Anticipatory leadership is “an active fostering of discernment about what is coming toward us from the future, and how we can be prepared like good stewards, drawing on treasures both old and new to meet those next challenges with the best reflection and answers,” according to Sandra M. Schneiders.1 It is especially important for leaders to anticipate the future during break-neck rates of change. We seem to have a paradox of change rates in higher education---with some factors evolving rapidly, while others seemingly intractable. Leading through the paradoxes requires anticipation and action. One way to exercise anticipato-ry leadership is to examine a forecast for the future and make some preparations.

Five years ago a panel of experts participated in a Delphi study to determine a forecast for the future of the arts in higher education in North America for 2018. They individually generated more than 250 predic-tions, and collectively agreed on two-thirds of them. They anticipated future changes concerning student demographics, curriculum, faculty, technology, where learning will take place, partnerships, philanthropy and leadership in the arts. It was a bold and optimistic forecast, and the panel was decisive in its delibera-tions. When 75% of them agreed on a particular prediction, it became part of the forecast.

Their forecast formed the basis of an article published in Change (by the Carnegie Foundation for the Ad-vancement of Teaching 2), a report on the ICFAD website3, workshops at a subsequent ICFAD annual meet-ing, and consultancies with campuses undergoing strategic planning. It posed likely directions and trends. It also forewarned change and the need to adapt to meet an evolving future.

Five years into that predictive period, I invited the North American membership of ICFAD to review the orig-inal forecast (252 predictions) to gather a more inclusive and current perspective on the future. With 2018 only five years away, the membership indicated whether they agreed, disagreed, or were unsure about each prediction. Not only did a revised forecast emerge, but through a simple t-test for significance (as well as reviewing the data for intraocular significances), several differences between the forecasts suggest trends worth examining.

Below is a summary of predictions within each of the eight areas of change for the future of the arts. The summaries also incorporate comments from the 2013 survey respondents that provoke additional thinking.

THE FUTURE OF THE ARTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION: An Opportunity for Anticipatory Leadership

Margaret Merrion

1 https://lcwr.org/sites/default/files/news/files/sandra_schneiders_ihm_-_august_10_2012.pdf2 Merrion, Margaret. A prophecy for the arts in higher education. Change 41:5 (Sep-Oct 2009)16-21.3 https://secure.oregonstate.edu/ap/cps/documents/view/103853/Appendix2_DelphiReport.pdf

STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS

Over the next five years, traditional enrollments will be on a declining trajectory with a few pockets of growth, new enrollment opportunities, and increased challenges for maintaining stability. For example, part-time enrollments will continue to grow. Far more Latino students will enroll. Community college trans-fer students will increase. More adult education in a variety of forms will occur in the arts. One respondent expanded on that prediction by commenting, “Adult learners will expect shorter course times and more asynchronous learning. They will want certificate programs, not degrees.” There will be increasing compe-tition among English-speaking countries for globally diverse students. Meanwhile, students will continue to need to work while pursuing their studies.

While the overall market for arts graduates is not anticipated to change appreciably, design, multimedia and e-art skills will continue to be in demand with surging enrollment in arts technology. (More predictions concerning curriculum appear in that category below.)

All students will expect multiple ways of acquiring a degree, i.e., full and part time; online and on campus; experience learning, service learning, and internships. Campuses will be challenged to facilitate the simulta-neity of these options. One respondent warned, “More students will expect and demand competency-based degrees that count MOOCs, credit for prior learning, and more flexible and rapid delivery and completion of degrees.”

Students will be burdened with increasing loans, as the shift grows from public subsidies to individuals bearing the costs for education. A breaking point of tolerance is predicted. And political realities will be a major determinant for the future funding of and access to higher education.

CURRICULUM

The curricula for the next five years will be influenced increasingly by digital media, with more savvy and sophistication. It will reflect the synthesis and incorporation of multiple arts’ languages, world artistic prac-tices and multicultural influences. Multimedia activities will be the norm, perhaps with more prevalence of interdisciplinary projects. More entrepreneurial courses will emerge, and it is predicted that the integration of technology in the curriculum will result in a much wider range of employment options for its alumni—in-cluding careers outside of the arts.

As for quality and productivity indices, colleges will be pressured to deliver relevant and effective curricula that can be measured against rigorous expectations. Student outcomes will have to be assessed. Moreover, there will be insistent pressure to generate sufficient student credit hours in curricular offerings.

While the delivery systems will multiply and diversify (allowing broader access and efficiency), the rate of curricular evolution will depend upon the specific discipline and how deeply steeped it is in pedagogical paradigms and past history. Music and dance, for example, were cited as disciplines slow to adapt.

Respondents commented that online program delivery will compete successfully with traditional curriculum in the next five years. Others warned that we must adapt practically in order to meet the needs, expecta-tions and demands of high-tech, diverse 21st century global societies. Curriculum “credit,” for example, is anticipated to change as learning opportunities proliferate outside of theuniversity. “Interest-based learning will become common,” one respondent wrote, and universities will be expected to assign credit based on such experience.

FACULTY

The future holds an increase in long-term contract faculty in the five-year forecast, and the public will pressure institutions to increase the teaching loads of all faculty. Recruiting, advancing and retaining such a workforce will present leadership challenges when considering the multiple expectations placed on faculty.

Faculty will have their expectations, too, and the challenges to satisfying their professional and personal goals will be formidable. They will continue to have high expectations for excellent facilities, technical and media support; faculty will also expect opportunities to work across disciplines inside and outside the acad-emy. Prospective faculty will seek to join an exciting group of colleagues when considering a new position.

These faculty of the future will be more interested in multi-disciplinary research. They will have expanded expertise and interests, such as experience in creating/researching the intersections of arts disciplines; inte-gration of world cultures and arts; and development of new canons for study. They also have expectations of being increasingly valued for their work within peer and critical review systems.

Higher expectations will be placed on faculty by institutions and students, as well. All studio/perfor-mance-based faculty will be expected to demonstrate sound understanding of business practices related to the profession, as they will connect students with professional networks. Liberal arts faculty will be expected to be actively engaged in the discipline but have a much broader focus that embraces breadth of disciplines and cultures. All faculty will have to perform as highly effective teachers who impact students in direct and measureable ways with an economy of contact. Achieving all three conditions presents the need for more intense and focused faculty development.

When it comes to teaching, there will be more fertile opportunities for individual learning, and that will impact the way faculty will teach. We will see a trend toward more outcome-based performance of faculty. “Assessment and accountability programs will require artists who teach to learn the art and craft of teach-ing,” one respondent added.

TECHNOLOGY

Students will continue to be facile with technology and hold high expectations to present their work in ways beyond paper and words with little tolerance for technology that is not current or working. Technology will advance autonomy for students to pursue education at their own pace (and place), and professors will con-tinue to find new--yet to be imagined--methodologies to teach in electronic form. While autonomy is often a product of technology-assisted learning, there will be more group learning with the skillful use of instruc-tional media, as well.

The forecast affirmed that technology will continue to be a natural tool and natural attitude among students and faculty. Will it impact the art forms in unprecedented ways as some have suggested? One comment from a respondent forewarned, that “Technology will recede to the role of tool once the majority of students arrive technologically savvy” in 2018.

LEARNING PLACE

The future holds greater overall student mobility into and out of institutions for a variety of reasons. Because the various industries--including graduate schools--will seek better-rounded and experienced graduates, internships will be a professional expectation. This suggests learning off campus will assume more impor-tance. (It was noted, too, that colleges will need funding to enhance student learning off campus in the future.)

Off-campus learning experiences will be facilitated by collaborations among academic institutions and by formalized partnerships with corporate and not-for-profit enterprises. In fact, the quality of institutions in the future will be measured not just by who is on the faculty and by facilities, but by which institutions and industry experts make up their network of partners.

The future also requires more flexible options for when and where study takes place. The academic calen-dar will respect student work schedules, need for year-round school sessions, and asynchronous access. While this flexibility will make a college more attractive to students of the future, one respondent added that “Universities and community colleges will offer courses in centers of transportation that align with public transit,” expanding the learning place.

PARTNERSHIPS

Partnerships will be essential to the continued health of the arts in higher education. Lines between cultural institutions and learning institutions will continue to blur. Cultural organizations will assume educational functions; educational institutions will assume more presenting functions. The key will be for partners to clarify respective missions and delineate limitations so capacities are well understood.

Colleges will benefit from partnerships in at least two important ways. These relationships will be neces-sary for fund development and internship placements. Greater collaboration with partners will be the norm, particularly to contain costs, and share facilities, equipment and other resources. Cultural organizations will be more closely integrated into the formal curriculum to facilitate learning off campus. Mutual benefits will abound.

And to advance partnerships, technology will be a strategic tool---enabling presentations of collaborative visual and performing art on a scale hitherto unimaginable.

PHILANTHROPY

Higher education is beset with shrinking budgets and increasing appetites for quality and expansion, height-ening the essentiality of resource development. The forecast predicted that much of the institution’s work will be influenced, if not driven by, revenue generation, corporate gifts, and private donations—especially those in public institutions. Public colleges will be almost identical to private institutions with respect to the expansion of external resources by 2018.

A partnership link between colleges and business communities will be essential for philanthropic develop-ment. Perhaps one area that will experience an increase in corporate sponsorship will be the design fields which contain opportunities for teamwork with business and engineering students. Such external relations have their costs, however, and investments in creative research, performance and exhibition will be con-stantly under scrutiny in public institutions, particularly to assure expenditures for the public good.

Meanwhile, state legislatures will hold higher education increasing accountable to help solve the states’ economic problems. There will be stiff competition for the private dollar, as social and health issues become increasingly acute in the future. Thus, we will need to increase the training of students in fund raising tech-niques and transactional methods to ensure their success in arts careers.

Respondents raised additional philanthropy thoughts, such as the likely movement toward a higher educa-tion version of KickStarter for a crowd sourcing approach to fundraising, since the paucity and decline of high quality development officers were predicted for the future.

LEADERSHIP

A leader’s vision, values and direction will be key to effective administration; however, will a new brand of leadership be required for the future? Leaders traditionally give attention to the nature of the arts in their colleges--individually and collectively. More pressing for the future will be an understanding of emerging markets, new trends and developing methods.

Additionally, tomorrow’s leaders will have to work effectively with multiple stakeholders, especially a work-force that largely prefers making art than teaching it. Future arts leaders will be ultra-sensitive to sometimes conflicting expectations, such as students’ rights and faculty life/work entitlements. They will need the ability to contend with huge and diverse accountabilities (e.g., government regulation, accreditation, donors, students, parents, politicians, and so forth).

There will be a formidable agenda before leaders in the next five years addressing such areas as: compre-hensive and creative staffing plans; strategic technology plans; strong partnerships with other arts organiza-tions/institutions; budgetary shortfalls; a new set of providers that will compete for students; and the need to innovate curriculum rapidly. They would be well served to help faculty “think forward” through shared governance to understand the expectations of the next generation and the realities of available resources.

Leaders in the arts will also need to educate themselves to be effective fund raisers both on campus and off campus. Aspects of development work (marketing, branding, engaging the community, and growing part-nerships) will squeeze alongside of traditional administrative duties of managing complex expense budgets, facility maintenance and construction, intellectual property issues, and principles of law. Beyond resource development, leaders will need to adapt operational and reward structures, so that productive work with partners is recognized and rewarded as an expansion of resources.

How will they lead? Future leaders will place more emphasis on a team approach, individualized work op-portunities and collaboration. To navigate the varying bureaucracies, they will understand and use systems thinking, and they will rely on excellent interpersonal skills during the period of profound change.

The forecast was clear in one more leadership aspect: transparency and visibility of values in action. This will be manifested as leaders care about, think about and more accurately understand the political and economic future globally and how this relates to the arts.

Such a combination of leadership skills and attributes will be an uncommon occurrence of talent among the ranks. As one respondent warned, “Leaders (deans) will increasingly be ‘parachuted in’ from other disci-plines.” The scarcity of traditional artist/scholars who have the education, experience or interest in pursuing leadership appointments will intensify.

Another respondent encouraged extant leaders by reminding them they “will need a coherent vision that offers solutions for current and future problems. They will need to be able to communicate that vision in a way that engages artists and hold that vision over long periods of time.” Such advice will help sustain current leaders into the future.

COMPARING THE DELPHI (2008) AND SURVEY (2013) STUDY FINDINGS

What, if any, changes occurred in the forecasts that were made for 2018? I focused on four research questions to ascertain if and how the forecasts differed between the two studies. Overall, the predictions changed substantially during the five years in three ways: in significance, consensus, and direction (trending downward).

The t-test of significance revealed that by category 15-37% of the predictions changed significantly (p<.05). The table below displays which predictive categories presented significant differences by percentage.

TABLE I Percentage of Significantly Different Predictions in Forecast Categories

Percentage Category

37% Demographics

26% Faculty

23% Partnerships

21% Learning Place

20% Technology

19% Curriculum

18% Philanthropy

14% Leadership

The degree of consensus among the predictions changed significantly, too. In raw numbers 61 predictions (36% of the forecast) changed, with the majority (58) of them losing consensus. Table 2 reflects the per-centage of predictions within each category wherein consensus was lost or gained.

TABLE 2 Percentage of Predictions Changing Consensus

LOST GAINED CONSENSUS CONSENSUS CATEGORY

32 5 Partnerships

26 6 Faculty

24 0 Technology

21 0 Demographics

21 0 Learning Place

18 0 Philanthropy

17 0 Curriculum

14 0 Leadership

Outside of the significance and consensus analyses, another area of change was measured by shifts in responses fluctuating by more than 20 percentage points. Gaining or losing 20 percentage points may suggest a trend which can be measured for movement in future surveys. Such change in direction poses intraocular significance beyond the traditional t-test measure.

A sizeable number of predictions experienced such a directional change, and the majority of change trended downward, i.e., factors suggesting a more challenging future. Among the 31 predictions experiencing the directional change, 23 appeared to be more negative in nature, with five being neutral in character, and 3 having a more positive nature. See Table 3 for the array of changes in each category.

TABLE 3 Percentage of Predictions Experiencing Directional Shift

Negative Neutral Positive Category

20 2 0 Demographics

15 4 0 Curriculum

12 0 0 Philanthropy

11 5 0 Learning Place

0 5 9 Partnerships

4 0 0 Technology

3 0 0 Faculty

0 0 0 Leadership

Finally, the 2013 survey gave respondents the option to indicate one is “not sure” about the prediction. To measure the lack of confidence about the prediction, if it received more than 1/3 “not sure” responses, it was designated accordingly. Table 4 presents the percentage of items with “not sure” ratings—an indication of uncertainty about the future.

TABLE 4 Percentage of Predictions Receiving More Than 1/3 “Not Sure” Ratings

Percentage Category

0% Faculty

3% Leadership

4% Curriculum

8% Technology

9% Demographics

9% Partnerships

11% Learning Place

12% Philanthropy

SUMMARY

Overall, comparing the 2008 Delphi study with the 2013 survey findings, the forecast has (1) significant dif-ferences, (2) fewer consensuses, (3) a trend toward a more challenging future, and (4) a degree of uncertainty.

It is no surprise that the 2013 forecast presents differences for the future. We know a lot more about 2018 than we did in 2008. Immigration laws, the economy, political agendas, international demographics, tax law, technology advancements, the influence of foundations on higher education and an emerging set of disruptive factors are shaping trends daily. Access, enrollment, affordability, diversity, philanthropy, program development, and policies are all affected substantially.

There is some evidence that the panel of experts who shaped the forecast in the 2008 Delphi study were prescient, as a number of predictions seem to be gaining traction, amid many other predictions that are losing support over the past five years. It will be interesting to measure predictions in 2017 to ascertain perspectives to confirm a clear trajectory of change.

This study provides an opportunity to engage in anticipatory leadership by examining a forecast for what is likely to come. The findings may serve as a basis for discussion, reflection and action among diverse stakehold-ers. Senior leadership, deans, department chairs, faculty, staff, students, advisory boards, alumni, and donors all have a stake in success for tomorrow.

In addition to considering tomorrow’s forecast as anticipatory leadership, these findings may help leaders meet the challenges today. Hiring decisions, program closure, curriculum development, determining funding priori-ties and faculty development are just a few of the current issues that lay the groundwork for the future.

Finally, it is recognized that aspects of any forecast may not fit a particular campus; nonetheless, the issues in this study may merit review to ensure a comprehensive scan of the horizon. Examining issues of the future will enhance intentional charting of direction and may suggest the purposeful alignment of resources to support that direction for strategic action.

If it is true that “The best way to predict the future is to create it,” these findings may be of merit in the pro-cess of anticipatory leadership---our creative work as deans of the arts.

Dean Emerita Margaret Merrion is a past-president of the International Council of Fine Arts Deans and has been an arts leader for 24 years. She retired as dean of the College of Fine Arts at Western Michigan University in 2013. Previously she served as dean at Ball State University. For more information on this study or consul-tation details, she welcomes contact (margaret.merrion@wmich.edu).

The author wishes to thank the ICFAD participants in the 2008 Delphi Study and 2013 Futures Update Sur-vey for their contributions.

Photos courtesy of Western Michigan University