HED 609 Study Guide

Card Set Information

Author:
Anonymous
ID:
146290
Filename:
HED 609 Study Guide
Updated:
2012-04-07 19:03:12
Tags:
HED comprehensive exams higher education org admin
Folders:

Description:
Study cards for HED 609 at the University of Arizona.
Show Answers:

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview

The flashcards below were created by user Anonymous on FreezingBlue Flashcards. What would you like to do?


  1. Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (2003)- Reframing
    Reframing means to consider different perspective. You don't have a one dimensional look at how your institution responds to shocks from external group. There are four main frames. The structural frame looks at the hierarchies like Weber. Symbolic frames look for culture and meaning within an organization. The political frame focuses on the flow of power and how to compete. The human resources frame looks at the org from a humanistic emphasis, consensus building, and as a family.
  2. Peterson, M. W. (2007)- HED as Orgs
    This is a really big review article. It discusses how HED is an open system that looking through a contingency model has to respond to external forces. It also looks at a variety of organizational theories, including but not limited to: loose coupling, political, structural, entrepreneurial/academic capitalism, saga...
  3. Tierney, W. G. (1988)- Org Culture
    Organizational culture is important, because it is always there. When times are bad it is going to be useful to know what the culture is so that you can react. People express and act on their culture and during times of tension it will be the worst to go against it. When there are threats to departments or making cuts, calling on a shared culture can make getting changes made more easy.
  4. Birnbaum (1988) � Chapters One thru Three
    Universities are complex institutions. There are issues with their governance, power, metrics, autonomy, symbolism, leadership, etc. They are open systems. They have loose coupling. There is a need to make decisions in times where all of the information is not available.
  5. Weick, K. W. (1976)- loose coupling
    Loosely coupled means that universities are not linear, rational organizations. Units are not directly linked and so the consequences are not always readily apparent as action is filtered through the organization. Each unit can react to change differently in a loosely coupled system. This is in contrast to tight coupling wherein there is a rational structure, actions and consequences are linked, and power flows down positional roles.
  6. Birnbaum (1988) � Chapter Nine
    Being a cybernetic administrator means letting go of rationalized myths of leadership. Leaders need to think cyclically, create sensing mechanism for change in the organization. In many cases change is not needed from leaders. It is the role of the leader to create a space where faculty can do what they need to do and create their own changes.
  7. Birnbaum, R. (1988)- Presidential Searches
    It really doesn't matter who they pick, the process is important. The process allows them to select their values and direction. It is about how to stay on the same page. We form the committee to show which departments and groups we value. It shows the culture internally and to the candidate. The search process is symbolic because the candidates are all generally equally qualified and will do similar work, but the process allows the campus to reaffirm its culture and values.
  8. Clark, B. (1972)- Org Sagas
    Clark describes how the stories of great leaders on campuses has the ability to direct future actions in the organization. The conditions for saga to work: it has to be with a new organization, organization is in crisis, and the organization wants to change. It doesn't say a lot about the leaders, but it says a lot about the culture or environment.
  9. Pfeffer, J. (1976)- Ambiguity of leadership
    The important take away is that leaders are symbols. We socially construct a symbol of who is in charge since there is no one in charge of a loosely coupled system. Leaders are a symbol of the idea that the actions of an organization can rationally be attributed to the actions of individuals. Furthermore, we still feel like we need to have some certainty to provide legitimacy both to those inside and outside the university.
  10. Rhoades, G. (2000)- doing it right?
    The three myths of management in universities is that 1. No change occurs without managerial initiative. 2. Universities cannot function without strong central management. 3. Managers can rationalize planning and budgeting. Managers are much better at being observers, facilitators, and persuaders than doing everything. Departments are the ones that innovate. Managers should create conditions for folks to do what needs to be done.
  11. Ayers, F. (2005)- neo-liberal ideology in CCs
    This article traces how neoliberal ideology (invisible hand of the market) has been incorporated into the mission statements of community colleges. New mission statements are connecting CCs with developing a workforce and driving local economies. Ayers presents this as CCs loosing agency to define their own institutions.
  12. Birnbaum � Chapters Four and Six
    Political and Collegial power structures.
  13. Julius, D., Baldridge, V. & Pfeffer, J. (1999)- Machiavelli
    This article is about how to keep power and create change. If you don't want to create change--put traditionalists on a committee. Those that control the agenda, control the meetings and the opportunity for change. Creating change is dangerous to you trying to keep your power, because you challenge the power of others and so they will no longer support you. Those who might benefit from the change are on the fence on whether to support you, because they will never know if you will be successful in creating the change. Change is threatening and so it benefits leaders to support the status quo.
  14. Morgan, G. (1997)- power as domination
    The article, from a business perspective argues that organizations can be agents of domination to internal and external groups. This can be applied to higher education in the ways like business organizations reproduces systems of oppression and class systems. Some workers like adjuncts are more exploited than tenure track professors. Students can be seen as inputs and outputs depending on perspectives.
  15. Acker, J. (1990)- Gendered Organizations
    It is a conceptual paper using organizational and feminist theories to argue that organizations are not gender neutral. The bureaucracy reinforces, reproduces, the systems of oppression that limit the progress of women. Women are relegated into jobs that are as unpaid as possible, practices like maternity leave hinders their social mobility, and managers tend to dehumanize women by looking for efficiency.
  16. Baez, B. (2000)- Race and Service time
    Faculty of color are generally depicted as being pulled back by their race-related service, but he does not think that this view of service is good by depicting it as "service." The literature on this says that faculty of color should have better mentoring at the onset of their tenure process. The 'good' mentoring is that faculty of color should be saying no to service. Baez says that this mentoring is bad. Don't advise against service. That bad advice might take away their agency in finding some service activities that they care about. We need to help folks not feel obligated. Sometimes it is personal preference and sometimes it is burden. His thing it to change the tenure process and not change faculty preferences.
  17. Mars, M.M., & Rhoades- social entrepreneurs
    This article demonstrates how as a result of market permeation, students enact social agendas by leveraging their and the university's economic agency. Entrepreneurial agency: the capacities of individuals to access resources and capital within organizational environments for the purpose of enacting entrepreneurial strategies to create social change and/or for economic value. The examples in the article of this is: World of Good and SharMoore. Students use the capitalist domain accessible through the academy along with their entrepreneurial agency to leverage social change individually or in small groups. The ides that social change agendas are advanced through social entrepreneurial channels signal further market permeation
  18. Owen, D. (2009)- privileged diversity officers
    This is a non-empirical article (personal piece) that examines whether privileged individuals can be chief diversity officers. The general perspective is that it depends on the institutional context and personal passion for the position. In a monocultural environment, you need an oppressed individual because they can be a role-model in a context that doesn't understand the general privilege. In a non-discriminating environment, it can go either way since it is an opportunity to look at unconscious bias. It can go both ways in a multicultural environment.
  19. Rhoads, R. (1998)- student protests (5) in 90s
    Rhoads follows five instances of social activism based on identity politics in the 1990s. Their goals were to draw attention to flawed forms and change the institution using forms of participatory democracy. This is more about collective action than social change, but activism can bring short term attention to issues but is generally controversial. This type of action resists the market unlike social entrepreneurialism.
  20. Gouldner (1958)-Cosmopolitans v. locals
    This article creates categories of locals and cosmopolitans. There are four types of locals: 1. the dedicated- loyal to the organization and devoted to educating. 2. the true bureaucrats- they are loyal to the town and are interested in the reputation of the institution and responding to external. 3. Homeguards are loyal to middle admin like themselves and are interested in their level (mainly women). 4. Elders- deep commitment to org, reference group is other elders and base evaluations on the past. There are two types of cosmopolitains: 1. outsiders- low loyalty to institution, focus on academic discipline and traditional academe. 2. empire builders- strong focus on their discipline and connected with departmental autonomy.
  21. Hambrick, & Chen, (2008)- new disciplines
    This article examines admittance into universities as a new department/program. Leverage system--like this article. Yet we can only study those who were successful enough for us to learn about them. To go this route you would need to look more at cosmopolitan folks since they legitimize the gap in the knowledge. The example used is the field of business administration. Harvard offered a DBA which legitimized the field and then further with the creation of journals and conferences. The tenured folks had started in conventional business matters and just found this strategy perspective interesting. The untenured folks were the ones with this DBA (so prestige of new programs still not enough for full legitimacy for long time). In academia, it is difficult to see research as a bottom up process since it seems to rely so much on prestige.
  22. Hermanowicz, J. (2005)- departments
    This article breaks up institutions and departments into a three tiered system. The top tier, the elitists, are hierarchical and focus on research and publishing. The middle tier, the pluralists, focus both on teaching and research and success is measured in multiple ways. The bottom tier, the communitarians, value teaching over research and people, the process, and being good generalists.
  23. Ylijoki, O.H. (2000)- moral orders
    Moral orders are the normative power of the discipline to socialize students to desired patterns of behavior. She looks at four departments in a single institution (but no hard sciences). Some moral orders emphasize learning knowledge and other focus on getting jobs in industry. Moral orders are going to vary in strength based on the elite orientation of the institution.
  24. Clark, B. (1988)
    Clark traced the history of higher education through five stages. These stages were framed by the context of higher education based on religious foundings, the Morrill Act, and the GI Bill. These mark the progress towards more open forms of higher education.
  25. Tierney, W. (1991)- work and culture
    This article was an ethnography of three schools: a Christian school, a classic school, and a cutting edge school. He looked at the extent to which ideology of the institution frames how knowledge is created. The ideology apparatus of the institution played a determinant role. The nature of relationships in the institution come from and transform the faculty�s view of knowledge; participants� definition of knowledge and ideology defines institutional culture
  26. Trow, M. (1970)- massification
    This article is framed in the race politics of Berkley in the civil rights era. The author favors an elite closed system for higher education in which we need to reevaluate whether massification was a good thing. Perhaps higher education is not a right, but a privilege and we should not favor open admissions policies. Furthermore the author struggles with racial movements and ethnic studies in that he does not want HED used as a political arena and does not believe that this sort of learning is legitimate (connect with Tierney 1991 on institutional culture-ideology).
  27. Basteado, M. (2009)- institutional logics
    Institutional logics are the beliefs and practices that predominate in the field. They are the principles that the use to make decisions. One basic and common institutional logic is the idea of efficiency in making each segment more distinct so that there is less duplication. The example used in the article of the vision of the system Maryland has. Some logics at play there: differentiation (among the tiers, within the tiers, within campuses), system development (increase access but only through CCs), and managerialism (tried to get rid of tenure, accountability). Results of these logics included: legitimizing the state system, ignoring campus perspective, and social costs in access.
  28. Bracco, K., Richardson, R., Callan, P. & Finney, J. (1999)- Policy structures
    This is a basic article that discusses types and functions of policy structures. Some are advisory and don�t have much power and others are regulatory or steering. Mars said that we didn't need to memorize this in detail, but good to know that the policy structure of the governing board can be one influence in how an institution can act and react.
  29. Perna, L., Steele, P., Woda, S. & Hibbert, T. (2005)- Maryland system/stratification
    This article looks at supply and demand side economics in the governance of Maryland schools and the relative access. It is interesting because they have HBCUs, a legacy of a segregated system. They have to work harder for equity issues. Supply side policy is trying to increase the access. They want to be more efficient so that they can cater to the demand they are trying to create. Demand side they are trying to have students educated enough to go to college. We want more access, but the problem is that the institutions had nothing to say about it; it was all decided from the state. The policy they used failed miserably. Making more competition among institutions is less favorable to disadvantaged students and blacks were very sensitive to rises in tuition regardless of financial aid.
  30. Pusser, B. (2003)- Cali governance- Prop 209
    This article traces how the governance structure in California as an appointed system made the universities a realm for politics like Trow had warned in 1970. It demonstrated that the governor and a regent were using the system as a platform for a national campaign.
  31. Pusser, B., Slaughter, S., & Thomas, S.L. (2006)- board interlocks
    This article is about board interlocks, which are when folks on the board of trustees also sit on corporate boards and so get to know other folks who sit on boards of trustees. This is a form of collaborative knowledge and a form of connection to capitalist knowledge (academic capitalism). Private boards have more board interlocks than public universities do. Some results of these interlocks have been presidential pay increases, higher faculty pay at privates, and publics are more likely to take equity in faculty's academic property.
  32. DiMaggio P. & Powell, W. (1983)- iron cage, isomorphism
    This is an article about how institutions stay the same, not change. The authors look at the organizational field. They argue that homogeneity within similar organizations has led to the rise of the organizational field. Competitive isomorphism emphasizes market competition, niche change, and fitness measures. Institutional isomorphism is more of a closed system, as things become more similar in the field. There are three types of isomorphism: antecedents or normative processes, coercive isomorphism (this can be as much about orgs in the field not changing or innovating to avoid having their legitimacy be challenged), and mimetic isomorphism
  33. Kraatz, M. & Zajac, E. (1996)- legit change
    This article favors old institutionalism (adaptivism) and the attempt to adapt to the environment and to stay relevant/competitive/present. This is in contrast to isomorphism for in this case it is about how institutions adapt to their local environment. Institutionalism didn't look at institutions as a field and only looked at the institutions. They looked at how technical fields were added to liberal arts colleges and argue that these potentially illegitimate changes based on isomorphism prove adaptivism to their local environment for their survival.
  34. Lounsbury, M. (2001)- college recycling
    This article is a case study of how patterns of college recycling programs are evidence of neo institutionalism in isomorphism. Early adopters of programs created these programs through creating a position or giving the duties to someone already working. Role accretion is when they added recycling to a position that already existed (facilities manager). Status creation is when students pushed for there to be these positions and then many of them filled the positions themselves. These folks are locals and are committed to it at that institution and there was a student coalition, a national student movement, that brought legitimacy and had enough momentum and agency to mobilize. Early adopters are responding to their technical environment and signaling to others that it is legitimate to react so. Others catch the trend (mimetic). Then it later becomes more normative. Once it becomes normative it becomes dangerous to not have a recycling program (coercive).
  35. Lounsbury, M., & Pollack, S. (2001)- repackaging service-learning
    Service learning is being linked to large external movements as opposed to how Tierney said that knowledge is constructed by the institutional mission/culture. Cultural entrepreneurs, incoming faculty, repackaged service learning. This did this given the way larger government movements changed from helping the poor to trickle down theories. Younger faculty that believed in service learning see the repackaging as a means to do what they believe in. Practitioners were connecting into professional organizations. You can connect this with an article about creating a new field, because perhaps service learning was not as institutionalized, because the leaders did not have the prestige of their original institutions.
  36. Washington, M. (2004)- NCAA, org change
    This article follows how the NCAA changed to admit more schools and programs into their organization when there was a threat from a competing organization. This was an example of how mimetic and coercive isomorphism dictated that this organization needed to include smaller schools in order to stay legitimate.
  37. Benford, R.D. (2007)- sports reform
    This article is about reform movements in college sports. Some of the issues are: commercialization, universities producing entertainment, integrity issues, exploitation of athletes, and harm to non-athletes. There were external movements that are trying to do reform. These efforts are not successful because of organized anarchy and garbage can thinking. Organized anarchy shows how that there are problematic goals, unclear technology, fluid participation (roles as professors, reform members, etc). Edutainment speaks to the commercialization of athletics and academic capitalism and resource dependency. Being on a committee about the reform limits the actors ability to make change and so is an example of how garbage can decision making can serve as a buffer.
  38. Birnbaum � Chapter Seven
    This chapter discussed Universities as organized anarchies. There are three characteristics of organized anarchies: problematic goals, unclear technology (how we turn inputs to outputs), and fluid participation. Garbage can decision making is that there is never a simple solution to institutional decision making and the solutions are as diverse as the actors involved. Solutions can come together and become linked through tight or loose coupling to problems. This sort of disorganized decision making can be a buffer when we don't want more rational solutions.
  39. Cohen, M. D, March, J. G. & Olsen, J. P. (1972)- garbage cans
    See Birnbaum ch 7.
  40. Slaughter, S. & Leslie, L. (1997)- comp. academic capitalism
    Academic capitalism arose in the 70s, 80s, and 90s with a group of internal and external factors. Some factors are globalization, noeliberal ideology, Bayh Dole Act, and decreased funding. Faculty and institutions will search for new sources of revenue to maintain research, programs and advance their own prestige in wake of reduced revenue (resource dependency). Faculty and schools with engage in market like behavior like for-profit activity (student affairs), have applied research not general, and STEM fields are more connected to market value than humanities. This article can be connected with the shift from a closed to an open system, corporate Board Interlocks (Pusser, Slaughter, and Thomas, 2006), Managed Professionals (Rhoads, 1997), Constructing knowledge (Tierney, 1991), and College Mission Statements (Ayers, 2005)
  41. Tolbert, P. S. (1985)- resource dependency
    Change happens and it happens based on a bunch of different things. Resource dependency relationships- particular institutions can break from the norms in pursuit of resources. Administrative differentiation goes against isomorphism and weakens their legitimacy and they risk consequences. Early adopters look to the technical environment in seeking resources. This can be institutionalized and becomes normative and beyond this point then we no longer see as much differentiation. Orgs mimic the early adopters. E.g. research parks.
  42. Birnbaum, R. (2000)- management fads
    Management fads take longer for the academy to catch onto the fad, a cultural lag. We never want to catch onto them because they are based on rationality, the very thing that we are pushing back against. They were not designed for us. Yet when we need quick fixes we look to consultants who are trying to sell their product with testimonials. This happens across entire organizational fields. This is like isomorphism. It can also be a means of symbolic leadership to look responsive. Loose coupling allows us to pick and choose what might work and to what extent the fad will be adopted. Fads are solutions seeking a problem, like garbage cans.
  43. Deem, R. & Brehony, K. (2005)- new managerialism
    The main take away from this article is that new management is an ideology rather than new public management is a structure. We care that it is an ideology because it creates domination and subordination in a political manner. Managers are trying to subordinate others (like Morgan article). Ideology comes from a place of power and this power is coming from the state. The state wants more managers for accountability, rational models of efficiency/productivity (market fundamentalism relates to neo-liberalism in that the market activity will lead to best products). Managerialism is a new ideology of creating efficiency in a market context. The government wants more control over the academy and we have to be more accountable for efficiency and proficiency. It is an ideology centered in the top management and the discipline specific.
  44. Rhoades, G. (1997)-Managed professionals
    Who owns faculty time, labor, and the products of their labor? It could be the state/BOR, the institution, or the faculty depending on the situation. General concepts in this debate is intellectual property, the one day a week rule, and work for hire. The Stanford model- faculty keep most of their rights; they deserve to earn their work and so it is an incentive to work. Technology Transfer office- equipment was bought by the university and the faculty used it to get their results. Gary thought that unionized institutions would have more restrictions than universities, but he found that university faculty have more restrictions in their contracts about their intellectual property. Those schools are working harder to protect their property.
  45. Rhoades, G. & Sporn, B. (2002)- shifting $ comp US and Europe, management $
    They are talking about the shifting the new forms of human resources, the numbers of staff v. faculty. The argument is that you need to know what is going on to increase strategic management. Before academic capitalism the power rested with the faculty; now managerial professionals. In European systems there was the state and then the faculty guilds, which were close together. Now the gap between the state and the faculty is growing. There are more intermediating. The results are that admin is growing but the faculty number is going down. In the US they did not originally want faculty connected to the state and so the institutional level was important. Yet the faculty was the administrators. Before academic capitalism faculty had the power. Now it shifted so that the power is interrelated between levels of the university. Faculty need to take on this management role is Gary's argument. Yet you can't give them more work. So you could cut the teaching loads so that there would be more faculty to do the teaching and that they all are doing the administrative roles. He thinks having faculty in these roles would be better quality, more productive, etc. Yet this could create more stratification between types of faculty.
  46. Brint, S., Turkc-Bicakci, L., Proctor, K. & Murphy, S. (2009)- interdisciplinary studies
    Examines the changes in growth and distribution of interdisciplinary, degree-granting programs over a 25 year span. These programs did grow (some programs more than others) and they grew more than just the amount of growth in the student populations would suggest. Diffusion, change based on conformity, showed the most promise for explaining this growth. The authors argued that these programs have the ability to become legitimate fields as they are institutionalized over time. This is like the Hambrick and Chen article, once they gain legitimacy.
  47. Mars, M.M,. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2008)- state sponsored entrepreneur
    This is a modification of earlier academic capitalist framework (Rhoades and Slaughter 2004), because students are not just commodified victims in the academic capitalist regime. Some students become aware of the academic capitalist structure and take advantage of it to become state sponsored entrepreneurs. Students gain legitimacy and resources from working with the university. Yet the faculty are looking at students less as pupils and more as economic partners. Students in disciplines closer to the market are more likely to be successful.
  48. Noworthy, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003)- Mode 2
    Mode 2 knowledge production is concerned with application, not the furthering of knowledge in seminar format. Knowledge is no longer a tool in the professor's bag, but it is a commodity to capitalize on. The authors of Mode 2 said that hard sciences are bound by strict code of objectivity and their attempts at interdisciplinary means mixing methods and research objectives is hard. Humanities can change with society and can be more nimble because they are not bound by objectivity. It has nothing to do with market value. It is the ability to look for intersections for curiosity. Sheila say that faculty are looking for funding and shifting their work to fit market pressures or resource dependencies, but Mode 2 is when folks outside are pushing the questions, how we answer them, and who is going to be answering them. This is a bigger issue in Europe than it is here. Steering (Bracco article) how folks approach mission and now outside folks are steering the production process inside universities. Another rationale is that knowledge is more likely to be viewed as a chance to commercialize; it is more of an open system. Accountability is bigger now to outside forces than we ever have been in the past.
  49. Slaughter, S. & Rhoades, G. (2004)- Academic Capitalism
    There are four key concepts to this understanding of academic capitalism. 1. New circuits of knowledge, this is like Mode 2 knowledge where they are looking to capitalize. 2. Intermediating organizations which are those that connect the academy to the economy in indirect ways like steering organizations like the Kauffman foundation that wants to promote entrepreneurial activity and education. 3. Interstitial organizations are inside the organizations that try to connect out like tech transfer offices. 4. enhanced managerial capacity is the managerial professionals, think student affairs.

What would you like to do?

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview