Cameron Fincher

Institutional Research as Organizational Intelligence.

The functions of institutional research in American colleges and universities are diversified and still in the process of being defined. For many institutions, an institutional research office may serve many purposes that are institutionally specific while its other functions may be common to a variety of federal and state requirements. One function of institutional research that has been little discussed in the professional literature is that of organizational intelligence. In an era when the FBI, the CIA, and other investigative agencies are in a state of ill grace, institutional researchers may prefer to play down their information gathering, analysis, and reporting activities wherever there is a semblence of secretiveness or an excessive concern with confidentiality. Cloak-and-daggers would hardly seem tools of the trade, and spying is a harsh term to use for systematic inquiry. A strong case can be made, nonetheless, for the viewpoint that institutional research is a form of organizational intelligence. Uncited in the literature, and apparently unheeded by institutional researchers, is a book that can be read with full consideration of its implications for institutional research on many campuses. The book has been in circulation for ten years and lacks numerous post-Watergate examples that could be given to support its main argument. Written by Harold Wilensky, a well-known sociologist, the book is entitled Organizational Intelligence: Knowledge and Policy in Government and Industry (1969). Wilenskys subtitle is an indication of his theme that knowledge is a major determinant of policy in industry and government. From the beginning, he believes, the social sciences have been policy-oriented and have adapted themselves to the wishes and preferences of power. The knowledge explosion and the organizational revolution of more recent years make it mandatory that we understand the interplay of administration and public interests. We do not know enough about the relationships between experts or specialists and persons in positions of

The possibilities and actualities of disciplined inquiry

Research on the substantive issues and concerns of higher education is handicapped by higher educations lack of status and recognition as an academic discipline and/or a professional specialty. A major contributing factor is identified as the historical separation of sponsored research and graduate education. Professors of higher education have not been actively involved in funded research and researchers have not participated fully in doctoral programs. An effective solution of the problem should be the cooperation of professors and researchers in recasting theory-based and policy-related research as disciplined inquiry, by strengthening current doctoral programs and by concentrating on the preparation of the next generation of scholars, professors, and researchers.

COBRE and the Dilemmas of Basic Research in Education

S definitions of the rightful place or absence of basic research in the context of education have been offered in the last five years. Supportive positions have been taken by the Committee for Economic Development (CED, 1968), the National Academy of Education (Cronbach and Suppes, 1969), and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS, 1968). Constructive analyses have been offered by the National Center for Educational Research and Development (NCERD, 1969), the RAND Corportation (Averch, et al), the National Society for the Study of Education (Thomas, 1972), and the American Educational Research Association (Broudy, Ennis, and Krimerman, 1973; Spady, 1973). Further assistance has been given by the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council and the Social Science Research Council (BASS, 1969) and the implementation of reform has become possible through the establishment of the National Institute of Education (Glennan, 1973).

Words and Numbers

The differences between words and numbers—and our personal preferences for one or the other—tell us a great deal about our difficulties in communicating with each other. The different ways we use numbers and words also tell us much about “the cultural wars” so often publicized by the news and entertainment media. C. P. Snow’s Two Cultures serves quite well as the starting point in the latest round of cultural hostilities. And the careless manner in which we use words and numbers without regard for their significance and meaning can be blamed for most of the academic squabbles that denigrate human intelligence and the intellectual climate of universities. More often than not, we take for granted the observable differences between the sciences and humanities, between images and symbols, between quantities and qualities, and among the various academic disciplines and professional specialties that typify the contemporary research university. When we discuss those differences, however, our preference for words can lead us into the quagmires of literary or philosophical analysis while the preference of other discussants for numbers will leave most of us at our lowest common level of mathematical competence. In many discussions the best we can hope for is an amiable agreement not to disagree too strongly. And with later opportunities to think about our discussions

Planning principles from the Rubik Cube

In 1980 the perfect Christmas gift for friends was the Rubik Cube. Such a gift was well suited to teach humility and if the two of you remained friends, it relieved all anxiety about the choice of a birthday present in 1981. You gave one of the instruction manuals that quickly appeared on the market. Although Erno Rubik is identified as a Hungarian architect, some of us now believe he is the originator of the best structural model for institutional planning in higher education. Solution of the cube obviously requires sound planning principles, and those who would encourage more systematic planning in colleges and universities are advised to let presidents, deans, and department heads spend at least several weeks with a Rubik Cube in their hands. No other technique promises such a facile grasp of planning principles or induces mental attitudes so becoming to institutional planning.

A Minimax Principle for Educational Research.

Educational research has lost considerable prestige in recent years. The optimism of the 1960s has not been fulfilled and educational research has been relegated to a defensive position. If the findings of educational research are to be more intuitively appealing, readily understood, and widely accepted, educational researchers should give better attention to the reduction of needless methodological complexity and to the improvement of conceptual clarity. To focus attention on this necessity, a minimax principle is suggested in which the educational researcher should seek to minimize the maximum methodological complexity that is necessary to produce a satisfactory degree of conceptual clarity

Provisional variation and selective retention in curricular change

The undergraduate curriculum of U. S. colleges and universities has become the object of reform. In the mid-1980s national commissions and task forces issued no less than six major reports advocating extensive changes in undergraduate programs and recommending various ways in which undergraduate instruction could be improved. Explicit in five reports is the belief that assessment is the lever by which to move institutions that are resistant to curricular change. State legislatures, governing or coordinating boards, and accrediting agencies have joined the fray and insist with varying authority that institutions of higher education demonstrate their effectiveness in teaching, instruction, and/or training. The curriculum (i. e., what is taught and learned in college classrooms) is indeed the target of such pressures and criticisms. In institutions of higher learning the best of intentions often go astray. Assessment is the most promising strategy for reform, but advocates may eventually find that educational outcomes can be assessed and publicized without substantive or enduring change in undergraduate programs of instruction. College curricula are not impervious to outside pressures, but they are peculiarly adaptiveand appearances of change are often misleading. Undergraduate curricula in the year 2000 will differ from curricula of the 1970s. They may differ, however, in ways unintended and unanticipated by national commissions and task forces in the 1980s. The reasons are simple. The improvement of undergraduate education requires an understanding of curricular change that external commissions, task forces, and coordinating boards have not acquired. As off-campus constituencies of higher education, public commissions and boards of trustees do not appreciate on-campus activities and procedures that determine curricular change. They ignore faculty prerogative, curriculum committees, advisory bodies, and accrediting agencies that have far more influence on curricular

The standards of evaluation

The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation has issued 141 pages of standards for use in the evaluation of educational programs, projects, and materials (McGraw-Hill, 1981). The standards are not endorsed by the several professional associations represented on the Joint Committee, but the standards are presumably cast in the same mold as the Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests published by the American Psychological Association. For reasons that cannot be gleaned from the report itself, the Joint Committee classifies its standards in terms of utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy. Under such rubrics 30 separate standards are presented with commentaries that cover an overview of the standards intent, guidelines for its application, common pitfalls that may occur, caveats against abuse, and an illustration of how the standard might be used. It all adds up to a worthy effort that does not succeed. The explanation must surely be a case of too many cooks for an unpalatable broth. At least 12 professional associations collaborated in the effort; 29 different writers apparently had a hand in drafting the standards; 19 dignitaries are listed as consultants to the project; and the project staff of six apparently had the help of three design consultants, six clerical assistants, and sixteen student assistants. A lone editorial consultant may have been overwhelmed by the abstract terminology that weakens any credibility the standards might have gained from the abundance of good intentions. The first draft of the standards was critiqued by 42 knowledgeable and readily recognized friends of the evaluation family. In addition, 29 welllocated individuals or groups used a semifinal draft of the standards in field tests, and no fewer than 54 educational officials, faculty members, or associational representatives submitted formal testimony in national hearings on the standards. In such strenuous efforts to practice participatory democracy, the Joint Committee should not be surprised at the outcomes.

Admissions testing in the 1980s

The crucial question may be whether admissions testing makes good sense in the 1980s. Given projections of declining enrollments, intensified competition among institutions, and a marketing mentality in recruiting students, it may make little sense in the coming decade to test students for admission to college. Some observers believe that most public institutions either are-or will become-open-door institutions admitting virtually any student seeking admission with plausible high school credits and promise of funds to cover tuition and fees. Except for graduate and professional education, selective admissions may become an archaic or quaint notion for the nations undergraduate institutions. Institutions concerned with survival will welcome students, with or without promise for excellence in traditional academic disciplines.