Understanding Institutional Diversity in American Higher Education E-Book

Michael Harris

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Bildung
• Serie: J-B ASHE-ERIC Report Series (AEHE)
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 210

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2013

Beschreibung

Institutional diversity serves as one of the fundamental hallmarks of American higher education. After a long history of support for many institutional types, the past 40 years have seen a decline in institutional variety. Through a discussion of history, theoretical contexts, and causes of homogenization, this monograph examines how higher education policymakers and leaders can strengthen institutional mission and preserve the benefits of institutional diversity. Higher education needs to serve a variety of functions for students, from liberal arts education to vocational training programs. No single institution or institutional type can adequately fulfill all of these roles, and this monograph considers the rewards and challenges of maintaining a healthy, beneficial diversity. It also covers the roles, purposes, trials, and benefits of institutional diversity. It provides practical examples and theoretical perspectives useful in understanding the complexities of higher education systems and the external pressures faced by colleges and universities that challenge institutional mission and threaten institutional diversity and its well-established benefits for students and society. This is the third issue of the 39th volume of the Jossey-Bass series ASHE Higher Education Report. Each monograph is the definitive analysis of a tough higher education issue, based on thorough research of pertinent literature and institutional experiences. Topics are identified by a national survey. Noted practitioners and scholars are then commissioned to write the reports, with experts providing critical reviews of each manuscript before publication.

Leseprobe

Contents

Executive Summary

Foreword

Defining Institutional Diversity

Aspects of Institutional Diversity

Diversity Versus Diversification Versus Differentiation

Interactions With the Environment

Overview of the Monograph

Historical Context of Institutional Diversity

Growth During the Colonial Period

Establishing American Higher Education

Failure of the National University Idea

Institution Building

The Changing Curriculum

Rise of the Research University

Transition From Elite to Mass Higher Education

The Postwar Period

Conclusion

Theoretical Contexts

Population Ecology

Resource Dependency Theory

Institutional Theory

Conclusion

Benefits of Institutional Diversity

Meeting the Needs of All Types of Students

Increased Institutional Effectiveness

Provide Models

Support Reform Through Competition

Serve the Political Needs of Interest Groups

Protecting Academic Freedom and Autonomy

Support Elite and Mass Higher Education

Improve Social Mobility

Minority-Serving Institutions

Conclusion

Causes of Homogenization

Academic Drift

Prestige-Maximizing Activities

Statewide Coordination

Conclusion

The Future of Institutional Diversity Research and Practice

Market Smart and Mission Centered

Policymakers

Campus Leaders and Administrators

Faculty

Students

Conclusion

References

Name Index

Subject Index

About the Author

Understanding Institutional Diversity in American Higher Education

Michael S. Harris

ASHE Higher Education Report: Volume 39, Number 3

Kelly Ward, Lisa E. Wolf-Wendel, Series Editors

Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company. All rights reserved. Reproduction or translation of any part of this work beyond that permitted by Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act without permission of the copyright owner is unlawful. Requests for permission or further information should be addressed to the Permissions Department, c/o John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River St., Hoboken, NJ 07030; [phone], fax [phone], www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

Cover image by © desuza communications/iStockphoto.

ISSN 1551-6970 electronic ISSN 1554-6306 ISBN 978-1-1188-0275-5

The ASHE Higher Education Report is part of the Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series and is published six times a year by Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company, at Jossey-Bass, One Montgomery Street, Suite 1200, San Francisco, California 94104-4594.

Individual subscription rate (in USD): $174 per year US/Can/Mex, $210 rest of world; institutional subscription rate: $307 US, $367 Can/Mex, $418 rest of world. Single copy rate: $29. Electronic only–all regions: $174 individual, $307 institutional; Print & Electronic–US: $192 individual, $353 institutional; Print & Electronic–Canada/Mexico: $192 individual, $413 institutional; Print & Electronic–Rest of World: $228 individual, $464 institutional. See the Back Issue/Subscription Order Form in the back of this volume.

CALL FOR PROPOSALS: Prospective authors are strongly encouraged to contact Kelly Ward ([email protected]) or Lisa Wolf-Wendel ([email protected]). See “About the ASHE Higher Education Report Series” in the back of this volume.

Visit the Jossey-Bass Web site at www.josseybass.com.

The ASHE Higher Education Report is indexed in CIJE: Current Index to Journals in Education (ERIC), Education Index/Abstracts (H.W. Wilson), ERIC Database (Education Resources Information Center), Higher Education Abstracts (Claremont Graduate University), IBR & IBZ: International Bibliographies of Periodical Literature (K.G. Saur), and Resources in Education (ERIC).

Advisory Board

The ASHE Higher Education Report Series is sponsored by the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE), which provides an editorial advisory board of ASHE members.

Ben Baez

Florida International University

Amy Bergerson

University of Utah

Edna Chun

University of North Carolina Greensboro

Susan K. Gardner

University of Maine

MaryBeth Gasman

University of Pennsylvania

Karri Holley

University of Alabama

Adrianna Kezar

University of Southern California

Kevin Kinser

SUNY – Albany

Dina Maramba

Binghamton University

Robert Palmer

Binghamton University

Barbara Tobolowsky

University of Texas at Arlington

Susan Twombly

University of Kansas

Marybeth Walpole

Rowan University

Rachelle Winkle-Wagner

University of Nebraska – Lincol

Executive Summary

American higher education serves a variety of important political, economic, and social purposes. Since the earliest founding of colleges in the United States, institutional diversity has proved an important foundation. A range of institutional missions provides the capability for higher education to meet these various needs (Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, 1973). Many observers consider a significant level of institutional diversity as a sign of a healthy system of higher education. This monograph considers the various types of institutional diversity focusing on external diversity or the differences between institutions (van Vught, 2009). Institutional diversity is defined as the variety of different types of colleges and universities within a higher education system (Birnbaum, 1983; Morphew, 2009; Stadtman, 1980). Dill and Teixeira (2000) further refine institutional diversity as variety in the organization or product of the college or university.

Colleges and universities with different missions and purposes improve the efficiency and effectiveness of higher education. Higher education scholars often do not sufficiently consider the similarities or differences between institutions and trends toward homogenization. The policy debate regarding institutional diversity often suffers from a lack of empirical research explaining changes in institutional diversity, which weakens the ability to protect institutional diversity. My goal with this work is to contextualize institutional diversity and improve the dialogue around the issue for campus leaders, policymakers, and researchers. The following questions serve as primers for the discussion of institutional diversity presented in this monograph.

What Are the Benefits of a Diverse Higher Education System?

Institutional diversity creates greater learning options and flexibility within American higher education (Stadtman, 1980). Furthermore, diversity serves institutional, societal, and systematic goals. Most of the research literature focuses on institutional advantages, despite the obviously interconnected nature of the three. For example, a breadth of institutional options mitigates brain drain from a state by offering a variety of options to meet student demands. U.S. higher education consists of a number of niche markets that require differentiation to satisfy. Diverse needs require a number of institutional responses, as no single institution or institutional type can do everything well. A diverse system will additionally promote efficiency by limiting competition among institutions.

A range of institutional types provides stability for the system, which is a major benefit. Colleges and universities face pressure from external stakeholders, which influences institutional activity. Diversity protects the system by limiting the ability of any single external influence from negatively influencing all colleges and universities. As a result, key values such as the liberal arts or academic freedom are protected from potentially damaging external developments.

What Has Led to the Decline of Institutional Diversity in Recent Years?

Although observers of American higher education agree that institutional diversity has decreased over the past 40 years, the causes of the decline appear less clear. The role of statewide coordination, as an example, epitomizes the challenge of identifying the precise nature of homogenization. Many studies (Horta, Huisman, & Heitor, 2008; Meek, 1991; Rhoades, 1990) identify strong coordinating boards and governmental intervention as a central method to preserving diversity in the system, while others (cf. Birnbaum, 1983) contend that statewide coordination has limited impact on the dediversification trend.

Academic drift represents one of the most common and potentially destructive examples of homogenization. Described by Riesman (1956) as a snakelike progression, upward drift limits diversity, with colleges following the lead of more prestigious and seemingly successful institutions. Colleges and universities strive to compete with the hope of increased resources and prestige. This occurs through various avenues, from increasing the level of participation in intercollegiate athletics to faculty research expectations and changes to doctoral education.

In recent years, researchers studying institutional diversity in higher education apply institutional theory (Morphew & Huisman, 2002), which promotes the notion that organizations exist in a normative environment where legitimacy fosters organizational survival. Political power and organizational legitimacy, rather than a desire for increasing resources, drives organizational activity. As a result, isomorphism develops as institutions respond to the norms within the organizational field.

“Powerful forces tending toward . . . centralization and homogenization” significantly influence colleges and universities (Trow, 1979, p. 271). Public policy, funding mechanisms, and competition pervade the higher education landscape, driving institutions toward similar ends. The lack of a strong federal ministry of higher education and a patchwork of state coordinating agencies, each with a varying degree of authority, has failed to stem the tide of these external forces.

What Are the Future Directions for Research on Institutional Diversity?

This volume provides an overview of the research literature studying institutional diversity and serves as a foundation for future researchers to understand the changes occurring within the higher education system. The level of institutional diversity present in the system grew from uniquely American ideologies shaping higher education access, opportunity, and missions. Colleges and universities within the U.S. system offer a tremendous variety of options for students from varying backgrounds reflecting the diversity of the country. However, the decline of institutional diversity in recent years and the need to expand higher education attainment warrants critical discussion and consideration of institutional diversity. Increasing participation among underserved populations routinely cited as an economic necessity remains a goal fully unrealized in higher education today. Additional empirical research on institutional diversity and interrogating institutional strategies and aspirations will prove essential to maintaining and strengthening American higher education. As researchers examine colleges and universities, they should consider the tension between the importance of historical missions and contemporary demands on institutions.

The increasing diversity within the population and economy will continue to rely on a diverse higher education system and a greater amount of institutional diversity. Higher education systems that are able to provide students with a variety of options will prepare students for the 21st-century economy and society. The historical success of U.S. higher education largely rests on the broad diversity present in the system. Studies exploring how to preserve and expand this key facet of higher education will prepare higher education for future challenges and opportunities.

Foreword

A hallmark of the American system of higher education is its wide array of institutional types. This diversity allows the system to meet the needs of a broad base of students and to achieve many of the ideals espoused and valued about higher education. Specifically, concepts like student access, college choice, and specialization are facilitated by the diversity of colleges and universities in the United States. Regardless of why a person wants to pursue higher education, whether it’s for personal fulfillment, to make connections, to prepare for a career, or to delay adulthood, students can typically find a higher education institution that meets their needs. Unfortunately, with so many options available, it is not always clear how one institution differs from another and if it makes a difference which institution one chooses to attend. It’s not always clear to consumers of higher education, and it’s often not clear to campuses themselves what makes them distinct. There are several nuances related to institutional diversity, many of them overlooked or misunderstood, leading to confusion by students, parents, and community members and to an oversimplification in approach by researchers.

In this monograph, Understanding Institutional Diversity in American Higher Education, author Michael Harris helps clarify some of the nuances related to the diversity of higher education in the United States as a way to illustrate distinctions between and among institutions and to help facilitate quality research in the field. The work is focused on providing information for researchers, given the key role they play in examining different aspects of higher education. It’s helpful for researchers to be able to look at colleges and universities relative to peers and to point out commonalities and differences. The intent of this monograph is to bring together the best research available on the topic in order to better explain institutional diversity in the larger context of higher education. The monograph is not just narrowly about institutional type. It also deals broadly with foundational and contemporary aspects of institutional differentiation, diversity, and distinction. The monograph provides information for policymakers, researchers, and administrators about the various forms and aspects of institutional diversity in an effort to bolster understanding and to highlight the value and importance of maintaining this diversity.

The publication of the monograph is timely, as many colleges and universities struggle with maintaining their foothold in a climate of economic uncertainty and dwindling resources. The forces of normative and mimetic isomorphism are strong and can make campuses feel the pressure to adopt the strategies and structures of campuses they seek to mimic. Institutions of higher education often engage in academic drift—copying other institutions that they perceive to be more prestigious and/or successful and therefore letting go of their own vision, mission, and niche. The risk here is that individual institutions might lose their identity and, in so doing, the traits and attributes that make them distinct. This academic drift is currently at play, and it is important to understand what effects it might have on the system of higher education in the United States. The information in the monograph helps readers understand the challenges to maintaining distinctiveness in the broad array of higher education offerings.

The monograph is well written and clearly explains key concepts to the reader. It offers a logical and easy-to-follow organizational flow between chapters and concepts. The first chapter provides a historical overview that is helpful to ground the reader by offering information about the origins and evolution of constructs related to institutional diversity. The second chapter offers different theoretical perspectives (population ecology, resource pendency, and institutional theory) to help understand the topic. These lenses provide additional insight and alternative ways to understand institutional diversity. The chapter on benefits of diversity shows how the various goals held by students, institution, and society are tied to institutional diversity. The chapter about homogenization includes a discussion about critical issues related to factors that contribute to relying on similar structures and campuses gravitating toward common goals. The final chapter, “The Future of Institutional Diversity Research and Practice,” offers next steps and recommendations related to preserving institutional diversity. As a whole, the monograph provides foundational information, theoretical rigor, and clarity about the role and importance of institutional diversity in the larger higher education landscape.

The content of this monograph stands beside others in the ASHE Monograph Series related to aspects of institutional distinctiveness. Relevant monographs in the series include: Kinser and his coauthors’ (2010) examination of private higher education in The Global Growth of Private Higher Education and Gasman and her coauthors’ (2010) monograph on historically Black colleges and universities titled Unearthing Promise and Potential: Our Nation’s Historically Black Colleges and Universities. In addition, Toma et al.’s (2005) monograph, The Uses of Institutional Culture, and Anctil’s (2008) monograph, Selling Higher Education: Marketing and Advertising America’s Colleges and Universities, are also highly relevant to this work. These monographs, as well as others, are companion pieces to the work of Harris as a way to broaden understanding about institutional type, campus diversity, and distinctiveness.

The monograph is sure to be of interest to administrators thinking about what makes their own institution unique. Policymakers are also likely to find this monograph useful, given the connections the author makes between government policy, market forces, and decision making. Further, the monograph is also a great resource for students of higher education wanting foundational information and understanding about institutional type and diversity in higher education systems. The monograph provides great information about historical foundations and contemporary realities in the diversity of higher education systems. It could easily be used in a graduate-level course on organization and governance of higher education. Those who study different aspects of colleges and universities related to institutional differentiation, diversification, and diversity will also find this monograph to be useful. In fact, this monograph is useful to anyone who studies higher education. Too often, research related to topics such as faculty or administration fails to fully consider institutional setting and context. It’s easy for researchers to present research findings as generalizable across campus types, when it is clear from the conclusions in this monograph that context matters. Failure to consider the institutional setting and also the type of institution relative to research findings is shortsighted. This monograph is a reminder of how important it is in research to make note of and critically analyze institutional context. The monograph provides readers with a road map of the nuances related to institutional diversity and is sure to provide valuable information to bolster current scholarship and understanding in higher education.

Defining Institutional Diversity

THE AMERICAN SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION has historically exhibited greater levels of diversity of institutional types than any other country. A range of institutional types, from community colleges to liberal arts colleges, research universities, historically Black colleges, and proprietary colleges, exist within the U.S. system. The system contains a vast array of institutions that serve a variety of needs for the nation. Observers of higher education generally acknowledge the necessity of institutional diversity to support a system of colleges and universities that proves flexible, responsive, and adaptable for a range of purposes. The vast educational aims that higher education seeks to address would prove impossible for any single type of institution to achieve. The level of institutional diversity present provides postsecondary options for students seeking programs from career training to advanced research degrees. Students can enter the system from multiple entry points suitable for various student achievements and abilities as well as personal circumstances. Without sufficient institutional diversity, students would be unable to attend a program, degree, and setting that matches their educational abilities and goals.

Colleges and universities with differentiated missions increase the effectiveness and efficiency of higher education (Morphew, 2002). Moreover, the success of individual institutional types shows the importance of encouraging institutional diversity. American research universities serve as a key national resource and dominate higher education globally in terms of research knowledge production and dissemination (Cole, 2009). Community colleges provide tremendous opportunities for students to gain access to higher education for general and vocational education. Minority-serving institutions offer additional access and a commitment to supporting students traditionally underrepresented in higher education (Gasman, Baez, & Turner, 2008). The ability to successfully achieve the American dream of improving one’s social and economic status rests substantially on the attainment of higher education. Different institutional missions and goals within a single system support the demonstrable achievements of American higher education.

American colleges differ in a variety of ways. This diversity provides strength to the system, as no single model of an effective college exists. “The diversity we seek and the future of the nation do require that colleges and universities continue to be able to reach out and make a conscious effort to build healthy and diverse learning environments that are appropriate for their missions” (American Council on Education [ACE] Board of Directors, 2012, p. 2). Within higher education, discussions of diversity typically focus on challenges related to race, ethnicity, gender, class, disability, and sexual orientation, among others. The changing demographics of the country and the evolution of diversity awareness within higher education suggest the significance of these diversity concerns. However, similar to the growth of populations of difference and diversity within institutions, colleges and universities exhibit a variety of characteristics and types that collectively are referred to as institutional diversity.

Higher education researchers and institutional leaders too frequently dismiss the similarities among institutions as well as the overall trend toward homogenization. Huisman, Meek, and Wood (2007) argue for the importance of diversity in terms of similarities as well as differences no matter how fine-grained the details. As in the study of the human body, each person represents a unique individual, yet there are common core elements that make up a person’s anatomy and physiology. In the same way, each college, as Clark (1983) contends, represents a unique institution with an institutional culture providing meaning to the various groups on campus (Tierney, 1988). However, researchers can evaluate colleges to compare and contrast their similarity to other institutions and categorize them based on the common elements and disparate ones to improve theory and practice.

Despite numerous scholars examining the issue of institutional diversity, no single commonly accepted definition exists. The challenge of creating a meaningful measurement of institutional diversity results from the term holding different meanings for different groups (Codling & Meek, 2006). However, my primary goal with this monograph—to better explain external institutional diversity in the context of higher education—requires a working definition of institutional diversity. Over the course of the development of American higher education, institutional diversity as an idea constantly evolved, and many in higher education debated the meaning and significance of the concept (Aldersley, 1995; Huisman, 1995, 1998; Huisman et al., 2007; Huisman & Morphew, 1998; Morphew, 2000, 2002, 2009; Neave, 1979; Riesman, 1956; van Vught, 2009; Zha, 2009).

Institutional diversity represents one of the great and unique features of the American higher education system and serves as an influential foundation of the system’s historical success (Trow, 1979). Indeed, many scholars argue that institutional diversity embodies a significant ideological aspect and represents one of the most significant strengths of the U.S. higher education system (Birnbaum, 1983; Morphew, 2009). American society demands a range of requirements for higher education to fulfill from reaching different student populations, providing a variety of academic fields and degrees, and multiple entry points into the system. No single institutional type could possibly meet all these goals. The presence of institutional diversity within higher education provides an adaptive and responsive system to meet these various requirements. However, a steady homogenization or a move toward similarity of types of institutions within higher education over the past 40 years both in the United States and around the world threatens this asset (Birnbaum, 1983; Huisman et al., 2007; Meek, 1991; Morphew, 2009).

Colleges and universities serve a variety of economic, political, social, and, of course, educational purposes. Understanding these interconnected and at times contradictory functions contextualizes institutional diversity trends. Government actors and other stakeholders believe in the importance of diversification (Huisman et al., 2007). States, in particular, seek to regulate or coordinate their higher education institutions to foster diversity and meet broad educational goals. A breadth of colleges and universities allows institutions to focus energy and intensity on fulfilling each school’s respective mission (Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, 1973).

The diversity of institutions within American higher education constantly changes as a result of internal and external pressures on institutions. Critically, internal dynamics within colleges and universities determine the level of diversity along with larger environmental and system changes within society, government, and globalization. The growth of online education and for-profit institutions represents one of the areas of greatest growth of colleges in the United States in recent years. The largely unmet educational needs of adult students presented an opportunity for new higher education offerings and institutions to enter the marketplace. New institutions such as the University of Phoenix, DeVry, and ITT began offering a variety of degrees and certificates while capturing the attention of many across higher education (Winston, 1999). Traditional colleges and universities failed to fully address the needs of this population, creating an environmental condition that encouraged the development of new institutional types and led to an increase in institutional diversity in the higher education system. A number of issues within higher education can either expand or contract institutional diversity depending on various stakeholder reactions. For example, declining enrollment as a result of reduced demand may cause program or institutional closures. The need for additional enrollment could instead lead to the implementation of new enrollment management strategies (Holley & Harris, 2010) or the establishment of new programs to reach new students. By the same token, state financial cutbacks might result in reduced program offerings, leading institutions to focus on various niche programs and markets. Institutions may respond by creating programs with self-financing business models or reaching out to student populations that the institution traditionally fails to serve. The responses of campus leaders from administrators to faculty profoundly influence institutional-level dynamics, which in the aggregate influence the institutional diversity of the entire system.

Aspects of Institutional Diversity

The research literature (Birnbaum, 1983; Huisman, 1998) identifies aspects of institutional diversity allowing the delineation of five commonly accepted aspects of institutional diversity in U.S. higher education.

Systemic: Differences in Institutional Type, Size, and Control

Research studies most frequently consider systemic diversity, and these concepts influence many other institutional diversity aspects identified later. The Carnegie Classifications, the most widely referenced classification scheme in higher education, creates a typology using six primary criteria: undergraduate instruction, graduate instruction, enrollment profile, undergraduate profile, size, and setting. Since the first iteration in 1970, the Carnegie Classifications have undergone subtle and more dramatic changes in an attempt to reflect the changes among higher education institutions. Despite the changes, the influence of the classifications remains substantial and results in the importance often being placed on systemic differences. Furthermore, the aspects of systemic diversity may appear separately but frequently occur together. For example, many small colleges are private institutions, while larger universities tend to be under public control. Research universities offer more graduate programs and typically enroll a larger student body with more full-time students. The relationship among the various characteristics of systemic diversity allows a categorizing of institutions that provides an easy shorthand for describing colleges and universities. As an example, if told to imagine what a private liberal arts college looks like, one might think of a small school, located in a rural or suburban area, with a collegial culture and a focus on teaching and student–faculty interactions. Although this would certainly not describe all private liberal arts colleges in the nation, the typical characteristics enable generalizations useful for daily practice.

Programmatic: Diversity of Degree Level, Comprehensiveness, and Range of Disciplines Offered