Showing papers in "The Journal of Higher Education in 2007"

Student Success in College: Creating Conditions That Matter

Abstract: Student Success in College: Creating Conditions that Matter, by George D. Kuh, Jillian Kinzie, John H. Schuh, Elizabeth J. Whitt, and Associates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005. ISBN 0787982202. Student Success in College: Creating Conditions that Matter by George D. Kuh, Jillian Kinzie, John H. Schuh, Elizabeth J. Whitt, and associates addresses the long-standing issue of the utility of theory and research to professional practice. They address this important issue by asking what properties and conditions are common to those colleges and universities that achieve higher than predicted levels of student engagement and graduation. Put differently, the documentation of effective educational practice constituted the aim of their research project. Accordingly, they named this Project DEEP (Documenting Effective Educational Practices). Through the pursuit of this question and the effective educational practices it richly documents, this book makes an important contribution to practice and clearly demonstrates the usefulness of research to practice. For the community of scholars organized around the study of higher education, the contribution of this volume lies in its heuristic value to theory development and further research. This yolume consists of four parts and 14 chapters. Part 1 includes an introductory chapter that describes the methodology used to identify a set of higher performing baccalaureate-granting institutions. From this set of collegiate institutions, the Project DEEP team selected a diverse set of 20 colleges and universities: research universities, liberal arts colleges, and residential and commuter institutions. Kuh and his colleagues assert that effective educational practices can be found at a wide variety of colleges and universities. The DEEP research team conducted two visits to the campuses of the 20 selected colleges and universities, during which they reviewed documents, visited classrooms and laboratories, observed faculty and staff meetings, and talked with more than 2,700 people. Appendix A of the volume describes in greater detail the research methods used. Through the campus visits and review of pertinent documents, the DEEP research team identified six properties and conditions common at each of the 20 colleges and universities. Part 2 of this volume includes six chapters (chapters 2 through 7), each of which is devoted to one of the six attributes that foster student success. These six chapters extensively describe the focal properties and conditions used by DEEP colleges and universities. Such extensive descriptions facilitate their application by other colleges and universities. The following titles of these six properties and conditions give a general sense of their essence: "Living Mission and 'Lived' Educational Philosophy," "An Unshakable Focus on Student Learning," "Environments Adapted for Educational Enrichment," "Clear Pathways to Student Success," "An Improvement-Oriented Ethos," and "Shared Responsibility for Educational Quality and Student Success." Higher education practitioners will find the contents of these six chapters immensely valuable to practice. Part 3 of this volume consists of five chapters, a chapter devoted to each of the five clusters of effective educational practices that the DEEP team used to identify the 20 overperforming colleges and universities: academic challenge, active and collaborative learning, student-faculty interaction, enriching educational experiences, and supportive campus environments. The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) encompasses each of these five clusters. These five chapters describe the policies and practices of the DEEP colleges and universities reflective of the focal cluster of educational practice. Higher education practitioners will also find the polices and practices described in each of these five chapters useful and worthy of possible implementation by their college or university. …

Settling into Campus Life: Differences by Race/Ethnicity in College Involvement and Outcomes

Abstract: The enrollment of minority students in higher education has increased over the past 30 years, in both absolute terms and as a proportion of the student body. From 1976 to 2000, the number of Black students enrolled in degree-granting institutions rose 14.9%, while Hispanic enrollment increased by 25.4% (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2002, see Table 206). The vast majority of these students attend predominantly White institutions. According to figures from the Digest of Educational Statistics, only 15.9% of Black students in 2000 were enrolled in historically Black colleges and universities (NCES 2002, see Tables 206 and 222). As the number of Hispanic and Black students enrolling in higher education expands, so does the need to understand what constitutes a successful transition to college for these students. There are several reasons to suspect that acclimating to the new college environment may be different for these students than for their White and Asian counterparts. As will be shown later in this article, Black and Hispanic students are more likely to be first generation college students and to be from low socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds; in addition to these family background characteristics that may put them at a disadvantage, they may be subject to adjustment difficulties rooted in the experience of being a minority student on a predominantly White campus (Allen, 1992; Feagin, Vera, & Imani, 1996; Nora & Cabrera, 1996; Smedley, Meyers, & Harrell, 1993; Steele, 1997, 1998; Steele & Aronson, 1995, 1998). This article explores racial and ethnic differences in adjusting to college and the consequences different adjustment strategies have on college outcomes. Prior research has pinpointed the transition to college as a crucial period of time that, in many ways, sets the stage for later college success or failure (Gall, Evans, & Bellerose, 2000; Hurtado, Carter, & Spuler, 1996; Padilla, Trevino, Trevino, & Gonzalez, 1997; Terenzini, Rendon, Upcraft, Millar, Allison, Gregg, & Jalomo, 1994; Tinto, 1987). I begin by summarizing the major perspectives in education on the roots of college attrition. In the process of comparing and contrasting these perspectives, I highlight three prominent factors that may affect adjustment and subsequent success in college: minority status, socioeconomic disadvantage, and being a first generation college student. Looking at the social and academic connections students make on campus, I explore the importance of the college transition process. In the course of transitioning to college, students form various connections to others on campus. I introduce a variety of indicators of these social and academic connections and examine their relationship to college grades and satisfaction with college. I examine Black and Hispanic students separately to understand how their adjustment to college may be different from that of White and Asian students. Adjustment to College and Attrition As with any major life change, beginning college requires a process of adjustment. Models of college attrition vary in their consideration of the adjustment process, but for most, this is a crucial part of the college attrition puzzle. The model of student integration proposed by Tinto (1987) has been widely utilized (and critiqued) in the literature on higher education. (1) Tinto presents a longitudinal, predictive model of attrition that places integration into the academic and social systems of the institution at the center of the attrition process. Integration into the college environment is an emergent process that is largely a function of formal and informal interactions students have on campus, in both academic and social capacities. Through interactions in the social and academic realms, students either reaffirm or reevaluate their initial goals and commitments. Students who lack sufficient interaction with others on campus or have negative experiences may decide to depart the university as a result of this reevaluation. …

Targeted Assessment of Students' Interdisciplinary Work: An Empirically Grounded Framework Proposed

Abstract: (2007). Targeted Assessment of Students' Interdisciplinary Work: An Empirically Grounded Framework Proposed. The Journal of Higher Education: Vol. 78, No. 2, pp. 215-237.

Academic Capitalism and Doctoral Student Socialization: A Case Study

Abstract: In the last two and a half decades, the U.S. government has fostered cooperation between industries and universities in order to cope with funding gaps and global competitive markets by introducing a number of laws and programs that allow universities to patent their research and to engage in collaborations with the private sector toward opportunities in the new economy (Altbach, 2005; Slaughter & Leslie, 1997; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004, 2005). Under this scenario, research universities have become a source of national wealth development through applied research rather than primarily a means for liberal education of undergraduates and warfare research (Gumport, 2005; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004, 2005). At the turn of the 21st century, these initiatives have fostered entrepreneurialism in science and engineering fields through a variety of interdisciplinary centers and partnerships with the private sector around new technologies derived from disciplines such as biotechnology, materials science, optical science, and cognitive science. This entrepreneurialism in certain fields is based on the premise that faculty have the primary responsibility for obtaining their own research funds and running their own laboratories (Etzkowitz, 1999). In addition, research in these applied disciplines is usually expensive and depends heavily on external funds, which opens the way for political and commercial intervention (Becher, 1989). Based on these trends, Slaughter and Leslie (1997) defined academic capitalism as the marketlike behaviors on the part of faculty and academic institutions in order to seek alternative sources of funding. Graduate Education in Light of Academic Capitalism Gluck (1987) and Slaughter, Campbell, Hollernan, and Morgan (2002) conducted the only two empirical studies that have been designed to study the impact of academic capitalism on graduate students. Gluck (1987) revealed that the financial support of students by biotechnology firms brings a variety of educational benefits such as networking opportunities, funding, and valuable interactions with industrial representatives. However, other studies, focused on faculty members, have raised concerns related to the adequacy of training of graduate assistants who are working with industry representatives (e.g., Campbell & Slaughter, 1999; Slaughter & Leslie, 1997; Slaughter et al., 2002). Today, in the new global social-economic arena, graduate students have become valuable labor for industry representatives in those fields where academic capitalism is significant (Slaughter et al., 2002). This tendency has been facilitated by graduate students' valuable research skills for the new demands of the global market, and, as a consequence, industry representatives have supported graduate students through assistantships (Slaughter et al., 2002). However, in a more recent study, Slaughter, Archerd, and Campbell (2004) found that professors understood that graduate students were cheap labor but valued them primarily as apprentices and future colleagues. Other arguments found in the literature against graduate training through industry partnerships include the type of values indirectly transmitted through applied projects. For example, graduate students involved in industry-sponsored programs might be less likely to be encouraged to think about problems that benefit the public or problems that are unlikely to result in profits (Gumport, 2005). Graduate students are knowledgeable, bright, and inexpensive labor, and can therefore be targets of potential exploitation. As disclosure and patenting increase, concern has grown about the timely publication of graduate students' work due to intellectual property secrecy of doctoral dissertations that might be alternatives to patents. For graduate students eager to work with industry, patenting could represent an opportunity for networking, experience, and credentials; for a student who aspires to an academic career, however, publication delays represent a serious obstacle and a betrayal. …

A Social Cognitive Construct Validation: Determining Women's and Men's Success in Engineering Programs

Abstract: Traditionally, women have comprised the majority of students in the humanities and arts. Recently, their numbers have grown in the life sciences and social sciences, until today, when their numbers are on par with or exceed those of men. However, the physical, computing, and engineering sciences provide a very different picture. Annually, women have earned approximately 25% of the degrees in computer science and less than 20% of the degrees awarded in physics (National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES], 2000). Moreover, in engineering, the percentage of women graduating from either undergraduate or master's programs is approximately 19% annually (National Science Foundation [NSF], 1998). After several decades trying to increase women's presence in doctoral engineering programs, women only receive slightly less than 20% of the engineering doctorate degrees (NSF, 1998; Gibbons, 2004). In 2000, the NCES reported an unprecedented turn of events. The document stated, "female students did not fall behind in the S & E pipeline; they actually did better than male students in degree completion and program switch. Women who do enter are likely to do well" (p. ix). This report creates a departure from past research where women had reported higher attrition rates and slightly lower GPAs. To understand the recent success of women in engineering, it might be enlightening to profile the women currently entering these programs. Specifically, we identify four noticeable changes in these young women as compared to those in the past: 1. They are at the top of the mathematics test score range (Brainard & Carlin, 1998; Nauta, Epperson, & Kahn, 1998; Turner & Bowen, 1999). 2. They are as likely as males to have taken the appropriate prerequisite mathematics, science, and physics courses in high school (NCES, 2000; National Institute for Science Education [NISE], 1998). 3. They are unambiguous about their academic and career choices (NISE, 1998). 4. They are confident in their academic abilities (Brainard & Carlin, 1998; Nauta, Epperson & Kahn, 1998; NCES, 2000). Besides solid academic preparation, healthy self-confidence, and lack of ambiguity about their choice of major, other explanations cited for this reversal in previous trends are strong family support and females' high expectations for success (NCES, 2000; NISE 1998). Despite the good news, the literature still strongly asserts that women experience more interpersonal difficulties in their science and engineering courses (NISE, 1998; NSF 1998; Seymour, 1995; Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). The lower number of female engineering majors--compared to women majoring in other sciences--indicates that the engineering pipeline may be especially intimidating for women (NCES, 2000; NISE 1998; Seymour, 1995). According to Zeldin and Pajares (2000), social cues can subtly dissuade women from pursuing studies in male domains such as engineering and related subjects. In past studies, women have criticized educators for being rigid, closed, and condescending (Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). These characteristics have been theorized to have lowered women's engineering self-confidence and less self-efficacy. Herein lies the discrepancy between the literature and the recent report from NCES (2000). It is this inconsistency that provides the basis for our research. We queried if women are still experiencing greater levels of discrimination and discontent in their engineering classes because previous studies have reported that unfriendly environments have decreased females' academic confidence, self-efficacy, and motivation to pursue engineering majors. In turn, this may have influenced their attrition into other majors. In order to measure the effect of environment on student behavior, we used Bandura's (1986) social cognitive model as the basis of this study. He classified three self-referent constructs of environment, self, and behaviors as self-reinforcing, symbiotic, and dynamically changing. …

Social-Organizational Characteristics of Work and Publication Productivity among Academic Scientists in Doctoral-Granting Departments

Abstract: This article advances understandings of the ways in which key elements of the social-organizational characteristics of work and publication productivity operate among academic scientists in doctoral-granting departments. Findings point to new formulations about the importance of a particular team composition and of collaboration, work practices, and departmental work climates.

Do Interracial Interactions Matter? An Examination of Student-Faculty Contact and Intellectual Self-Concept

Abstract: There is ample literature projecting shifts in societal demographics and the subsequent increase expected in minority students' college enrollments (Solomon, Solomon, & Schiff, 2002). Current demographics indicate that 29.4% of all college enrollments are minority students ("Almanac," 2005), approximately 6% more than there were 15 years ago (Solomon et al., 2002). Over the next two decades, however, minority student enrollments are expected to grow to nearly 40% (Solomon et al., 2002). As a result, opportunities for students to interact with racially and ethnically different peers will become even more pronounced, as will the expectations that these interactions will produce greater educational gains and sensitivity to racial issues (Cole & Jackson, 2005). Yet, despite these anticipated demographic shifts and gains in educational experiences, little research exists on how the multicultural context of college affects students (Antonio, 2001). For instance, how do interracial interactions influence students' intellectual self-concept? How do these interactions affect the development of student-faculty relationships, a well-known predictor of students' intellectual development (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1978; Terenzini & Pascarella, 1980; Volkwein, King, & Terenzini, 1986)? The Impact of Student-Faculty Interactions A number of empirical studies emerging in the late 1960s through the early 1980s have provided extensive evidence identifying predictors of student-faculty interactions and their influence on students' educational gains (Endo & Harpel, 1982; Gamson, 1967; Pascarella, 1980; Snow, 1973; Terenzini & Pascarella, 1978, 1980; Wilson, Wood, & Gaff, 1974). Pascarella's influential review of the literature on student-faculty contact reported that student characteristics such as having similar interests and aspirations as faculty, and seeking faculty mentorship were important antecedents for determining the frequency and quality of student contact with faculty. Other student and institutional characteristics used in this study such as gender (Astin, 1977, 1993; Cole & Jackson, 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991), college major (Cole & Jackson, 2005; Phelan, 1979), high school GPA (Anaya & Cole, 2001; Chapman & Pascarella, 1983; Cole & Jackson, 2005; Erekson, 1992; Terenzini & Pascarella, 1978), degree aspirations (Cole, 1999; Phelan, 1979), parental education (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1979), living on campus (Cole & Jackson, 2005; Lacy, 1978), institutional size (Chapman & Pascarella, 1983; Cole & Jackson, 2005), and institutional type (Cole, 1999; Lacy, 1978) have also been significantly related to student-faculty interactions. In addition, salient college environment variables such as peer involvement in academic-related activities (Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991) and students' classroom experiences (Wilson et al., 1974) were important toward predicting student-faculty interactions. As Wilson et al. (1974) found, certain classroom experiences have been identified as indicators of the extent faculty desire student contact outside of the classroom. Students' in-class experiences with faculty's teaching style, classroom discourse, and evaluation practices were termed "accessibility cues," which are interpreted as faculty's interest in interacting with students outside-of-class (Wilson, Gaff, Dienst, Wood, & Bavry, 1975; Wilson et al., 1974). In other words, students' positive and negative in-class interactions with faculty are taken as indicators about a faculty member's desire to interact with students outside of class, thus influencing the extent to which students interact with faculty (Loo & Rolison, 1986; Wilson et al., 1974). Accessibility cues include not only faculty behavior but also student experiences and perceptions of the classroom, as they may lead to student-faculty interaction out of the classroom as well. …

Demographic Inertia Revisited: An Immodest Proposal to Achieve Equitable Gender Representation among Faculty in Higher Education

Abstract: Progress toward equitable gender representation among faculty in higher education has been “glacial” since the early 1970s (Glazer-Raymo, 1999; Lomperis, 1990; Trower & Chait, 2002). Women, who now make up a majority of undergraduate degree earners and approximately 46% of Ph.D. earners nationwide (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2003), rarely make up more than 30% of faculty at Research Extensive universities. Although the total number of tenure-track women faculty in higher education has increased steadily for the past 35 years, this increase and women’s advancement through faculty ranks are described as excruciatingly slow (Valian, 1999).

Predictors of Delayed College Enrollment and the Impact of Socioeconomic Status.

Abstract: Using constructs from traditional enrollment models, this study examines students who delay college enrollment. Graduates who delay enrollment average fewer resources and weaker preparation than immediate enrollers do, but they average more resources and better preparation than graduates who do not enroll. In addition, socioeconomic status is related to timing of college enrollment.

Role Strain in University Research Centers.

Abstract: We examine interview data from 21 science and engineering faculty affiliated with both academic departments and university research centers. Our results indicate that such scientists experience "role strain" but that resources provided by the centers provide sufficient inducement for affiliation. An important faculty development issue is whether the increments in resources are sufficient to offset the fragmentation of activities likely associated with role strain.

Higher Education Journals' Discourse about Adult Undergraduate Students

Abstract: The authors analyzed articles appearing in seven U.S. higher education journals from 1990 to 2003 to explore how adult undergraduates were portrayed. Based on the articles that were found, the authors developed a classification of discourse about adult students that provides an analytic foundation to guide future research.

To Give and to Receive: Recently Tenured Professors' Experiences of Service in Major Research Universities

Abstract: Interviews with 39 university professors indicate that immediately after tenure, faculty service increases, sometimes sharply. However, professors can turn increases into opportunities to improve their scholarly knowledge or to extend their understanding of the university or themselves. Findings suggest that professors who thoughtfully craft their service may gain professionally.

The Enactment of Reforms in State Governance of Higher Education: Testing the Political Instability Hypothesis

Abstract: The theory and practice of public-sector management in the United States have undergone significant change in the past 20 years. In the 1980s and 1990s, the century-old approach to the provision of public services through vast bureaucracies began to collapse in the face of critiques alleging inadequate government performance, responsiveness, and accountability. (1) A central emphasis of reform involved the role of institutions. Institutions matter in public management, analysts and observers maintained, because organizational structure influences the manner in which services are provided. Thus, reformers heavily emphasized developing new structural models of public governance. A similar emphasis on structural change can be seen in the 20-year old phenomenon involving reforms in state governance of higher education. (2) Since the mid-1980s, the American states have engaged in a flurry of reform in their approaches to public college and university governance. While some of the measures amounted to little more than tinkering around the edges of existing governance regimes, others involved extensive redesigns of system structure and authority (Leslie & Novak, 2003; Marcus, 1997; McGuinness, 1997; McLendon, 2003b). However, little is known empirically about the origins of governance change in public higher education. Public-administration scholars have built a robust conceptual and empirical literature in pursuit of understanding how, why, and with what consequence public-sector activity is structured and managed (e.g., Lynn, Heinrich, & Hill, 2000). By contrast, scholars of state governance of higher education traditionally have focused on the general patterns by which public higher education is organized (the "how" question) or on the effects of governance arrangements at the state and campus levels (the "consequence" question). (3) Why states adopt the governance arrangements they do remains elusive--conceptually and empirically. There are compelling reasons for rigorous analysis of the determinants of state governance change in higher education. A growing body of research indicates that the manner in which states govern higher education "matters." (4) Thus, the restructuring of governance patterns may hold important implications for higher education policy, finance, and management. Somewhat more abstractly, shifting governance patterns afford researchers an excellent opportunity to test general theories of government behavior in the specific context of higher education, where such theories have begun to gain in prominence. Not all states have undertaken reforms. Inevitably, therefore, questions arise as to which factors drove certain states to enact changes. Why have states adopted reforms at the times at which they have? To what extent do conventional explanations of policy adoption hold in the case of higher education governance reform? To what extent have shifting governance patterns been driven by economic considerations, political conditions, or problems internal to higher education? To what extent can a single explanation account for the variety of governance changes observed? In this essay, we report the results of an empirical analysis that pursued these questions. First, we review the contemporary landscape of public higher education governance and of governance change. We then examine several conventional explanations for governance reform, along with a counter-conventional account--what we call the "political instability hypothesis"--that we believe affords conceptual leverage in understanding policy change. Next, we distill nine hypotheses from literature in the fields of comparative state politics and higher education to guide our investigation. Employing event history analysis, we then test how the demographic, economic, organizational, and political characteristics of states, in concert with policy diffusion pressures among them, influenced the enactment of legislation reforming governance patterns from 1985-2000. …

A Closer Look at Faculty Service: What Affects Participation on Committees?

Abstract: Research suggests that females and faculty of color perform more service than their White male counterparts. This article uses the 1999 NSOPF survey and regression models for count data to investigate committee participation and hours spent on committee work by different demographic groups. Analyses reveal few differences in rates of service.

The Interaction Effects of Gender, Race, and Marital Status on Faculty Salaries

Abstract: The question of whether employees receive equal pay for equal work in American society can be traced back to the women's movement at the turn of the 20th century and the civil rights movement in the 1960s. The Equal Pay legislation and Affirmative Action policies that emerged from these movements led to significant interest in measuring the extent of pay inequities within labor markets. The vast majority of studies of the general labor market have examined three major forms of pay discrimination: by gender, race/ethnicity, and marital status. Many studies have documented that in the general labor market, women tend to be paid less than men with similar characteistics, Blacks and Hispanics tend to be paid less than Whites, and unmarried workers tend to earn less than their married counterparts (Antecol & Bedard, 2004; Duncan, 1996; Korenman & Neumark, 1992; Loh, 1996; Neal & Johnson, 1996; U.S. General Accounting Office, 2003; Verdugo, 1992; Weinberger, 1998). Those employed in academic labor markets have likewise been interested in whether unexplained wage gaps exist among faculty, and numerous studies have been conducted using national as well as institution-specific data. Unlike studies of the general labor market, studies in academia have primarily focused on gender. Studies by Barbezat (1991), Bellas (1993, 1994), Ransom and Megdal (1993), Toutkoushian and Conley (2005), and others have found that female faculty members earn less than male faculty members with comparable levels of measurable characteristics, such as experience, education, and research productivity. Studies of faculty salaries have paid much less attention to possible pay discrimination by race/ethnicity (Barbezat, 2002; Hearn, 1999). This omission is often attributed to the relatively small number of faculty members of color at most institutions, which may result in unreliable estimates of pay differentials. Similarly, pay disparities by marital status have not been widely studied in academia. Bellas (1992, 1993, 1994) and Toutkoushian (1998) are among the few researchers who have analyzed the effects of marital status on faculty salaries. Their findings show that, as in the general labor market, there is a positive "return on marriage" in academia (i.e., married faculty earn more than unmarried faculty), at least for men. The relative scarcity of studies in this area is due in large part to the lack of available information concerning marital status in institution-specific databases. When studies of academic salaries have considered gender, race, and marital status, little attention has been paid to possible interaction effects among personal characteristics or social categories. Various theories and conjectures have been offered in the literature to suggest that these interactions may be more complex than is typically assumed in empirical studies (Collins, Maldonado, Takagi, Thorne, Weber, & Winant, 1995; Epstein, 1973; West & Fenstermaker, 1995). If the advantages and disadvantages associated with membership in any one group are not uniform for those who differ along other dimensions, faculty salaries may also vary simultaneously by gender, race/ethnicity, and marital status (and perhaps other factors). However, salary studies in academia typically restrict pay differences by race/ethnicity and marital status to be uniform for an entire sample, or for all men and women if regression equations are estimated separately for the sexes. Studies that use separate regression models for men and women allow the effects of race/ethnicity and marital status to vary by gender, but these effects are restricted to be the same for women or men of the same race/ethnicity and marital status, when in fact any effects of race/ethnicity may depend on marital status and vice versa. Large national surveys of faculty afford analysts the opportunity to examine differences in faculty salary based on combinations of all three dimensions--gender, race/ethnicity, and marital status--as well as the possible interactive effects among them. …

Becoming a Scientist: The Effects of Work-Group Size and Organizational Climate

Abstract: This article focuses on the experiences of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows in science. Our interest in this population is based on the assumption that today’s graduate students and postdoctoral fellows represent the future of the university. The socialization of potential scientists begins when they are undergraduates, but it is during their period of formal training and apprenticeship that they learn both the values and skills that are needed to make an effective transition to leadership in their fields. Their experiences as students confront them with increasing pressures that arise out of many factors, ranging from stable or declining government funding to the rapidly changing expectations related to collaboration and entrepreneurship (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000). As a consequence, we view graduate and postdoctoral students as “canaries in the mine.” One indicator that the scientific enterprise is healthy is that these students are productive and are acquiring the values and norms that will allow them to participate fully and interactively as scientists. If their socialization is not effective, they may not be learning how to be “good scientists.”

Curriculum Collaboration: A Key to Continuous Program Renewal

Abstract: Curriculum collaboration examples and associated themes are identified in interviews with members of 44 academic departments nominated for continuous program planning. Themes contrast with previous teamwork models of faculty collaboration. Wenger's (2000b) framework for communities of practice both captures and affirms voluntary, informal, and practice-oriented qualities of many curriculum collaborations that contribute to continuous program renewal.

Reward Systems and NSF University Research Centers: The Impact of Tenure on University Scientists' Valuation of Applied and Commercially Relevant Research

Abstract: Over the past three decades, U.S. science policy (1) has shifted from decentralized support of small, investigator-initiated research projects to more centralized, block grant-based, multidisciplinary research centers. No matter one's take on the "revolutionary" nature of this shift, (2) a major consequence is that university scientists, now more than ever, are subject to multiple and often conflicting demands. The purpose of this article is to examine the impact of having tenure on university scientists' consideration of these demands, particularly the demand for applied and commercially relevant research. We are interested in scientists who work in a particular type of university research center, one previously referred to as the "multidiscipline multipurpose university research center," or MMURC (Bozeman & Boardman, 2003, 2004b). These scientists are interesting because MMURCs, at least those funded by the federal government (e.g., the National Science Foundation's Engineering Research Centers and Science and Technology Centers programs), require that scientists be tenured or occupy a tenure-track position in an academic department. More important here, MMURCs expect of university scientists research and other behaviors that generally do not align with the traditional university reward system. As a faculty member in the traditional academic department, the contemporary university scientist has a key responsibility to create knowledge, and for the most part success is measured by peer evaluation and publication despite calls for emphasis in tenure and promotion decisions on the many other activities and tasks (e.g., teaching, applied research, and community outreach) that university scientists perform (Boyer, 1990; Braxton & Del Favero, 2002; Diamond, 1993, 1999). As MMURC faculty, the university scientist generally works as part of a multidisciplinary and interinstitutional effort to apply existing knowledge, and success in many cases is measured in terms of technology transfer from university to industry. (3) In fact, this issue of misalignment between reward systems and faculty behavior is a problem not just for university faculty in the hard sciences or more specifically in MMURCs, but also for faculty working in the social sciences and in professional fields including medicine, business, and management. (4) Geisler (1989) has suggested that such misalignment may discourage university scientists who are not tenured but who are tenure-track (hereafter referred to as "junior-level scientists") from performing applied science with industrial partners: Faculties in research universities are required to conduct basic research and to publish the results. Such research outputs are then used in promotion and compensation decisions. Therefore, when working on industrial type problems, faculty may feel constrained by limitations of time and by the publishability of the research they undertake. This is particularly the case with junior faculty, reluctant to join an industry-sponsored project that demands time but may not hold much promise of academic outputs and rewards. (p. 50) Further, university administrators often incorrectly assume that extradepartmental research units such as MMURCs have no problems in getting untenured university scientists to engage in applied research and related technology transfer activities (Friedman & Friedman, 1985). More recently, the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE) expressed this sentiment in its Higher Education Report, reporting that the traditional university reward system pays short shrift to applied and industry-related research, thereby hindering the "institutionalization of the scholarship of application" (Braxton, Luckey, & Helland, 2002, pp. 74-75). Similarly, a recent presentation by Lynn Preston, (5) Director of the Engineering Research Centers (ERC) Program at the National Science Foundation (NSF), to the American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE) Engineering Research Council highlighted that tenure and promotion committees are more often than not too narrowly defined. …

The Spider Web of Oversight: An Analysis of External Oversight of Higher Education

Abstract: The relationship between state governments and public institutions of higher learning resembles an intricate and clumsy dance with both partners often trying to play the role of the lead dancer Further complicating the issue, higher education often awkwardly vies for attention among the state's multiple partners (eg, health care, prisons, and transportation); however, because of a variety of shifts in the nature of state legislatures, increasing public interest in higher education, and billions of dollars in state appropriations (approximately $72 billion for the 2006-2007 fiscal year), the dance between higher education and the state legislature is becoming increasingly important Through professionalization of state legislatures (Bowman & Kearney, 1988) and increasing demands on limited fiscal resources, legislatures and other government officials across the nation are taking a more active role in calling for heightened levels of accountability for all institutions receiving state appropriations, including higher education (Burke, 2005; Sabloff, 1997; Schmidtlein & Berdahl, 2005) (1) As with any effective dance pair, information flow between the partners is critical However, empirical scholarship about how state governments elicit and receive information about public colleges and universities remains limited Interpreting this relationship through the lens of the theoretical framework of the principal-agent theory leads to the conclusion that the university operates as an agent of the state government (the principal) However, the relationship is awash with information asymmetries, leading the principal to have to rely on a complex array of oversight mechanisms and other actors to reduce some of these asymmetries This study investigates how actors and mechanisms at the local and state levels aid the state government in compensating for the inherent information asymmetries in the system Over the past several decades, state officials and various interest groups and civic organizations have increased their level of direct involvement in the affairs of public higher education The increase in external attention toward the academy would likely be accompanied by the development of oversight mechanisms to ensure that societal expectations are fulfilled; yet there is little empirical evidence of how these external actors and oversight mechanisms interact to oversee the action of the university For example, how does oversight by localized actors such as students or local citizens lead to the involvement of state officials? Merely acknowledging that the university might have to testify at a legislative hearing or file a report does not fully explain how oversight of higher education operates In fact, many of the often-unobserved processes might be the ones that most frequently trigger governmental interventions (McCubbins & Schwartz, 1984) A primary difficulty in the study of higher education governance is that the public university is a blend of organizational components from private corporations, public bureaucracies, and nonprofit organizations What is needed is a theory of university oversight that incorporates the relevant aspects of each of these areas to help explain actor behavior and structural dynamics Such a development of a theory about the oversight of higher education is not a simple feat of borrowing theories from relevant fields and applying them to higher education Simply merging theories is unfeasible because organizational theories about corporations, public bureaucracies, and nonprofit organizations all operate under certain assumptions--some of which might apply to the public university and some which might not Thus, developing a theory of higher education governance requires explorative research about university governance and external oversight Several studies have explored various aspects of external oversight, but there exists little knowledge about the full scope of oversight, particularly from exploratory research only possible through qualitative research …

Expanding the Discussion of Faculty Vitality to Include Productive but Disengaged Senior Faculty

Abstract: Faculty Member #1 I came to the university excited about the prospect of working with a cohort of young colleagues who had impressed me when I interviewed. I liked the department head very much. He not only recruited me enthusiastically, but he was incredibly supportive. He was fair in distributing resources and made sure that junior faculty got high-quality graduate students. He provided a clear assessment of my progress each year prior to tenure and set a tone indicating that it was normal for junior faculty to seek help and mentoring. But the year I was granted tenure a new head entered the picture and life changed drastically. He rapidly alienated several senior colleagues I admired as well as some of my junior colleagues, many of whom ended up leaving the department. The new head played favorites, ignored established processes, and didn't support the promotion of several outstanding young faculty hired under the former head. He also reneged on several promises that the former head had made to me. It's been years since he became the department head, but I am still disillusioned and disappointed. I find myself advising newly hired colleagues to build their CVs and keep an eye open for other jobs; I tell them "outstanding work does not assure success in this department." Faculty Member #2 When I first came to the university, one of the things that gave me the most satisfaction was working closely with two of my senior colleagues: Ed and Jon. I truly valued their collaboration on grants, research, and publications, and had always believed that we worked well together and respected one another. That's why I was so taken aback, on the eve of my tenure decision, to learn from others in the department that Ed and Jon had voiced concerns to the tenure committee about my performance. Neither Ed nor Jon had ever shared these concerns with me, and I felt disconcerted and hurt. Although I eventually did receive tenure, the experience left a bad taste in my mouth. Now, when I hear Ed and Jon speak in faculty meetings, I wonder what their words are hiding. I see the glances they exchange when I'm speaking, and I resent their implication. Because I find it uncomfortable to be with these two colleagues, I avoid them whenever possible. I have extricated myself from joint research ventures and purposely avoid Ed and Jon in other venues of departmental life. Introduction: What Our Research Revealed What do the two stories above have in common? First, they portray senior (defined in this study as tenured) faculty members who are dissatisfied with their respective experiences at their institution. Second, in both cases, negative or disillusioning experiences at key times in their professional lives have colored the lens through which these individuals view their colleagues and experience life in their departments. They have responded to these events in ways that are counter to fostering collegiality and a sense of community--two primary sources of satisfaction in academic life (Barnes, Agago, & Coombs, 1998; Manger & Eikeland, 1990; Matier, 1990; Weiler, 1985). Although dissatisfied senior faculty members are hardly rare in academia (Amey & VanDerLinden, 2002; Boice, 1993; Hamrick, 2003; Karpiak, 1997; Mills, 2000), what is interesting about these particular stories is that they describe faculty who are not stagnant professionally but who continue to be remarkably productive: They publish extensively, secure prestigious grants, and succeed in a variety of other areas, as described below. In other words, these senior faculty members are at the top of their game. Nevertheless, they remain withdrawn in important ways at their own university, a problem we believe is not unique to this institution. What characterizes the experiences of faculty such as these, and what is the impact on their institutions? To what extent does the literature help us to understand the sources of their dissatisfaction and their responses to it? …

Stories of Politics and Policy: Florida's Higher Education Governance Reorganization

Abstract: This study presents three distinct narratives formulated by participants and observers that convey the process and rationale behind the 2000 change in governance structure for Florida's public universities. The stories are analyzed in light of current theories of agenda setting, policy streams, and punctuated change in policy-making.

A Typology of University Ethical Lapses: Types, Levels of Seriousness, and Originating Location

Abstract: Scandals ranging from NCAA violations to falsified research results have fueled criticism of America's universities. Sports violations, research manipulation, gender discrimination, and other ethical lapses affect an entire institution as they have a spillover effect on its reputation (Cullen, Latessa, Byrne, & Holman, 1990; Gerdy, 2002). The results of these problems include declining credibility and deteriorating public trust in universities since such lapses are difficult to resolve (Lederman, 1992; Turner, 1999). For example, American University's October 2005 $3.7 million severance package for Benjamin Ladner set off Senate Finance Committee and IRS investigations. In that same month, MIT dismissed Dr. Luk Van Parijs for falsifying research data. Schools manipulate admissions data for ranking purposes (Kersten, 2000) since rankers use school-provided data in their evaluations. Having ranked institutions provide this data creates a clear conflict of interest (Cressey, 1997). These and other problems increase public suspicion and criticism of universities (Knight & Auster, 1999). Some researchers believe that these ethical lapses spring from employees putting their own needs above honesty (e.g., Agle & Kelley, 2001; Howe & Moses, 1999). Others question whether universities have

Course Shopping in Urban Community Colleges: An Analysis of Student Drop and Add Activities

Abstract: Course shopping, a widely practiced postsecondary enrollment behavior, has rarely been studied. Generally considered benign, the practice may not always prove beneficial. This study identified and named four different types of course shopping behaviors. The research compared each of the four types, finding significant differences in GPA, successful course completion, gender, and course type.

The distribution of job satisfaction among young European graduates: does the choice of study field matter?

Abstract: The influence of study field on job satisfaction was analyzed using a sample of young European higher education graduates. Results show that the choice of study field influences the distribution of job satisfaction. Graduates’ perceptions about both educationjob match and the fulfillment of job prospects are predictors for job satisfaction.

Public Opinion, Partisan Identification, and Higher Education Policy

Abstract: The author gratefully acknowledges the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, who provided the data used in this article. The author thanks the editor and three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. In addition, Jim Hearn pro- vided valuable commentary on an earlier draft. The author bears sole responsibility for the content of this article.

Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education in US's higher education and implications for higher education of China

Abstract: The seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education distills finds from decades of research on the undergraduate experience into a lot of studies and were proposed twenty years ago.These principles assert that good practice in undergraduate education,(1)encourages student-faculty contact,(2)encourages cooperation among students,(3)encourage active learning,(4)gives prompt feedback,(5)emphasizes times on task,(6)communicates high expectations,(7)and respects diverse talents and ways of learning.Over the ten years,these principles have been commonly practised among American unversities and magnificent achievements have been achieved,which serve as an enlightenment to higher education schools in our country.

Envisioning the Future of Doctoral Education: Preparing Stewards of the Discipline—Carnegie Essays on the Doctorate

Abstract: Envisioning the Future of Doctoral Education: Preparing Stewards of the Discipline--Carnegie Essays on the Doctorate, edited by Chris M. Golde and George M. Walker. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006. 480 pp. ISBN 0-7879-8235-0. The Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate (CID) is working with departments in selected disciplines (mathematics, chemistry, neuroscience, education, history, and English) in the United States to reconsider the purposes, processes, and outcomes of doctoral education. For the CID's first product, Research Director Chris Golde and Project Director George Walker invited 16 eminent scholars from the six disciplines to address two provocative questions: "What is the purpose of doctoral education?" and "If you could start de novo, what would be the best way to structure doctoral education in your field?" (pp. 16-17). The essays are interspersed with useful descriptions of the state of current doctoral education in the six disciplines, including the number of doctoral degrees awarded per year, average time to degree, course of study and the nature of the research, and relations between doctoral students and their advisors. In her introduction, Golde says that doctoral education should prepare stewards of the discipline, scholars "who will creatively generate new knowledge, critically conserve valuable and useful ideas, and responsibly transform those understandings through writing, teaching and application" (p. 5). Stewardship involves both competence with the roles and skills of a discipline and a sense of moral purpose. Three integrative commentaries make sense of the 16 disciplinary essays for stakeholder groups. Kenneth Prewitt argues that disciplinary leaders should focus on reforming what is taught (content) and that institutional leaders should focus on reforming how it is taught (process). Reform in either case, he says, will require aligning external funding and institutional budgets with desired changes. From a faculty perspective, David Damrosch notes that the eminent scholars asked to envision doctoral education reaped rewards from excelling in the current system, so they may not have the most creative ideas for improving it for others. Damrosch would prefer ideas from current doctoral and recent doctoral students, including adjunct, not-yet-tenured, and recently tenured faculty. Similarly, Crespin Taylor argues that doctoral students as stakeholders should be part of developing reforms and that efforts should be informed by doctoral education outside the United States. The lone international voice is provided by Yehudi Elkana, rector of the Central European University, who argues that the centrality of philosophy and epistemology to the "Doctor of Philosophy" degree has been lost in overspecialization, pressure toward consensus, and rigor in the name of objective science. Mathematician Hyman Bass asserts that stewards must attend to both the discipline (a knowledge domain) and the profession (a community of human practice). Tony Chan thinks a math doctorate should be more appealing to a wider variety of students but is uncertain whether current faculty have the will to effect change. Alvin Kwiram outlines a curriculum to incorporate professional skills during doctoral education in chemistry. Ronald Breslow summarizes a 2003 National Research Council report on chemistry and applies it to current doctoral training in that discipline. Disciplinary leaders should be expert learners according to chemist Angelica Stacy, and she argues that doctoral students with the most potential may be leaving programs that require them to fit narrow expectations. Several authors discuss interdisciplinarity, but neuroscientist Zach Hall suggests that development of interdisciplinary doctoral programs served as a catalyst for transforming the conduct of research. Neuroscientist Steven Hyman agrees, asserting that "the key to coalescence of a new discipline is the graduate program. …

Saving Higher Education in the Age of Money

Abstract: will seize on the findings of this volume themselves to address the problems of college access for poor students. Nevertheless, as the authors point out, \"The symbolic as well as the substantive benefits of actions by leading colleges and universities should be recognized\" (p. 178). And those \"leading\" institutions should give serious attention to this volume if they are truly concerned about issues of equity for lower class students.