11
This chapter highlights the need for incorporating institutional and societal context into institutional research in order to ensure accurate interpretation of data. The Importance of Acknowledging Context in Institutional Research Jason E. Lane, M. Christopher Brown II Institutions of higher learning increasingly face the need to respond to accountability mandates. These mandates originate from various entities, including the federal government, state government, accreditation agencies, students, parents, and the public at large. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), there existed in 2001 – 2002 almost forty- two hundred public and private, two- and four-year institutions within the complex typology of institutional diversity in U.S. higher education (http:// nces.ed.gov). Although a number of methodological measures have been developed to differentiate among these institutions, there remain a number of unique segments of this population of which very little is known. Because of the complexity of America’s higher education system and the constituents it serves, institutional researchers, policymakers, and schol- ars face considerable methodological challenges to paint a holistic picture of the rich diversity. Moreover, prospective students who seek access to the different types of higher education institutions with differing cultural, envi- ronmental, and community norms and values face numerous choices. As a result, the higher education system serves an increasingly diverse student population with respect to age, experience, racial or ethnic background, and level of expectation (Brown and Lane, 2003). Therefore, the fabric of America’s higher education institutions is becoming more complex as stu- dents take advantage of specialized educational environments. Both centuries-old debates about the purpose of education and the continual emergence of new educational contexts create increased challenges in con- ducting meaningful and relevant research. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH, no. 124, Winter 2004 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 93 6

The importance of acknowledging context in institutional research

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: The importance of acknowledging context in institutional research

This chapter highlights the need for incorporatinginstitutional and societal context into institutionalresearch in order to ensure accurate interpretation of data.

The Importance of AcknowledgingContext in Institutional Research

Jason E. Lane, M. Christopher Brown II

Institutions of higher learning increasingly face the need to respond toaccountability mandates. These mandates originate from various entities,including the federal government, state government, accreditation agencies,students, parents, and the public at large. According to the National Centerfor Education Statistics (NCES), there existed in 2001–2002 almost forty-two hundred public and private, two- and four-year institutions within thecomplex typology of institutional diversity in U.S. higher education (http://nces.ed.gov). Although a number of methodological measures have beendeveloped to differentiate among these institutions, there remain a numberof unique segments of this population of which very little is known.

Because of the complexity of America’s higher education system andthe constituents it serves, institutional researchers, policymakers, and schol-ars face considerable methodological challenges to paint a holistic pictureof the rich diversity. Moreover, prospective students who seek access to thedifferent types of higher education institutions with differing cultural, envi-ronmental, and community norms and values face numerous choices. As aresult, the higher education system serves an increasingly diverse studentpopulation with respect to age, experience, racial or ethnic background, andlevel of expectation (Brown and Lane, 2003). Therefore, the fabric ofAmerica’s higher education institutions is becoming more complex as stu-dents take advantage of specialized educational environments. Bothcenturies-old debates about the purpose of education and the continualemergence of new educational contexts create increased challenges in con-ducting meaningful and relevant research.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH, no. 124, Winter 2004 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 93

6

Page 2: The importance of acknowledging context in institutional research

94 UNIQUE CAMPUS CONTEXTS

Expanding the Meaning of Institutional Research

If one were to take a swath of the population of American institutions ofhigher learning, a cursory look would reveal a number of variations in insti-tutional characteristics. These differences emanate from the type of studentsserved, educational programs offered, institutional missions pursued, andideas generated. Research on higher education institutions tends to assumesimilar cultural and physical contexts while focusing analyses and assess-ment on more tangible variables, such as retention and graduation rates. Yetthe characteristics of any institution derive primarily from an institution’scontextual components and should be interpreted within the contextualframework. The organizations and programs that are the focus of this vol-ume were selected because of their contextual uniqueness as compared tomore traditional entities, such as comprehensive or research institutions.

In an earlier issue of the New Directions for Institutional Researchseries, Studying Diverse Institutions: Contexts, Challenges, and Considerations(Brown and Lane, 2003), we concluded by observing that “institutional mis-sion, student diversity, and history” (p. 105) are among the primary threadsthat help create a diversified educational system and calling for additionalresearch on institutional diversity. The authors of this volume have re-sponded to that call in interesting and meaningful ways. To the original listof factors institutional researchers need to consider in their work, we nowadd physical and cultural context.

Most institutions possess a unique campus culture. Some cultures man-ifest themselves through intense school spirit or athletic rivalries. On othercampuses, aged traditions and folklore bind together generations of studentsand alumni. Still others use physical symbols such as statues, unique build-ings, or aesthetic landscaping to create a special sense of the campus. (Formore information on myths and the symbolic nature of organizations, seeBolman and Deal, 1997; Manning, 2000; Ortner, 1973.) This symbolism isoften so ingrained in an institution’s belief structure that its importance is taken for granted by actors within the institution, leaving external review-ers or analysts in the dark and having to interpret data out of context.

The Importance of the Institutional Context: TheImpact of Culture and Location

Within the research setting, context tends to be the great unknown. Rarelyaccounted for within quantitative research because of its ambiguous andoften unquantifiable nature, context typically comprises many of the mostimportant variables involved in constructing institutional meaning andsense making. Because of the relative lack of research attention that insti-tutional context tends to receive in the profession’s literature, this chapterhighlights important components of context and reviews the distinct con-texts included in this volume. For this discussion, context is used to capture

Page 3: The importance of acknowledging context in institutional research

both the location of the organization and the cultural components of theorganizational life of educational institutions.

As observed in the preceding chapters, context can have a large impacton institutional performance and decision making. Whether an organiza-tion resides on a traditional college campus or, for example, as part of a cor-porate retreat site affects the extent to which traditional academic valuesand norms influence decision making and governance. Furthermore, beinggeographically dispersed creates a whole different set of issues, from ensur-ing efficient communication to maintaining effective governance proce-dures. If campuses exist within different political boundaries such as statesor nations, they may become subject to different sets of regulatory oraccountability measures and influenced by different external cultures. Thus,the physical location of the entity under study needs to be accounted forwithin research measures.

Institutional culture is a much more difficult concept to define thanlocation. Schein (1985), in one of the initial attempts to define the idea ofculture within the study of organizational theory, used the following defi-nition: “A pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as itsolved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that hasworked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught tonew members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems” (p. 12).

Culture, according to this definition, infiltrates all components of theinstitutions under study. It drives the way participants think and feel andinterpret their surroundings. So inherent are these beliefs that they are notreadily identified. The lack of acknowledgment of culture is easily permis-sible when the same culture influences all actors; it becomes problematic,however, when actors not aware of or influenced by the inherent cultureattempt to understand organizational dynamics or characteristics.

The three main components of context we discuss may aid institutionalresearchers in identifying and incorporating context into their work. The firsttwo items, artifacts and basic underlying assumptions, come from the work oforganizational theorists such as Schein (1992) and Ott (1989). The third com-ponent, location, is added based on the work of this volume’s chapter authors.The evidence provided in the preceding chapters illustrates how location canhave an impact on the creation and evolution of organizational culture.

Artifacts

The most visible component of organizational culture, artifacts derive fromthe physical and social environment (Schein, 1985) and “intentionally orunintentionally communicate information about the organization’s technol-ogy, beliefs, values, assumptions, and ways of doing things” (Ott, 1989, p. 24). This level of culture includes a variety of overt and conspicuous vari-ables, such as physical surroundings, language, ceremonies, and technology.

ACKNOWLEDGING CONTEXT IN INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH 95

Page 4: The importance of acknowledging context in institutional research

For example, in a comparison of corporate and comprehensive universities,the difference in artifacts becomes readily apparent. The most obvious dif-ference may be the type of language used by the actors involved. It is verylikely that both topics and word choice at a faculty senate meeting and a staffmeeting of corporate faculty would vary. Allen and McGee allude to this dif-ference in the beginning of Chapter Five when they point out that the terminstitutional research has not been incorporated into the jargon of corporateuniversities. What those in more traditional academic organizations refer toas “institutional research,” analysts at corporate universities refer to as “mea-surement and evaluation.” Furthermore, the ceremonies incorporated withineach organization’s culture differ. Traditionally, universities use symbolssuch as commencement ceremonies, presidential inaugurations, athletic sym-bols, or ivy-covered brick buildings to construct their contexts, whereas cor-porate universities may use mission statements, corporate imagery, andclothing choice to communicate culture.

While artifacts are the most apparent components of organizationalculture, the significance behind the artifacts is much more important andmuch more difficult to determine (Schein, 1992), particularly for those onthe outside of the organization looking in. Artifacts construct mean-ing, determine status, and convey organizational beliefs and norms.Commencements, inaugurations, graduate seminars, and large lectureclasses represent artifacts readily prevalent on college campuses. In manycases, actors within the organization do not know the reasons that some ofthese artifacts exist, even if there are very practical reasons, such as nothaving the physical space or requisite number of faculty to take one three-hundred-person class and split it into ten thirty-person classes. Oneextreme example of how those external to the organization could misin-terpret an organizational artifact came in a set of articles collectivelylabeled, “What’s Wrong with the American University?” Using the corpo-rate theme, Finn and Manno (1996) attempt to pull back the curtain onhigher education and reveal the true nature of the beast, at least throughthe lens of corporate culture. For example, they claim that institutions have“pandered to some of the worst impulses of students, encouraging (andsometimes requiring) them to take ‘courses’ that indulge the contemporarytrend of self-absorption” (p. 47). The authors go on to describe what thosein higher education know as the freshman seminar. The first problem withthis criticism emanates from the idea that these courses were developedbecause students wanted them. Those who have taught such courses knowthat students often require faculty to justify the existence of the course.Second, research suggests that freshman seminars increase retention ratesof students (Fidler and Moore, 1996; Strumpf and Hunt, 1993). Such acourse should be valued from a business perspective as increased retentionof students both improves the educational experience of students (prod-uct) and increases the revenues of an institution. Both are outcomes highlyvalued within corporate culture.

96 UNIQUE CAMPUS CONTEXTS

Page 5: The importance of acknowledging context in institutional research

If a common and very practical artifact such as the freshman seminarcan be misconstrued as a waste of institutional resources, is it any wonderthat more esoteric components receive a high level of scrutiny? Certainlythe idea of basing an entire grade on a final exam, as is often done in lawschool, may seem foreign to those used to a number of graded assignmentsthroughout the semester. Moreover, many components of seminary train-ing may seem unusual or even backward to external observers. Those whochronicle the activities of corporate universities may wonder whether theentity deserves to be called a university.

Conveying context to those who read reports from the institutionalresearch office is critical for ensuring an accurate interpretation of the rel-evant data. Reporting an increase in the number of students enrolled infreshman seminars may be perceived as universities responding to self-indulgence rather than an indicator of success in the area of retention with-out the appropriate context being provided.

Basic Underlying Assumptions

Basic underlying assumptions manifest after credibility of certain values andbeliefs have been repeatedly proven. Such “implicit assumptions . . . guidebehavior [and] . . . tell group members how to perceive, think about, andfeel about things” (Schein, 1985, citing Argyris, 1976; Argyris and Schön,1974). Often the actors involved in an organization do not even realize thereason for which they engage in certain activities, so inherent and embed-ded are the implicit assumptions. Few people probably know why mostdegrees are based on a four-year course of study or why a standard bache-lor degree requires the completion of approximately 120 credit hours. Whyis the college semester fifteen weeks on some campuses and seventeenweeks on others? Why is the department chair elected by the faculty ratherthan appointed by the dean? Why are students in one degree programrequired to take a course from another department that appears to bear norelevance to the subject? When a new faculty member asks such questions,a senior colleague may regale the junior faculty member with a tale of howthis arrangement resulted from a compromise of a grand debate more thantwenty years ago. Often, though, many individuals (students, faculty, andstaff) do not even know why certain courses are required, which can resultin many outdated courses and programs that remain on the books for noapparent reason. Not all departments or institutions are so resistant tochange, but one would be hard pressed to find an institution that fullyunderstands the justifications for all that it does.

With change coming relatively slowly and few individuals truly know-ing or understanding the reasons behind certain institutional artifacts orassumptions, is it any wonder that critics of higher education have a diffi-cult time understanding how the enterprise operates? In the vacuum ofmeaning, critics often use their own beliefs and values to understand higher

ACKNOWLEDGING CONTEXT IN INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH 97

Page 6: The importance of acknowledging context in institutional research

education. One extreme example comes from a speech given by JamesCarlin, the former chair of the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education, tothe Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce in 1997 in which he stated, “Ihave never seen any business, institution, public agency . . . anything . . . asmanagerially dysfunctional . . . as misfocused . . . as lacking in goals andobjectives, as devoid of accountability . . . as ineffective and inefficient . . .as America’s colleges and universities.”

There are many aspects of higher education that seem inefficient andillogical when viewed through the lens of business; among them are smallclass sizes, independent studies, service projects for the region, economicstudies of the local economy, and limited number of teaching hours. Each ofthese initiatives “increases” costs rather than contains them. These aspectsof higher education, however, are necessities in terms of providing qual-ity education, quality research, and quality service to the community. Whileeducational researchers discuss the merits of class size and the reasons thatnumerous studies indicate smaller classes contribute to greater learningpotential of students (for example, Korostoff, 1998), business executives tryto figure out how to produce more products or services for a lower cost. Ifthese same executives used business principles to lead higher education insti-tutions, initiatives would include bigger classrooms and the hiring of morepart-time faculty and teaching assistants. Why pay a full-time faculty mem-ber a salary of $60,000 when an institution can hire a teaching assistant for$10,000 a year to teach the same classes? Yet how many of these criticswould want their children taught by graduate students instead of full-timefaculty members? The problem boils down to the fact that the public and thestate legislators are being influenced by those outside the organization whoknow very little about the culture of higher education, yet these critics claimto know how to fix its problems.

Location

Organizational context should not be interpreted without consideration forthe location in which the organization under study resides. While corpora-tions may transcend geographical and political boundaries with ease, insti-tutions of higher learning do not. Boorstin (1965), in discussing colonialcolleges in America, referred to them as neither public nor private, butrather as community institutions. Through this organizational conceptual-ization, he conveys the premise that the institution belonged to the com-munity and was heavily affected by community norms and values. Whilethe idea of institutional ownership has progressed beyond the simplisticcommunity model into an elaborate system of governance and account-ability procedures, institutions still remain heavily influenced by the com-munities in which they reside.

At the subinstitution level, the culture of colleges and schools reflectswhere the school is located in relation to other institutional components. A

98 UNIQUE CAMPUS CONTEXTS

Page 7: The importance of acknowledging context in institutional research

medical school may have a different culture if it is located on the main cam-pus or isolated in a distant town across the state. The same may be true fora theological seminary. Its culture depends on whether it evolved isolatedfrom other academic entities or as part of a wider educational system.Corporate universities serve as one of the best examples of how location canhave an impact on cultural development. In addition to developing differentjargon, the corporate university culture is geared toward different outcomesfrom those of a traditional college or university. Most corporate universitieswere created with a specific purpose in mind: to assist in the professionaldevelopment of their employees and thus the success of the organization. Acollege or university rarely benefits directly from the investment it puts intothe development of a student, with the possible exceptions of alumni dona-tions or improved institutional reputations.

The development of transnational education further highlights theimportance of incorporating contextual issues into institutional research(Knight, 2003; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,2003). Institutions with campuses located in two or more nations must beable to adapt to multiple external cultures, suggesting that institutionalresearchers need to be able to assess, interpret, and understand multiple cul-tures within their own institutions. In fact, it may be the emergence oftransnational campuses that demonstrates the need for institutionalresearchers to understand and incorporate culture into their analyses. Asinstitutions begin to incorporate multiple distinct cultures within their orga-nization, the importance of culture will become increasingly apparent. “Itis important to remember that behind the norms lies this deeper taken-for-granted set of assumptions that most members of a culture never questionor examine. The members of a culture are not even aware of their own cul-ture until they encounter a different one” (Schein, 1996, p. 234). Thisbecomes particularly evident when administrators on one campus with itsown set of embedded and basic underlying assumptions attempt to inter-pret data from another campus with its own set of embedded and basicunderlying assumptions. If the two institutional cultures are distinct enoughfrom each other, there exists a high likelihood that interpretation of datawithout appropriate contextual considerations will lead to misleading eval-uations or judgments.

Incorporating Campus Fahrvergnügen intoInstitutional Research

Several years ago, the Volkswagen Corporation launched a new series ofadvertisements that centered on proclaiming their vehicles were differentbecause they possessed fahrvergnügen. Few individuals who watched theseads knew exactly what that word meant. Some thought it meant stylish,others thought fun, and still others simply thought it meant new. The over-all impression, however, was that fahrvergnügen conveyed that special,

ACKNOWLEDGING CONTEXT IN INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH 99

Page 8: The importance of acknowledging context in institutional research

indefinable characteristic of the Volkswagen that set it apart from othervehicles on the market.

Similarly, the institutional types selected as the focus of this volumedistinguish themselves from other higher education entities based on theirunique contexts—their fahrvergnügen. These institutions evolved with dif-ferent motivations, are located in disparate locations, or simply stand outfrom the other administrative components on their respective campuses.Institutional researchers sometimes overlook these unique organizationalaspects because they do not recognize the importance of the setting or failto differentiate the unique traits from the norm.

All campuses possess their own fahrvergnügen—a distinct culture thatis often difficult to define. The other chapters in this book highlight someof the most acute contexts. As illustrated in the discussion here, culturepermeates all aspects of the organization yet is rarely considered or incor-porated into research models. Schein (1996), often considered the fatherof the study of organizational culture, wrote: “Even though I have workedon culture as a variable for over 10 years, I keep being surprised by howlittle I understand its profound influence in situation after situation. Ibelieve our failure to take culture seriously enough stems from our meth-ods of inquiry, which put a greater premium on abstractions that can bemeasured than on careful ethnographic or clinical observation of organi-zational phenomena” (p. 229).

The lack of incorporating context into research is not limited to insti-tutional research, but probably has the most practical import for this areaof work. The following are a few summary research considerations forincorporating context into institutional research.

Question Everything; Assume Nothing. Before sending a report to anexternal group, attempt to interpret the data presented as if you were an out-sider, or ask a colleague unfamiliar with the project to do the same, instruct-ing them to be overly critical. Being too close to data can cause one to losefocus, but being too close and a part of the organization under study can beproblematic as one may not even be aware of the assumptions driving deci-sions or interpretations. As Donald Rumsfeld has stated in reference to thewar on terrorism, “There are things we know we don’t know, and there arethings we don’t know that we don’t know.” It is this latter condition thatinstitutional researchers need to be the most wary of.

Location, Location, Location. When dealing with a service, such aseducation, that is so closely tied to cultural and environmental influences, itis imperative to recognize the importance location can play on institutionalresearch. Even within a single state, institutional missions may vary basedon geography. Urban campuses differ from rural campuses. Commuter cam-puses differ from residential. Even the northern half of a state may differfrom the southern half. Astute administrators know that the characteristicsof a service region and the nature of the town-gown relationships greatlyinfluence the effectiveness of an institution, but such differences may not be

100 UNIQUE CAMPUS CONTEXTS

Page 9: The importance of acknowledging context in institutional research

readily apparent to legislators in the state capital who have never visited the campus. Thus, it is important to communicate not just the nature of theinstitution but also the unique characteristics of the region being served.

Identify and Explain Artifacts. Artifacts both create and communi-cate cultures. Due to their size and internal diversity, educational enter-prises, particularly within the postsecondary sector, tend to possess manyartifacts. While the meaning or purpose of such items may be easily under-stood by those within the culture, the same may not be true from those whodo not understand the culture of academia or choose to interpret themthrough their own cultural lens. Furthermore, although acknowledgingcontext may not alleviate all comparisons with corporate environs, contextmay aid in creating a large appreciation and understanding for the uniqueaspects of the academic environment.

Culture Is Difficult to Change. One possible outcome of contextualinclusion is the desire for administrators and policymakers to want tochange culture. If this occurs, institutional researchers need to be aware thatwhile changing culture is possible, it is often a long and difficult process.Morgan (1997), in his best-selling book Image of Organizations, writes:

Corporate culture rests in distinctive capacities and incapacities which, as aresult of the evolution of the culture, have become defining features of theway the organization works by being built into the attitudes and approachesof its employees. Managers can influence the evolution of culture by beingaware of the symbolic consequences of their actions and by attempting to fos-ter desired values, but they can never control culture. . . . The holographicdiffusion of culture means that it pervades activity in a way not amenable todirect control by a single group of individuals [p. 139].

Morgan is obviously writing about business corporations. Simplyreplace corporation with academic and manager with administrator andemployee with faculty and staff, however, and he could just as easily bedescribing the culture on any college or university campus. In fact, the cul-ture of academic universities presents additional challenges to attempts atcontrolling or changing. Where most corporations use hierarchical controlmechanisms that empower management, the use of collegial and sharedgovernance empowers the employees, who are then better able to resistchanges suggested by the administration.

One of the reasons many laypeople have difficulty understanding highereducation operations is that they attempt to interpret data using different cul-tural paradigms. Whether through a business class in high school or a micro-economics course in college, most students learn about basic businessculture: hierarchical reporting, profit motivations, and the need for effi-ciency, among others. When these remedial business lenses are employed tointerpret higher education outcomes and data, the enterprise may look likea failure. The problem, again, is that contexts of business and academic orga-nizations are different.

ACKNOWLEDGING CONTEXT IN INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH 101

Page 10: The importance of acknowledging context in institutional research

Conclusion

This volume concentrates on exposing some of the epistemological and con-ceptual issues associated with research development. In addition to provid-ing knowledge about unique and changing aspects of the higher educationsystem, the intent of this volume is to challenge existing beliefs and assump-tions about higher education. If a researcher continues to base researchmethods, constructs, and interpretations on beliefs forged five years ago ormore, outcomes and analysis may be faulty or misleading.

As researchers, we must constantly ask ourselves how we know whatwe know. Is the information that we base our assumptions and beliefs onstill accurate? Or have the constructs on which our assumptions are basedchanged? The academic world appears to be evolving much faster thanmany individuals in academia realize or want to know. In many ways, thetraditional constructs are dissipating. The creation of corporate universitiesblurs the line of demarcation between education and corporation. Theadvent of the General Agreement of Trade in Services deconstructs nationalborders, creating a global system of education that must accommodatediversity in language, culture, and economic principles.

The immediate impact of these changes remains unknown; no crystalball exists that will allow us to foretell the future. The important element isthat change is occurring and will propel the postsecondary education sys-tem in directions as yet unseen and possibly unfathomable. Ten years ago,barely anyone used e-mail or the Internet; now it is difficult to imagine aca-demia existing without it. Whether attempting to assess unique campuscontexts or to be able to understand, account for, and appreciate change andits impact, researchers need to be able to recognize and comprehend themotivating factors.

References

Argyris, C. Increasing Leadership Effectiveness. New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1976.Argyris, C., and Schön, D. A. Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974.Bolman, L. G., and Deal, T. E. Reframing Organizations. (2nd ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass, 1997.Boorstin, D. J. The Americans: The National Experience. New York: Random House,

1965.Brown, M. C., and Lane, J. E. (eds.). Studying Diverse Institutions: Contexts, Challenges,

and Considerations. New Directions for Institutional Research, no. 118. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, 2003.

Carlin, J. I Know My Campus Is Broken, But If I Try to Fix It I’ll Lose My Job. Speech pre-sented to the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, Nov. 1997.

Fidler, P. P., and Moore, P. S. “A Comparison of Effects of Campus Residence andFreshman Seminar Attendance on Freshman Dropout Rates.” Journal of the FreshmanYear Experience, 1996, 8(2), 7–16.

Finn Jr., C., and Manno, B. “Behind the Curtain.” Wilson Quarterly, Winter 1996, pp. 44–53.

102 UNIQUE CAMPUS CONTEXTS

Page 11: The importance of acknowledging context in institutional research

Knight, J. GATS, Trade and Higher Education: Perspectives 2003: Where Are We? London:Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, 2003.

Korostoff, S. “Tackling California’s Class Size Reduction Policy Initiative: An Up-Closeand Personal Account of How Teachers and Learners Responded.” InternationalJournal of Educational Research, 1998, 29, 797–807.

Manning, K. Rituals, Ceremonies, and Cultural Meaning in Higher Education. Westport,Conn.: Bergin and Garvey, 2000.

Morgan, G. Images of Organization. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1997.Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Enhancing Consumer

Protection in Cross-Border Higher Education: Key Issues Related to Quality Assurance,Accreditation and Recognition of Qualifications. Trondlheim, Norway: Organization forEconomic Cooperation and Development/Center for Educational Research andInnovation, Nov. 2003.

Ortner, S. B. “On Key Symbols.” American Anthropologist, 1973, 75(5), 1338–1346.Ott, J. S. The Organizational Cultural Perspective. Chicago: Dorsey Press, 1989.Schein, E. H. Organizational Culture and Leadership. (1st ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,

1985.Schein, E. H. Organizational Culture and Leadership. (2nd ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass, 1992.Schein, E. H. “Culture: The Missing Concept in Organization Studies.” Administrative

Studies Quarterly, 1996, 41(2), 229–241.Strumpf, G., and Hunt, P. “The Effects of an Orientation Course on the Retention and

Academic Standing of Entering Freshmen, Controlling for the Volunteer Effect.”Journal of the Freshman Year Experience, 1993, 5(1), 7–14.

JASON E. LANE is assistant professor of higher education in the College ofEducation and Human Development at the University of North Dakota.

M. CHRISTOPHER BROWN II is executive director and chief research scientist ofthe Frederick D. Patterson Research Institute of the United Negro College Fundand on leave from the Pennsylvania State University.

ACKNOWLEDGING CONTEXT IN INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH 103