Estela Mara Bensimon

The Meaning of "Good Presidential Leadership": A Frame Analysis.

Abstract: Administrators use different organizational perspectives, or “frames,” to help them understand situations, problems, and day-to-day activities. In higher education, four such frames have been identified as bureaucratic, collegial, political, and symbolic. This study identifies the frames used by thirty-two college presidents in their responses to the analytic question, “How would you define ‘good presidential leadership’?” and analyzes them according to content, complexity, institutional type, and length of presidential tenure.

Constructing the Presidency: College Presidents' Images of Their Leadership Roles, a Comparative Study

College presidents and other institutional leaders differ in their beliefs about what a college organization is and how college leadership should be exercised [8, 16]. Their fundamental conceptions, or implicit personal theories [1, 2, 19], of organization and leadership direct their attention to certain aspects of their organizational worlds and away from others [22, 42]. That is, a college presidents personal or implicit theories about organizational life and about the presidential role simultaneously guide and delimit what she or he sees, hears, or otherwise senses, and how she or he interprets perceptions and responds to them. As a result of their differing beliefs about the organizational world and the leadership role, presidents are likely to differ in their agendas and in how they carry out the presidential job. For example, some presidents may be guided by the personal theory that good leadership

Like It Or Not: Feminist Critical Policy Analysis Matters

The authors reply to Haithe Andersons critique of their conceptualization of feminist critical analysis. They reaffirm and elaborate on what makes conventional policy analysis incapable of undoing the power asymmetries that characterize relations between male and female academics.

Leadership in Higher Education: A Multi-dimensional Approach to Research

Abstract: The American college and university presidency has been under intense scrutiny for some time. This essay sets forth the aims and methods of the National Center for Postsecondary Governance and Finance research team that has been studying institutional leadership. It also serves as the introduction for the five articles that follow in this issue.

Transfer Equity for "Minoritized" Students: A Critical Policy Analysis of Seven States.

Using critical policy analysis focused on racial-ethnic equity, this study analyses state policy documents and accountability instruments governing transfer from 2-year colleges to 4-year institutions in the following states: California, Florida, Texas, Michigan, Minnesota, Washington, and Wisconsin. Based on data collected in 2009, the findings indicate that state transfer policies are largely “color blind.” In contrast, accountability reporting, including data indicators such as those for underrepresented students, may serve as proxies for monitoring progress toward transfer of racially minoritized students. Recommendations are proposed for creating racially equitable state transfer policies and accountability instruments.

Introduction: Why "Critical"? The Need for New Ways of Knowing

This special issue of the Review of Higher Education reflects the goals of the ASHE Institutes on Equity and Critical Policy Analysis. These goals included (a) strengthening the research capacities of young scholars to study questions of race and equity and (b) expanding research methods and interpretive frameworks to consider these questions from critical perspectives. In their introduction, the editors highlight the origins, review process, and content of this special issue. They also articulate a vision for the ways in which this issue might inform the work of existing and emerging higher education scholars.

Posttenure Review: The Disparity Between Intent and Implementation

Based on the analysis of faculty responses and a review of other studies, this study argues that externally mandated posttenure review has failed in its primary policy objective to motivate the majority of faculty to improve quality and quantity. For externally mandated posttenure review to become an effective policy intervention, faculty and administrators must devise processes that deliver meaningful feedback, rewards, and recognition for solid faculty performance and that tie institutionally supported professional development to tangible outcomes.

Moving the Attainment Agenda from Policy to Action

Change • July/August 2015 Keith Witham (keith.witham@temple.edu) is an assistant professor of higher education at Temple University. Megan Chase serves as a policy advisor to the Center for Urban Education and is an adjunct faculty member at California State University, Long Beach, in the educational leadership department. Estela Mara Bensimon (bensimon@rossier.usc. edu) is a professor of higher education and co-director of the Center for Urban Education (CUE) at the Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California (USC). She was the principal investigator of Equity in Excellence: Higher Education for Colorado’s Future. Debbie Hanson (dhanson.cue@gmail.com) is the project manager at the CUE at USC. David Longanecker (dlonganecker@wiche.edu) is president of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) in Boulder. Previously he served as the state higher education executive offi cer in Colorado and Minnesota and the principal analyst for higher education for the Congressional Budget Offi ce; later, he was the assistant secretary for postsecondary education at the US Department of Education. By Keith Witham, Megan Ch e, Estela Mara Bensimon, Debbie Hanson, and David Longanecker Moving the Attainment Agenda from Policy to Action