Inclusivity

Bensimon et al.’s manuscript on “Doing research that makes a difference” argues that scholars should be more inclusive in the knowledge production process, which will narrow the gap between research and practice in higher education. Draft an entry for your course blog that is approximately 300-500 words in length reflecting on the extent to which your action research dissertation project exemplifies the practitioner-as-researcher model versus the traditional model. Think about: which stakeholder groups are most central to the project and why; what have you done already to engage them; what strategies could you implement to make your project even more participatory in nature; and how can you best position your innovation for permanent adoption in your context? 

Note: These thoughts could be useful to return to when you are writing your dissertation manuscript’s discussion & conclusions chapter.

Theres is an inherent inclusivity element within my research project. My intent is develop a potential blueprint where administrators may use my research positionality as a way to redefine interactions with their staff members and fellow committee members to redistribute power and encourage collaboration and collective learning. Staff members may use my research for its opportunity for refining their interpersonal communication skills, developing more meaningful workplace relationships, and preparing for increased responsibility in their current or future roles. I have two overarching goals of my study. The first is to lay the groundwork that may lead to the development of a culture inquiry as it relates to improving the relational and functional elements within a community college student services unit. The second is to develop empowering work structures within our student services unit where power elements are subdued in favor of a community of practice where all contributors are valued in pursuit of a shared enterprise. In the most recent iteration of research, I conducted mentoring activities as a pilot innovation. My positionality was that of a learner and guide. A key outcome of the pilot was to learn how to create a safe place for open discussion. Initially, I chose an area that the participants were not comfortable with. I read their body language and listened to their responses and changed to a more appropriate space for all meetings thereafter. The participants responded well to this change and communicated this to me during our interactions. Another key outcome was to determine the how mentoring may support personal and professional growth. The participants all responded positively to having an opportunity to share the career goals, discuss key challenges in higher education, and have their opinions heard and appreciated. The sample size was all females of varying work experience. There were two Caucasian females and one African American female. I did not set out to represent a every demographic. Rather, I reached out to every available participant via email and offered them an opportunity to participate.

Drawing from Manning’s article on the “Philosophical underpinnings of student affairs work on difference,” draft an entry for your course blog that is approximately 300-500 words in length reflecting on how you see yourself fitting into the various paradigms she identifies. Which paradigm seems to most reflect your beliefs about and definition of diversity within higher education administrative practice? How have you seen this philosophy represented in the action research you’ve done so far, and how do you anticipate it might continue to emerge as you complete your dissertation?

Anti-Oppression

I identify most readily with the anti-oppression paradigm. A common thought that runs through my mind is "there has to be a better way". Often times when employing this philosophy, cultural norms are trampled and social capital within context is damaged. I have had to learn to expressed myself through use of vocabulary that speaks to the hearts and minds of those I work with to prevent such injury. This liberatory and transformational paradigm is at the heart of my research. I truly believe that mastery of individual work both professional and personal is where organizational objectives are truly achieved. I have no desire to lord over subordinates. Rather, I would prefer to exchange ideas with colleagues and build upon those ideas no matter how loosely coupled toward a common synergistic outcome. I arrived at mentoring as the innovation that best addresses the historically oppressive elements within our current organizational structure. I recognized that staff members first need a safe place to share and learn in order to see themselves for first times. They also needed a leader to redistribute power in such a way that the culture consequence is replaced by the culture of inquiry, discussion, and resolution. I understand social justice and reading Manning (2009) has reinforced that understanding. However, I know that philosophically, intellectually, and personally I am not there yet. I feel that there is still much work to be done in tearing down these historically oppressive structures before we are on the path to social justice. I also have to note that I have benefitted from some of these structures even as an African American male. In my view, this simply mean that I need to be willing to struggle with my own challenges and engage in my own transformation just as I encourage transformation through my work and research.

References:

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

Contextual Considerations

Which contextual attributes seem most relevant for comparing and contrasting postsecondary institutions to one another, for purposes of conducting research?

The Carnegie Classification seems most appropriate for conducting research. While the classifications may be subject to some misuse and some scrutiny, the classifications and categories are clearly defined. These definitions may used to provide support for research decisions based upon these classifications. McCormick and Zhao (2005) do acknowledge that these classifications are primarily based upon quantitative data. Additional investigation into the contexts of individual schools and their characteristics may benefit from more qualitative approaches that give meaning to the individual contexts. 

Which contextual attributes seem most relevant for comparing and contrasting postsecondary institutions to one another, for purposes of general benchmarking and strategic planning?
The Carnegie Classification, the IPEDS system and The Chronicle of Higher Education interactive tool appear to appropriate for decision making and benchmarking. Also, U.S. News and World Report data are useful in this regard. The information from these tools provides some general information for comparing and contrasting institutions nationally and locally. I am concerned about how schools who use the interactive tools arrive at their peer decisions. Michael Crow (2010) suggests that schools should seek an individual identity with a focus on differentiation and then seek to participate in a "synergistic network of collaboration" with their peers. In McCormick's and Zhao's (2005) article on the Carnegie Classification, the authors allude to an unintended hierarchy that may result from using this categorical model. In reviewing these peer selections, I am curious to the motivations of these schools. Are they seeking the "Harvardization" or following the Michigan/Berkeley model that Crow (2010) speaks of in his article and using the Carnegie Classification to make their selections? If so, it may be more beneficial to the higher education field to seek differentiation and synergy. 

Which attributes of your selected institution are most important to explain in your action research dissertation Setting description?
For the purposes of my research, I found the IPEDS data and the Carnegie Classification very useful for developing context. With this information, I would be able to provide a clearer depiction of the institution from a local and national perspective the use of categorical filters. The attributes that are most important to explain in my action research dissertation are those that provide the reader with an accurate depiction of the educational circumstance that the institution operates within. For instance, from the IPEDS data, I am able to discuss the schools student population in comparison to other institutions. The campus setting and the level of awards granted along with the types of awards would be appropriate attributes for the first chapter. Rankings may also support development of context. My institution has a number of awards and these rankings may provide insight into the mission and vision of the institution. For instance, ASU's Mary Lou Fulton Teacher's College currently ranks eleventh in the U.S. News and Wold Report's ranking of graduate level education programs. 

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

Crow, M. (2010). Differentiating America’s colleges and universities: Institutional innovation in Arizona. Change, 36-41.3.

U.S. News and World Report. https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/search?program=top-education-schools&name=Arizona+State+University. 

Using IPEDS to inform research

Integrated Postsecondary Data System (IPEDS)

IPEDS is the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. The U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) conducts a series of surveys each year to gather vital statistics about the multidimensional functions and programs of the nation's post-secondary institutions. These institutions include those who participate in the federal student financial aid programs. These data include enrollments, program completions, graduation rates, faculty and staff, institutional costs, and student financial aid. This information is available through the IPEDS webpage to students and parents, and it may be used by researchers to gather contextual information about a particular institution (IPEDS website). 

The data provided about my institution may be used to provide contextual information about my institution in the following areas:

• Institutional Characteristics
• Student Charges
• Student Financial Aid
• Net Price
• Enrollment
• Retention and Graduation
• Completions
• Human Resources
• Fiance

With regard to research, IPEDS is an excellent place to start in describing the physical location of the institution, Title IX participation, calendar system, program level, and Carnegie Classification. IPEDS would also be useful in making an argument for an intervention in key areas such as enrollment, retention and graduation, and completions. For instance, I may want to research how we might improve male enrollments. I could provide a graphical depiction of the problem using the data. Additionally, I can provide enrollment data specific to males from other institutions for comparison. I may also want to discuss how we need to improve the completion rates of African American students.   To depict the problem, I could draw from these data to show how African American student completion rates compare to other student populations. I may also review the retention rates from other institutions to illustrate how widespread the problem is and/or identify schools that may have stronger retention rates with this population. 

IPEDS is also useful in describing our financial contributions to my institution. Specifically, after reviewing the data, I can determine that we are a state assisted institution as state appropriations account for 28% of the core revenues. Meanwhile, our primary sources of revenue are tuition and fees government grants and contracts. This section also depicts the fiscal priorities of my institution. As expected, instruction is our largest expense. I work in student services. This area receives less support in comparison to other ares. Research receives no financial support from the institution. We are not a research institution. Therefore, this is understandable. Overall, this a great resource for developing a research problem and writing the first chapter of a research dissertation. It is also useful for data comparisons with other institutions. 

IPEDS. Retrieved from  https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/Home/AboutIPEDS.