Christine Gregoire: First female Washington state attorney general and former governor of Washington state
• Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto: First Latina member of U.S. Senate
• Carl Maxey: Late Spokane attorney and civil rights leader
• Carl Pohlad: Late Minnesota Twins owner
• William Pohlad: Filmmaker
• Michael Stepovich: Last territorial governor of Alaska
• John Stockton: NBA all-time assists and steals record-holder and Hall of Famer
• Domantas Sabonis, starting center, Sacramento Kings (NBA)
• James Wickwire: Attorney and world-class mountain climber
• Washington State Supreme Court Chief Justices: Late Hon. Mary Fairhurst, Hon. Barbara Madsen, Hon. Debra Stephens
• Marco Gonzales, starting pitcher, Seattle Mariners (MLB)

President & University Leadership

Thayne M. McCulloh, D.Phil.  was inaugurated as Gonzaga’s 26th president in 2010. 

Accreditation Metrics

Florida State University

FSU | College of Business

College of Business

C.f. sirmans, ‘an unparalleled figure’ in real estate studies.

C.F. Sirmans, a highly venerated and decorated real estate economist and professor emeritus in the Florida State University College of Business, passed away on March 25.  Photo by Kallen M. Lunt/College of Business Click to enlarge

Friends, former colleagues and scholars from around the world are remembering C.F. Sirmans as an icon and a giant in the field of real estate whose contributions to research, the classroom, the academy and the industry loom large – and likely always will.

Sirmans, a highly venerated and decorated real estate economist and professor emeritus in the Florida State University College of Business, passed away on March 25, about three years after having been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. He was 74.

“The academic world recently bid farewell to an unparalleled figure in the realm of real estate studies,” the American Real Estate Society, or ARES, and the American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, or AREUEA, announced to their members in a joint tribute this week. “Known for his extraordinary influence and immense presence, C.F.’s contributions to the academic discipline of real estate have left an indelible mark that will resonate for generations to come.”

Geoffrey Turnbull of the University of Central Florida, Mauricio Rodriguez of Texas Christian University and McKay Price of Lehigh University – all of whom worked with or studied under Sirmans – wrote the tribute for ARES and AREUEA.

Over the course of a career that lasted nearly 50 years, Sirmans built an extraordinary record as a professor, mentor and scholar whose interests included housing, land markets, property rights and real estate investment trusts. His prestigious awards included the George Bloom Service Award from AREUEA and the Graaskamp Award and the David Ricardo Medal from ARES. 

Boasting more than 300 publications and 17,000 citations, his research “enriched the field with new theoretical models, empirical methods and a profound understanding of real estate's unique market intricacies,” ARES and AREUEA said in their tribute. In 2011, the FSU College of Business trumpeted recognition of Sirmans as “the world’s most prolific author of the discipline of real estate research” by Real Estate Economics and the Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics .

Sirmans also served as editor or founding editor of numerous academic journals.

“C.F. was an icon,” said Dean Gatzlaff , a 2023 FSU College of Business Rovetta Faculty Hall of Fame inductee who retired in 2022. “It was a privilege to have been able to work with and get to know him. His impact on the discipline, the program and faculty at FSU, and on me personally, was enormous.”

Sirmans joined the FSU faculty in 2009 as the J. Harold and Barbara M. Chastain Eminent Scholar Chair in Real Estate and retired in 2017. He previously spent 17 years on the faculty at the University of Connecticut, where he led the Center for Real Estate and Urban Economic Studies. 

He also held faculty positions at the University of Illinois, the University of Georgia and Louisiana State University, and he served as a visiting professor at the Swedish School of Economics and Business, also known as the Hanken School of Economics; the National University of Singapore; the University of Hong Kong; and City University of Hong Kong – a testament to his international standing.

“C.F. excelled at creating opportunities for others, both at his home institutions and beyond,” said Stuart Rosenthal , professor and chair of the Paul Rubacha Department of Real Estate at Cornell University and co-editor of the Journal of Urban Economics . “C.F. made a career of reaching out to people in different departments, increasing interest in the real estate area and often resulting in valuable collaborations.”

A younger brother and esteemed researcher himself, G. Stacy Sirmans , occupies the eminent scholar chair that Sirmans vacated at FSU. A daughter, Tice Sirmans , earned a Ph.D. in risk management and insurance from FSU in 2017. She now works as an assistant professor at Illinois State University.

Sirmans also is survived by his wife, Elaine ; five other children; two other siblings; 16 grandchildren and three great-grandchildren. 

“We will always remember and honor C.F. Sirmans as a world-class scholar who improved lives, made his colleagues better, significantly impacted the field of real estate and contributed to our preeminence,” said Michael Hartline , dean of the FSU College of Business. “We extend our condolences to Elanie, Tice and Stacy and the rest of his loving family.”

Daniel Broxterman , an associate professor, the Francis Nardozza Fellow in Real Estate and the academic director of the FSU Real Estate Center, called Sirmans’ passing “a great loss for FSU and the field at large.”

“He was the proverbial wise man on the mountain whom so many of us would seek out for his sage advice,” Broxterman said.

Clemon Fielding “C.F.” Sirmans Jr. spent his childhood hunting, fishing and farming in his hometown of Pearson, Georgia. He taught himself to play guitar, which became a lifelong love, and he attended Valdosta State College, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in economics. He then earned a master’s degree in economics and a Ph.D. in real estate and urban development from the University of Georgia.

As a doctoral student at the University of Georgia, Sirmans began a decades-long collaboration with James Kau , with whom he co-edited the Journal of the American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association , now Real Estate Economics , and co-founded The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics .

Kau, now an emeritus professor and the former C. Herman and Mary Virginia Terry Distinguished Chair in Business Administration at the University of Georgia, called Sirmans “a man of few words but great commitment and determination.”

“He will be greatly missed,” Kau said.

Sirmans’ obituary touts his hard work, intelligence, creativity and problem-solving ability, which served him well as a professor and researcher. 

Family members and colleagues also called him a trusted mentor, advisor and confidant.

“I first knew of C.F. as a giant in the field of real estate,” said Thomas Miceli , a professor of economics at the University of Connecticut. “Later, I was lucky enough to get to know him as a colleague, mentor, and co-author, and ultimately as a friend.”

Former colleagues said Sirmans also influenced a generation of students with three textbooks that he authored or co-authored. He trained and inspired doctoral students as dissertation chair and advisor, yet his influence extended well beyond his office and classroom.

Those who knew him also hail his devotion to his faith, family and community. A lifelong member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Sirmans and his wife dedicated themselves to helping people in need and in recent years ran an addiction-recovery program near their home.

“While the volume of his academic work is impressive and truly advanced thinking in our field, it is his interest in helping others that is his true legacy,” said Henry Munneke , associate dean for Undergraduate Programs and the Roy Adams Dorsey Distinguished Chair in Real Estate at the University of Georgia. “I am forever grateful for the time I spent with him and the impact he has had on me and my career.”

A memorial is being planned for summer of 2024 in Sirmans’ southern Georgia hometown.

Additional Tributes

“In the world of real estate academia, C.F. is revered as a prolific researcher, with a publication record that stands as legend. Yet to me, he was more than just a scholar – he was a close friend and a wise mentor. In my career journey, C.F. has been like a giant, and I've been fortunate to sit on his shoulders, learning from his vast experience. For that, I’ll always be grateful.”

– Joseph Ooi , Professor and Co-Director of the Institute of Real Estate and Urban Studies, National University of Singapore

“C.F. had a profound impact on me both professionally and personally over the past 30 years. His dedication and contributions to our profession and unwavering friendship has left a lasting impression on all who had the privilege of knowing him.  His legacy in our profession will endure and he will be deeply missed.”  

– Abdullah Yavas , Professor and Robert E. Wangard Real Estate Chair, University of Wisconsin, and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics

“I personally owe a lot to C.F.  For over two decades, he was my co-author, confidant and a personal and trusted friend.  We worked on so many projects together, with countless memories over nearly 20 years.  People think of C.F. as a great scholar, but he was also an astute administrator -- fair, assertive and compassionate. I am most fortunate and grateful to God for knowing such a great soul so closely.”  

– Chinmoy Ghosh , Department Head and Gladstein Professor of Business and Innovation in the Department of Finance at the University of Connecticut

  Directory   College Calendar

  For Faculty & Staff

Undergraduate Programs  

Graduate programs  .

  Request Graduate Programs Info   Contact the Webmaster

Address 821 Academic Way, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1110 | Phone 850-644-3090 | Fax 850-644-0915 Copyright © 2023, Florida State University - College of Business , All Rights Reserved. Accredited by AACSB International.