1,720,953 research outputs found
Ranking different stakeholder-driven definitions of academic quality
No full textAmericans are increasingly concerned about academic quality (Hauptman & Kim, 2009). This concern about academic quality is a product of the relative decline of the American economy, American Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) test scores, American baccalaureate attainment rates, and various other indicators of national competitiveness (Kanter, 2011). Educating about 40% of all postsecondary students and suffering from persistently low completion rates, community colleges are not immune from public concern about academic quality (Alstadt, Fingerhut, & Kazis, 2012). Pressure on community college leaders to promote academic quality comes from a variety of quarters, including students and parents, faculty and staff members, board members, program and regional accreditors, funding agencies, citizens, taxpayers, employers, and state and federal government agencies (Hom, 2011). Unfortunately, different community college stakeholders have different, and often shifting, definitions of academic quality (Newton, 2010). The open-ended nature of the term quality makes such complexity possible, if not inevitable. As Bassis (2015) asserted, issues related to academic quality are disconcerting and perspectives vary widely, “influenced in no small part by where one sits” (p. 2).
A community college leader’s decisions about academic quality can lead to the uneven distribution of academic, technological, or physical plant resources, and the downgrading of other, opposing stakeholder-driven definitions of academic quality. When we choose one value-laden interpretation of the term quality, we invariably give up on another incommensurate interpretation of the same word (Kenny, 2000). As Northcraft and Neale (1996) argued, most organizational decisions between competing values inherently affect resource allocation. Community colleges leaders who fail to prioritize different stakeholder-driven definitions of academic quality properly often fail to make informed strategic decisions that advance a college’s mission (Hom, 2011).
Employing total quality management, stakeholder theory, and the theory of the public sphere, the researcher used a critical interpretative synthesis methodology to describe varied stakeholder-driven definitions of academic quality and provide community college administrators with a theoretical model for prioritizing them. Total quality management provides a practical framework for incorporating customer feedback into an actionable definition of quality (Crosby, 1979; Deming, 1986; Juran, 1989; Sparks & Legault, 2001); stakeholder theory provides a method for broadening leaders’ perspectives about an organization’s purpose or bottom line (Freeman, 1984, 1994); and the theory of the public sphere offers leaders a theoretical model for understanding how men and women can democratically resolve differences between different or competing claims about values (Habermas, 1989).Ranking Different Stakeholder-Driven Definitions of Academic Quality
RANKING DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDER-DRIVEN DEFINITIONS
OF ACADEMIC QUALITY
Derek Shouba
A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Maryland University College in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Doctor of Management Degree
Summer 2017
Advisory Committee
Trudy Bers, Ph.D.
Gena Glickman, Ph.D.
Ranking Different Stakeholder-Driven Definitions of Academic Quality
ABSTRACT
Americans are increasingly concerned about academic quality (Hauptman & Kim, 2009).
This concern about academic quality is a product of the relative decline of the American
economy, American Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) test scores, American
baccalaureate attainment rates, and various other indicators of national competitiveness (Kanter,
2011). Educating about 40% of all postsecondary students and suffering from persistently low
completion rates, community colleges are not immune from public concern about academic
quality (Alstadt, Fingerhut, & Kazis, 2012). Pressure on community college leaders to promote
academic quality comes from a variety of quarters, including students and parents, faculty and
staff members, board members, program and regional accreditors, funding agencies, citizens,
taxpayers, employers, and state and federal government agencies (Hom, 2011). Unfortunately,
different community college stakeholders have different, and often shifting, definitions of
academic quality (Newton, 2010). The open-ended nature of the term quality makes such
complexity possible, if not inevitable. As Bassis (2015) asserted, issues related to academic
quality are disconcerting and perspectives vary widely, “influenced in no small part by where
one sits” (p. 2).
A community college leader’s decisions about academic quality can lead to the uneven
distribution of academic, technological, or physical plant resources, and the downgrading of
other, opposing stakeholder-driven definitions of academic quality. When we choose one value-laden
interpretation of the term quality, we invariably give up on another incommensurate
interpretation of the same word (Kenny, 2000). As Northcraft and Neale (1996) argued, most
organizational decisions between competing values inherently affect resource allocation.
Community colleges leaders who fail to prioritize different stakeholder-driven definitions of
Ranking Different Stakeholder-Driven Definitions of Academic Quality
academic quality properly often fail to make informed strategic decisions that advance a
college’s mission (Hom, 2011).
Employing total quality management, stakeholder theory, and the theory of the public
sphere, the researcher used a critical interpretative synthesis methodology to describe varied
stakeholder-driven definitions of academic quality and provide community college
administrators with a theoretical model for prioritizing them. Total quality management provides
a practical framework for incorporating customer feedback into an actionable definition of
quality (Crosby, 1979; Deming, 1986; Juran, 1989; Sparks & Legault, 2001); stakeholder theory
provides a method for broadening leaders’ perspectives about an organization’s purpose or
bottom line (Freeman, 1984, 1994); and the theory of the public sphere offers leaders a
theoretical model for understanding how men and women can democratically resolve differences
between different or competing claims about values (Habermas, 1989).
Ranking Different Stakeholder-Driven Definitions of Academic Quality ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author of this dissertation wishes to thank his faculty advisors, Drs. Gena Glickman
and Trudy Bers, for their thoughtful guidance, and all of the other excellent UMUC faculty
members and students who have provided him with feedback on the subject of academic quality
over the past several years. One of these faculty members, Dr. Pat Keir, was particularly
important to the formulation of the study’s research questions and choice of research
methodology. Another faculty member, Dr. Susan McMaster, was especially helpful in making a
variety of excellent editorial suggestions on multiple occasions. Additionally, the author wishes
to thank Dr. Gabriella Oldham for lending her editorial expertise to the final stages of the project,
especially with respect to the stylistic conventions of the American Psychological Association.
Finally, the author is grateful for the support of his two children, Rayan and Torin, to whom this
work dissertation is dedicated, as well as his wife, Dr. Besma Smida, Associate Professor of
Engineering at the University of Illinois at Chicago, who served as a persistently insightful
interlocutor on the complicated, multidimensional, and sometimes controversial topic of
academic quality.
Ranking Different Stakeholder-Driven Definitions of Academic Quality iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
Background and Context.................................................................................................. 1
History of the Accountability and Quality Movements ....................................... 1
Multifunctional Community College Mission ..................................................... 5
Theoretical Debates About the Nature of Quality ............................................... 7
Practical Implications of Disputes About Academic Quality .............................. 9
Significance..................................................................................................................... 14
New Pressures to Define and Bolster Academic Quality .................................... 14
Importance of Dealing With Stakeholder-Driven Definitions of
Academic Quality ............................................................................................ 17
Statement of Purpose ....................................................................................................... 17
Research Questions .......................................................................................................... 18
Theoretical Framework .................................................................................................... 18
Total Quality Management .................................................................................. 19
Stakeholder Theory .............................................................................................. 21
The Theory of the Public Sphere ......................................................................... 24
Definition of Terms.......................................................................................................... 26
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 31
CHAPTER TWO: METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................ 33
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 33
Choice of Research Methodology .................................................................................... 33
The Relevance of CIS to Academic Quality ........................................................ 37
Research Questions .......................................................................................................... 39
Literature Search (An Overview) ..................................................................................... 41
Key Word Searches.............................................................................................. 41
Literature Search (Mechanics) ......................................................................................... 43
Appraisal of Literature ..................................................................................................... 45
Criteria for Inclusion/Exclusion ........................................................................... 45
Synthesis of Literature ..................................................................................................... 46
Key References ................................................................................................................ 47
Expert Panel Review ........................................................................................................ 47
Methodology for Expert Panel Review................................................................ 47
Credentials of Expert Panelists ............................................................................ 54
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 56
CHAPTER THREE: CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND LITERATURE REVIEW ...................... 57
The Conceptual Model ..................................................................................................... 57
Introduction to Conceptual Model ....................................................................... 57
The Relevance of Three Theories of the Conceptual Model ........................................... 58
Element One: The Relevance of Total Quality Management .............................. 58
Element Two: The Relevance of Stakeholder Theory ......................................... 60
Element Three: The Relevance of Public Sphere Theory .................................... 61
Ranking Different Stakeholder-Driven Definitions of Academic Quality iv
Chapter Three (continued)
Literature Review............................................................................................................. 61
Overview of Literature Review ........................................................................... 61
The Nature of Academic Quality ......................................................................... 62
Stakeholder Perspectives on Academic Quality ....................................................66
Board members .......................................................................................... 68
Students ..................................................................................................... 70
Taxpayers .................................................................................................. 74
Citizens ...................................................................................................... 75
Faculty members ....................................................................................... 76
Business leaders ........................................................................................ 78
Regional and programmatic accreditors .................................................... 81
Funding agencies and educational not-for-profits ..................................... 84
State government officials ......................................................................... 86
Federal government officials ..................................................................... 88
Representatives of transfer institutions ..................................................... 91
Higher education committee members ...................................................... 93
Accountability, Ranking, and Rating Systems .................................................... 94
Quality and accountability systems ........................................................... 94
Quality and ranking and rating systems .................................................... 96
Theories of Communicating Effectively With Different Stakeholder Groups ................ 98
Total Quality Management .................................................................................. 98
TQM’s definition of quality as related to customer satisfaction ............... 98
TQM’s customer satisfaction strategy .......................................................100
TQM in higher education: Pros and cons ..................................................103
Positive impact of TQM on satisfying customers and stakeholders
in college and universities: TQM and AQIP .........................................105
TQM and ranking stakeholder-driven definitions of quality .....................106
Stakeholder Theory ..............................................................................................107
Characteristics of stakeholder theory ........................................................107
Purpose of stakeholder theory ...................................................................108
Identifying or mapping stakeholders .........................................................108
Prioritizing or ranking stakeholders ..........................................................110
The rungs of stakeholder engagement .......................................................111
Stakeholder theory in education ................................................................113
Stakeholder theory tools ............................................................................116
Theory of the Public Sphere ................................................................................117
Mediating conflict in the public sphere .....................................................117
Communicative action ...............................................................................118
Ideal speech situation ................................................................................119
The links between the public sphere and democracy ................................119
Hannah Arendt and the value of the public sphere ...................................120
Criticisms of the theory of the public sphere ............................................123
Conclusion ...........................................................................................................124
Ranking Different Stakeholder-Driven Definitions of Academic Quality v
CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ....................................................................125
Introduction ......................................................................................................................125
Findings Based on Expert Panel Survey ..........................................................................126
General Findings From the Literature Review ................................................................129
Findings Related to Research Question 1: Stakeholder-driven Definitions
of Academic Quality .................................................................................129
The indeterminate nature of quality ..........................................................129
Stakeholder-drive definitions of quality ....................................................132
Findings Related to Research Question 2: Ranking Different Stakeholder-driven
Expectations of Academic Quality ......................................................135
Quality in the context of accountability and ranking systems ...................135
Ranking stakeholder-driven definitions of academic quality ....................136
The management of competing definitions of academic quality ..............137
TQM and customer-driven definitions of quality ......................................138
TQM in academic settings .........................................................................139
Stakeholder theory and the process of ranking values ..............................142
Academic quality in a public sphere .........................................................145
The limits of ranking, rating, and accountability systems .........................147
Ranking systems ...............................................................................147
Rating systems ..................................................................................149
Accountability systems .....................................................................149
Conclusion ...........................................................................................................152
CHAPTER FIVE: IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND SUGGESTIONS FOR
FUTURE RESEARCH ................................................................................................................154
Introduction ......................................................................................................................154
Implications of Findings for Community College Practice .............................................154
Operationalizing the Conceptual Model ..............................................................156
Four Recommendations for Community College Administrators ...................................157
Implement a Customer Feedback Project ............................................................157
Conduct a Stakeholder Mapping Exercise ...........................................................158
Hold Open Forums on Academic Quality ...........................................................160
Revise Strategic Plan ...........................................................................................162
Gaps in the Research Related to the Topic and Research Questions ...............................162
College Governance and Strategic Planning System ...........................................162
Case Studies in Ranking Stakeholder-drive Definitions of Academic
Quality.............................................................................................................164
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................165
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................166
Ranking Different Stakeholder-Driven Definitions of Academic Quality vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1 Search Terms and Results ................................................................................................ 42
2 Key References ................................................................................................................ 48
3 Hom’s (2011) Table for Categorizing Community College Stakeholders ......................115
Ranking Different Stakeholder-Driven Definitions of Academic Quality vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1 Graphic depiction of conceptual model ........................................................................... 59
2 Factors influencing the perception of academic quality .................................................. 67
3 Juran’s quality-planning roadmap....................................................................................102
4 Hom’s value tree for hypothetical stakeholder ................................................................116
Ranking Different Stakeholder-Driven De
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
Unionism and unionist politics : 1906-1914
No full textThis thesis will trace the development of Conservative ideology in Great Britain between 1906 and 1914. During these years the Conservative party was defeated by the Liberal party on three separate occasions. Many historians believe that this string of electoral contretemps offers convincing evidence that Conservatism, as an evolving pattern of beliefs, was fundamentally unsuited to the political climate of Great Britain at the turn of the century. According to this interpretation of Edwardian Conservatism, it was only the timely onset of war which saved the party from having to come to terms with the democratic impulse of an unfamiliar era. This is a gross exaggeration of the plight of Conservatism before the war, for the party's unwavering commitment to the economic status quo was not in itself a recipe for electoral catastrophe. What may well have turned out to be fatal to the party's well-being was Joseph Chamberlain's Tariff Reform campaign. In 1903 Chamberlain offered the party an all-encompassing creed, a total solution to Britain's problems, both domestic and foreign, and a positive platform to sustain the party in office. Balfour sensed the dangers of a comprehensive ideology that was inherently of its own time. He, and Bonar Law after him, helped to rehabilitate Conservative ideology by limiting its scope and suggesting that Tariff Reform was merely one weapon among many in a large Conservative arsenal
Author-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.
No full textAuthor-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.</p
- …
