Relationships Matter

Posted on December 8, 2019 by admin

Several years ago, I completed the Clifton Strengths Finder assessment to better understand myself and the ways in which I engage with others professionally. The Clifton Strengths website indicates that the strength themes “explain the ways you most naturally think, feel and behave.” I recently (finally) made time to truly evaluate the results of my assessment, and it gave me a lot to think about.

The Clifton Strengths are organized into four categories: executing, influencing, relationship building, and strategic thinking. The assessment revealed my top five natural strengths all fall within two of these categories: executing and strategic thinking.

The assessment enabled me to articulate the ways in which I unconsciously operate and highlighted areas where I may need to exert more effort. I pride myself on being efficient and effective. Take one look at my strengths (numbered above) and this should be no surprise.

Above all else, I have an incredibly high sense of responsibility, and I aim to achieve. In most of my professional life, I have been able to achieve what was expected of me regardless of position or department because I have been able to analyze problems, understand the context, learn what I needed to do, and get the job done.

Over the last two years, my responsibilities evolved. I faced new challenges and found myself hitting road blocks. Getting things done was no longer as easy as before, and I had to wade through several frustrating projects before realizing I too needed to evolve. Taking time to reflect on my strengths helped me recognize that I have been missing out on opportunities to build meaningful connections. This has implications for not only my own professional success, but also for those I lead. An important part of leadership is empowering others and supporting them in developing their own rich lives. Having a positive influence on others and impact on my field requires investing the time and energy into developing genuine relationships.

Over the past several months, I’ve considered how to grow my strengths including seeking advice from others, and I learned a valuable lesson. Relationships matter. To put it in terms I naturally understand, relationships are productive.

That’s why, in 2020, I am making relationship building a personal and professional goal. I know it won’t come easy to me because this is not the way I most “naturally think, feel, and behave,” but I see the value. I also see that I have a responsibility to myself and others to welcome experiences that come from connection.  I believe improving myself in these areas will be both personally and professionally rewarding and am excited for the opportunities that await. Stay tuned for progress and if you know me in real life, I hope to connect real soon.

Posted in Leadership | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Relationships Matter

Qualitative Research Has My Heart

Posted on December 4, 2019 by admin

For the past 24 months I have been developing, implementing, and collecting data for my research exploring how a reflective action learning intervention impacts innovation in higher education. 24 months…I can’t believe it has been that long. Sometimes I feel that not enough is being done to ignite innovation, and that my research will drag on forever with little impact. In 2019, 18 faculty and staff on four teams participated in this intervention and more will join in 2020. The innovative outcomes produced by these teams may take months or years to implement, and the effectiveness of each innovation will take even longer to realize. No wonder I sometimes feel like there is no end in sight. But as I learned while recently conducting a little preliminary qualitative data analysis, there is no need to wait for some contrived end…the meaning is already there, embedded in the work, waiting for you.

One day I will share the preliminary findings of my research with you all, but not right now. Right now, I want to share a short reflection on my research and how it led to a shift in my identity.

The vast majority of data for my current research are qualitative. I don’t consider myself to be a qualitative researcher. My career in institutional research and assessment has been focused almost exclusively on quantitative data. I’m way out of my comfort zone here. To become more comfortable with qualitative data, I recently completed several rounds of coding using different approaches. With The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (Saldaña, 2015) as my guide, I coded a sample of my preliminary data using process coding followed by focused coding. I then turned around and coded the same data using descriptive coding followed by pattern coding.

Being relatively new to qualitative coding, I always feel like I’m doing something wrong. I want everything to fit into a nice formula or table, and well, that just isn’t how qualitative coding works. After completing these coding exercises, a litany of areas for improvement stood out to me. I realized my first cycle of coding was always too high level, and I need to be more granular at first. I need more time to step away between first and second cycles, and frankly, I need at least three or four passes to truly begin to make sense of the codes, categories, and themes. I also learned that some coding styles feel more natural and that one coding method may fit with a purpose of one’s research better than another. Although I felt I had missed so much and made so many mistakes, I forged ahead.

I reexamined the descriptions, applications, and methods of analysis associated with my coding approaches, and then I returned to my data. The iterative nature of qualitative research became my reality. And then it happened. Trends and themes started appearing, almost like they were jumping out of my coding software (HyperResearch) and into the air in front of me. I did it! And wait…I remember this feeling from earlier this year when I first started coding qualitative data. I’ve done this before! Holy cow! Does this mean…I’m a qualitative researcher?

Identity is a powerful thing. Although for most of my career I lived with quantitative data, I never truly felt at home there. Each time I sit down with my qualitative data and work through that iterative process – coding, memo-writing, codeweaving – each time those trends and themes start jumping out at me, I see the potential. I feel the possibilities. And all I want to do is dig in deeper to understand more. While I will always value the complimentary benefits of mixed methods, I want the world to know…qualitative research has my heart.

The biggest lesson I have learned from reflecting on my journey as a researcher is not about the steps I should follow to complete the process. It’s that while it can be daunting to dive into an endless sea of qualitative data, those pearls you find after scavenging the depths and sifting through the sand are worth it. So dig in. You never know what is waiting for you.

Posted in Education, PROPEL, Research, TEL780 | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Qualitative Research Has My Heart

Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad…Month

Posted on November 16, 2019 by admin

Over the last year, I’ve done a lot of reflecting on leadership. In January, I accepted a promotion to lead a new department. The opportunity to lead this new team has been an amazing challenge.  It allows me to work closely with seven talented team members, many in new positions, to improve student outcomes. It also positioned me to have a new peer group of senior academic leaders to learn from and support. As I took on this new role, I evaluated what type of leader I want to be. I considered the leaders I had served under throughout my career and identified my three priorities as a leader.

  1. To ensure my team members never feel alone. I seek to build trust so team members feel comfortable reaching out for support and guidance and by touching base regularly to minimize isolation.
  2. To be fair. I seek to treat each team member equitably, recognizing their unique strengths and challenges, while working with them to continually improve.
  3. To be clear. Brené Brown has a well-known saying, “clear is kind.” The more I have reflected on this statement, the more I recognize how it captures the importance of effective communication. I seek to provide clear guidance to my team to facilitate effective communication.

Throughout the past 11 months, I have taken several moments to step back and examine my performance.  I’ll admit that these moments have been few and far between given the multitude of competing priorities, but sometimes these moments force themselves….perhaps, like today, that happens while eating chocolate cake for breakfast and drinking coffee after having already worked two hours early on a Saturday morning.

Have you ever felt like you had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day, week or month?  I have. Over the past 11 months, I’ve had bad days and rough weeks (I’ve had good days too, I should add), and then October rolled around and factors from all areas of life combined to present what at times has felt like never ending challenges.  I decided this morning that this has been my terrible, no good, very bad month (reminding me of a book I remember reading as a child Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day, by Judith Viorst and illustrated by Ray Cruz, 1972).  I acknowledged that I am human and that comes with imperfection. I also realize that I may not be the only one who has felt this way. 

Staying true to my leadership priorities, I’m sharing my thoughts and experience here in case this makes even one person feel better or less alone. I also want to be very clear that this terrible, no good, very bad month is not the fault of anyone other than me. Sure, things have happened outside of my control, but what I can control is how I respond to those events.  To be fair to myself, I recognized this weeks ago as I felt the pains that come when one grows out of challenging times. So what did I do when I felt this strain? I tried to handle it all on my own. And here’s a vulnerable secret, I could have done it better.

I increased the frequency of my meditation practice hoping to minimize the stress by improving my clarity of mind, focus, continuity of behavior, acceptance of myself and others, and attention to the present moment. It helped. I found myself craving meditation every day, sometimes multiple times each day. Did it solve my problems and make me the best leader possible? No, not yet.

I started running more. Longer runs. Faster runs. More frequent runs. Running usually helps me work through complex problems and clear my mind. Regular exercise also boosts serotonin and moderates levels of stress hormones. It can also help improve quality of sleep. (Side note, apparently at the age of 36, it can also cause new pain in body parts you didn’t know you had). Did it solve my problems and make me the best leader possible? No, not yet.

I engaged in more activities I typically enjoy to remind myself that I am a multifaceted person with many interests and good qualities. I spent more time with family and friends. I donated my time by volunteering in my neighborhood. Did it solve my problems and make me the best leader possible? No, not yet.

I tried all these approaches to cope with stress and manage the challenges I face personally and professionally. But even when engaging with others, I did not share with them what I have been feeling. While I do discuss some difficulties I face with husband, I was still holding back. It wasn’t working. I needed support from others. I could not face every challenge alone. And in reality, I am not facing them alone, but by failing to have meaningful discussions with others facing similar challenges I felt all alone. This is what I’ve learned. This is why I’m putting myself out there and sharing this with you because it’s hard to accept that we can’t or perhaps shouldn’t do everything alone. We are stronger together – both in what we can accomplish and who we can become.

While I have not yet mastered being a leader, I know that I can continue to dedicate myself to living by my three priorities in all areas of my life by supporting those around me (by being more human) so we all feel less alone, by treating others and myself fairly, and by clearly communicating with others about what I need and helping them articulate what they need. Modeling these practices may help others grow as well.  Acknowledging that we all have room to improve and sharing that journey, may in fact bring us closer together.

Do you have a growth experience to share? I would love to hear from you in the comments below.

Posted in Leadership, Mindfulness, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad…Month

Is the education silo impeding transformations?

Posted on October 28, 2019 by admin

I recently read an article, The Numbers Behind Successful Transformations, in which the authors share four indicators that increase the odds of successful organizational transformations (definitely worth a quick read).  They argue for an approach based on data from their own research including interesting case studies and infographics. As I read through the article, I found myself adapting their examples from manufacturing and chemicals companies to my own industry, education. This is not an unusual situation. I often find myself reading a cutting-edge article about leadership, strategic growth, employee development, or innovation and having to reframe the principles to fit my field due to a paucity of accessible, evidence-based articles providing guidance for those leading change in education. One could argue this is because I’m reading articles from a wide range of sources and am not sticking with the usual higher ed sources, but this happens time and again even with pointed searches in the realm of education. Why is it that seemingly every other industry under the sun is seen as actively pursuing organizational innovation and education is left in the dust? (I do recognize there are a select few good reads out there that include a range of industries such as Dual Transformations by Anthony, Gilbert, & Johnson).

Private sector businesses designed to help organizations improve, transform, and keep up with the changing times don’t see education as a market demanding these skills. For example, the article above stems from McKinsey & Company, a management consulting firm that proclaims, “We help organizations across the private, public, and social sectors create the change that matters.” The list of 21 industries they serve ranges from aerospace and agriculture to healthcare and retail. Why isn’t education viewed as an industry that might capitalize on the services such a company provides to improve organizational growth, manage risk, enhance marketing, and strengthen operations? If any industry crosses the public/private sector seeking to create change that matters, it’s education!

To be clear, I’m not picking on McKinsey. They provide valuable services to a whole host of businesses trying to meet the evolving demand of our rapidly changing world. Which is exactly what education needs to do. This is no secret to most education leaders, but the path to finding that transformational change, that recipe to ensure continued enrollment, high quality faculty, and engaging pedagogy, that path is unclear.  But it doesn’t need to be opaque. The lessons gleaned through research and applied to every other industry apply to education as well. While education is a complex system with unique challenges, the same can be said about healthcare, government, and other industries. We must learn across industries. We must embrace strategic leadership that drives organizational learning and innovation. We must look outside ourselves, outside academia, and draw on the strategies and opportunities other industries have capitalized on for years.

When I started writing this post, I intended to write about the four indicators to consider to maximize the odds of a successful organizational transformation.  I encourage you to check out the original article linked above, but also, to think about what it will take to get education out of its silo to learn and grow with other industries. Am I missing major components of the issue here? Do you know of management firms like McKinsey that include education in the industries they serve? Are there other groups you believe are filling this need in education? Please share your perspective. Continue the conversation. Initiate change.

Reference

Laczkowski, K., Tan, T., & Winter, M. (2019). The numbers behind successful transformations. McKinsey Quarterly. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/transformation/our-insights/the-numbers-behind-successful-transformations#0

Posted in Education, Leadership, Organizational Learning | Comments Off on Is the education silo impeding transformations?

Strategic Leadership

Posted on October 18, 2019 by admin

My article on strategic leadership in higher education was recently published in the online newspaper, Evolllution! One of my goals for 2019 was to put myself out there more to share my perspective and expertise with others in my field. Starting this blog was the first visible step in that journey, and seeing my article in Evolllution is an exciting milestone on my path to having a greater impact. Check out my article and please leave comments below if you would like to learn more about specific topics related to higher ed, leadership, and organizational change.

https://evolllution.com/managing-institution/operations_efficiency/what-strategic-leadership-looks-like-in-practice/
Posted in Education, Leadership, PROPEL | Comments Off on Strategic Leadership

PROPEL – Part III: Gaining Support for an Organizational Change Initiative

Posted on September 10, 2019 by admin

In Part II of this series, I began to describe the case for developing an organizational change initiative. Initial interviews with employees suggested there may be a need for intentional, structured opportunities for cross-departmental reflection and collaboration. Employees occasionally mentioned that the college culture supported collaboration and change, which reinforced my belief that an organizational learning initiative that leads to action would be a good fit. While it appeared that employees felt comfortable driving change, I needed to confirm this perspective was broadly shared across the college before investing resources in an organizational change initiative. 

I recognized that gathering input from all employees would require significant support. First, I prepared a written proposal using the existing data I had gathered, best practices in organizational learning and change, and research from the field. The proposal was structured following Kotter’s 8 steps to leading change (Kotter, 1996), and this approach ensured the inclusion of information framed in a way that would increase support. I shared this proposal with my supervisor, the Chief Academic Officer (CAO), and scheduled time for us to discuss my vision. The CAO was familiar with some of the research I shared in my proposal, and after discussing some operational considerations and making minor adjustments, she agreed to support my vision. I now had a supporter in my corner who was willing to take my proposal to the executive leaders and build support, which is exactly what happened. After the executive team reviewed the proposal, I worked through numerous questions and concerns by reviewing examples in the literature, reflecting on our organizational context, and discussing possible adjustments with the CAO. With significant preparation behind me, I presented my proposal to the executive team. I spent over 30 minutes answering questions and addressing concerns. My biggest priority was to gain support for the next phase of research I would need to gather more input from employees. I also emphasized that the change initiative, whatever model we would develop, would certainly be the first iteration of an evolving organizational change process. It was important to me to ensure the executive leaders anticipated change in the process and recognized that I could not promise one static model to drive organizational change at the college. Ultimately, my proposal was approved!

With leadership support, I initiated the second phase of my action research study in September 2018 and set out to build college-wide engagement through interviews with executive level leaders, focus groups with faculty and staff, and a survey sent to all staff and faculty (including adjunct faculty).  Through this research, I explored employee perceptions of current opportunities, support, and need for innovation and reflective practice within the college.  Additionally, this was an opportunity to engage employees in the development of the PROPEL initiative for organizational change.  By seeking input from all employees, I was able to foster broad support and ground the initiative in employee feedback.  Results based on responses from over one hundred employees indicated that employees felt supported in reflecting and suggesting innovative ideas for improvement by direct supervisors, but this support varied by department and was informal and unstructured.  Employees suggested there was a need for innovation in higher education and at the college. Additionally, the majority of participants were eager to participate in a cross-departmental reflective action learning group. 

Using employee feedback and leadership support, I began developing the PROPEL model for organizational change. PROPEL would provide a structure and process to enable groups of employees to reflect, learning, develop innovative ideas, and turn ideas into strategic action for continuous improvement. By regularly convening groups throughout the year, the college would have a systematic method for adapting to meet changing needs.

In Part IV of this series, I will provide more detail about implementing PROPEL, including developing the PROPEL training and Idea Bank, and eventually, I’ll share examples of several innovations in progress as a result of PROPEL. Stay tuned!

Reference

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Posted in Education, Leadership, Organizational Learning, PROPEL | Comments Off on PROPEL – Part III: Gaining Support for an Organizational Change Initiative

Philosophical Perspective on Research

Posted on July 7, 2019 by admin

I consider research to be a process of empowerment for both the researcher and key stakeholders.  By including those most impacted by the problem of study, a researcher serves as the guide to employ rigorous methodology while integrating key players who may not have experience in conducting research themselves. This approach requires extra attention to every step of the research process and is integral to creating meaningful change.  My beliefs about the benefits and potential of research reflect my stance as a social justice researcher (Manning, 2009). 

My research is outcomes oriented and places value on equity and fairness.  Through my current research specifically, I am exploring models for changing systems and institutional structures that perpetuate inequity.  Before launching the PROPEL initiative, focus groups with faculty and staff revealed a consistent desire among employees to be included in decision-making and to have transparency in changes happening across the college.  This desire did not seem to stem from a distrust of leadership, but rather, employees wanted to know what was going on in other departments so they could help each other and benefit from lessons learned.  This was a remarkable finding from my early research and suggested that creating an organizational action learning initiative, which brings faculty and staff into the idea generation, creation, and implementation process, would improve employee satisfaction and engagement as well as foster continuous improvement.  

When developing the PROPEL model, my goals were to give all employees a voice, provide the resources to learn new skills, and empower them to take action to implement innovative ideas.  From a social justice perspective, the PROPEL model should improve equitable sharing of power and bring voices from diverse backgrounds to the decision-making tables.  One choice I made to ensure inclusivity was to encourage adjunct faculty participation. Based in a faculty-practitioner model, many of our faculty work full-time in their field of study and teach in addition to their other responsibilities.  This is certainly true of adjunct faculty members.  It would be difficult to include them, but their voices are a valued part of understanding the needs of students and ways to improve the college.  Therefore, the college leadership team approved  a budget including a small stipend to encourage adjunct participation.  This has been well worth it with every team this year including one adjunct and one non-adjunct faculty member.

Time will tell how effective this model is at giving all employees a voice.  Through my research, including pre- and post-PROPEL Participation Surveys, interviews, and observations, I will explore themes derived, in part, from the voices of participants.  I will begin analyzing data routinely later this year, so stay tuned for more details about how this process may actually be impacting equitable decision-making and power-sharing across employee types and hierarchical positions.

Reference

Manning, K. (2009). Philosophical underpinnings of student affairs work on difference. About Campus, 11-17. 

Posted in Organizational Learning, PROPEL, TEL780 | Comments Off on Philosophical Perspective on Research

Inclusivity in Action Research

Posted on July 6, 2019 by admin

Research in the field of education is most beneficial if it is practitioner-oriented. Currently, there is a gap between research and practice, which results in much research not being utilized in an impactful way.  Traditional scholars recommend researchers focus more on problems of relevance to policymakers and practitioners, while also communicating the results from such research in more accessible ways.  Another approach to closing the gap may be in the practitioner-as-researcher model, in which researchers study problems of practice in their local setting in collaboration with other practitioners (Bensimon, Polkinghorne, Bauman, & Vallejo, 2004). 

In the more traditional approach, researchers study a problem and then practitioners read and try to use the results.  This distances researchers from those in the field and can limit the experience of practitioners and those most impacted by the problem being studied.  This approach can be exclusionary as opposed to inclusive as stakeholder voices are left out of the research. Thus, Bensimon et al (2004) claim the problem lies in the method of generating knowledge through traditional research as opposed to the dissemination of results or problems studied.  In contrast, the practitioner-as-researcher model (akin to participatory action research) strives to put those impact by the problem at the center of the research to empower them through collaborative knowledge development.  Following this approach to research, individuals study problems in their own organizations to bring about organizational change.

My current research aligns with the practitioner-as-research model with the primary goal of creating a systematic process for practitioners in my organization to bring about change to improve how we achieve our mission.  While students are the most important stakeholders, they typically do not have the insider knowledge of how our college operates that would enable them to drive the research needed to improve support services and curriculum.  They do, however, provide a lot of feedback.  That feedback is used to drive innovations within the college through our PROPEL model of organizational learning (and the focus of my current research). 

In addition to students, stakeholder groups actively engaged in my research include faculty and staff.  These parties, students, faculty, and staff, are engaged in numerous ways.  All stakeholders are regularly surveyed to identify areas for improvement across the college. Faculty and staff also participate in focus groups.  Based on these data, PROPEL teams, consisting of faculty and staff, focus on studying one area for improvement and proposing a solution.  This enables the college to take action on numerous areas for improvement simultaneously (beyond ongoing improvement efforts embedded in typical jobs within a college), and the changes are developed by those who have regular interactions with students. This brings the practitioners into the research process as they design an innovation to address the problem, outline a plan for evaluating their innovation to determine if it is effective, and support implementation of the innovation once approved by college leadership.

As I reflect on the practitioner-as-research approach (Bensimon et al, 2004) and my research plans thus far, I recognize that students could have a more participatory role. Although our students are typically working adults with little time for engaging outside of coursework, a small sample of students could be included to provide input as PROPEL teams develop innovations.  Moving forward, I will consider ways in which I could include a diverse group of students such as by creating an advisory council or identifying student representatives who would be willing to commit even a little time to reviewing innovation ideas before they are fully developed by PROPEL teams.  This approach would empower students, faculty, and staff to improve areas they believe could be better.

My hope is that the PROPEL model has become systematic and facilitates employee learning, research, and innovation development.  Implemented earlier this year, the process seems engrained in our culture, but a lack of employee participation or change in leadership support could disrupt its sustainability.  One way to improve the longevity of this model is to moderate the number of participants each year so the available employees don’t all contribute in the first year.  I could limit the model to three teams instead of four or five per year.  An added benefit of this moderation is a measured approach to nonessential innovations.  It is more realistic to dedicate resources for three innovations per year rather than five.  Additionally, I could seek for inclusion of the PROPEL model in institutional documents such as the strategic plan or college policies. You can stay up-to-date on progress of PROPEL by staying tuned to this blog, especially the ongoing series focused entirely on PROPEL.

Reference

Bensimon, E., Polkinghorne, D., Bauman, G. & Vallejo, E. (2004). Doing research that makes a difference. Journal of Higher Education, 75(1), 104-126.

Posted in Education, PROPEL, TEL780 | Comments Off on Inclusivity in Action Research

Comparisons in Higher Education: Contextual Attributes

Posted on July 3, 2019 by admin

In my last post, I described the benefits of secondary data in formalized research and in practical application.  I primarily focused on how the use of government data available through IPEDS facilitates peer comparisons by enabling faculty and academic leaders to compare institutions on key characteristics.  A number of sources for identifying peer institutions exist beyond IPEDS including a network mapping tool from the Chronicle of Higher Education, Carnegie Classifications Look Up, and U.S. News & World Reports. Additionally, many tools, such as Gray Associates and Emsi, have been created from a marketing and program development perspective to provide valuable data to guide institutional program investment decisions.  Where does one begin? First, it is important to recognize that each source has a unique method for gathering data and using that data to profile institutions.  Acknowledge that the source is presenting one way of conceptualizing the criteria at hand, and these systems do not proclaim what is empirically best (McCormick & Mei, 2005).

Next, consider the purpose of why you are comparing institutions.  In my example from last week, faculty were comparing institutions to identify peer programs to facilitate and peer comparison as part of an evaluation of program effectiveness.  The sources you use may differ based on your purpose.  Are you comparing and contrasting institutions for research purposes?  If so, you may want to consider attributes such as level/degree levels offered, size of student population, and enrollment profile to ensure you are comparing data across similar institutions.  From there, your sources and attributes will vary based on your research question.  If researching culture, for example, the size of the institution, number of employees, proportion of tenure track faculty, mission, and type of control (e.g., for-profit, private, public) would provide valuable context for understanding the cultural differences between institutions.  Finding sources with the desired data is key, and Carnegie Classifications would be a valuable source for many of these attributes.  Are you comparing and contrasting for purposes of benchmarking and strategic planning?  If so, you may want to consider attributes such as level, enrollment profile, and type of control if benchmarking against similar institutions (e.g., Carnegie Classifications would again be useful); however, when strategic planning, you may want to examine aspirational peers, which would enable you to conduct a gap analysis to see how your institution compares to one which you strive to be or surpass. Attributes such as graduation rate, satisfaction scores, licensure pass rates, and gainful employment may be more important to drive strategic planning.  

Finally, when using the data from your selected sources, you will want to include relevant definitions and factors that are necessary for your audience to understand the data as you are using them.  I’m a big fan of using footnotes to include these contextual definitions because they detract less from the narrative while providing the important information all readers need.

Through my current research, I am exploring organizational learning at colleges and universities.  After compiling a list of all colleges and universities cited in the literature for having organizational learning models, I could use peer comparison tools and secondary data sources to explore institutions of higher education with organizational learning models and compare them to my own institution based on type of control, enrollment size, and employee counts. These factors may significantly impact an organization’s ability to implement organizational learning initiatives. A comparison of this type would be a solid base to understanding what models for organizational learning exist in what types of institutions.  This would inform considerations as to how generalizable my model, if effective, might be to other institutions of differing types.  An entire study could focus on analyzing the types of institutions with organizational learning models and the differing characteristics between the models and institutions.  This could reveal areas in which certain characteristics are more well-suited for specific types of universities and colleges compared to others.

Reference

McCormick, A. & Mei, C. (2005). Rethinking and reframing the Carnegie Classification. Change, 51-57. 

Posted in Organizational Learning, TEL780 | Comments Off on Comparisons in Higher Education: Contextual Attributes

Secondary Data Sources in Higher Education

Posted on June 29, 2019 by admin

As higher education researchers strive to better understand the ways in which educational programs and institutions can better meet evolving needs of students and employers, secondary data sources are an increasingly useful resources.  Secondary data sources are previously collected data that another researcher can access and reanalyze to address a new research question (Elliot, 2016).  Using government data (e.g., IPEDS), national data (e.g., NASSGAP), and/or institutional data, such as those generated by institutional research offices), is often more realistic than trying to gather similar data for an isolated study.  Not only can these sources be useful in formalized research, but they have practical value as well.  Let’s take an example from the college where I work. 

Each year, 4-6 academic programs complete a comprehensive program review process.  During this process, faculty and student support staff review the program to evaluate effectiveness.  Faculty committees and program leadership gathers institutional data on student satisfaction, retention and completion rates, enrollment rates, student learning outcomes, and more.  One component is a peer comparison.  Faculty identify other programs they consider peers and research those programs to determine how our program compares.  This is a useful approach for identifying gaps in our programs and ensuring our programs stay current in a rapidly changing market.  While some program-specific data can be found on institutional websites, key performance indicators are not always easy to find.  Data available through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (e.g. IPEDS) may provide a place to start.  While IPEDS houses a massive amount of data on higher education institutions, an easy place to start is reviewing institutional profiles for peer schools.  The institutional profile provides basic characteristics such as location, type of organizational control, award levels, % of students receiving financial aid, enrollment and completions by degree level and race/ethnicity, and HR data such as the number of faculty and staff in various positions. During the peer comparison part of  comprehensive program review, faculty may first identify an institution they believe is a peer and then check IPEDS to compare similarities to ensure they select peer programs from an appropriately comparable institution.

But how do we identify which attributes to use to identify a peer? Stay tuned for my next blog post in which I will review some of the sources for comparing institutions and programs, as well as relevant contextual attributes.           

Reference

Elliott, D. (2016). Secondary data analysis. In F. Stage & K. Manning (Eds.), Research in the college context, 2nd edition (pp. 175-184). Routledge. 

Posted in TEL780 | Comments Off on Secondary Data Sources in Higher Education