1 / 20

Researcher: Michael Healy

t he p erspective of the directors : a c ase s tudy of the offices of institutional r esearch r elated to its role in the culture of accountability on specific c ampuses . Researcher: Michael Healy . c hapter one: introduction. p roblem statement.

doane
Download Presentation

Researcher: Michael Healy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. the perspective of the directors: a case study of the offices of institutional research related to its role in the culture of accountability on specific campuses Researcher: Michael Healy

  2. chapter one:introduction

  3. problem statement Accountability has become an important concept within higher education; however, advancing the culture of accountability on campus can be extremely difficult, which is evident as even the actual roles for the individuals and offices that are involved are hard to properly define.  For institutions to advance this culture on campus requires that the perspectives of the actual roles are understood and that the roles are further developed in a strategic manner.  The Offices of Institutional Research are one such player involved with answering the call of accountability on campus.  It has been noted that this office can provide “leadership and assistance in the assessment of student learning,” policy development, and strategic planning, which are essential in addressing the calls for accountability (Delaney, 2009, pp. 33).  Despite the ability for the Offices of Institutional Research to provide leadership in these areas, it has also been stated that many of these offices lack the adequate organizational structure and support, as well as the necessary research capacity, and additionally face the need to change the current institutional culture (Morest, 2009). While the opportunities available and lack of capacity of these offices have been studied, few scholars have investigated how the Directors of the Offices of Institutional Research actually perceive their individual roles and the offices roles related to the culture of accountability.

  4. purpose statement The purpose of this study is to explore how the Directors of the Offices of Institutional Research at 5-7 purposefully selected institutions perceive their individual roles and the offices roles related to the culture of accountability.

  5. conceptual framework The framework for this study is based upon a conceptual framework focusing on a variety of interrelated concepts. These concepts consist of accountability, assessment, and institutional culture, which can be related to the roles and responsibilities for the Offices of Institutional Research.

  6. Central Question • How do the Directors of the Offices of Institutional Research at selected institutions perceivetheir individual roles and the offices roles related to the culture of accountability? • Sub-Questions • How are the Offices of Institutional Research involved with accountability on campus? • How are the roles of the Directors of the Offices of Institutional Research consistent or different across the 5-7 institutions in this study? • How are the roles of the Offices of Institutional Research consistent or different across the 5-7 institutions in this office? • How will the future responsibilities of the Offices of Institutional Research differ from the current responsibilities? Research questions

  7. Significance of the study The Offices of Institutional Research can be instrumental in the success of answering the calls of accountability and improving the institutional culture, however, there is little in the literature that explores how the Directors of the Offices of Institutional Research perceive their individual roles and the offices roles related to the culture of accountability. By developing a study with this focus provides beneficial insight into the current and future value of the Offices of Institutional Research in the culture of accountability. Further, the improvement upon practice and the policy implications of this study can result in increased knowledge of the practical use/development of the Offices of Institutional Research and can provide amble recommendations for further research on specific topics raised within this study.

  8. chapter two:review of literature

  9. Core Literature • Thus far literature that has contributed to the development of the major themes within this study include, but are not limited to the following: • Delaney, A. M. (2009): • The Offices of Institutional Research can better serve institutions by enhancing their roles and responsibilities. • Ewell, P. T. (2008): • Accountability and assessment are linked, however, few academic leaders and even fewer faculty members place value upon assessment. • Middaugh, M. (2007): • Institutions must become more accountable and transparent in relation to institutional effectiveness, student learning and student success, which requires items such as sufficient assessments. • Morest, V. S. (2009): • Many Offices of Institutional Research lack the adequate organizational structure and support, as well as the necessary research capacity, and additionally face the need to change the current institutional culture.

  10. Literature Matrix

  11. Literature Matrix

  12. Bibliography to Date • Alexander, F. K. (2000). The Changing Face of Accountability: Monitoring and Assessing Institutional Performance in Higher Education. The Journal of Higher Education, 71 (4),411-431. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. • Burke, J.C. (2004). The Many Faces of Accountability. In J.C. Burke (Ed.), Achieving Accountability in Higher Education: Balancing Public, Academic, and Market Demands (pp.1-24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Boss. • Delaney, A. M. (1997). The Role of Institutional Research in Higher Education: Enabling Researchers to Meet New Challenges. Research in Higher Education, 38(1), 1-16. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. • Delaney, A. M. (2009). Institutional Research’s Expanding Roles: Policy, Planning, Program Evaluation, Assessment, and New Research Methodology. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009(143), 29-41. Retrieved from EBSOhost. • El-Khawas, E. (2008). Defining the Role of Academics in Accountability. Higher Education Policy and Management, 21(1), 97-108. Retrieved from www.oecd.org/dataoecd/4/42/41216386.pdf.

  13. Bibliography to Date • Ewell, P. T. (2005). Can Assessment Serve Accountability? It Depends on the Question. . In J.C. Burke (Ed.), Achieving Accountability in Higher Education: Balancing Public, Academic, and Market Demands (pp.104-124). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Boss. • Ewell, P. T. (2008). Assessment and Accountability in America Today: Background and Context. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2008(Assessment Supplement), 7-17. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. • Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2002). The Effects of Institutional Culture on Change Strategies in Higher Education. The Jounral of Higher Education, 73(4), 435-460. Retrieved from ERIC. • Leimer, C. & Terkla, D. G. (2009). Laying the Foundation: Institutional Research Office Organization, Staffing, and Career Development. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009 (143), 43-58. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. • Middaugh, M. (2007). Creating a Culture of Evidence: Academic Accountability at the Institutional Level. New Directions for Higher Education, 2007(140), 15-28. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. • Millett, C. M., Payne, D.G., Dwyer, C.A., Stickler, L. M., & Alexiou, J. J. (2008). A Culture of Evidence: An Evidence-Centered Approach to Accountability of Student Learning Outcomes.Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

  14. Bibliography to Date • Morest, V. S. (2009). Accountability, Accreditation, and Continuous Improvement: Building a Culture of Evidence. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009(143), 17-27. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. • Morest, V S. & Jenkins, D. (2007). Institutional Research and the Culture of Evidence at Community Colleges. Report No. 1 in the Culture of Evidence Series. New York, NY: Community College Research Center. • Peterson, M. W. (1999). The Role of Institutional Research: From Improvement to Redesign. New Directions for Institutional Research, 1999(104), 83-103. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. • Swing, R. L. (2009). Institutional Researchers as Change Agents. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009(143), 5-16. Retireved from EBSCOhost. • Volkwein, J. (1999). The Four Faces of Institutional Research. New Directions for Institutional Research, 1999(104), 9-19. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. • Welsh, J., & Metcalf, J. (2003). Administrative Support for Institutional Effectiveness Activities: Responses to the New Accountability. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 25(2), 183-193. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

  15. chapter three:proposed methodology

  16. proposed methodology The proposed methodology for this research is a qualitative study focusing on the in-depth interviews of purposely selected Directors of the Offices of Institutional Research. This will result in the development of a multi-site case study focusing on the phenomenon of the study, which is how the they perceive their individual roles and the offices roles related to the culture of accountability. (McMillan & Wergen, 2010). Further, the interpretive paradigm is proposed, as this paradigm “strives to understand and interpret the world in terms of its actors,” which in this case would be the Directors of the Offices of Institutional Research (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2008, pp. 26).

  17. purposeful sampling The purposefully selected sample for the qualitative in-depth one-on-one interviews will be 5-7 Directors of Offices of Institutional Research from large four year public research universities with very high research activity located in the Midwest that participate in the Voluntary System of Accountability (VSA).

  18. qualitative in-depth interviews The in-depth interviews will be conducted through scheduled one-on-one interviews, utilizing a developed interview guide with semi-structured/open ended questions. Each of the interviews will be both audio and video recorded allowing for the transcribing of the interview content along with notations as to the participants body language.

  19. qualitative in-depth interviews The member check technique will be utilized to affirm the accuracy and interpretations of the transcribed data from the in-depth one-on-one interviews. This technique will be specifically used during a final meeting with the purposefully selected sample in order to affirm the data as well as to gain feedback based upon the transcript.

  20. References Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2008). Research Methods in Education.(6th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved from http://benedictine.learntoday.info/section/default.asp?id=HEOC-715-D5A1. Delaney, A. M. (2009). Institutional Research’s Expanding Roles: Policy, Planning, Program Evaluation, Assessment, and New Research Methodology. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009(143), 29-41. Retrieved from EBSOhost. McMillian, J. H., & Wergin, J. F. (2010). Understanding and Evaluating Educational Research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Morest, V. S. (Fall 2009). Accountability, Accreditation, and Continuous Improvement: Building a Culture of Evidence. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009(143), 17-27. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

More Related