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.