IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v6y2016i1p2158244015623591.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are Quests for a “Culture of Assessment†Mired in a “Culture War†Over Assessment? A Q-Methodological Inquiry

Author

Listed:
  • Larry Baas
  • James C. Rhoads
  • Dan B. Thomas

Abstract

The “Assessment Movement†in higher education has generated some of the most wide-ranging and heated discussions that the academy has experienced in a while. On the one hand, accrediting agencies, prospective and current clientele, and the public-at-large have a clear vested interest in ensuring that colleges and universities actually deliver on the student learning outcomes that they promise. Anything less would be tantamount to a failure of institutional accountability if not outright fraud. On the other hand, it is no secret that efforts to foster a “culture of assessment†among institutions of higher learning have frequently encountered resistance, particularly on the part of faculty unconvinced that the aspirations of the assessment movement are in fact achievable. One consequence of this tension is the emergence of an embryonic literature devoted to the study of processes that monitor, enhance, or deter the cultivation of a “culture of assessment†with sufficient buy-in among all institutional stakeholders, faculty included. Despite employment of a wide-ranging host of research methods in this literature, a significant number of large unresolved issues remain, making it difficult to determine just how close to a consensual, culture of assessment we have actually come. Because one critical lesson of extant research in this area is that “metrics matter,†we approach the subjective controversy over outcomes assessment through an application of Q methodology. Accordingly, we comb the vast “concourse†on assessment that has emerged among stakeholders recently to generate a 50 item Q sample representative of the diverse subjectivity at issue. Forty faculty and administrators from several different institutions completed the Q-sort which resulted in two strong factors: the Anti-Assessment Stalwarts and the Defenders of the Faith . Suggestions are offered regarding strategies for reconciling these “dueling narratives†on outcomes assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • Larry Baas & James C. Rhoads & Dan B. Thomas, 2016. "Are Quests for a “Culture of Assessment†Mired in a “Culture War†Over Assessment? A Q-Methodological Inquiry," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(1), pages 21582440156, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:6:y:2016:i:1:p:2158244015623591
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244015623591
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244015623591
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244015623591?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Archibald, Robert B. & Feldman, David H., 2014. "Why Does College Cost So Much?," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780190214104.
    2. William Zumeta, 1998. "Public University Accountability to the State in the Late Twentieth Century: Time for a Rethinking?," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 15(4), pages 5-22, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Meta Brown & Andrew F. Haughwout & Donghoon Lee & Joelle Scally & Wilbert Van der Klaauw, 2014. "Measuring student debt and its performance," Staff Reports 668, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
    2. Matsuda, Kazushige, 2020. "Optimal timing of college subsidies: Enrollment, graduation, and the skill premium," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    3. Dave E. Marcotte, 2019. "The Returns to Education at Community Colleges: New Evidence from the Education Longitudinal Survey," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 14(4), pages 523-547, Fall.
    4. Varghese P. George, 2013. "A Communication-Focused Model For Learning And Education," Business Education and Accreditation, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 5(2), pages 117-130.
    5. Barrett J. Taylor & Brendan Cantwell, 2018. "Unequal Higher Education in the United States: Growing Participation and Shrinking Opportunities," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-22, September.
    6. Robert B. Archibald & David H. Feldman, 2010. "Are Gold Plated Room & Board Charges Important Drivers of College Cost?," Working Papers 99, Department of Economics, College of William and Mary.
    7. Sahika Ozdemir* & Asli Sungur, 2018. "Inclusive Design and Practices in Education: A Pilot Study in Davutpasa Campus," The Journal of Social Sciences Research, Academic Research Publishing Group, vol. 4(11), pages 337-344, 11-2018.
    8. Justin C. Ortagus & Lijing Yang, 2018. "An Examination of the Influence of Decreases in State Appropriations on Online Enrollment at Public Universities," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 59(7), pages 847-865, November.
    9. Amy Y. Li, 2017. "Dramatic Declines in Higher Education Appropriations: State Conditions for Budget Punctuations," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 58(4), pages 395-429, June.
    10. Catharine B. Hill, 2016. "American Higher Education and Income Inequality," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 11(3), pages 325-339, Summer.
    11. James Dean Ward & Daniel Corral, 2023. "Resetting Prices: Estimating the Effect of Tuition Reset Policies on Institutional Finances and Enrollment," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 64(6), pages 862-892, September.
    12. Tommaso Agasisti, 2016. "Cost structure, productivity and efficiency of the Italian public higher education industry 2001--2011," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(1), pages 48-68, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:6:y:2016:i:1:p:2158244015623591. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.