EdUp Provost

In this episode of EdUp Provost, host Dr. Gregor Thuswaldner sits down with Dr. Stephen Whitehead of Commonwealth University and 5th Hammer Innovation to discuss why great ideas in higher education so often stall before they become real change. Drawing on his consulting work, his military background, and his experience coaching academic leaders, Dr. Whitehead unpacks why execution—not creativity—is the real bottleneck in the provost's office, and offers practical frameworks for building ownership, trust, and momentum around change.Takeaways:• Ideas rarely die from a "no" — they die in the handoff, when no one owns the next step.• Focus your energy on the persuadable 60%, not the immovable 20% who will never come along.• Fall in love with the problem before designing the solution — curiosity beats speed.• Academic leaders often mistake activity (meetings, plans, dashboards) for actual progress.• A new provost's most important 90-day habit: build a listening-to-action system and act on something visible, fast.

In this EdUp Provost episode, host Dr. Gregor Thuswaldner sits down with Dr. B. David Rowe, Founder and President of Windermere Consulting, and Dr. Frank Boyd, Vice President of the Higher Education Practice at McAllister & Quinn to discuss how shared governance works, where it breaks down, and how it needs to change. Drawing on their experience as a college and seminary president, trustee, faculty leader, and provost, they examine the president-provost partnership, the provost's position between faculty and board, and how boards and presidents can avoid mutual over-deference. They also explore how governance should function in a crisis, why faculty and board members perceive time so differently, and how a shared governance system can help an institution find and amplify its mission. The conversation draws on the paper they co-authored, which looks at governance through both the presidential and faculty perspectives, and closes with a look at whether current structures are equipped for today's pressures, plus book recommendations from each guest.Takeaways• Good governance is fluid and shifts with the season an institution is in, and no single model fits every campus.• Governance starts with structure: the bylaws, faculty handbook, and charter should be reconciled and read together before a crisis arrives.• Faculty and boards experience time differently. Slower faculty processes are meant to get decisions right, while boards have to weigh the long-term fiduciary consequences of inaction.• Provosts do their best work when they hold both the faculty and administrative identities at once, and when they are clear about what they are not working on.• Boards are responsible for far more than finances. Fiduciary duty extends to the academic mission, and every academic decision has a financial component.

In this latest episode of EdUp Provost, host Dr. Gregor Thuswaldner welcomes back Joshua Thorpe, a learning designer at the University of Strathclyde and author of the newly expanded second edition of AI for Students, now published by Bloomsbury. The conversation explores the psychological impacts of "AI Vertigo," the shift toward process-based portfolios, the risks of parasocial relationships with chatbots, and the critical need to intertwine AI literacy with traditional learning literacies.Takeaways• AI for Students, 2nd Edition: Now published by Bloomsbury and ~30% longer, the revised edition adds more interactive content and critical reflection spaces.• ARF Prompting Framework: Thorpe's Aim, Role, Format (ARF) mnemonic encourages active, interactive engagement with AI in education rather than "vending machine" use.• Managing AI Vertigo & Slop: Countering AI-driven overwhelm and misinformation requires balanced perspectives (e.g., Cal Newport's podcast) and integrating AI literacy with broader media/information literacy.• Process Over Product: AI's availability creates an opportunity to shift assessment toward documenting drafts, prompts, and problem-solving—though frameworks like the AI Assessment Scale must avoid overloading students with complex rules.• Parasocial & Cognitive Risks: AI's anthropomorphic design can foster unhealthy emotional attachment, so students need to understand it as stochastic prediction rather than genuine cognition—while still leveraging AI for productive "desirable difficulty."

In this episode of EdUp Provost, host Dr. Gregor Thuswaldner sits down with Dr. Reema Zeineldin to discuss the critical role of leadership development in higher education. Dr. Zeineldin shares her insights on why succession planning should be a core faculty affairs responsibility, exploring how high leadership turnover can destabilize institutions and disrupt student outcomes. The conversation dives into why cultivating internal talent — rather than defaulting to external hires — builds continuity, strengthens institutional culture, and creates a more resilient leadership pipeline. Dr. Zeineldin also unpacks how investing in faculty leadership development sends a powerful message about an institution's values, boosting morale and signaling genuine commitment to faculty growth. Listeners will come away with practical strategies for building tailored, effective leadership development programs on their own campuses.Takeaways• Succession planning is a necessity, not a luxury. High leadership turnover in higher ed can destabilize operations and negatively affect student outcomes.• Internal talent brings institutional knowledge. Leaders who've grown within an institution understand its culture and values, enabling more informed, aligned decision-making.• Investment in faculty signals value. Leadership development programs boost morale by showing faculty the institution is committed to their growth.• One-size-fits-all doesn't work. Effective programs are tailored to individual faculty aspirations, whether they're aiming for advancement or transferable skills.• A strong pipeline reduces risk. Building leadership capacity internally ensures qualified candidates are ready to step up, reducing reliance on costly external hires.

In this EdUp Provost episode, which marks the beginning of the fifth season of ACAO's official podcast, host Dr. Gregor Thuswaldner interviews Dr. Eloy Ortiz Oakley and Dr. Zach Mabel about "The Golden Ticket," a study commissioned by College Futures Foundation and conducted by Georgetown University, examining the economic impact of California reaching a 70% educational attainment goal. The conversation explores how closing this attainment gap could generate $4.4 trillion in economic benefits for the state, with implications spanning tax revenue, workforce participation, and reduced incarceration costs across demographic lines. Oakley and Mabel discuss why the timing of this research is especially significant amid a gubernatorial election cycle and offer guidance for provosts and other higher education leaders on using this data to advocate for their institutions, realign academic programs with labor market demands, and address longstanding disparities in access and outcomes for underrepresented students.Takeaways:• Attainment drives massive economic returns: Reaching California's 70% educational attainment goal could generate $4.4 trillion in economic impact, benefiting the state broadly across tax revenue, workforce participation, and reduced incarceration costs. • The benefit isn't limited to degree-holders: Higher educational attainment lifts outcomes for all Californians, not just those who earn credentials, making it a collective economic and social investment. • Provosts need to reframe their advocacy: Institutional leaders should move past abstract claims of "value" and instead use concrete economic data to demonstrate how their programs impact student mobility and opportunity. • Programs must track labor market demand: With 85% of good jobs projected to require postsecondary credentials by 2031, academic portfolios need regular realignment with real workforce needs rather than credentialing for its own sake. • Closing equity gaps requires structural change: Addressing disparities among demographic groups calls for disaggregated data analysis, tailored student support systems, and stronger community partnerships.