Building a Community of Practice: The DLIS Adjunct-Led Conference Model

Belonging in higher education is often discussed in terms of student experience, yet it is just as critical for faculty, particularly adjunct faculty (AF), who make up a significant and growing portion of the academic workforce. Across the literature, belonging is closely tied to engagement, well-being, and retention. Wilson et al. (2025) highlight the connection between belonging and faculty well-being, while Hofman et al. (2024) emphasize that faculty who experience strong collegial relationships and inclusive institutional cultures report higher levels of job satisfaction and commitment.

For adjunct faculty, these connections are especially important but often more difficult to achieve. Many adjuncts navigate their roles at the margins of institutional life, managing heavy workloads, limited visibility, and fewer opportunities for sustained interaction with colleagues (Bickerstaff & Ran, 2021; McPherson & Ran, 2023; Ortiz et al., 2021). Yet despite these challenges, adjunct faculty remain deeply committed to their students and to the craft of teaching. They bring rich professional experience into the classroom, support students in both academic and non-academic ways, and contribute meaningfully to institutional missions (Bickerstaff & Ran, 2021).

Within this context, the Department of Learning and Information Studies (DLIS) at the University of Arizona Global Campus (UAGC) began to ask a different kind of question. We wanted to know, not how to study belonging, but how to create it.

Reframing Belonging Through Action

In DLIS, the conversation shifted from defining belonging to designing experiences that foster it. The adjunct-led conference emerged from this shift as a practical, community-driven response to a persistent challenge: how to create meaningful connections among geographically dispersed, primarily online faculty.

Rather than positioning adjunct faculty as recipients of professional development, the conference reframes them as contributors, leaders, and collaborators. It creates a space where belonging is not measured but rather experienced. Through presenting, facilitating, planning, and engaging in shared dialogue, adjunct faculty actively shape their professional community.

These opportunities matter. Research suggests that adjunct faculty who engage in professional activities and collaborative environments report stronger self-efficacy and connection to their roles (Wojckik, 2017). Similarly, participation in meaningful institutional initiatives can reduce feelings of isolation and invisibility while strengthening perceptions of contribution and impact (Bickerstaff & Ran, 2021; Hofman et al., 2024).

Why a Conference, and Why Adjunct-Led?

The idea of a conference is not new in higher education. However, the idea of one designed entirely by adjunct faculty introduces a critical shift in ownership and voice. Traditional professional development models often operate under a top-down structure, in which topics, formats, and delivery are defined by full-time faculty or the administration. While these efforts are valuable, they do not always reflect the day-to-day realities of adjunct teaching.

The DLIS adjunct-led conference model intentionally centers those realities.

Adjunct faculty design the sessions, select themes, and share their expertise in ways that are immediately relevant to their teaching and professional practice. Full-time faculty provide logistical support, such as scheduling and technology, but the intellectual and experiential core of the conference belongs to the adjunct community.

This distinction is important. When adjunct faculty lead, they are not only sharing knowledge—they are claiming space within the academic community.

Building Community in Online Environments

The need for this kind of initiative is particularly acute in online education. As institutions increasingly rely on adjunct faculty to support program growth (McPherson & Wendler, 2023), many instructors operate in virtual environments that limit informal interaction and connection.

Research consistently shows that adjunct faculty, especially those teaching online, experience isolation, limited integration into decision-making, and reduced access to professional networks (Buch et al., 2017; Ortiz et al., 2021; Zoromski & Sasso, 2024). These conditions can contribute to burnout, diminished engagement, and weaker institutional ties (Reed et al., 2025).

At the same time, adjunct faculty navigate complex professional identities. They balance teaching with full-time careers, bringing practical expertise that enhances student learning and persistence (Bickerstaff & Ran, 2021). However, without intentional opportunities to connect, this expertise can remain siloed.

The adjunct-led conference responds directly to this challenge by creating a shared space. A space designed to bridge distance, elevate voices, and strengthen professional relationships.

The Conference Experience

The DLIS conference is intentionally structured to reflect the realities of adjunct work. It is held virtually, scheduled at times that accommodate adjunct availability, and built around flexible participation. These design choices are not incidental; they are essential to ensuring access and engagement.

During the conference, adjunct faculty present topics that emerge from their own teaching experiences and professional expertise. Sessions include practical strategies, reflections on student engagement, insights from their fields of expertise, and open discussions that invite participation from attendees.

Equally important is the collaborative nature of the event. Adjunct faculty are involved not only as presenters but also as organizers, facilitators, and contributors to the overall conference experience. This shared ownership reinforces a sense of collective purpose and professional recognition.

Moments of connection, such as discussion, shared challenges, or new ideas, begin to reshape how adjunct faculty see themselves in relation to the department and to one another.

Belonging as an Institutional Asset

The impact of initiatives like the adjunct-led conference extends beyond individual experience. Research indicates that belonging is closely linked to reduced burnout, increased engagement, and sustained participation in teaching (Reed et al., 2025). In this sense, belonging is not simply an emotional outcome but a strategic one.

Institutions that invest in inclusive, community-oriented approaches to faculty engagement may see broader benefits, including improved retention, stronger instructional quality, and enhanced student outcomes (Hofman et al., 2024; Reed et al., 2025). Efforts to include adjunct faculty in meaningful ways, such as leadership opportunities, recognition, and collaboration, can shift perceptions of adjunct roles from transactional to integral.

The DLIS adjunct-led conference reflects this shift. It recognizes adjunct faculty not only as instructors but as scholars, practitioners, and community members whose contributions shape the direction and quality of the program.

Looking Forward

As the role of adjunct faculty continues to expand and projections indicate further growth in the coming years (Zoromski & Sasso, 2024), higher education must continue to rethink how faculty communities are built and supported.

The adjunct-led conference model offers one pathway forward. It is both simple and transformative: creating space, sharing ownership, and trusting adjunct faculty to lead.

In doing so, institutions move closer to fostering environments where belonging is not an abstract goal, but an everyday experience—one built through connection, contribution, and shared purpose.

References

Bickerstaff, S., & Ran, F. X. (2021). A role for disciplinary societies in supporting community college adjunct faculty. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2021(194), 151-158. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20460  

Buch, K. K., McCullough, H., & Teamberelli, L. (2017). Understanding and responding to the unique needs and challenges facing adjunct faculty: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research. 16(10), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.16.10.3 

Hofman, L., Nummela-Hanel, B., Lippert, K., & Rodrigues, C. (2024). Perceptions of university culture and community among online adjuncts. Christian Higher Education, 23(5), 464–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/15363759.2024.2358400 

McPherson, S., & Wendler, M. C. (2023). “Finding my place in academia”: Understanding the experiences of novice faculty. Journal of Nursing Education, 62(8), 433–442. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20230612-01 

Ortiz, R., Rodesiler, C. A., Latz, A. O., & Mulvihill, T. (2021). Community college adjunct faculty: Picturing pedagogies of care. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2021(195), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20464 

Reed, R., Carriere, J., Pipoly, L., & Bennett, A. M. (2025). From burnout to belonging: A sequential mixed methods study of comprehensive support structures for online adjunct faculty. Online Learning, 29(3), 103–129. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v29i3.5026  

Wilson, M., Ghosh, S., & Jason, K. J. (2025). Understanding sense of belonging of faculty and staff in higher education. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, doi:10.1108/EDI-06-2024-0252 

Woljcik, J. (2017).  The Relationship Between Sense of Belonging and Instructor Self-Efficacy Among Online Adjunct Faculty in Higher Education. Florida Atlantic University. http://purl.flvc.org/fau/fd/FA00004960 

Zoromski, K., & Sasso, P. A. (2024). Transactional and stopgap Relationships between community college department chairs and their adjuncts. Community College Review, 52(2), 210–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/00915521231218239 

Dr. Tanya R. Mooney

 Dr. Tanya R. Mooney serves as a Department Head in the College of Integrative Learning at the University of Arizona Global Campus (UAGC). With a career built on service, leadership, and a deep understanding of educational needs, Dr. Mooney brings a wealth of experience to her role in the Department of Learning and Information Studies.  She first served for twelve years in the United States Air Force before transitioning into education in 2005.

Her higher education career began in 2008. Since then, she has been a dedicated faculty member, instructing undergraduate and graduate students in key areas like information literacy, digital fluency, college reading strategies, and educational psychology. Her educational career includes significant hands-on leadership roles through serving as a principal, developing educational programs and curriculum, leading accreditation reviews, and contributing to scholarly books, textbooks, and journals. Dr. Mooney is passionate about continuous professional improvement and regularly presents her insights at national and international conferences.

Education

EdD, Educational Leadership - Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA, United States, 2018

MEd, Elementary Education - Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, United States, 2006

MEd, Human Relations and Counseling - Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, United States, 2003

 

Disconnected to Connect: Mastering Focus in the Classroom

Smartphones are everywhere, shaping how we communicate, work, and learn. In the classroom, however, they often do more harm than good. While phones provide instant access to information, research shows they also fragment attention, increase cognitive load, and weaken retention. Students who multitask on their devices during lectures consistently perform worse and struggle with shorter attention spans.

The effects extend beyond academics. Psychologist Jonathan Haidt, in The Anxious Generation, points to smartphones and social media as major drivers of the rising mental health crisis. Between 2010 and 2020, anxiety and depression rates among college students more than doubled, while self-harm and suicide rates among teens climbed sharply. For girls especially, each additional hour on social media increases the risk of depression, proof that constant connection can come at a steep cost.

The Study

To better understand classroom outcomes, researchers at a private university in Northwest Ohio analyzed ten years of student reflections. Thirty-five statements were thematically coded, revealing four consistent impacts of a no-phone policy:

1.      Enhanced Focus – Students reported being able to concentrate more deeply. One remarked, “The no cell phone policy is great for getting us to focus.”

2.      Reduced Distractions – Without notifications pulling attention away, students caught the small but critical details that they often missed elsewhere.

3.      Improved Engagement & Respect – Learners noticed that the classroom felt more respectful and collaborative without devices competing for attention.

4.      Resistance, Then Benefits – Some disliked the rule at first, but most came to appreciate its long-term advantages.

Lessons for Educators

The findings show that removing phones doesn’t just improve grades, it strengthens learning environments. Students engage more with peers, professors, and the material itself. Future research could explore how policies like lockboxes, tech boundaries, and experiential activities affect different demographics and learning styles. Integrating tactile, low-tech methods such as handwritten notes or paper-based exercises may also anchor concepts more effectively than digital tools.

A Call to Reconnect

In an age of endless pings and scrolls, disconnection in the classroom may be one of the best gifts educators can give. By setting boundaries around technology, professors encourage students to be present, attentive, and respectful. The goal isn’t simply to keep phones out of sight; it’s to create space for focus, curiosity, and meaningful human interaction.

Ultimately, when classrooms choose to disconnect from devices, they reconnect with what matters most: learning, engagement, and one another.

Dr. Kellie McGilvray

BIO:

My name is Professor Kellie McGilvray. I earned my undergraduate degree in Marketing at Tiffin University, my MBA at Tiffin University, and my PhD in Higher Education with a concentration in Marketing from the University of Toledo.  My background and experience are widespread in sales, event planning, software marketing, and financial marketing. I have been teaching for 22 years, both seated and online. I am a board member for the University of Toledo Federal Credit Union and a member of The Advertising Club of Toledo, American Marketing Association, and American Advertising Federation. My research interests are in higher education marketing, online learning, online satisfaction, and student-centered teaching. My family is my husband, Brandon, along with our two daughters, Carlie (age 15) and Braelie (age 12), who reside in Toledo, Ohio. 

Why ESG Responsibility Should Fall on Producers

Dr. Robin Dhakal

 As an economist, I keep seeing the same thing happen in discussions about Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) issues- all eyes always turn to the consumer. We’re constantly told to recycle more, shop sustainably, and use our wallets to vote for change. The idea seems simple: if everyone just made better individual choices, we could solve the world’s biggest ESG problems.

But let’s take a step back. Is it really fair to place that kind of responsibility on consumers? And more importantly, is it actually working?

This article challenges that consumer-first narrative. While well-meaning, it misplaces the real power to drive ESG progress. It’s not individual choices that move the needle- it’s the decisions made by producers. These are the companies that design, manufacture, and distribute the products we rely on every day. If we want real impact, the responsibility needs to shift from fragmented consumer efforts to the concentrated influence of corporations.

 The current narrative

Take plastic pollution. Consumers are encouraged to sort their recyclables, clean out containers, and hope they end up in the right bin. But that focus on individual behavior hides a much bigger issue: the sheer scale of plastic production. Since 1950, global plastic output has exploded from just 2 million tons to over 400 million tons a year. No matter how diligent individual recycling habits are, they’re completely outpaced by the amount of plastic being produced in the first place.

And it’s not just plastic. The fast fashion industry churns out tens of billions of garments a year, most designed to be worn just a few times before ending up in landfills. Electronics are built to be replaced, not repaired. In 2022 alone, the world generated 62 million tons of e-waste, and only a small fraction of it was properly recycled. The rest? Often shipped off to developing countries or dumped, causing serious environmental and health issues.

Meanwhile, the companies behind all this waste are rarely held accountable. Consumers are told to “buy less” or “reuse more,” while the true drivers of environmental damage- the producers- continue to operate unchecked. The economic model rewards them for pushing out more products, faster, and the environmental and social costs are pushed onto the public. That’s not just unfair; it’s a structural flaw in the market.

 Greenwashing

Companies know that consumers are paying attention to sustainability. And many have responded- not with real change, but with marketing.

Greenwashing is when companies highlight the small, positive things they do while quietly maintaining business as usual. Companies often put labels like ‘eco-friendly,’ ‘sustainable,’ or ‘carbon-neutral’ on products, creating an illusion of responsibility. For example, fashion brands like H&M and Zara promote “eco-conscious” collections, but their core business is still built on overproduction and disposable clothing. Fossil fuel companies run slick ads about their investments in renewable energy, but those investments are often tiny compared to their continued expansion of oil and gas operations. Shell, for example, has been accused of greenwashing by promoting its investments in renewables while continuing to expand its fossil fuel operations.

This kind of selective storytelling distorts how consumers view companies. It also messes with the market. Greenwashing gives companies a way to appear responsible without actually changing their practices. And because companies know more about their true environmental footprint than consumers ever could, they’re able to shape perceptions while avoiding accountability.

 Let’s talk economics

Here’s where economics comes in. When companies produce goods that cause pollution, generate waste, or create social harms, they often don’t pay the full price of those consequences. Instead, the costs- environmental clean-up, health impacts, and more- are pushed onto society. These are known as “negative externalities.”

This leads to what economists call a market failure. If prices reflected the true cost of goods- including their environmental and social impact- polluting products would be more expensive, and cleaner alternatives would be more competitive. But because those extra costs are hidden, the market sends the wrong signals. It encourages overproduction, overconsumption, and underinvestment in sustainability.

Fixing this means internalizing those costs- in other words, making producers pay for the impact of what they make. That gives them a real incentive to design better products, reduce waste, and invest in cleaner technologies. They have the scale, resources, and control to make meaningful changes. Consumers, on the other hand, can only do so much with limited budgets and incomplete information.

 What policies can do?

So how do we shift that responsibility in a real, lasting way? Policy is the answer- and one of the most powerful tools we have is Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).

EPR laws require companies to take ownership of their products even after they’ve been sold. That means handling recycling, collection, and safe disposal. When companies are financially responsible for end-of-life product management, they have a direct reason to reduce waste at the design stage, invest in greener supply chains, and build smarter systems for reuse and recycling. For example, why design a product that’s difficult or expensive to recycle if you’re the one paying for its recycling? EPR pushes companies to innovate in product design, making goods more durable, reusable, repairable, and recyclable. This means less waste, fewer virgin materials, and a smaller environmental footprint.

Countries in Europe that have embraced EPR have seen recycling rates soar. In some places, packaging recycling exceeds 70 to 80 percent. In contrast, the U.S., which relies more on voluntary efforts and municipal programs, struggles to recycle even 10 percent of plastic. The difference isn’t about consumers- it’s about producers being held to a different standard.

But EPR isn’t the only policy option. Carbon taxes and cap-and-trade programs can make pollution more expensive, pushing companies toward cleaner alternatives. Material taxes on non-recyclable inputs can make sustainable materials more cost-effective. Product standards- like requiring a certain percentage of recycled content- can push companies to shift their practices. And transparency laws that require companies to disclose their ESG data make it harder for them to greenwash and easier for the public to hold them accountable.

Critics often say these policies will raise prices. And yes, that might happen — but those prices would finally reflect the real cost of production, including the impact on the planet. Plus, these policies can unlock innovation, create new industries, and lead to better products. In the long run, the benefits far outweigh the costs.

 The pushback

Not everyone agrees with producer-focused responsibility. So let’s address a few common criticisms.

Some argue that consumers still need to be part of the solution. That’s true. But consumers can’t fix what they can’t see or control. Most don’t have access to detailed information about how a product was made, nor the power to influence supply chains. Producers do. And without policy change, even the most eco-conscious consumer is stuck making difficult, costly, and sometimes ineffective choices.

Others say that these kinds of regulations will raise prices. And they might- at least initially. But in many ways, that’s the point. Cheap goods often carry hidden costs that don’t show up on the receipt: pollution, climate damage, health problems, and the long-term degradation of ecosystems. Consumers still end up paying- just not at the checkout. They pay through rising healthcare costs, the growing burden of disaster recovery, and even through contaminants like microplastics found in food, water, and air. Making producers bear those costs brings much-needed transparency and fairness to the system. Plus, studies of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes have shown that while there may be some short-term cost increases, the long-term benefits- including higher recycling rates, lower landfill expenses, and greater resource efficiency- can help stabilize prices and lead to a more resilient, sustainable economy.

Some worry that regulation stifles innovation. But history shows the opposite. When faced with new rules, companies often invent better products, processes, and technologies. Think of how emissions standards spurred electric vehicles or how bans on certain chemicals led to safer alternatives. These innovations not only met regulatory requirements but also created new markets and competitive advantages. Forward-thinking companies already understand this; they see sustainability as an opportunity for innovation and market leadership, not just a compliance burden. Limits can push progress.

And yes, global supply chains are complicated. But producers are the ones who run them. They decide what goes into a product, where it’s made, and how it’s distributed. If anyone has the leverage to drive change, it’s them- and they shouldn’t be let off the hook because the problem is big.

 Final thoughts

The idea that consumers are solely responsible for fixing ESG challenges isn’t just wrong- it’s counterproductive. It distracts from the real levers of change and allows companies to avoid accountability. We need a system that puts responsibility where it belongs: with the producers. Through smart, fair policies like Extended Producer Responsibility, carbon pricing, and product standards, we can create a market where doing the right thing isn’t just good PR- it’s good business.

Markets work best when they reflect reality. Right now, they don’t. It’s time we corrected that- not by asking consumers to do more, but by demanding that the people who make, market, and profit from the products we use every day do their part.

That’s how we build an economy that truly serves people and the planet.

 References:

4Ocean. (n.d.). Unpacking the Problem: Plastic Waste in the Consumer Goods Industry. Retrieved from: https://www.4ocean.com/blogs/consumer-goods/unpacking-the-problem-plastic-waste-in-the-consumer-goods-industry

Changing Markets Foundation. (2020). Talking Trash: the corporate playbook of false solutions to the plastic crisis. Retrieved from: https://changingmarkets.org/report/talking-trash-the-corporate-playbook-of-false-solutions-to-the-plastic-crisis/

Tax Foundation. (2024, September 26). Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Policies. Retrieved from https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/state/extended-producer-responsibility-epr/

Dr. Robin Dhakal

Dr. Robin Dhakal is an Assistant Professor at UAGC. He earned an M.A. and a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of South Florida and a B.A. in Business/Economics and Mathematics/Computer Science from Warren Wilson College. His academic research focuses on development economics and political economy. He has been teaching Economics in colleges and universities for the past 12 years. You can reach him at robin.dhakal@uagc.edu.

 

How Non-Profit Leaders Can Harness the Power of AI

Artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer reserved for Silicon Valley or big tech. Increasingly, non-profit organizations are tapping into AI to expand their reach, improve efficiency, and innovate their missions. For leaders in the non-profit sector, understanding and adopting AI can be a strategic advantage, but it also comes with the responsibility to implement these tools ethically and transparently.

Why AI, and Why Now?

Many non-profits operate with lean teams and limited resources. AI-powered tools can help fill those gaps. According to Forbes (2024), over 60% of non-profits are exploring AI to support tasks ranging from donor engagement to data management. Likewise, the Stanford Social Innovation Review (2023) found that AI-enhanced donor outreach can improve giving rates by as much as 20%. These numbers are too significant to ignore.

Here are just a few ways non-profit leaders are successfully using AI today:

·         Fundraising & Donor Relations
AI can analyze donor data to identify trends, predict giving patterns, and help tailor communications. Personalized outreach supported by machine learning can deepen donor relationships, leading to more sustained giving.

·         Volunteer Management
Chatbots and intelligent scheduling tools can streamline volunteer sign-ups, onboarding, and communication, freeing up staff to focus on relationship-building.

·         Program Evaluation
AI can sort through mountains of program data to highlight what’s working and what needs adjustment, making program impact evaluation faster and more accurate.

·         Content & Social Media
Generative AI can help create newsletters, social posts, and even grant proposals more efficiently, allowing non-profits to stay visible without overloading staff.

Responsible Adoption

Of course, no discussion of AI is complete without considering its ethical and human impacts. Leaders must train teams on responsible data collection, respect donor and participant privacy, and remain transparent about AI-generated content. Non-profits, after all, depend on trust as a core value.

Final Thoughts

Artificial intelligence is a powerful tool, not a silver bullet. But with thoughtful adoption, non-profit leaders can use AI to advance their mission and serve their communities in ways that were unimaginable just a few years ago. As more organizations embrace AI, the opportunities to share resources, test new ideas, and collaborate will only grow.

What do you think? How might you see AI supporting the work of your non-profit or social impact projects? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

 References

McCarthy, M. (2023, September 18). How non-profits can responsibly harness the power of AI. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesnonprofitcouncil/2023/09/18/how-nonprofits-can-responsibly-harness-the-power-of-ai

Stanford Social Innovation Review. (2023). AI for good: Nonprofits and the rise of machine learning. Stanford Social Innovation Review. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/ai_for_good_nonprofits_and_the_rise_of_machine_learning

Microsoft for Nonprofits. (2022). Nonprofits and AI: Driving social impact responsibly. https://nonprofit.microsoft.com/en-us/resources/ai-for-nonprofits

Biography

Hello! I’m Dr. Benjamin Norrod, and I am honored to be part of the Master of Business Program at UAGC. I possess over two decades of experience in leadership, business education, and working with nonprofits worldwide to the classroom. My career has taken me across more than 30 U.S. states and 16 countries, where I’ve trained leaders, mentored students, and helped build organizations grounded in integrity and impact.

My teaching focuses on real-world application, clear communication, and cultivating wisdom that leads to purpose-driven success. Whether we're exploring strategy, ethics, or communication, I aim to equip you with practical tools you can use in the marketplace and life. I strive to make complex concepts approachable and meaningful, especially for students balancing faith, family, and professional goals.

My credentials include TEFL and TESOL certifications from China, along with advanced certifications in university teaching, leadership, project management, Six Sigma, music production, and communication from institutions such as Yale, Georgia Tech, Berklee College of Music, Copenhagen School of Business, the University of California, Irvine, and Villanova University.

When I’m not teaching, I’m probably writing, singing with my family, or enjoying a strong cup of coffee while planning the next big idea.

Kindest regards,
Dr. Norrod
benjamin.norrod@faculty.uagc.edu

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-benjamin-norrod-dba-4543951a0/

Industry Cluster Innovation Through Collaboration

 Industry Cluster Innovation Through Collaboration

Murad Abel, DBA
Professor, Department Chair and Research Fellow, 

University of Arizona Global Campus

June 12th, 2025

---

Keywords: Economics, Clusters, Innovation, Industry

---

Abstract
Technological innovation is transforming economies at unprecedented speeds, reshaping industries, and redefining national growth trajectories. Central to this transformation are economic clusters—geographic concentrations of interconnected businesses, institutions, and networks—which serve as engines of innovation, productivity, and regional development. These clusters enable collaboration among academia, government, and private industry, fostering environments conducive to the rapid development of next-generation products and services. Drawing on theories such as Schumpeter’s Creative Destruction, this paper explores how innovation-driven clusters support economic resilience, quality of life enhancements, and human capital development. It emphasizes the importance of infrastructure, data networks, and inclusive strategies in sustaining global leadership in innovation. Despite persistent barriers—such as resource limitations and technological adoption gaps—clusters offer scalable solutions through coordinated stakeholder efforts, startup integration, and cross-sector collaboration. The paper concludes that a hybrid approach to cluster formation, blending intentional design with organic growth, holds the greatest promise for advancing regional economies and addressing 21st-century challenges through shared innovation ecosystems.

Industry Cluster Innovation Through Collaboration

Technological change is accelerating at a pace unimaginable to our grandparents and great-grandparents. Advances in computing power and emerging technologies have reshaped our environment, making rapid innovation a critical driver of national growth. The development of new products and services not only influences economic health but also renews interest in expanding research and knowledge. This, in turn, encourages companies to bring cutting-edge offerings to market.

Economic clusters—regions where businesses, research institutions, and networks converge—play a vital role in fostering innovation. By enhancing connectivity and collaboration, these clusters create enriched environments that support the development of next-generation products and services. While improved GDP at local, state, national, and regional levels is one key benefit, such clusters also offer significant opportunities to enhance Quality of Life (QOL) and support long-term human capital development.

Technology Innovations

Technological innovation often drives broad economic growth within industries and regions (Thi & Do, 2024). When tied to infrastructure—such as railroads or the Internet—these advancements can deliver widespread benefits, especially for those who leverage resources effectively. For instance, the strength of data networks and fiber infrastructure, combined with advancements in artificial intelligence, significantly influence national growth prospects. As of this writing, the U.S. ranks among the top three countries on the Advanced Innovation Index 2024 (Dutta et al., 2024). However, maintaining this position requires intentional efforts to foster innovation through a more inclusive and networked approach.

Creating innovative environments accelerates the development of new products and services. In some cases, paradigm-shifting discoveries—such as breakthroughs in energy, AI, infrastructure, or materials—can rapidly transform multiple industries. With the right conditions, innovation clusters can give rise to entirely new sectors.

Joseph Schumpeter described this phenomenon as Creative Destruction—a natural economic process where old structures are continuously dismantled and replaced by new ones. As he wrote in Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (1942):

“The opening up of new markets, foreign or domestic, and the organizational development from the craft shop to such concerns as U.S. Steel illustrate the same process of industrial mutation—if I may use that biological term—that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one. This process of Creative Destruction is the essential fact about capitalism.” (p. 83)

Economic clusters offer governments a practical way to support innovation, economic development, and quality of life improvements. These clusters—often formed through partnerships among industry, academia, government, and communities—serve as microcosms of economic progress, enabling stakeholders to collaborate and mutually benefit.

Fostering clusters of related industries helps catalyze these natural processes. According to Porter (1998), such clusters are inherently innovative and contribute to economic resilience. They do so by forming networks of complementary businesses that boost efficiency and competitiveness—advantages that are difficult to replicate elsewhere.

Economic Growth Environments

Economies are complex systems that, when functioning effectively, generate value for both industries and the communities in which they operate. Technological advancement has long served as a catalyst for economic growth and has improved the quality of everyday life. The development of new technologies depends on a region's physical assets combined with human capital, which together create innovative advantages.

Industry clusters—geographic concentrations of interconnected companies, suppliers, and institutions—have been shown to foster innovation, improve efficiency, and increase productivity, enabling firms to compete at both national and global levels (Porter, 1998). Due to their significant financial and supply chain impacts, fostering innovation through clusters is increasingly viewed as a strategic avenue for economic development. For economies aiming to compete globally, the ability to produce cutting-edge technologies and engage in advanced manufacturing is essential to enhancing value and resource attraction.

More than fifteen years of research into industrial clusters suggests that rapid innovation arises from the interaction of multiple interrelated factors. These factors can be isolated, studied, and optimized to further accelerate cluster formation and effectiveness. Ideally, clusters should be purposefully developed to strengthen community resilience, address critical industry challenges, or advance sector-specific research. Centering cluster development around clear objectives can improve coordination and collective impact.

Collaboration among key stakeholders—including industry, academia, government, and local communities—can create robust economic ecosystems. These systems harness unique regional advantages, such as data assets, coordinated resource use, branding, process innovation, and management infrastructure, to foster scientific progress and address market or societal challenges (Tanaka & Lopez, 2024).

However, barriers frequently impede the adoption of new technologies within manufacturing sectors (Rached et al., 2022). Removing these obstacles is critical for promoting innovation and enhancing industrial competitiveness through technological advancement (Zou, 2024). Common barriers include lack of technical knowledge, high labor and installation costs, inadequate government support, limited resources, and insufficient infrastructure (Rashed, Bagum, & Haque, 2022).

Well-designed economic clusters aim to minimize these barriers by fostering environments that support industrial growth. Such environments ensure access to necessary infrastructure, promote skilled labor development, facilitate research and development initiatives, offer tax incentives, strengthen digital connectivity, and enhance overall quality of life. These factors collectively create fertile ground for industry development, resulting in mutual growth and problem-solving capacity within targeted sectors.

Stakeholder Collaboration

Collaboration is essential to building strong economic clusters due to the significant investment of time and resources required to develop their foundational elements. In some cases, clusters form organically, while in others, they emerge from strategic efforts to fill industry gaps or stimulate innovation. When key stakeholders identify critical bottlenecks to industry development, they often come together to address these challenges, aiming to drive regional economic growth by advancing business innovation (Pulido-Gomez, de Jong & Rivkin, 2025).

Clusters operate as interconnected systems, linking labor, education, firms, and networks to form viable, dynamic ecosystems (Konig, 2023). These connections enhance resource efficiency and add depth to the local business environment. Companies that effectively leverage cluster resources tend to adapt and grow more rapidly within competitive markets (Handoyo et al., 2023). This accelerated growth contributes to regional gross domestic product, strengthening the broader economy (Pyo & Choi, 2025).

Start-ups play a critical role in these ecosystems by acting as sources of innovative capital for larger firms (Giglio et al., 2025). Clusters create fertile ground for the launch and scaling of start-ups, providing the support and conditions needed to foster radical innovation. Such innovation often arises under specific environmental pressures that trigger a reordering of industries. For instance, the development of AI followed a Schumpeterian model of Creative Destruction, where new technologies replaced outdated ones and reshaped entire sectors (Ramazan, Tuluce & Aykac, 2024).

The potential to spur innovation across multiple industries is one of the most transformative outcomes of successful clusters. A single invention can influence several sectors through ripple effects across the supply chain. Cross-industry collaboration, particularly where inter-industry networks overlap, can amplify innovation (Shi & Xiao, 2024). Ultimately, building clusters is about cultivating environments that are not only capable of inventing new products and technologies but also of generating entirely new technological trajectories that were previously unimaginable.

Conclusion

The development of clusters can be driven by local and regional stakeholders to promote both social and economic growth. Clusters support higher levels of industry innovation by fostering shared goals, collaboration in research and development, resource sharing, and knowledge spillovers. When designed for industry advancement, they leverage common infrastructure and expertise to drive innovation. Alternatively, organically formed clusters can enhance economic resilience by connecting diverse industries around shared competencies and resources. A hybrid approach—combining elements of both intentional and organic development—may offer the greatest potential, maximizing local assets across social and economic dimensions.

Bio

Dr. Murad Abel is a professor and Master of Business Administration (MBA) chair at UAGC's Department of Advanced Management Studies. He is also a research fellow and engages in economic review and research on clusters. He holds an MBA from Davenport University and a Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) from University of Phoenix. Dr. Murad Abel LinkedIn

 References

Bedru, H., et al. (2020). Big networks: A survey. Computer Science Review, 37.  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S157401371930282

Dutta, S., et al. (2024). Global Innovation Index 2024. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). https://www.wipo.int/web-publications/global-innovation-index-2024/en/

Giglio, V., et al. (2025). Cooperation between large companies and start-ups: An overview of the current state of research. European Management Journal, 43(1). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263237323000919

Handoyo, S., et al. (2023). A business strategy, operational efficiency, ownership structure, and manufacturing performance: The moderating role of market uncertainty and competition intensity and its implication on open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 9(2), 100039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2023.100039

Hua, L., Yang, Z., & Shao, J. (2022). Impact of network density on the efficiency of innovation networks: An agent-based simulation study. PLoS One, 17(6), e0270087. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270087

Kadlec, Ž., Josip, H., & Bedeković, M. (2018). Attracting investment in entrepreneurial zones of small cities by creating preconditions for the development of small and medium-sized enterprises. Interdisciplinary Management Research. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368881896

Katz, B., & Wagner, J. (2014). The rise of innovation districts. Brookings Institution. https://c24215cec6c97b637db6-9c0895f07c3474f6636f95b6bf3db172.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/content/metroinnovation-districts/~/media/programs/metro/images/innovation/innovationdistricts1.pdf

König, T. (2023). Between collaboration and competition: Co-located clusters of different industries in one region—the context of Tuttlingen’s medical engineering and metal processing industries. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 15(2), 288-326. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1757780223002639

My Thi Thi, D., & Tran Phu Do, T. (2024). The interrelationships between economic growth and innovation: international evidence. Journal of Applied Economics, 27(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/15140326.2024.2332975

Porter, M. (1998). Clusters and the New Economics of Competition. Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/1998/11/clusters-and-the-new-economics-of-competition [Accessed 6 Dec. 2017].

Pulido-Gómez, S., de Jong, J., & Rivkin, J. W. (2025). Cross-sector collaboration in cities: Learning journey or blame game? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, muae026. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muae026

Pyo, S., & Choi, S. O. (2025). Regional innovation and economic growth: Empirical insights from FGLS, FE-DKSE, and XGBoost-SHAP approach. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2025.100524

Ramazan, U., Tuluce, N., & Aykac, M. (2024). Creative destruction and artificial intelligence: The transformation of industries during the sixth wave. Journal of Economy and Technology, 2, 296-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ject.2024.09.004

Rashed, C. A., Bagum, M. N., & Haque, E. (2022). Adoption of technology and innovation in manufacturing sector: Current scenario. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359732230_Adoption_of_Technology_and_Innovation_in_Manufacturing_Sector-_Current_Scenario

Schumpeter, J. A. (1950). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (3rd ed.). Harper and Brothers.

Shi, J., & Xiao, Z. (2024). Research on the impact of inter-industry innovation networks on collaborative innovation performance: A case study of strategic emerging industries. Systems, 12(6), 211. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12060211

Tanaka, M. L., & Lopez, O. (2024). Outlook on industry-academia-government collaborations impacting medical device innovation. J Eng Sci Med Diagn Ther, 7(2), 025001. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4063464

Thi Thi, D., & Do, T. P. (2024). The interrelationships between economic growth and innovation: International evidence. Journal of Applied Economics, 27(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/15140326.2024.2332975

Zou, T. (2024). Technological innovation promotes industrial upgrading: An analytical framework.                     Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 70, 150-167.                                          

             https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2024.01.012