Lesson 3: Managing User Access and Security (Cache Administrators only)
Peer Group Analysis: For Administrators Only?
-
Upload
ingrid-franks -
Category
Documents
-
view
15 -
download
2
description
Transcript of Peer Group Analysis: For Administrators Only?
Peer Group Analysis: For Administrators Only?
Association of Institutional Research ForumSan Diego, California
May 29 – June 1, 2005
Tara R. Warne, Associate Research Analyst, University of Missouri System
Kathy Schmidtke, Graduate Assistant, University of Missouri System
D. Lanette Vaughn, Associate Research Analyst, University of Missouri System
Kathleen Leonard-Getty, Institutional Research Assistant, University of Missouri-Columbia
Why study peer group analysis?• Accountability• Resource Allocation• External/internal requests• Organizational learning?
Literature Review
• Modern comparative analysis developed in 1980s utilizing statistical analysis (Terenzini)
• Used primarily for financial purposes
• Expanded to use a wide range of performance indicators– Graduation rates, employment
rates, retention, salaries, enrollments, and faculty productivity
Literature Review (cont’d)• Three different types of peer
groups– Aspirational, peer,
predetermined
• Peer analysis is subject to a number of limitations– Descriptive data insufficient– Varying definitions of variables– Can limit institutional creativity– Meaningful use of peer group
analysis
Research Questions
• What do we want comparative data to tell us?
• Do peer analyses drive institutional change processes, in particular, organizational learning? Why or why not?
Methodology
• Large Midwestern public Doctoral Extensive institution
• Qualitative Case Study Approach
• N = 10 upper, middle, and lower administrators
• Grounded theory
Theoretical Frameworks
• Political (Bolman & Deal)– Competition for
resources– Coalitions with
differing missions
• Learning organization– Double-loop learning
(Argyris & Schön)– Defensive reasoning
(Argyris)– Phenomena → Data →
Information → Knowledge (Bagshaw)
Argyris’ Double loop learning
http://thoughthorizon.com/archives/000277.php
Bagshaw’s Plant Structure
Phenomena
Data
Information
Knowledge
Findings
• Institutional Context– Comparative reports required
by upper administration for resource allocation
– Original allocation model abandoned
– Reporting requirement retained
– Reporting adapted based on divisional needs
Findings (cont’d)
• Three Overarching Themes– Broad view of institutional
data– Use of data– Organizational change
Broad View of Institutional Data• Administrators emphasize
comparative data• Mid-level administrators
view comparative data as nested
Use of Data
• Contribution of department to campus
• Resource allocation• Internal goal setting and
evaluation• Desired uses• Challenges
Organizational Change
• Fiscal outweighs performance
• Internal competition• Leadership
Conclusions
• Information used from peer group analysis– Level of teaching, research,
and service– Support for greater resource
allocations– Effectiveness and productivity
• Double-loop learning• Defensive learning
Implications for IR
• Saupe (1990)– Objective,
systematic, and thorough
– “the wisdom, integrity, and courage possessed by those who share the responsibilities of governance” used to make decisions
• Volkwein (1999)– Internal vs external
duality
• Bagshaw (1999)– Learning inhibited
institution– Phenomena → Data →
Information → Knowledge
– “Shape the intellectual expectations of the leadership”
Discussion and Questions
Contact information
Tara R. Warne(573) [email protected]
Kathy Schmidtke(573) [email protected]
Kathleen Leonard-Getty(573) [email protected]