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

Attention Economy

Posted on June 26, 2019 by admin

Meetings, emails, texts, calls, and many other forms of “connecting” combine to reduce our attention and challenge our ability to focus.  According to research reported by The Harvard Gazette (2010), we spend 47% of waking hours thinking about something other than what is happening in the present moment.  The resulting scarcity of attention means we have less and less time to pay attention to each competing demand. I have personally faced this challenge at work in what some may call an email addiction.  Emails flood our inboxes and clearing them may feel like we’re getting things done, but hours later nothing is crossed off the to do list.  Hougaard and Carter (2016) suggest a few strategies for helping regain attention and focus for what is happening in the moment. Applying these tips requires intentional practice to retrain the way we respond to stimuli. Try a few and see what works for you:

  • Before getting out of bed in the morning, lay still and focus on your breathing for two minutes.      
  • When you begin work and sit down to tackle the daily to do list, take 10 minutes to complete a mindfulness practice such as focusing on your breathing.   If 10 minutes seems like too long, try 5 minutes. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
  • Avoid multitasking by focusing your energy on the task at hand. Often this may seem counter-productive, but by focusing on each task fully we are more likely to execute well the first time and maintain energy for the next task.
  • Recognize when you are prioritizing low priority tasks because they are easier to accomplish and counter this by setting yourself up to focus on higher priority tasks that may be more complex. Turn off your email for one hour to focus. Put your cell phone in a drawer. Be conscious of how you are working and try a new approach to improve your focus.
  • Schedule an afternoon mindfulness break for a brief breathing exercise or quiet moment of reflection.  This may re-energize you when you feel the need for an afternoon nap.

References

Bradt., S. (2010, November 11). Wandering mind not a happy mind. The Harvard Gazette. Retrieved from https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/11/wandering-mind-not-a-happy-mind/

Hougaard, R, & Carter, J. (2016, March 4). How to practice mindfulness throughout your work day. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/03/how-to-practice-mindfulness-throughout-your-work-day

Posted in Mindfulness | Comments Off on Attention Economy

Research Design

Posted on June 23, 2019 by admin

I used to describe myself as someone who hated theory. I found theory too abstract, and when I dug in to understand more, I found myself confused by contradicting definitions and seemingly endless terminology lacking clear explanations. Through several years of doctoral study, I can finally say I see the value in theory and strive to demonstrate this value in my own research. In this post, I will review a research question I am currently exploring and how that aligns with research paradigms and methodologies. I will also explore how my understanding of theory might be applied to this research.

As part of my doctoral work, I am considering the following research question: What impact does the design, delivery, and leadership of the PROPEL model have on teams and innovation at the American College of Education?

The constructivist paradigm, which is “concerned with meaning, researcher-respondent rapport, co-construction of the research findings…, practical application of research findings, and reciprocity between and among researcher and respondents” (Manning & Stage, 2014, p. 22), best aligns with my research question.  This alignment reflects my desire to expose the multiple perspectives of teams and how the varying team contexts relate to innovation.  I also work closely with team members who are research participants, and my role as researcher in this work regularly changes from participant to participant-observer to observer.  By studying the phenomenon of team innovation development, I hope to generate themes from data that can be used to expand knowledge and create a model for an active learning organization. These goals align with key components of the constructivist paradigm including inductive meaning development, socially constructed context specific meaning, theory creation through interpretation, and close co-constructed researcher-participant relationships.  Two major challenges relate to this paradigm including how I, as a researcher, separate my own values from the meaning I derive from the data. Countering this challenge requires acknowledging my own assumptions and values and using validation methods during data collection and analysis.  Another challenge is that due to the context-specific nature of my work, the results will have limited generalizability.

As a counter point to how well suited the constructivist paradigm is for my work, the positivist paradigm is an approach that would not fit well with my research.  The positivist paradigm is a scientific-based approach used to collect data to verify hypotheses (Manning & Stage, 2014).  Common features include explanation, prediction, and control, and it is best used with a phenomenon viewed as having a singular reality that is not context-specific. Researcher-participant relationships should be independent, objective, or separate, and the researcher should isolate their values and the values of respondents from the research.  Additionally, research based on the positivist paradigm is based on existing theory.  Compared to the details of my research described above, these features that distinguish positivist from other research paradigms would make it a poor choice for my exploration of my research question.

Based in a constructivist paradigm, my research will follow an action research approach including primarily qualitative methods such as interviews, document analysis, and observations. These methods will enable me to explore my research questions through the experiences of participants, which will enable me to generate themes to interpret and explain innovation development in higher education.  Unlike a quantitative method such as experimental research, which would require random sampling and a control group, primarily qualitative methods fit well with my setting and lack of complete control of who participates (Manning & Stage, 2014).

My research paradigm and methods align with my research question to enable me to meet my goals related to theory development. But what do I mean by theory and theory development?  Let me break down what this means in my work.  Kezar (2006) does an excellent job of explaining the confusion around theory I mentioned previously.  She provides a thorough overview of the challenges and benefits of using theory and how it relates to the field of education.  She also presents questions researchers should consider to determine how theory fits into their work.  After reviewing this work and considering existing theories related to my research, I considered what my own definition of theory would look like based on my understanding of theory.  My work follows a combination of the interpretive and participatory paradigms. I seek to explain something in order to better understand it so that I may provide a guide to facilitate change. The phenomenon I study is innovation development in organizations, a phenomenon that includes poorly defined human and organizational processes that are socially constructed and context specific. Thus, my work will likely not yield a universal theory. 

The goal of my work is to understand the role of various processes, structures, and characteristics on innovation development in higher education. I believe theory has value and is interpreted differently based on the individual and context. Therefore, I seek to generate theory within my context that may provide new knowledge, expanded from existing theories and based in experience, of how organizations, teams, and individuals engage to sustain innovation.  From this theory development, I hope to provide a model for others to consider in their own unique contexts. For theory to emerge from my research, a scholarly approach is required following a combination of inductive and deductive approaches. A deductive review of existing literature enables me to use my prior knowledge to explore alternatives to existing theories to inductively derive meaning through original research. Therefore, my past personal and professional experience is relevant and must be acknowledged in my work. Considering these reflections, I define theory as an interpretation of an observed or experienced phenomenon that has practical value in certain contexts.  I must acknowledge that this definition will likely change as my work and context changes.

Research outcomes are only as valid as the underlying foundations that support each step of the work.  Defining and aligning research questions, paradigms, and methods is critical to a well-planned study. Articulating the role and purpose of theory in one’s research clarifies how meaning is derived and understood. Kezar (2006) is a source worth exploring if you wish to deepen your own understanding of the role of theory in research in education.

References

Kezar, A. (2006). To use or not to use theory: Is that the question? In J. Smart (ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, Volume XXI (pp. 283-344). Springer. 

Manning, K. & Stage, F. (2014). What is your research approach? In F. Stage & K. Manning (eds.), Research in the college context (pp. 19-44). Routledge. 

Posted in Education, TEL780 | Comments Off on Research Design

Content in the Field of Higher Education

Posted on June 22, 2019 by admin

Higher education, as a field, gained steam in the 1960s and has continued to grow (Hendrickson, 2014).  Data from the National Center for Education Statistics reveal and increase of 26% in master’s and doctoral degrees conferred in the area of higher education or higher education administration between 2011-2012 and 2015-2016. (NCES, 2013; NCES, 2017).  The majority of these degrees are master’s level with over 3,000 master’s degrees awarded in 2015-2016.  While scholars debate the classification of higher education as a discipline, the increasing pursuit of degrees in this area exemplifies the demand and raises questions about expected outcomes (Hendrickson, 2014; Wright, 2007).

The study of the field of higher education is complex and continually evolving (Wright, 2007).  Scholars have proposed core domains of knowledge that should be integrated into program curriculum and reflected in expected program outcomes (Hendrickson, 2014; Goodchild, 2014).  Hendrickson (2014) suggests five core domains (p. 233):

  1. History and evolution of higher education institutions and systems
  2. Structure and functions of higher education organizations and the interplay with the external environment
  3. Organizational theory applied to higher education organizations
  4. Development of curriculum to foster learning
  5. Students and their development

Research advancing knowledge in these domains is supported by a host of professional associations including the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE).  The theme of the 2018 ASHE annual conference was “envisioning the woke academy” with program sections in seven areas aligning closely with relevant research cited above:

  1.  Students
  2.  Organization, administration, and leadership 
  3.  Faculty
  4. Contexts, methods, and foundations
  5.  Policy, finance, and economics
  6.  International
  7. Community-engaged research

Education research such as that supported by ASHE must focus on complex issues within education in order to advance the field. Ball and Forzani (2007) describe this as focusing on instructional dynamics, which requires researchers to consider the interactions between learners, teachers, and environmental contexts.  The research presented at the 2018 ASHE conference exemplifies this exact focus by challenging higher education administrators and faculty to critically consider the history and ongoing oppression and its impact on teaching and learning.  Individual sessions align well with the overall theme as exemplified by session titles such as “Mystery of Iniquity: Exploring the Career Advancement of Minoritized Faculty” and “Addressing Power in Data Collection by Incorporating Participant-Generated Visual Methods into Research Designs: A Woke Workshop.”  The conference provides a well-rounded program covering major domains related to the study of higher education as highlighted in the literature.  From a review of the program, it does not appear that any gaps exist in the topics presented at the conference.

Reviewing literature and conference proceedings in this area revealed a possible outlet for my own research on organizational learning to facilitate ongoing innovation at colleges and universities.  My research directly aligns with the topical programs at the 2018 ASHE conference, specifically with the organization, administration, and leadership area including sessions such as “In the News: Public Perception Influences on Higher Education,” “Networks and New Approaches,” and “Institutional Agents and Power Dynamics.”  Additionally, one session “Beyond Main Hall: Collaboration and Community Engagement” includes numerous presenters with research on institutional decisions and processes as well as promoting cross-departmental collaboration for innovation.  This exploration into the study of higher education has provided sources from which I can gain new insights and connect with potential future collaborators. I share this in hopes that others may find similar pathways to sharing ideas and collaborating with colleagues.

References

Ball, D. & Forzani, F. (2007). What makes educational research “educational”? Educational Researcher, 36(9), 529-540. 

Goodchild, L. (2014). Higher education as a field of study: Its history, degree programs, associations, and national guidelines. In S. Freeman, L. Hagedorn, L. Goodchild & D. Wright (Eds.), Advancing higher education as a field of study: In quest of doctoral degree guidelines (pp. 13-50). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Hendrickson, R. (2014). The core knowledge of higher education. In S. Freeman, L. Hagedorn, L. Goodchild & D. Wright (Eds.), Advancing higher education as a field of study: In quest of doctoral degree guidelines (pp. 229-240). Sterling, VA: Stylus. 

NCES. (2013). Digest of education statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_318.30.asp.

NCES. (2017). Digest of education statistics Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_318.30.asp.

Wright, D. (2007). Progress in the development of higher education as a specialized field of study. In D. Wright & M. Miller (Eds.), Training higher education policy makers and leaders (pp. 19-34). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. 

Posted in Education, TEL780 | Comments Off on Content in the Field of Higher Education