1,720,953 research outputs found
Assessment measures showing institutional effectiveness in relation to External Stakeholder Expectations for Accountability
No full textCommunity colleges face a growing demand from a wide range of stakeholders for more transparent accountability but struggle to select appropriate measures and to use them in effective ways. The multiple demands of various stakeholders, and the calls to respond to those demands in effective and appropriate ways, are leading to a confusing array of possible measures. A literature review that looked at accountability demands, stakeholder theory, organizational culture, and assessment measures led to the development of a conceptual model suggesting a process for institutional leaders to use to prioritize stakeholders and their needs. This process was then tested in a single-case study that used a survey, a review of key artifacts, and a comparison of assessment measures used at the institution to those recommended in the literature. The purpose of the study was to determine if institutional leaders could identify and prioritize key external stakeholders relevant to community college operations. Because the missions of individual community colleges are varied, the key stakeholders for each institution vary as well. Public community college leaders must define and acknowledge the key stakeholders relative to their colleges’ missions. Community college leaders should consider differentiating stakeholder needs as they try to identify stakeholders relevant to the operation of the institution. Among institutional leaders surveyed was a definite division of perceived assessment measures important to external stakeholders. By using organizational processes found in stakeholder theory, institutional leaders can manage stakeholder relationships. A strategic management grid and communication loop diagram were presented for community college leaders to use in the process to identify relevant stakeholders and their assessment needs. This researcher believes that stakeholders and their assessment needs can be classified into degrees of importance, based on criteria that are meaningful to the institution.ASSESSMENT MEASURES SHOWING INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS IN RELATION TO
External Stakeholder Expectations for Accountability
Mona Lynn Clites
A Thesis
Submitted to the
Graduate Faculty
of
University of Maryland University College
in Partial Fulfillment of
The Requirements for the Degree
of
Doctor of Management
James Tschechtelin, Ed.D.
Charlene Nunley, Ph.D.
January 10, 2014ii
DEDICATION
The process of completing a dissertation is a journey and no exciting journey is done alone. So many people have crossed my path in this journey and there are several that I want to mention specifically.
First and foremost, this work would not be complete without the guidance and continued support and encouragement of Dr. Charlene Nunley and Dr. James Tschechtelin. Both are inspirational leaders, mentors and teachers and provided continual feedback and support. I cannot thank them enough. Other influential faculty who assisted me, and whom I admire, are Dr. Patricia Keir and Dr. Trudy Bers. All of these leaders are interested in the continued growth and success of community colleges and their dedication to the profession and to students is commendable. I also thank my UMUC Cohort Three classmates with whom I have tremendous respect and gratitude. They made the journey enjoyable and I am blessed to have a group of lifelong friends.
I want to thank my many, many family, friends, and co-workers who stood by me, encouraged me, listened to me, and cheered me on every step of the way. They are proud of my accomplishment as much as I am and their words of encouragement along the way kept me going.
Finally, I want to dedicate this to my daughters Rachel and Julia. I always want to inspire them to follow their dreams, reach their goals, and do things that bring them joy. This has not always been an easy journey, but they have truly encouraged me, been happy for me, and are the reason that I want to set a model for being a successful and contented person.
iii
ABSTRACT
Community colleges face a growing demand from a wide range of stakeholders for more transparent accountability but struggle to select appropriate measures and to use them in effective ways. The multiple demands of various stakeholders, and the calls to respond to those demands in effective and appropriate ways, are leading to a confusing array of possible measures. A literature review that looked at accountability demands, stakeholder theory, organizational culture, and assessment measures led to the development of a conceptual model suggesting a process for institutional leaders to use to prioritize stakeholders and their needs. This process was then tested in a single-case study that used a survey, a review of key artifacts, and a comparison of assessment measures used at the institution to those recommended in the literature. The purpose of the study was to determine if institutional leaders could identify and prioritize key external stakeholders relevant to community college operations. Because the missions of individual community colleges are varied, the key stakeholders for each institution vary as well. Public community college leaders must define and acknowledge the key stakeholders relative to their colleges’ missions. Community college leaders should consider differentiating stakeholder needs as they try to identify stakeholders relevant to the operation of the institution. Among institutional leaders surveyed was a definite division of perceived assessment measures important to external stakeholders. By using organizational processes found in stakeholder theory, institutional leaders can manage stakeholder relationships. A strategic management grid and communication loop diagram were presented for community college leaders to use in the process to identify relevant stakeholders and their assessment needs. This researcher believes that stakeholders and iv
their assessment needs can be classified into degrees of importance, based on criteria that are meaningful to the institution.
Keywords: stakeholders, stakeholder theory, institutional effectiveness measures, accountability, accountability measures, community college
v
© Copyright by
Mona L. Clites
2013 vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................3
Statement of Purpose ...........................................................................................................4
Context ................................................................................................................................5
Theoretical Base...................................................................................................................9
Research Questions ............................................................................................................10
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................11
Significance.......................................................................................................................13
Organization of Dissertation ..............................................................................................14
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................15
Growing and Multiple Demands for Accountability Faced by Community Colleges.......16
Stakeholder Theory and Its Relevance in Addressing Accountability Demands ..............21
Institutional Accountability Used to Create a Culture of Evidence ...................................29
Assessment Measures ........................................................................................................30
CHAPTER THREE: CONCEPTUAL MODEL ................................................................42
Assumptions of the Model .................................................................................................42
Expectations About Increasing Levels of Accountability Are Not a Fad ..............42
Institutional Effectiveness Can Be Measured ........................................................43
Stakeholders Have Authentic Needs ......................................................................43
Conceptual Model ..............................................................................................................44
Element 1. Identify Stakeholders and Their Accountability Needs Using Stakeholder Analysis .............................................................................................46
Element 2. Analyze and Use Typical Useful Reporting Measures ........................57
Element 3. Leading an Organizational Culture......................................................60
Element 4. Communicate Effectiveness Transparently .........................................62
Summary ............................................................................................................................64
CHAPTER FOUR: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................66
Research Approach ............................................................................................................66
Expert Review Process ......................................................................................................68
Rationale for Use of a Single-Case Study Method ............................................................69
Sample Selection ................................................................................................................73
Research Instruments .........................................................................................................74
Limitations .........................................................................................................................76
Summary ............................................................................................................................77
CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS ............................................................78
Expert Panel Review ..........................................................................................................78
Evaluation Question 1 ............................................................................................79 vii
Evaluation Question 2 ............................................................................................79
Evaluation Question 3 ............................................................................................80
Evaluation Question 4 ............................................................................................80
Evaluation Question 5 ............................................................................................81
Evaluation Question 6 ............................................................................................81
Evaluation Question 7 ............................................................................................81
Evaluation Question 8 ............................................................................................82
Evaluation Question 9 ............................................................................................82
Expert Reviewer Comments Considered for Incorporation into the Research ......82
Findings from the Case Study ............................................................................................84 Survey of Institutional Leaders ..........................................................................................86
Survey Question 1 ..................................................................................................86
Survey Question 2 ..................................................................................................92
Survey Question 3 ..................................................................................................93
Review of Existing Key Artifacts ......................................................................................96
The Strategic Plan ..................................................................................................97
Self-Study Recommendations and Suggestions...................................................100
Annual Initiatives for Academic Years 2013, 2012, and 2011 ............................100
Facilities Master Plan (2011–2016) .....................................................................102
Comparison of Proposed Measures and Institution’s Required Reporting Measures ....102
Case Study Findings in Relation to Research Questions .................................................110
Research Question 1 ............................................................................................110
Research Question 2 ............................................................................................112
Research Question 3 ............................................................................................113
Discussion of the Case Study Findings in Relation to the Argument of this Research ..114
CHAPTER SIX: IMPLICATIONS AND NEED FOR FUTURE RESEARCH .............116
Conclusions ......................................................................................................................116
Research Question 1 ............................................................................................117
Research Question 2 ............................................................................................118
Research Question 3 ............................................................................................120
Implementation Guidance for Operationalizing the Proposed Conceptual Model ..........121
Step 1 ...................................................................................................................121
Step 2 ...................................................................................................................122
Step 3 ...................................................................................................................122
Step 4 ...................................................................................................................124
Implications for Management Practice for Community College Leaders .......................126
Implications for Management Research with Community College Application and Suggestions for Future Research .....................................................................................128
Summary ..........................................................................................................................129
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................130
APPENDIX A EVALUATION FORM ..........................................................................138
APPENDIX B GUIDELINES FOR UNDERTAKING CASE STUDY RESEARCH ...139
APPENDIX C SURVEY OF PERCEPTIONS OF EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS ...140 viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Initiatives................................................................................................................18
2 Stakeholder Identification and Analysis Techniques Relevant to Helping Organize Participation ...........................................................................................26
3 Community College State Performance Measures ................................................32
4 National Governors Association Recommended Outcome and Progress Metrics from the Complete to Compete Initiative ................................................35
5 American Association of Community Colleges, American Community College Trustees, and the College Board’s Proposed Voluntary Framework of Accountability System .......................................................................................37
6 Classifications of Stakeholders ..............................................................................53
7 Descriptions of Attributes and Salience .................................................................55
8 External Stakeholders and Their Interests .............................................................59
9 Average Responses From Evaluators ....................................................................79
10 Proportion of Respondents by Classification .........................................................86
11 Ratings of External Stakeholder Groups by Attribute of Stakeholder Influence ................................................................................................................88
12 Ratings of External Stakeholder Groups by Attribute of Stakeholder Influence by Respondent Subgroup .......................................................................90
13 Additional External Stakeholders Suggested by Respondents ..............................93
14 Data Measures of Importance to External Stakeholders ........................................94
15 Combined Average Importance of Assessment Data Measures ............................96
16 Comparison of External Proposed Measures to Allegany College of Maryland ..............................................................................................................104
17 Potential Data Measures in Comparison With ACM Sources .............................109
18 Strategic Management Grid–External Stakeholders for Allegany College of Maryland ..............................................................................................................124ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Conceptual Model ..................................................................................................45
2 Freeman’s Strategic Management Concepts ..........................................................49
3 Qualitative Classes of Stakeholders .......................................................................52
4 Neville, Bell, and Whitwell’s Proposed Model of Stakeholder Attributes and Salience ..................................................................................................................54
5 Graphical Representation of External Stakeholders at Allegany College of Maryland ..............................................................................................................123
6 Communication Loop Model ...............................................................................1251
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
This chapter contains an introduction to the topic, the problem, and the purpose of the research. Management theoretical base is discussed and research questions are introduced. Finally, definitions of terms and the significance of this research, as well as discussion of how this dissertation is organized, are presented.
In a report about public accountability in education, the Business-Higher Education Forum (2010) noted,
Most of the attention to accountability in higher education is institutionally defined and is designed to measure learning as a tool for institutional improvement. Much of the information is not translated to the public, and lacks context from comparative data about other institutions or from national measures of expected outcomes. Public accountability cannot be achieved when the learning assessment system is so self-referential. (p. 22)
Members of the Business-Higher Education Forum (2010) include 500 business and education leaders who look for solutions to the challenges the U.S. education system and the nation’s workforce have. In 2004, the Forum developed a position paper to discuss public accountability and how student learning is used as an accountability measure. They defined assessment as “an analytical tool for evaluating performance” (measurement) and accountability (transparency) as “the public presentation and communication of evidence about performance in relation to goals” (Business-Higher Education Forum, 2004, p. 9). Higher education leaders promote institutional effectiveness by developing and using accountability systems that include assessment measures they feel reflect what stakeholders want. To be a truly accountable system, though, the position paper suggested that higher education leaders must use performance 2
assessment in accordance with publicly defined goals, which are then communicated in ways the public can understand (Business-Higher Education Forum, 2004). The Business-Higher Education Forum further suggested that student learning is just one measure of accountability and others include, but are not limited to, “resource use, research and service, and contributions to economic development” (p. 9). American employers, who report shortages of skilled employees, have an interest in hiring employees with skills that include “leadership, teamwork, problem solving, analytical, critical thinking, communication, and writing skills…skills to succeed in a global, multicultural environment…proficient at multitasking and able to upgrade…skills continuously” (Business-Higher Education Forum, 2004, p. 11). According to McClenney (2009),
Accreditors, state, and federal governments, employers, and taxpayer(s)…are pressing higher education institutions to assess, report, and improve their performance, particularly with regard to student outcomes. As community colleges increasingly are recognized as a critical resource for addre
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Get PDFWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Get PDFWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
No full textWe have done our best to complete the author checklist relating to the use of animals in the hut study. Note that the objective for the hut study was to evaluate the IRS treatment applications for residual efficacy against Anopheles mosquitoes, including the local An. coluzzii mosquito population. Cows were only used to attract mosquitoes into the huts and no tests were carried out directly on the cows. The author checklist is intended for use with studies where experiments are carried out on animals, which is why we have had such difficulty in completing this for the hut study, as many of the questions do not relate to how the cows were used
Author-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.
No full textAuthor-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.</p
Author Under Sail The Imagination of Jack London, 1893-1902
No full textIn Author Under Sail, Jay Williams offers the first complete literary biography of Jack London as a professional writer engaged in the labor of writing. It examines the authorial imagination in London's work, the use of imagination in both his fiction and nonfiction, and the ways he defined imagination in the creative process in his business dealings with his publishers, editors, and agents. In this first volume of a two-volume biography, Williams traverses the years 1893 to 1902, from London's "Story of a Typhoon" to The People of the Abyss. The Jack London who emerges in the pages of Author Under Sail is a writer whose partnership with publishers, most notably his productive alliance with George Brett of Macmillan, was one of the most formative in American literary history. London pioneered many author models during the heyday of realism and naturalism, blurring the boundaries of these popular genres by focusing on absorption and theatricality and the representation of the seen and unseen. London created an impassioned, sincere, and extremely personal realism unlike that of other American writers of the time. Author Under Sail is a literary tour de force that reveals the full range of London as writer, creative citizen, and entrepreneur at the same time it sheds light on the maverick side of machine-age literature.Intro -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Dedication -- Contents -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction -- 1. Spirit Truth -- 2. From Absorption to Theatricality and Back Again -- 3. "I Will Build a New Present" -- 4. Sons as Authors -- 5. Fathers as Publishers -- 6. The Daughter as Author -- 7. Lovers as Authors -- 8. At Sea with the Family -- 9. Yellow News, Yellow Stories -- 10. The Return Home -- Notes -- Bibliography -- Index -- About Jay WilliamsIn Author Under Sail, Jay Williams offers the first complete literary biography of Jack London as a professional writer engaged in the labor of writing. It examines the authorial imagination in London's work, the use of imagination in both his fiction and nonfiction, and the ways he defined imagination in the creative process in his business dealings with his publishers, editors, and agents. In this first volume of a two-volume biography, Williams traverses the years 1893 to 1902, from London's "Story of a Typhoon" to The People of the Abyss. The Jack London who emerges in the pages of Author Under Sail is a writer whose partnership with publishers, most notably his productive alliance with George Brett of Macmillan, was one of the most formative in American literary history. London pioneered many author models during the heyday of realism and naturalism, blurring the boundaries of these popular genres by focusing on absorption and theatricality and the representation of the seen and unseen. London created an impassioned, sincere, and extremely personal realism unlike that of other American writers of the time. Author Under Sail is a literary tour de force that reveals the full range of London as writer, creative citizen, and entrepreneur at the same time it sheds light on the maverick side of machine-age literature.Description based on publisher supplied metadata and other sources.Electronic reproduction. Ann Arbor, Michigan : ProQuest Ebook Central, YYYY. Available via World Wide Web. Access may be limited to ProQuest Ebook Central affiliated libraries
- …
