Conceptualizing Change in the Institutional Diversity of U.S. Colleges and Universities

Morphew, Christopher C.

doi:10.1353/jhe.0.0047

Cited by 53 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In national systems such as those of Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden and the United Kingdom, convergent tendencies predominate amongst higher education institutions because policy and regulation are not strong enough to sustain differences between institutions. (Codling & Meek, 2006, p. 9) Methodology and theoretical framework While a number of studies (Birnbaum, 1983;DiMaggio & Powell, 1983;Huisman, 1998;Morphew, 2009;Neave, 2000;Van Vught, 2007) drew perspectives from organisational theory, there currently exists no prevailing sociological theory of diversity and no unanimity as to the mechanisms that promote or hinder it. Organisational theory provided a means of analysing organisational behaviour from a macro perspective through the examination of the relationship between the organisation and its environment.…”

Section: External and Internal Environmental Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Institutional diversity and funding universities in Ontario: is there a link?

Piche

2015

Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fiscal climate of restraint in the Canadian province of Ontario has led to increased calls for a more diversified higher education system. Significant diversity in the university sector in Ontario has not been achieved that underscores the importance of understanding government policy and its related influences on institutional diversity. This study used policy and descriptive analysis and drew on mutually related theoretical perspectives from organisational theory as its conceptual framework to examine the factors that promoted or hindered processes of diversity in the sector. The study suggests that the lack of diversity objectives in provincial funding policies combined with the existing egalitarian operating funding model contributed to the continued lack of diversity in the university sector in Ontario while federal funding programmes distributed on the basis of a peer review, competitive process increased the potential for diversification. Structural policy directions to enhance diversity in the university sector are also considered.

show abstract

Section: External and Internal Environmental Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Institutional diversity and funding universities in Ontario: is there a link?

Piche

2015

Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The first best-evidence research in favor of diversity was from Birnbaum (1983). He measured the effect of external diversity in American higher education between 1960and 1980. Morphew (2009 repeated Birnbaum's study and found a decline in diversity in the American higher education system.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Diversity in Higher Education Institutions: A Review of Literature and Empirical Approaches

Widiputera¹,

Witte²,

Groot³

et al. 2017

IAFOR J Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews studies on diversity in higher education institutions and suggests empirical approaches to measure diversity. "Diversity" in this paper refers to the internal and external differences among academic programs and institutions. As the empirical literature is relatively salient about how to measure diversity in higher education, the study suggests and compares the use of the Herfindhal index, Gini coefficient, Theil entropy index and the Birnbaum (1983) measure. Applying the indices to data on Dutch higher education, the results indicate limited diversity between institutions, disciplines, and bachelor's programs. The diversity at the master's program and first year bachelor's program levels increased between 2008 and 2013.

show abstract

2013

ASHE Higher Education Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research studies most frequently consider systemic diversity, and these concepts infl uence many other institutional diversity aspects identifi ed later. Th e Carnegie Classifi cations, the most widely referenced classifi cation scheme in higher education, creates a typology using six primary criteria: undergraduate instruction, graduate instruction, enrollment profi le, undergraduate profi le, size, and setting. Since the fi rst iteration in 1970, the Carnegie Classifi cations have undergone subtle and more dramatic changes in an attempt to refl ect the changes among higher education institutions. Despite the changes, the infl uence of the classifi cations remains substantial and results in the importance often being placed on systemic diff erences. Furthermore, the aspects of systemic diversity may appear separately but frequently occur together. For example, many small colleges are private institutions, while larger universities tend to be under public control. Research universities off er more graduate programs and typically enroll a larger student body with more full-time students. Th e relationship among the various characteristics of systemic diversity allows a categorizing of institutions that provides an easy shorthand for describing colleges and universities. As an example, if told to imagine what a private liberal arts college looks like, one might think of a small school, located in a rural or suburban area, with a collegial culture and a focus on teaching and student-faculty interactions. Although this would certainly not describe all private liberal arts colleges in the nation, the typical characteristics enable generalizations useful for daily practice. Programmatic: Diversity of Degree Level, Comprehensiveness, and Range of Disciplines Off eredProgrammatic diversity includes fi ve components: degree level, degree area, comprehensiveness, mission, and emphasis. Defi ning institutions based on their highest degree awarded (associate's, bachelor's, master's, or doctorate) remains one of the most common ways to diff erentiate among various higher education institutions. By evaluating an institution based on the highest degree awarded, researchers make broad generalizations about an institution and stereotype the characteristics of the school. For example, observers readily recognize an institution where the associate's degree represents the highest 6 degree awarded as a community college with programs such as college transfer courses and vocational education to serve a sizable adult and part-time student population. A doctoral-granting institution would lead one to expect an institution with a research emphasis, a broader array of academic off erings, faculty who emphasize research and tenure, and graduate education programs. Certainly, a great variety exists among institutions that off er an associate's degree or those that off er doctorates as their highest off ering. However, the use of the highest degree level off ered provides a frequently used variable to diff erentiate and categorize institutio...

show abstract

Conceptualizing Change in the Institutional Diversity of U.S. Colleges and Universities

Cited by 53 publications

References 26 publications

Institutional diversity and funding universities in Ontario: is there a link?

Institutional diversity and funding universities in Ontario: is there a link?

Measuring Diversity in Higher Education Institutions: A Review of Literature and Empirical Approaches

Table of Contents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About