Monica G. Williams, PhD Dissertation, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair, PVAMU/Member of the Texas A&M University System

1. ENGAGEMENT LEVELS OF
HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY LEADERS
IN ENTREPRENEURIALISM THROUGH FUNDRAISING
A Dissertation
by
Monica Georgette Williams
Submitted to the Graduate School
Prairie View A&M University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
Doctor of Philosophy
August 2009
Major Subject: Educational Leadership

3. ABSTRACT
Public Historically Black College and University leaders are being
increasingly called upon to develop an entrepreneurial spirit that
encourages fundraising from the private sector. Fundraising at HBCUs
is no longer the sole responsibility of development officers. The
overwhelming truth is that donors want relationships with a variety of
institutional leaders and the direct beneficiaries of their gifts. So often,
donors need to feel connected to a cause and the gift benefactor. This
connection presupposes direct involvement by university leaders in the
cultivation activities for donors. Unfortunately, many HBCU leaders fail
to engage in the donor cultivation and stewardship process that creates a
continuum of giving by philanthropists. This researcher believes that the
lack of money raised at public HBCUs could be attributed to a leaders’
unwillingness to exercise entrepreneurial behavior.
In an attempt to define and understand the entrepreneurial
university and its leader, the researcher applied Clark’s (1998)
theoretical framework. Clark (1998) asserts that entrepreneurial
activities encompass third-stream income sources that generate
innovative, non-traditional revenues and stimulate engagement in
activities that produce and enhance traditional income streams.
To address this problem, the researcher conducted a study that
questioned whether there is a relationship between HBCU leaders’
entrepreneurial orientation and the financial stability of their

4. institutions. This study also examined the extent to which leaders
valued and carried out entrepreneurial activities, the factors associated
with the best practices in fundraising, the degree to which the
institutions’ development practices influence entrepreneurial activities in
both the president’s and advancement offices. Finally, the researcher
explored the institutional leaders’ perception of their entrepreneurial
abilities.
This study utilized results from a questionnaire surveying
presidents and fund development officers employed at five of the
Thurgood Marshall College Fund’s 47 member schools to examine how
entrepreneurial orientation among public HBCU presidents impacts
revenue generation or gifting at their respective institutions.

5. DEDICATION
Words cannot express the debt of gratitude I owe you, Canaan L.
Harris, MD, for your continued encouragement and support during my
educational journey. I thank you for saving me from myself. I dedicate
my career and this manuscript to you.

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My ever-evolving relationship with God has made this journey
possible. To Him, I am eternally grateful. The new mercies He grants me
each day have guided this project. It is only appropriate that I give all
glory and honor to Him for giving me the wisdom and intelligence to
produce this body of literature.
Brittaney Cooks, you are my greatest inspiration. Knowing how
proud you are of me has motivated me in more ways than you know. I
am proud to have you as my daughter, and I look forward to the day
when you, too, embrace all the rewards higher education has in store for
you.
No matter what, Theodore Bruce Lawrence, I believe you are my
friend and my gift from God. I am thankful that I have you to challenge
the ethical dimensions of my life. Your firm demeanor and interest in my
constant growth and development is what I value most. I only hope I can
live up to your belief that I will follow in the footsteps of the great Mary
McLeod Bethune. Thank you, Daryl Michelle, for sharing your daddy
with me and Brittaney.
Georgiana A. Thomas, “Mama”, when God made you my
grandmother, He gave me the greatest gift one could ever imagine. You
are my favorite girl! Your love and support keeps me going.

7. I could not have asked for better parental support than I received
from my parents, June and Jerry Dillingham. During the times that I
thought I couldn’t keep going and wanted to give up, you showed up just
in time to help me sort things out.
Having you as my younger siblings, Jordan Williams and Cher
Riles, has helped me realize the importance of setting a good example.
You and your spouses, Tavonye and Kevin, have encouraged me
constantly as I have sought to achieve this milestone. I hope that your
children, Joshua, Madison, and Joel will one day take advantage of all
the opportunities that education has to offer.
To my aunt, Fleur Lyman, I sincerely appreciate your wisdom and
objectivity. I love you and Russell and only wish Gerrard was here to
celebrate this accomplishment with us.
Living in Dallas, Texas, taught me survival skills. Gladys Williams,
“Grandma”, thank you for your love and support. Jordan Williams, Sr.,
Daddy, I inherited your love for education.
Sister-friends have been with me in every aspect of my life.
Theresa Moor, you have always wanted better for me than I did for
myself. I am overwhelmed by our 30 years of amity and blessed that you
unselfishly shared Aunt Barbara (Thompson) with me. Having the
Moor’s (Jules, Jillyan and Jules) as my second family has been inspiring.

8. From childhood until now, I have always been able to depend on
you, Chandra Robertson-Bailey. You and Aunt Charlene (Rubit) have
consistently been in my corner.
I would be remiss if I did not mention my gratitude for the
hospitality extended to me by Nelson and Michelle Bowman over the last
few years. Your constant encouragement has meant more to me than
you’ll ever know. Thanks for always keeping the light on!
Patsy and Willie Drewrey, I can always depend on you to give it to
me straight! You are great friends. xoxoxoxo
Thank you to my “Sissy”, Sherilynn Scott, for always being there
when I need you.
God didn’t make us blood-sisters, but Shanda Patterson, you are
my sistah. I cannot tell you the many times you have lifted me up when
all I wanted to do was fall flat on my face. Two words come to mind
when I think of you—guardian angel!
Jessica Bell and Dominique Sanders, I am so thankful for the
camaraderie we have reciprocated over the years.
All of my friends at the Sportsman Country Club, you have
encouraged me when I needed it the most. Love you Kim and Sherry!
Charlene Evans and James Ward, you have been the mentors who
have guided me personally and professionally. I appreciate your insight
and guidance throughout the years.

9. Willie Trotty and George Wright, I am grateful for the confidence
you placed in me to lead the best development office among all HBCUs.
The opportunity you granted me stimulated my interest in conducting
the research for this body of knowledge.
Larry V. Green, Esq., I appreciate your confidence in me. Your
friendship means the world!
Extend the View Cabinet Members June & Marvin Brailsford, Opal
Johnson Smith, Nathelyne A. Kennedy, and Roy G. Perry, you made this
work important by giving me the confidence that HBCU alumni do value
their institutions. Thanks for your wisdom, Patty Lonsbary!
Nina Wilson Jones, you have been my spiritual sister and teacher
of many things. Because of your constant pouring into me, I believe that
I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.
Pastors Mia & Remus Wright, your spiritual guidance has been my
source of strength many times during this process. Even though you
lead an enormous flock, you have always made me feel like I was the only
member at The Fountain of Praise. Your continued words of
encouragement and prayers will never be forgotten.
Naomi Lede, it all started with you. You gave me my name which I
later came to learn means “wise counselor”. Somehow, you always knew
I would do great things…especially in education. Thank you so very

10. much for having that confidence in me. I always wanted to be a “doctor”
because of you.
Lastly, but most importantly, I would like to thank my committee
members for pushing me to make this study worthwhile. To Dr. William
A. Kritsonis, you are a God-send; Dr. David Herrington, I hope you are
pleased; Dr. Michael McFrazier, I never would have made it without your
encouragement; and Dr. Ronald Howard, I appreciate getting to know
you. Dr. Lisa Hobson-Horton, I appreciate you serving on my committee
and for providing professional assistance. Dr. Tyrone Tanner, you didn’t
serve on my committee, but you were always there when I needed you.

11. TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………...iii
DEDICATION...................................................................................................................v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.........................................................................vi
ABSTRACT...........................................................................................viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS...........................................................................xi
LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................xiv
LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................xiv
IRB APPROVAL LETTER ...........................................................116
QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE FORM ........................................118
1. HBCU Leader Participant Letter of Consent Form.................119
2. Default Section......................................................................120
LIST OF HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
..................................................................................................161
United States & Virgin Islands...................................................162
Historically Black Colleges and Universities...............................162
Alabama....................................................................................162
Arkansas...................................................................................162
Delaware...................................................................................162
District of Columbia...................................................................162
Florida.......................................................................................163
Georgia......................................................................................163
Kentucky...................................................................................163
Louisiana...................................................................................163
Maryland...................................................................................164
Michigan....................................................................................164
Mississippi.................................................................................164
Missouri....................................................................................164
North Carolina...........................................................................164
Ohio..........................................................................................165
Oklahoma..................................................................................165
Pennsylvania.............................................................................165
South Carolina..........................................................................165
Tennessee..................................................................................166
Texas.........................................................................................166
Virginia......................................................................................166

12. West Virginia.............................................................................167
U.S. Virgin Islands.....................................................................167
EXPERIENCE SUMMARY...........................................................169
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE..................................................169
OTHER EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE....................................174
PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS ...............................................174
PUBLICATIONS..........................................................................175
EDUCATION..............................................................................175
Grade Point Average: 4.0 / 4.0........................................................................................176
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE...............................................12
Overview......................................................................................12
History of Educational Fundraising.............................................13
History of African-American Philanthropy....................................18
Entrepreneurialism in Higher Education.....................................21
CHAPTER III. METHOD........................................................................................29
Overview......................................................................................29
Research Questions ………………………………………………………..30
Research Design..........................................................................31
Population and Sample................................................................34
Instrumentation..........................................................................34
Research Procedures...................................................................41
Data Collection............................................................................42
Data Analysis..............................................................................42
Limitations of the Study..............................................................45
CHAPTER IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA..................................................................47
Introduction................................................................................47

13. Research Questions.....................................................................47
Research Question 1....................................................................48
Research Question 2....................................................................49
Research Question 3....................................................................49
Research Question 4....................................................................49
Research Question 5....................................................................50
Respondent Information..............................................................50
Description of Institutions...........................................................53
Tier 1 Institutions...................................................................53
Tier 2 Institutions...................................................................54
Flagship Universities..............................................................54
Superior Universities..............................................................58
Entrepreneurial Operations.........................................................60
University Leader vs. Business Executive...............................62
Advancement Experience/Professional Development..............66
Who’s to Blame?.....................................................................69
Entrepreneurial Activities............................................................71
Unfunded Priorities................................................................72
Donor Cultivation and Solicitation..........................................77
Impact of Philanthropy...........................................................80
The Bottom Line.....................................................................83
CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND

14. RECOMMENDATIONS ………………………………………..85
Summary.....................................................................................85
REFERENCES...............................................................................................................88
APPENDICES........................................................................................96
Appendix A: Informed Consent...................................................97
Appendix B: Interview Questions................................................99
Appendix C: IRB Approval Form...............................................102
Appendix D: Questionnaire Response Form..............................104
Appendix E: Participant Responses...........................................110
Appendix F: Historically Black Colleges & Universities..............148
CURRICULUM VITAE..........................................................................155

15. LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 – Title III: Aid for Institutional Development........................23
Figure 4.1 – Participant Entrepreneurial Characteristics.............................61
Figure 4.2 – The Fundraising Cycle.......................................................................78
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 – Research Questions Paired with Interview Questions..........43
Table 4.1 – Respondent Identification..................................................................53
Table 4.2 – Respondent Identification Numbers …..……………………….. 62
Table 4.3 – Differences Between University Leaders and Business
Executives.............................................................................................63
Table 4.4 – Responsible Parties for Fundraising................................... 70
Table 4.5 – Current Fundraising Strategies...........................................75
Table 4.6 – Future Fundraising Strategies ............................................76
Table 4.7 – Impact of Fund Development …………………………………….82
Table 4.8 – Funds Raised in Three Year Period .....................................83

16. CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Problem
College and university presidents are consistently challenged with
developing new resources to support unfunded priorities at their
institutions. Faced with competing against historic non-profit agencies
and entities, these educational chief executive officers have the challenge
of taking a more entrepreneurial approach toward the financing of their
schools. A review of the literature suggests that entrepreneurial
leadership will help these leaders demonstrate more innovative and
expansive efforts.
Research indicates that corporate, foundation, and private
philanthropy at majority institutions substantially surpasses gifting
trends at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).
Disparities in philanthropy between these two institutional types can be
seen as high as 50%. Consequently, the need for external funds has put
tremendous pressure on HBCU presidents so much so that 25% of these
presidents left their jobs during the period 2000-2002 (New York
Amsterdam News, 2002). The curtailments of federal funds, changing
demographics, and the entrance of private corporations into the business
of higher education have significantly affected the financial state of
higher education institutions (Riggs, 2005). “As government support of

17. HBCUs decreases, and as the economy worsens, competition for funding
sources increases” (Reaves, 2006). For this reason, a study addressing
the engagement of HBCU presidents in entrepreneurialism through
fundraising was deemed necessary.
Increasing fundraising initiatives at HBCUs means placing more
emphasis on cultivating alumni and educating them about the
importance of philanthropy. Without private support, these minority
flagship institutions are likely to fail, and it is the president’s job to
educate and engage the donor community. Engaging donors with the
capacity to make a significant financial or in-kind contribution would
ultimately translate into healthier endowments and impact the quality of
education provided at HBCUs.
Statement of the Problem
Tindall (2007) states that “fund raising has become vital to all
HBCUs because those additional funds allow colleges and universities to
promote and continue research programs, supplement budgetary weak
spots, enhance campus infrastructure, upgrade the physical plant, and
attract and retain prospective faculty” (p. 1). Tindall (2007) also notes
that the fund-raising efforts of both private and public HBCUs linger
significantly behind the established fundraising programs at traditionally
White institutions.

18. Predominantly White institutions have alumni giving rates that
range between 20-60 percent, whereas, Black college alumni giving rates
typically fall below ten percent (Holloman, Gasman & Anderson-
Thompkins, 2003; Williams & Kritsonis, 2006). “At a time when
endowments are decreasing due to economic forces and public support of
institutions of higher education” is at an all-time low, “it is a matter of
survival that Black colleges increase their giving rates” (Holloman,
Gasman & Anderson-Thompkins, 2003, p. 159). Unlike private HBCUs,
public institutions are supported by state government entities. It is with
this fact in mind that seeking private philanthropy has not been a
popular practice among public HBCUs. Contrarily, Cohen (2006) argues
that “Although HBCUs alumni giving have been under attack for being
negligent, African Americans on the contrary have maintained a rich and
diverse tradition of giving and philanthropic support in the United
States” (p. 31).
There are 105 HBCUs across the nation, yet few scholars have
devoted time and effort to understanding the complexities and challenges
associated with fundraising at these institutions. By and large, schools
are supported either by the United Negro College Fund (39 private HBCU
members) or the Thurgood Marshall College Fund (47 member public
schools and 6 law schools). The Thurgood Marshall College Fund (TMCF)
is the only national organization to provide merit scholarships,

19. programmatic and capacity building support to its member institutions.
Building upon this infrastructural support will help to prepare a new
generation of leaders throughout the HBCU community and the world.
Development professionals at these specialized institutions face a
growing dilemma – how to strengthen university resources in a climate
that has historically relied almost wholly on public funding (Williams &
Kritsonis, 2006). Public HBCUs will eventually be forced to identify
private resources to survive and thrive. The higher education landscape
is changing rapidly, and both private and public institutions are
searching for new revenues – requiring more entrepreneurial ways
(Bowen & Shapiro, 1998).
Purpose of the Study
Historically Black College and University leaders are increasingly
being called upon to develop an entrepreneurial spirit that encourages
fundraising from the private sector. The purpose of this study was two-
fold: 1) to determine the entrepreneurial orientation of public HBCU
administrators (Corrigan 2002) and 2) to determine how those
orientations are perceived to be related to the revenue-generating
activities of their institutions and the institutions’ financial stability
(Tierney 1988).
Research Questions
The following qualitative research questions guided the study:

20. 1. What connection exists between the Historically Black College and
University leaders’ entrepreneurial orientation and the financial
stability of their institution?
2. To what extent do Historically Black College and University leaders
value and carry out entrepreneurial activities?
3. At Historically Black Colleges and Universities, what factors are
associated with best practices in fundraising?
4. How do the institutions’ development practices influence
entrepreneurial activities for the purpose of advancing the
institution?
5. What is the perception of the entrepreneurial orientation of the
administrator’s role by the administrator?
Theoretical Framework
This study used Clark’s (1998) theoretical framework as a basis for
defining and understanding the entrepreneurial university. According to
Clark (1998), entrepreneurial activities comprise third-stream income
sources that include 1) innovative and profit-based, self-supporting
operations that go beyond traditional sources, such as business
development activities and innovative retail sales operations, 2) activities
that develop and enhance traditional income streams such as
endowment and tuition, and 3) activities that involve both traditional and
nontraditional aspects, such as distance learning, which uses

21. nontraditional methods of teaching to gain tuition, a traditional source of
income.
For this study, the researcher employed Clark’s (1998) theory to
study the relationships between HBCU fundraising administrators at
institutions within the Thurgood Marshall College Fund’s 47 member
schools. While there are 47 member schools and six law schools in this
cohort, 17 institutions and all law schools were not included in this
study for reasons explained in Chapter III. Specifically, this investigation
will serve a two-fold purpose: 1) the identification of innovative and
profit-based self-supporting operations that go beyond traditional
sources; and 2) activities that develop and enhance traditional income
streams at the selected institutions. The third component of Clark’s
(1998) study addressing both traditional and nontraditional activity
aspects offers no relevance to this study and will not be included.
Assumptions
1. Each administrator surveyed will be knowledgeable about
employing entrepreneurial orientations necessary for increasing
revenue generation.
2. Each administrator will respond to survey questions without
prejudice thereby revealing the degree to which he/she is
entrepreneurial.

22. 3. Each administrator surveyed will not breech the confidentiality
relating to specific donors and/or fundraising practices.
Delimitations of the Study
1. This was a purposeful study. It focused on the entrepreneurial
orientations administrators who practice fundraising on behalf
of public HBCUs within the membership of the TMCF. HBCUs
which are not members of the TMCF were not be included in
the study.
2. Only presidents and chief development officers were surveyed
regarding their self-perception of engagement levels of
entrepreneurial orientation.
Limitations of the Study
1. This study did not address the entrepreneurial orientation of
presidents and chief development officers at private institutions
or HBCUs affiliated with the United Negro College Fund.
2. Because the survey was self-reported, presidents and chief
development officers may not provide an objective, unbiased
self-assessment regarding their entrepreneurial orientation.
3. Some institutions invited to participate did not have the
development office infrastructure or capacity to report data
relative to the study.

23. Definition of Terms
Chief Development Officer – the person responsible for the advancement
efforts within a defined area; the lead person in fundraising (Patton,
1993).
Entrepreneur – an organizational leader who tirelessly and actively
transcends good leadership and management practices and personally
identifies opportunities, develops a creative and innovative vision,
welcomes competition, and persuades others to contribute and
participate; undertakes a challenge in a new way (Riggs, p. 10).
Entrepreneurial activities – activities that generate revenue from non-
traditional methods (Riggs, p. 10).
Entrepreneurial Orientation – interest in entrepreneurial activity
engagement (Riggs, p. 10).
Fundraising – The solicitation of gifts from private sources, specifically
individuals, corporations and foundations (Terrell & Gold, 1993).
Financial Stability – a broad description of a steady state in which the
financial system efficiently performs its key economic functions
(Schinasi, 2004).
Historically Black College(s) and University(ies) – public and private
educational institutions founded for the purpose of educating Black
Americans. The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, defines an
HBCU as "...any historically Black college or university that was

24. established prior to 1964, whose principal mission was, and is, the
education of Black Americans, and that is accredited by a nationally
recognized accrediting agency or association determined by the Secretary
[of Education)…" (White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges
and Universities, 2007).
Institutional Advancement – Activities and programs undertaken to
develop understanding and support from constituencies to help achieve
its goals in securing resources such as students, faculty, and dollars
(Rowland, 1986).
Non-traditional Revenue – philanthropically generated dollars or new
revenue garnered from the private sector (Williams & Kritsonis, 2007).
Philanthropy – a charitable gift that expresses love for humankind
(Sears, 1990).
Traditional Revenue – money secured from tuition, sponsored programs
(i.e. federally funded initiatives), or the public sector (Williams &
Kritsonis, 2007).
Significance of the Study
Since the research on raising money at HBCUs is limited, this
study contributes to the existing body of literature, as well as, probes
significant issues surrounding entrepreneurial orientation and revenue
generation at these specialized institutions. Results of this study will be
of assistance to HBCU presidents and other administrators as they

25. employ a rational approach to developing and implementing a
comprehensive fundraising program. Actually executing fund
development in a strategic, entrepreneurial way will be critical to the
survival of these institutions.
Summary
Changing economic conditions at the state level have reduced the
amount of governmental support available to public institutions of higher
education. These shrinking revenues have added a new responsibility to
chief executive officers and administrators at institutions of higher
education. Accordingly, embracing an appreciation for cultivating
relationships with donors is a necessary step for university presidents at
public institutions. This is a different and oftentimes unwelcome
responsibility among HBCU institutional leaders (Birnbaum, 1992).
The fact of the matter is simply that HBCUs have to step up to the
plate in order to compete with majority institutions. The competition is
fierce for student enrollment, student recruitment, public funding, and
now private funds. A major source of fundraising difficulties arises from
the small size of HBCUs and from their less-affluent alumni bases (New
York Amsterdam News, 2002).
“If historically Black colleges are to survive, they must learn how to
plan effectively within the institutional context to achieve their desired
fund-raising results” (Barrett, p. 7). Each administrator’s leadership

26. strategy and how they focus on advancement activities and tactics makes
a difference in the amount of private money the institution raises. It is
obvious from this study that institutions must implement some method
of strategic planning to develop advancement activities and strategies.
Employing a rational approach to developing and implementing a
comprehensive fundraising campaign is key. Identifying institutional
needs, developing plans for achieving those needs, beginning to
implement those plans, and actually executing the campaigns will be
critical to the survival of these institutions.

27. CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Overview
This chapter presents research on the engagement levels of
Historically Black College and University (HBCU) presidents and chief
development officers in fundraising and the connection between
increasing educational resource development through entrepreneurial
ideology. Entrepreneurial ideology suggests that there is a more
complex, integrated way of thinking that makes business people more
successful. Dunkelberg and Cooper (1988) describe entrepreneurs as
having orientations that influence growth and independence.
Accordingly, HBCU leaders that possess entrepreneurial characteristics
could be more successful in their fundraising efforts if they exercise
entrepreneurial ideology.
This literature review begins with a brief historical overview of
fundraising and philanthropy which helps to understand the importance
of fundraising in education. Next, the researcher presents literature on
the history of African-American philanthropy in order to capture beliefs
and assumptions around fundraising for African-Americans. Finally, the
section on entrepreneurialism in higher education provides a
collaboration of thoughts surrounding the need for university

28. administrators to capture the spirit of entrepreneurialism in order to be
successful in their fundraising efforts.
History of Educational Fundraising
The concept of private philanthropy and fundraising can be seen
throughout history for thousands of years. For centuries, Americans
have relied on fundraising to support religious infrastructure, politics,
economic relief for families, and even wars. Humanitarian efforts
promoting the spirit of giving can be witnessed prior to colonial days
when families shared their good harvests with less fortunate families
(Schoenecke, 2005, p. 17).
“From their earliest days, universities, colleges, and schools have
depended on fundraising and the generosity of benefactors, clients, and
public bodies who shared their dreams and supported their purposes”
(Rhodes, 1997, p. xvii). Harvard College, the oldest higher education
institution in the United States, was founded in 1634 as a result of
philanthropic support provided by Reverend John Harvard (Worth,
1993). By 1745, the only colleges in the colonies were Harvard, William
and Mary, and Yale. Most college presidents in the colonial era would
solicit funding in order to assure institutional survival.
More than 100 years later, in 1862, the first federal land grant act
was established, resulting in growth and expansion in higher education.
Senator Justin Smith Morrill lobbied Congress for financial support to

29. establish colleges for industrial education. The Morrill Acts of 1862 and
1890 granted federally controlled land to the states for the purpose of
building educational institutions. As a result of the 1862 Act,
institutions were commissioned to teach agriculture, military tactics,
mechanic arts, and home economics in addition to classical studies
Browning & Williams, 1978). By the second land grant act in 1890,
several public institutions were funded by the states (Cultip, 1990).
During the Industrial Revolution, college presidents solicited wealthy
businessmen to gain institutional support. Because of their generous
philanthropy, many institutions were renamed in honor of these
benefactors.
The establishment of land grant institutions paved the way for the
creation of some specialized public institutions, namely HBCUs. A key
component of the land grant system is the agricultural experiment
station program created by the Hatch Act of 1887. The Hatch Act
authorized direct payment of federal grant funds to each state to
establish an agricultural experiment station in connection with the land
grant institution (Browning & Williams, 1978). The amount of this
appropriation varies from year to year and is determined for each state
through a formula based on the number of small farmers. A major
portion of the federal funds must be matched by the state. HBCUs
created under jurisdiction of the Morrill Acts are Alabama A & M

30. University, Tuskegee University, University of Arkansas Pine Bluff,
Florida A & M University, Fort Valley State University, Kentucky State
University, Southern University and A & M College, University of
Maryland Eastern Shore, Alcorn State University, Lincoln University,
North Carolina A & T University, Langston University, South Carolina
State University, Tennessee State University, Prairie View A & M
University, University of the Virgin Islands, Virginia State University, and
West Virginia State University.
Nearly ten years before land grant institutions were established,
former slave owner, George Campbell, and former slave and community
leader, Lewis Adams, founded the Negro Normal School in Tuskegee.
Adams negotiated the establishment of what is now known as Tuskegee
University in exchange for Adams’ influence on the Black vote (History of
Tuskegee, 2008). Dr. Booker T. Washington was selected as the school’s
first teacher and was installed as principal of the school in 1881.
Tuskegee recognizes Dr. Washington as a highly skilled organizer and
fundraiser who was counsel to American presidents, a strong advocate of
African-American entrepreneurs, and instrumental in the founding of
Southern educational institutions (History of Tuskegee, 2008).
Dedicated in 1922, the Booker T. Washington Monument, “Lifting the
Veil”, at the center of Tuskegee’s campus has an inscription that reads,

31. “He lifted the veil of ignorance from his people and pointed the way to
progress through education and industry” (History of Tuskegee, 2008).
“Booker T. Washington stressed that the Negro would best benefit
from agricultural training because this is how a living would be made”
(Scott, 2000, p. 32). According to Scott (2000), being mechanically
inclined, knowledgeable of commerce, familiar with domestic services,
and professionally educated would help to advance the Negro. Prairie
View A & M University in Prairie View, Texas, is an example of Dr.
Washington’s vision for an industrial educational system. Established in
1876 as the Alta Vista Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas for
Colored Youth, Prairie View A & M can be remembered for its role in the
preparation and training of teachers, farming programs, food preparation
and preservation, and improving health. Today, Prairie View A & M
University continues to be recognized as an HBCU leader in the arts and
sciences, home economics, agriculture, mechanical arts, and nursing.
In 1896, the Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson ruled
that separate public institutions could be established for Blacks and
Whites. Hence, other HBCUs were established by four major mission
societies. The American Missionary Association was a federal
government organization. The remaining three – the Freedmen’s Aid
Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the American Baptist Home
Mission Society, and the Board of Missions for the Freedmen of the

32. Presbyterian Church in the USA – were religious organizations (Cohen,
2006). While the aforementioned societies were made up of Whites, it
has been argued that Black colleges supported by Whites were generally
regarded as more prestigious than those colleges supported by Blacks
(Cohen, 2006). According to Cohen (2006), “between 1865 and 1915,
Blacks contributed $25 million toward their own educational efforts,
almost half that contributed by Whites” (p. 19). White missionary
philanthropists financed and managed HBCUs with the highest
enrollment. In 1902, John D. Rockefeller’s General Education Board
contributed significantly to higher education for Blacks (Curti & Nash,
1965). Gifts from this fund totaling nearly $130 million were granted
without respect to sex, creed, or race.
The Supreme Court reversed its Plessy v. Ferguson decision in
1954, ruling under Brown v. Board of Education that separate
institutions denied Blacks an equal education. As a result of the 1954
decision, public schools received funding for physical improvements and
financial aid (Browning & Williams, 1978).
Public HBCUs are by and large under-funded compared to
predominantly White institutions as is evidenced by the disparity in
budgetary allocations between the two institutional types. Without
external funding, HBCUs will be good institutions, but they will not have
the quality education that is essential for students to be successful.

33. “The interminable retrenchment of state and federal support has forced
colleges and universities to become increasingly reliant on the
procurement of funds from private sources in order to recruit quality
students, retain distinguished faculty, and produce value added
research” (Johnsen, 2005, p.1).
Changing economic conditions at the state level have reduced the
amount of governmental support available to public institutions of higher
education. These shrinking revenues have added a new responsibility to
university presidents. Embracing an appreciation for cultivating
relationships with donors is a necessary responsibility for university
administrators at public institutions but is a different and oftentimes
unwelcome responsibility among HBCU institutional leaders (Birnbaum,
1992, p. 39). As stated by Barrett, (2006), “If historically Black colleges
are to survive, they must learn how to plan effectively within the
institutional context to achieve their desired fund-raising results” (p. 7).
History of African-American Philanthropy
Unlike majority institutions, HBCUs have not had a long history of
private philanthropy. Until recently, there was not much emphasis
placed on alumni giving at Black colleges. In fact, “for many graduates of
HBCUs, giving back is not a priority and, in some cases, not a
consideration” (Reaves, 2006, p. 2). Contrarily, the Black Church and its
congregants have offered a source of inspiration for effective fundraising

34. among Black Americans. The church is characterized as a powerful
historical and contemporary influence regarding African-Americans and
giving, and the Black Church continues to be the extremely influential in
the lives of Black Americans (Reaves, 2006).
“Throughout American history, the Black Church has occupied a
distinctive position in the individual and collective lives of African-
Americans” (Ellison, 1991, p. 4). Research indicates that African-
Americans attend church more frequently, participate in church-related
activities, and belong to more church-affiliated activities than many other
Americans. African-Americans look to the church for guidance,
advocacy, and the promotion of social needs. Accordingly, fundraising
professionals at HBCUs could view the most effective fundraising
mechanism for African-Americans as the Black Church. Some
researcher, however, have pointed out that HBCUs have not followed the
model of the Black Church. In a study conducted by Holloman, Gasman
& Anderson-Thompkins (2003), it is revealed that HBCU leaders did not
ask for contributions until the day of graduation, “however, fundraising
literature tells us that colleges and universities need to educate their
students about giving as soon as they arrive on campus” (p. 156).
Most African-Americans are taught philanthropy as children
through their obligation to attend church and to make a donation.
Through personal engagement and building trust, African-American

35. preachers convey the needs of the church and consistently encourage
parishioners to support the work of the church. “It is surprising then,
giving the way Black churches model giving for their youngest members
that Black colleges do not” (Holloman, Gasman & Anderson-Thompkins,
2003, p. 157).
As Carson (2001) points out, “African-Americans understand that
the role of the Black church – especially in the area of fundraising is
legendary” (p. 4). Continuing, he says, “We recognize that the Black
church puts the force of authority and legitimacy behind its appeals to
reach givers in the Black community. The Black Church is a triumphant
example of philanthropy among friends” (Carson, 2001, p. 4).
“As Blacks became better educated and their churches grew in
numbers and strength, their conviction began to be expressed through
the notion that Blacks ought to have schools under their own
management and financial control” (Cohen, 2006, p. 20). The original
purpose of HBCUs was to teach freed slaves to read the Bible or become
preachers or teachers (Kujovich, 1994).
Early philanthropy for Black education has been described as “the
richness and vitality of American life” and as “an illustration of America’s
broken promises, a crafty form of ‘generosity’ designed to prevent real
reform” (Anderson & Moss, 1999, p.1). It is vastly argued that northern
White philanthropists established HBCUs to maintain social peace and

36. to produce a capable but submissive workforce. Today, HBCU graduates
hold significant status as stated by Holloman, Gasman & Anderson-
Thompkins (2003):
In the future, a greater percentage of college alumni will be Black,
and equipped with degrees. More African Americans will enter the
middle class. Not only does this mean that more African Americans
will be in a position to give, but as they advance economically, they
will participate more fully in financial planning and
institutionalized giving--tax incentives, charitable trusts, and living
wills. Finally, as the children of African American alumni enter the
institutions of their parents, those parents will seek to increase
their giving in an effort to support the continued social and
economic development of their families. This situation presents
enormous opportunities for Black colleges to increase their
financial stability and above all, to solidify their position within the
Black community and within the greater world of American higher
education (p. 159).
Entrepreneurialism in Higher Education
Presidents and other administrators of HBCUs continue to impress
upon government officials the need for greater federal financial support
at a time when “cutbacks in federal and state spending coupled with
infrastructure repairs and staunch competition from mainstream

37. institutions with limited resources have ensured severe financial
constraints on America’s HBCUs” (Nealy, 2008). In early 2009, funding
for HBCUs was cut by $85 million nationally in the category for
Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
Strengthening Historically Black Colleges Graduate Institutions
remained neutral for Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009. Figure 2.1 illustrates
the Obama Administration’s aid for institutional development funding
allocations from 2007-2009 (White House Initiative on Historically Black
Colleges and Universities).
Figure 2.1

38. Title III: Aid for Institutional Development (B.A. in Millions)
2009
2007 2008 Request
Strengthening Institutions (Part A) $79.5 $78.1 $78.1
Strengthening Tribally Controlled
Colleges and Universities
(Part A) 23.6 23.2 —
1
(mandatory) — 30.0 30.01
Strengthening Alaska Native and
Native Hawaiian-serving
Institutions
(Part A) 11.8 11.6 —
1
(mandatory) — 15.0 15.01
Strengthening Historically Black
Colleges and Universities
(Part B) 238.1 238.1 153.1
1
(mandatory) — 85.0 85.01
Strengthening Historically Black
Graduate Institutions (Part B) 57.9 56.9 56.9
Minority Science and Engineering
Improvement (Part E) 8.7 8.6 8.6
Strengthening Predominantly Black
Institutions (mandatory) — 15.01 15.01
Strengthening Asian American and
Native
American Pacific Islander-serving
Institutions (mandatory) — 5.01 5.01
Strengthening Native American-
serving
nontribal institutions (mandatory) — 5.01 5.01
Total 419.6 571.5 451.7
1
Mandatory funds made available by the College Cost Reduction
and Access Act, P.L. 110-84 (September 27, 2007). These funds are
not part of the fiscal year 2009 budget request.
Fundraising in higher education is the most widely recognized
supplement to government funding. Several HBCUs have enjoyed the
fruits of laborious fund development while the vast majority lag

39. significantly in obtaining philanthropic support. There is an obvious
need for HBCUs to modify their current fundraising practices to include
aggressive solicitation strategies for various constituencies.
Corporations, foundations, alumni and other vehicles for securing
private philanthropic gifts are essential to the survival of public
institutions of higher education.
Across the nation, higher education has experienced a significant
decline in funding, yet enrollment in higher education is at an all-time
high (Schoenecke, 2005). Riggs (2005) posits that “for most American
institutions of higher education, traditional academic ideology held that
the institution had no business in the marketplace” (p. 27).
Traditionally, higher education communities were designed exclusively to
provide teaching, learning, and research. Accordingly, institutions of
higher education did not exercise conventional business models in order
to generate current-use funds. Today, these institutions are expected to
enter the marketplace, survive in the competitive market, and adapt the
practices of their for-profit counterparts.
Until recently, public colleges and universities did not face the
need to compete with private entities because most public funds were
automatically disbursed to public education. In the last two decades, the
public funding landscape has changed drastically, causing public
institutions of higher education to embrace the entrance of private

40. corporations into the business of higher education (Cook, 1997).
Institutions are being called upon by parents and students to address
concerns about rising tuition costs, yet they are also being held more
accountable by public funding entities. Due to the decline in state
resources, public institutions are placing stronger emphasis on
fundraising (Riggs, 2005). Sears (1990) defines philanthropy as “an
expression of love for mankind” (p. 10) that includes “all gifts except
those from the State” (p.10).
Riggs (2005) believes that “the rapid changes in economic,
demographic, and political conditions that face American institutions of
higher education indicate that both the institutions and their leaders
must be adaptable and diverse” (p. 3). Changes in the historical roles
and responsibilities of college presidents have presupposed that these
leaders possess entrepreneurial characteristics. “A business-like
orientation focused on efficiency, accountability, and productivity is
reshaping the management of higher education” (Dingfelder, p. 2, 2007).
Clark (1998) suggests that entrepreneurs embody a set of
character traits that are synonymous with leaders. Entrepreneurial
efforts by university administrators translate into institutional
transformation. Attributes used to describe an individual with
entrepreneurial orientation are innovative, creative, team builder,
opportunist, proactive, risk taker, change agent, competitive, visionary,

41. and persuasive (Riggs, 2005). Other researchers have described
entrepreneurs as individuals who recognize and seize opportunities when
they occur (Smith-Hunter, 2003).
Princeton University’s WordNet (2008) describes innovative as
being ahead of the times. Originative and productive are characteristics
of a creative individual. Team builders create better employees who are
willing to advance the mission of the organization through the leader’s
vision. Being an opportunist means making tough decisions regardless
of sacrifice. In seizing opportunities, individuals often take a proactive
approach. One who controls a situation rather than responding to the
outcome embodies this attribute (WordNet, 2008). Implementing projects
without regard to loss is what proactive risk takers do.
Being entrepreneurial also means embracing change. A change
agent alters or modifies a current situation in hopes of improving it
(WordNet, 2008). By and large, being a change agent requires
competitive nature, vision, and persuasiveness. Employing an aggressive
disposition demonstrates competitiveness. Having a strong imagination
or image of predictability is what helps visionaries compete. Finally,
calling others to action or belief is required. This persuasive persona
also lends credibility to entrepreneurs.
Howard University president, H. Patrick Swygert can be described
as an entrepreneurial president. Swygert, along with assistance from

42. Howard University trustees and officers, lead the institution’s record-
breaking fundraising campaign that yielded $275 million, the largest
amount raised to-date by any HBCU. Masterson (2008) reports that
Howard officials sought to raise $100 million before Swygert convinced
his superiors that the goal was too modest.
H. Patrick Swygert’s entrepreneurial attributes moved Howard
University to an unprecedented level, elevating Howard to its ranking
among the 136 institutions asked by the United States Finance
Committee how they spend their endowments (Masterson, 2008).
Swygert, an alumnus, invested $2 million in the campaign. Howard
University’s endowment now sits at a healthy $532 million, and there is
talk of a $1 billion capital campaign in their future. It is expected that
university officials will publish a report on lessons learned that will be
made available to other HBCUs.
According to the director of the Council for Aid to Education’s
survey on giving as reported by Masterson (2008), HBCUs have “less
mature fund-raising operations that rely more on money from
foundations and corporations than from alumni” (p. 2). In order for
HBCUs to increase their endowments through private philanthropy,
alumni participation is necessary. Swygert recognized the importance of
re-engaging alumni by connecting them to students. His proactive
approach could be one reason why annual alumni giving at Howard

43. increased from 4% to as high as 20% during the campaign (Masterson,
2008).
Waddell (1992) confirms that “empirical research is limited with
respect to fund-raising in public colleges and universities, particularly
public Black institutions” (p. 3). In Scott’s (2000) study on successful
fundraising units at public historically Black colleges and universities,
there are several references to the lack of research conducted related to
fundraising at HBCUs. In retrospect, adding to the current scarce body
of literature regarding HBCU fundraising is much needed and the
primary intent of this study.

44. CHAPTER III
METHOD
Overview
The framework for conducting this investigation including sections
on research design, population and sample, instrumentation, research
procedures, data collection, and data analysis is referenced in this
chapter. Also addressed in this section are validity and reliability.
This study was designed to examine the entrepreneurial
engagement levels among Historically Black College and University
(HBCU) administrators directing inquiry to 30 of the 47 TMCF member
schools. The TMCF law schools and seventeen member schools were not
included in this study. Persons who currently serve as acting
administrators or those who had not been in their positions more than
twelve months were not included in this study. The rationale for
excluding these individuals was that they were serving on a temporary
basis and/or that they had not served in the current leadership capacity
that would allow them to objectively complete the questionnaire. The
administrators who were eligible to participate in the study but so
declined were represented in the seventeen schools not included in the
study.
Relationship-building is the premise for successful fundraising, so
administrators who had not had the opportunity to cultivate

45. relationships with donors due to their temporary assignment or minimal
time in office were not included. One interim administrator was included
in the study because at the time she completed the questionnaire, she
was serving in a permanent role.
Strengthening university resources from the private sector in an
environment that has traditionally relied on local and state funding is
mandatory for HBCU survival. Bowen and Shapiro (1998) suggest that if
public HBCUs do not become aggressive about their fundraising
practices and engage in entrepreneurial practices to increase
institutional revenue, they may not survive.
Research Questions
The following qualitative research questions guided the study:
1. What connection exists between the Historically Black College
and University leaders’ entrepreneurial orientation and the
financial stability of their institution?
2. To what extent do Historically Black College and University
leaders value and carry out entrepreneurial activities?
3. At Historically Black Colleges and Universities, what factors are
associated with best practices in fundraising?
4. How do the institutions’ development practices influence
entrepreneurial activities for the purpose of advancing the
institution?

46. 5. What is the perception of the entrepreneurial orientation of the
administrator’s role by the administrator?
Research Design
A qualitative study design was used to explore the connection
between HBCU leaders’ entrepreneurial orientation and the financial
stability of their universities. The qualitative variables used for this study
included:
• the amount of employment training and preparation,
• length of employment at the institution,
• innovative approaches used on the job,
• creativity in fundraising strategies,
• team building exercises implemented,
• opportunistic tactics used to get the job done,
• risk-taking approach to realize fundraising goals,
• competitive nature,
• vision-driven initiatives,
• ability to be proactive,
• persuasiveness,
• professional experience,
• philosophy of fund development, and
• the impact of private philanthropy on the institution

47. The qualitative method used for this research was open-ended
questions. Open-ended questions were used to capture responses of
individuals in their natural settings. This qualitative method of inquiry
helped to build upon theory and seek to gain understanding of the
subject (Winegardner, 2004). According to Lee (1999), there are four
qualities that appear in qualitative studies. The first quality is that
studies are conducted in a natural setting. Next, empirical data is
generated as a result of participation by the researcher. Third, the
research design allows for flexibility based upon the study. Finally,
instruments, observation methods, and modes of analysis are not
standardized allowing for more extensive response set from participants
(Lee, 1999).
Qualitative research is that which refers to a person’s life, lived
experiences, behaviors, emotions, as well as organizational functioning,
social movements, cultural phenomena, and interactions between
nations (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 11). This type of research can be
extremely helpful when exploring research topics about which little is
known. This is especially applicable to the present study of the
entrepreneurial engagement levels of HBCU administrators in
fundraising. There are no studies that examine this topic. Accordingly,
the objective of this study was to explore issues surrounding the

48. entrepreneurial orientation of HBCU fundraisers that will allow others to
gain knowledge and understanding for university advancement purposes.
There are generally common practices and standards used by
development professionals to raise money. To ensure that philanthropy
merits the respect and trust of the general public, these common
practices are recognized and outlined by a number of organizations
including the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education
(CASE) and the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP). With
more than 3,400 member institutions of higher education, “CASE helps
its members build stronger relationships with their alumni and donors,
raise funds for campus projects, produce recruitment materials, market
their institutions to prospective students, diversify the profession, and
foster public support of education” (Council for the Advancement and
Support of Education, 2009). The Association of Fundraising
Professionals boasts more than 30,000 members in 200 chapters
throughout the world by helping their members “advance philanthropy
through advocacy, research, education and certification programs”
(Association of Fundraising Professionals, 2009). According to AFP
(2009), its “association fosters development and growth of fundraising
professionals and promotes high ethical standards in the fundraising
profession”.

49. Membership to CASE and AFP is strictly voluntary. It is not the
practice of either of these organizations to identify best practices in
fundraising for specific groups. In other words, standards set forth by
these organizations have been endorsed by some organizations and
overlooked by others. HBCUs often do not have the resources to
subscribe to these entities, and therefore, do not have access to the
technical assistance and other benefits these organizations provide.
Population and Sample
A stratified sample based on enrollment size was used to
select a minimum of five schools for participation in this study. For
purposes of this study, schools with 8,000 or more students were
considered Tier 1 institutions; institutions with 5,000 – 7,999 students
were considered Tier 2 schools; schools with 2,000 – 4,999 students were
considered Tier 3 institutions; and Tier 4 schools represent those with
less than 2,000 students.
Instrumentation
The instrument used in this study will be an original survey
questionnaire based on prior research regarding the entrepreneurial
orientation of presidents at majority institutions. Palys (2003) outlines
many advantages to utilizing questionnaires when conducting research.
First, surveys and questionnaires are an excellent way of gathering data
from the respondents in a direct and timely manner. Another advantage

50. was that the questionnaire was distributed electronically and copies were
made available to participants at a regularly scheduled TMCF
conference, thereby granting direct access to the conference participants
who are HBCU college presidents, development officers, alumni relations
professionals, and students. Using this research methodology in this
manner increases the response rate especially when respondents are
given structured time within the conference to complete the survey.
Palys (2003, p. 151) further states, “when a group of prospective
respondents agrees to allow a researcher access to the group…response
rates may approach 100 percent.”
Types of questions used in the questionnaire were based on Clark’s
(1998) discussion of entrepreneurial involvement by colleges and
universities. Clark (1998) asserts that entrepreneurial activities help to
generate non-traditional revenues (p. 25). For purposes of this study,
non-traditional revenue generation includes (1) the identification of
innovative and profit-based self-supporting operations that go beyond
traditional sources; and 2) activities that develop and enhance
traditional income streams at the selected institutions. The survey
instrument was developed with this understanding in mind.
The instrument used was an open-ended questionnaire designed to
measure the entrepreneurial orientation of HBCU leaders. The
researcher implemented the following plan for conducting research:

51. 1. Identified HBCU leaders to participate in the study.
2. Once identified, participants were sent the participant letter
of consent form (attached) requesting the leader to
participate.
a. If the leader agreed to participate by returning the
consent form, he/she was given access to Survey
Monkey where they completed the 15-question survey
that sought responses to questions related to the
amount of employment training and preparation,
length of employment at the institution, innovative
approaches used on the job, creativity in fundraising
strategies, team building exercises implemented,
opportunistic tactics used to get the job done, risk-
taking approach to realize fundraising goals,
competitive nature, vision-driven initiatives, ability to
be proactive, persuasiveness, professional experience,
philosophy of fund development, and the impact of
private philanthropy on the institution.
3. The open-ended questionnaire administered was an original
survey questionnaire. Types of questions used in the
questionnaire were based on Clark’s (1998) discussion of
entrepreneurial involvement by colleges and universities.

52. Clark (1998) asserts that entrepreneurial activities help to
generate non-traditional revenues (p. 25). For purposes of
this study, non-traditional revenue generation included (1)
the identification of innovative and profit-based self-
supporting operations that go beyond traditional sources;
and 2) activities that develop and enhance traditional
income streams at the selected institutions. Using Clark’s
theory, for example, the following was queried:
a. HBCU leaders were asked to self-assess whether they
are innovative, creative, a team-builder, an
opportunist, a risk-taker, a change-agent, competitive,
a visionary, proactive, and persuasive to determine
what connection exists between the leaders’
entrepreneurial orientation and the financial stability
of the institution. Leaders were also asked when the
institution last engaged in a capital campaign and how
much private money the institution raised to evaluate
the connection between the leaders’ entrepreneurial
orientation and the financial stability of the
institution. (Research Question 1; Interview Questions
6, 14 & 15)

53. b. In asking what general differences HBCU leaders
perceive between their role as a leader and the role of
traditional business executives, the researcher
examined the extent to which HBCU leaders value and
carry out entrepreneurial activities. (Research
Question 2; Interview Question 13)
c. Strategies that HBCU leaders would like to implement
in order to seek resources from private philanthropists
but are unable to do so because of forces outside of
their control sought to frame the factors associated
with best practices in fundraising. (Research Question
3; Interview Question 12)
d. The impact of private philanthropy on institutional
initiatives and the strategies HBCU leaders employ to
seek resources from private philanthropists examined
how the institutions’ development practices influence
entrepreneurial activities in the leaders’ offices.
(Research Question 4; Interview Questions 10 & 11)
e. Responses from HBCU leaders regarding their
philosophy of fund development and whom they hold
accountable for fund development addressed the
perception of the administrator’s role by the

54. administrator. (Research Question 5; Interview
Questions 8 & 9)
To avoid high attrition rates, follow-up telephone calls, e-mails,
and letters were sent to targeted participants who had not responded
within 30 days.
Seale (1999), in his assessment of the trustworthiness of a study,
states that “the trustworthiness of a research report lies at the heart of
issues conventionally discussed as validity and reliability” (p. 226).
Triangulation and peer examination were used to increase validity and
reliability. Triangulation occurred through consistent use of multiple
sources of evidence. Examination of the participant responses helped
determine accuracy through triangulated data obtained through the
questionnaires.
Reliability is the extent to which a study can be duplicated.
Qualitative research is difficult to have consistent reliability. Stake
(1995) identifies techniques the researcher can use to help strengthen
reliability. By using multiple means of data collection, the accuracy of
data is increased. Keeping accurate records helps authenticate the
findings of the researcher. Detailed records of how data is collected,
analyzed, and conclusions are reached increase the accuracy of records
(Stake, 1995). Generalizations and comparisons can be made if
descriptions are given that allow similar institutions to use the data at

55. their institution. Being able to ensure validity, reliability, and
generalizations enhances qualitative research.
Confidentiality is a critical component of research if trust is to
develop between participants and the researcher. There can be a
tremendous amount of fear regarding disclosure of vital information if
the participant is unable to trust the researcher to maintain privacy at
all costs. However, if confidentiality is secured, the participant is more
likely to provide key information. Glesne (1992) encourages researchers
to provide participants with complete access to the research and
interview materials at all times which will give subjects more power over
documents and reports that may contain information related to them. To
maintain anonymity, study participants were referred to using a tiered
structure.
Research projects must utilize diligence in creating a research
environment that brings no harm to the subject in any way. In addition
to treating the subject with respect and care, this notion also involved
including the participant in a thorough discussion, prior to the actual
research, regarding all aspects of the study and how these aspects may
impact the participant. All factors were considered in fulfilling this
obligation, including the future possibility of the research being
published.

56. Research Procedures
The procedures for implementing this study were as follows:
1. The researcher applied and received permission from the
researcher’s institutional review board (IRB) to conduct the
proposed study. Approval was granted to poll a minimum of
five HBCUs.
2. Identified a stratified sample of college fundraisers within the
TMCF membership to participate in the study.
3. Contacted the fundraisers at each institution and explained
the research study. Each TMCF member school
administrator was sent an electronic packet of information
including a cover letter, abstract of the study, consent form,
and the questionnaire. (APPENDIX C) The electronic version
was sent to participants by e-mail, and each participant was
able to access the questionnaire in Survey Monkey.
4. Notified the participant of his/her right to confidentiality,
how their personal information would be handled over the
duration of the study, and their right to withdraw without
penalty once he/she agreed to engage in the study.
Participant and institution names were not used when
findings were reported. A pseudonym was assigned to each
institution.

57. 5. Made questionnaires available through electronic mail, U.S.
mail, and through conferences hosted by the TMCF.
6. Analyzed data for conclusion development.
7. Provided to participants a copy of the research results upon
completion.
Data Collection
The 30 TMCF member presidents and their chief development
officers were contacted by electronic mail. In the electronic
transmission, each president and development officer received a letter
explaining the purpose and significance of the study, an informed
consent statement, and the questionnaire. Once respondents accessed
the link to Survey Monkey’s website, they were prompted to select the
choice do not wish to participate or agree to participate. Once the
respondent chose the agree to participate option, they were immediately
redirected to the next page to begin the survey. As a follow-up to non-
respondents, a reminder letter was sent by U.S. Mail with an additional
copy of the survey. Finally, the researcher used telephone calls as a
means to follow up on questionnaire responses.
Data Analysis
This section presents the data analysis including a descriptive
analysis of each of the study participants. Each respondent was asked
basic demographic information followed by the interview questions.

58. Each participant was asked the same set of questions in Survey Monkey.
The data collected in Survey Monkey was analyzed through coding. The
correspondence between the research questions and the interview
questions is documented in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1
Research Questions Paired with Interview Questions
RESEARCH QUESTIONS CORRESPONDING
INTERVIEW
QUESTION FROM
QUESTIONNAIRE
1. What connection exists between the 6, 14, 15
Historically Black College and
University leaders’ entrepreneurial
orientation and the financial stability of
their institution?
2. To what extent do Historically Black 13
College and University leaders value
and carry out entrepreneurial
activities?
3. At Historically Black Colleges and 4, 12
Universities, what factors are
associated with best practices in
fundraising?
4. How do the institutions’ development 7, 10, 11
practices influence entrepreneurial
activities for the purpose of advancing
the institution?
5. What is the perception of the 8, 9
entrepreneurial orientation of the
administrator’s role by the
administrator?

59. The researcher carefully read through each response and identified
a list of the main themes in the data. Insight into the operations of each
institution was gained by examining beliefs, assumptions, and roles of
fundraising administrators. These beliefs and assumptions comprised a
significant part of the institutional culture. The professional experience
and attitudes about fund development helped determine the level to
which the institution has entrepreneurial leadership. Also factored into
professional experience was the institution’s age, length of time the
development office or foundation has been in existence, and actual
philanthropic dollars secured including the total of the endowment.
Once the codes were developed, numeric variables were assigned to
each code, and the relevant numeric coding for each response was
documented. After each response was coded and verified, a frequency
analysis of the numeric codings was conducted. Next, the researcher
documented the findings using percentages, the nature of the themes,
relationships and differences between the data, and interrelationships
within the themes.
The data collected was used to provide a descriptive analysis about
engagement levels of HBCU leaders in entrepreneurialism through
fundraising in the areas of employment training and preparation, length
of employment at the institution, innovative approaches used on the job,
creativity in fundraising strategies, team building exercises implemented,

60. opportunistic tactics used to get the job done, risk-taking approach to
realize fundraising goals, competitive nature, vision-driven initiatives,
ability to be proactive, persuasiveness, professional experience,
philosophy of fund development, and the impact of private philanthropy
on the institution.
The results have been documented and displayed in the forms of
charts, tables, and graphs. Summary measures of respondents’
perceptions of their own entrepreneurial characteristics were produced
by computing the average of responses to items regarding individual
entrepreneurial traits. Specifically, descriptive statistical methods were
used to analyze the relationship between HBCU leaders’ entrepreneurial
orientation and the financial stability of their institution.
Limitations to the Study
There were several limitations to this study. The researcher was
the primary instrument for data collection, therefore imposing concerns
regarding ability and ethics (Creswell, 1998). When reviewing responses
to the questionnaires, the investigator must remain within the
conceptual framework of the study.
Specifically, questionnaires do have some limitations. Instructions
and questions must be clear and relative to professional development.
Participants must not feel pressured to participate so as not to violate
ethical issues (Palys, 2003). Palys (2003) also warns researchers to be

61. considerate of volunteer bias. Volunteer bias is more likely to happen
because participants who voluntarily participate are less objective than
the general population causing the possibility of skewed results.

62. CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Introduction
Presented in this chapter are the findings that emerged from the
responses to the on-line questionnaire which sought to answer the five
research questions guiding this study. The constructs for this study
were concepts that define entrepreneurial activities that could create an
entrepreneurial university. According to Clark (1998), creating
opportunities to enhance revenue can be derived from 1) innovative and
profit-based, self-supporting operations that go beyond traditional
sources, such as business development activities and innovative retail
sales operations and 2) activities that develop and enhance traditional
income streams such as endowment and tuition.
The methodology used to collect data and ascertain answers was
an on-line questionnaire using Survey Monkey, a secure on-line survey
tool that enables respondents to respond quickly and easily. Responses
from questionnaire participants were enlightening and helped the
researcher to formulate concrete answers to the research questions.
Research Questions
1. What connection exists between the Historically Black
College and University leaders’ entrepreneurial orientation
and the financial stability of their institution?

63. 2. To what extent do Historically Black College and University
leaders value and carry out entrepreneurial activities?
3. At Historically Black Colleges and Universities, what factors
are associated with best practices in fundraising?
4. How do the institutions’ development practices influence
entrepreneurial activities for the purpose of advancing the
institution?
5. What is the perception of the entrepreneurial orientation of
the administrator’s role by the administrator?
Research Question 1
The first research question sought to examine the existing
connection between HBCU leaders’ entrepreneurial orientation and the
financial stability of their institutions. The linkages between
characteristics associated with entrepreneurial orientation and the
amount of money raised at an institution can impact the level of success
in private fundraising. Leaders who self-identified as being innovative,
creative, team builders, opportunists, risk takers, change agents,
competitive, visionaries, proactive and persuasive would be likely to have
raised more money than leaders who self-reported having fewer
entrepreneurial characteristics.

64. Research Question 2
Research question two queried the extent to which HBCU leaders
value and implement entrepreneurial activities. In order to assess the
value placed on entrepreneurial activities and the likelihood of
implementing those activities, participants were asked to report their
perception of differences between their role as a university leader and the
role of a traditional business executive.
Research Question 3
In the third research question, the researcher explored factors
associated with best practices in fundraising. Through open-ended
questions, respondents were asked to document specialized training they
had to prepare them for their positions and strategies they would like to
employ to seek resources from private philanthropists but are unable to
do so because of various restraints. Training, or the lack thereof, is
influential on the organizational structure and can positively or
negatively impact institutional fundraising.
Research Question 4
The fourth research question examined how the institutions’
development practices influenced entrepreneurial activities for the
purpose of advancing the institution. Respondents were asked to report
their professional experience in fund development as well as strategies
they employ to seek resources from philanthropists. They were also

65. asked how philanthropy impacts institutional initiatives. In order to
have successful fundraising programs, leaders must be knowledgeable
about which practices have been beneficial to institutional advancement
and which practices have had little or no impact.
Research Question 5
Finally, the researcher examined how each leader perceived his
own entrepreneurial orientation. The leaders’ philosophy of fund
development and whom they felt responsible for raising money were
important constructs to examine. In higher education, all administrators
should bear some responsibility for institutional advancement. Each
leaders’ perception regarding fundraising responsibilities as well as their
philosophy of fundraising could determine the success or failure of a
fundraising program.
Respondent Information
Originally, 17 individuals from 16 institutions agreed to participate
in the study. After agreeing to participate in the study, four
administrators from four institutions withdrew from participation for
unreported reasons. Two additional administrators replied that they
were “unable to participate” in the study but did not cite the reason why
they elected not to participate. The total number of participants in the
study was 13 from 12 schools. The Institutional Review Boar at Prairie

66. View A&M University approved the study for a minimum of five schools
to be selected.
Numerous attempts were made by the researcher to secure
additional responses to the questionnaire. In addition to requests made
by electronic mail, the researcher sent the questionnaire by mail through
the United States Postal Service and followed up with telephone calls to
non-respondents. Of the 30 schools eligible to participate in the study,
representatives from 16 schools (53.3%) agreed to participate and
accessed the on-line questionnaire, but administrators from 13 schools
(43.3%) actually completed the questionnaire.
Administrators from HBCUs in Mississippi, Louisiana, Maryland,
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia
participated in the study. The following administrative titles represent
the population of respondents: three university presidents, one vice
chancellor of institutional advancement, one vice president of university
advancement, one vice president for development and external relations,
one vice president for university relations and development, one vice
chancellor of development and university relations, one vice president for
institutional advancement, one interim vice president for university
relations (who at the time of survey completion had just been promoted
to this position from the director of development position), one director of
development and one director of institutional advancement and planning.

67. In order to maintain confidentiality and protect anonymity, each
institution was given a pseudonym and categorized by enrollment size.
Tier 1 schools were represented by having the word “flagship” at the
beginning of the pseudonym followed by a letter in the alphabet that
signified the synchronized order in which questionnaires were received.
Tier 2 schools were labeled with the word “superior” and a corresponding
letter of the alphabet that represents the synchronized order in which
questionnaires were received. Table 4.1 on the next page denotes the
numbers assigned to respondents who agreed to participate in the study,
the institutional pseudonym and tier, and whether the institutional
representative actually completed the survey after they agreed to
participate.

68. Table 4.1
Respondent Identification
Respondent Pseudonym Tier Agreed to Completed
Participate Questionnair
e
1 Superior A 2  
2 
3 Superior B 2  
4 
5 Flagship B 1  
6 
7 Superior C 2  
8 Superior D 2  
9 Flagship C 1  
10 Superior E 2  
11 Flagship C 1  
12 Flagship A 1  
13 Flagship E 1  
14 
15 Flagship D 1  
16 Flagship F 1  
17 Flagship G 1  
Note. Blanks in this table represent persons who agreed to participate in
the study and actually entered the secure questionnaire area but did not
complete the questionnaire.
Description of Institutions
Tier 1 Institutions
Schools with 6,000 or more students were identified as Tier 1
institutions. There were seven institutions represented in this category.
Eight administrators completed the questionnaire. Flagship University
A, located in the southeastern United States, has a student enrollment of
9,038. Flagship University B in the south central part of the United

69. States is home to 9,100 students. Also in the south central part of the
country is Flagship University C with an enrollment of 8,600. Flagship
University D is positioned in the southeast and has an enrollment of
10,388. Flagship University E is in the Deep South with 8,500 students.
Flagship University F, located in the mid-Atlantic region of the United
States, has 7,000 students. Flagship University G in the southeast has
an enrollment of 6,442. (Surveys 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17)
Tier 2 Institutions
Tier 2 institutions were categorized as schools with less than 6,000
students. There were five institutions represented in this category.
Superior University A is positioned in the southeast part of the United
States with an enrollment of 3,061 students. Superior University B, also
located in the southeast, has 3,100 students. Superior University C,
located in the northeast, has 2,524 students. Superior University D in
the southern region of the United States has 5,100 students. Superior
University E with 3,900 students is located in the Deep South. (Surveys
1, 3, 7, 8, 10)
Flagship University A
Flagship University A is located in the southeast. The six-year
tenured vice president for university relations and development at
Flagship University A responded to the questionnaire. This respondent,
who will be referred to as Respondent 12 or R12-T1I (Respondent 12

70. representing Tier 1 Institution), has a Master of Education degree and
has been employed at Flagship University A for three years.
Entrepreneurial characteristics that best described this respondent were
innovative, risk taker, proactive, creative, change agent, persuasive, team
builder, competitive, opportunist and visionary.
Flagship University B
Flagship University B is positioned in the south central part of the
country. With a Master of Business Administration degree and more
than 30 years service in marketing and communications in multiple
development offices, this respondent has served in the capacity of vice
president for university advancement for one year at Flagship University
B. This respondent will be referred to as Respondent 5 or R5-T1I
(Respondent 5 representing Tier 1 Institution). Entrepreneurial
attributes that described this participant were innovative, proactive,
creative, change agent, persuasive, team builder, and visionary.
Flagship University C
Flagship University C is also in the United States’ south central
region. Both the president and director of development responded to the
questionnaire. The president, who will be referred to as Respondent 9 or
R9-T1I (Respondent 9 representing Tier 1 Institution), holds a Doctor of
Philosophy degree and is a seasoned academician and veteran higher
education administrator. Having served as provost, vice provost,

71. academic program director and tenured faculty member at various
institutions, R9-T1I has led the university for six years. Entrepreneurial
behaviors the president reports to exhibit are proactive, change agent,
persuasive, team builder and competitive.
The director of development, who will be recognized as Respondent
11 or R11-T1I (Respondent 11 representing Tier 1 Institution), has an
undergraduate degree and has worked in the Office of Development for
five years. As is consistent with the attributes needed to increase
institutional giving, this director is innovative, proactive, creative, a
change agent, persuasive, a team builder, an opportunist, and a
visionary.
Flagship University D
Flagship University D is located in the southeast part of the United
States. The associate vice chancellor of development and university
relations responded to the questionnaire. With an undergraduate degree
and fifteen months serving as the associate vice chancellor at Flagship
University D, this respondent has fifteen years experience as a
development director at two other institutions. This respondent, who will
be referred to as Respondent 15 or R15-T1I (Respondent 15 representing
Tier 1 Institution), reported having the following entrepreneurial
attributes: innovative, proactive, creative, a change agent, persuasive, a
team builder, competitive, and a visionary.

72. Flagship University E
Flagship University E is in the United States’ Deep South. The
president, who responded to the questionnaire and will be referred to as
Respondent 13 or R13-T1I (Respondent 13 representing Tier 1
Institution), holds a Doctor of Jurisprudence with more than 25 years
experience in preparation for this position. This respondent’s
professional background in development and institutional advancement
have compliment the ten years of service given to the presidency at
Flagship University E. Innovative, risk taker, proactive, creative, change
agent, persuasive, team builder, competitive, opportunist, and visionary
are the words this respondent used to self-describe personal
entrepreneurial characteristics.
Flagship University F
Flagship University F is located in the mid-Atlantic region of the
United States. The vice president for institutional advancement, who will
be referred to as Respondent 16 or R16-T1I (Respondent 16 representing
Tier 1 Institution), completed the questionnaire. This respondent, who
has been employed at Flagship University F for nine years, has served
five years in the current role. Innovative, risk taker, proactive, creative,
change agent, persuasive, team builder, competitive, and visionary are
the words this respondent used to self-describe personal entrepreneurial
characteristics.

73. Flagship University G
Flagship University G is in the southeast part of the United States.
The vice chancellor for university advancement, who will be referred to as
Respondent 17 or R17-T1I (Respondent 17 representing Tier 1
Institution), responded to the questionnaire. With an undergraduate
degree and some graduate studies, this respondent has seven years
experience in development. This respondent reported having the
following entrepreneurial attributes: innovative, proactive, a change
agent, a team builder, and a visionary.
Superior University A
Superior University A is located in the upland south/mid-Atlantic.
The director of institutional advancement and planning completed the
questionnaire. This respondent has a Master of Science degree and has
been employed at Superior University A for nearly two and a half years.
This respondent, referred to as Respondent 1 or R1-T2I (Respondent 1
representing Tier 2 Institution), has development experience that spans
over five years. Entrepreneurial characteristics that described this leader
were innovative, risk taker, proactive, creative, persuasive, a team
builder and competitive.
Superior University B
Superior University B is also located in the United States’
southeast region. The vice chancellor for institutional advancement, who