He received his Masters Degree from Auburn University in Higher Education ... She received a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration and a Master of.
P1: KEG Innovative Higher Education
ph261-ihie-484466
March 2, 2004
20:38
Style file version Feb. 11, 03
C 2004) Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 28, No. 4, Summer 2004 (°
Does a Nexus Exist Between the Work of Administrators and Student Outcomes in Higher Education?: An Answer From a Systematic Review of Research Jerlando F. L. Jackson and Kimberly S. Kile
ABSTRACT: Journal articles within the field of higher education that focus on college and university administrators, have for the most part, examined topics such as leadership, governance, and institutional effectiveness. Recently, internal and external critics have questioned the ability of college and universities to impact educational outcomes, more specifically student outcomes. In this regard, this study sought to examine how the work of administrators in higher education affects student outcomes. From a systematic review of 10 years of research studies on higher education that focus on administrators as a unit of analysis in higher education, the researchers found that the nexus between the work of administrators and student outcomes was nascent. KEY WORDS: administrative work; student outcomes; critical review.
Most applications of administrative science1 to the study of higher education concentrate on issues such as leadership, governance, and institutional effectiveness (institutional outcomes) (Heck, Johnsrud, & Rosser, 2000). This body of literature has generally addressed the experiences of students as a secondary consideration. Institutional outcomes should not be viewed as the ultimate goal, but rather as a process by which the development of positive educational outcomes for students is achieved. While we have learned a great deal about how administrative science can be used to help understand leadership, governance, Jerlando F. L. Jackson is an Assistant Professor of Higher and Postsecondary Education in the Department of Educational Administration and Faculty Associate for the Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education at the University of Wisconsin – Madison. He received his Masters Degree from Auburn University in Higher Education and his Ph.D. from Iowa State University in Educational Leadership and Policy Studies. His research interests include the study of administrative diversity, executive behavior, and the nexus between administrative work and outcomes-based results in higher and postsecondary education. Kimberly S. Kile is a Project Assistant and Ph.D. Candidate in the Department of Educational Administration at the University of Wisconsin – Madison. She received a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration and a Master of Science in College Student Development and Administration both from the University of Wisconsin – La Crosse. Her research interests include college student development and service learning. 1 Administrative science is dedicated to advancing the understanding of administration through empirical investigation and theoretical analysis.
285
° C
2004 Human Sciences Press, Inc.
P1: KEG Innovative Higher Education
286
ph261-ihie-484466
March 2, 2004
20:38
Style file version Feb. 11, 03
INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION
and effectiveness, it is equally important to use it to understand how the work of administrators affects student outcomes. While studies of administrators in higher education largely ignore the student (e.g., Volkwien & Parmley, 2000), the reverse is also true; research on college students generally ignores the influence of administrators on student outcomes. New frameworks (e.g., theories, models, and concepts) are needed to help understand the various ways institutions affect students. Thus, these observations expose a gap in current knowledge about the work of administrators and student outcomes; the nexus between these two bodies of literature is the area for this investigation. The lack of knowledge about how the work of administrators at colleges impacts student development is quite puzzling, considering both the increase in research on administrators in higher education and the large amount of scholarly attention devoted to the study of college students. Moreover, it is surprising that the relationship between the work of administrators and student outcomes remains under-examined when considering the important role administrators play in policy development and implementation which increasingly and directly affects emerging student outcomes (e.g., student satisfaction and increased diversity in the student population). An investigation into how the work of administrators influences student outcomes provides another lens to view outcomes-based research. In 2001, the American Council on Education sponsored a miniconference—Seeking a Common Agenda: Priorities for Research on Higher Education. This group of higher education scholars, foundation executives, college and university presidents, and education policy analysts concurred that institutions also want to understand more generally how they can improve the quality of student experiences and how directly their institutional actions affect student outcomes. Moreover, by launching this investigation, the project was designed to advance previous research. Berger and Milem (1998) closely examined the connection between organizational behavior and student outcomes. In their work, they highlighted the dilemma of viewing organizational behavior as an action or actor. Discussions of organizational behavior sometimes give “the organization” human characteristics, thus the ability to act. They focused our attention toward thinking of organizational behavior at colleges and universities as actions by administrators or faculty. Berger and Milem (1998) encouraged future studies to clarify the relationship between administrators and student outcomes. Toward that end, the purpose of this study was to review and synthesize what is known about the relationship between the work of
P1: KEG Innovative Higher Education
ph261-ihie-484466
March 2, 2004
The Nexus
20:38
Style file version Feb. 11, 03
287
administrators and associated outcomes, with a specific focus on student outcomes. This was achieved by systematically reviewing the existing literature to examine three questions: • What is known about the work of administrators in higher education, and what evidence exists to verify that this work produced some successful outcomes for institutions and/or students? • What are the common themes and characteristics that emerge from a comprehensive review of studies about the work of administrators? • What remains underdeveloped in the characterization of outcomesbased research for the work of administrators, and what are the implications for future research? Theoretical Framework Two theoretical perspectives are appropriate for understanding outcomes impacted by the work of administrators: (1) institutional outcomes and (2) student outcomes. Institutional outcomes provide a valuable framework to help assess and measure performance on a wide range of key performance indicators (Baldridge National Quality Program, 2002), while student outcomes examine the impact of colleges and universities on the academic and social development of students. The confluence of these two areas provides a holistic picture of the outcomesbased evidence for the work of administrators in higher education. While institutional outcomes are not the main foci of this study, the Baldridge criteria provide a model to improve organizational performance for planning and opportunities for learning (Baldridge National Quality Program, 2002). Thus, this model provides a linkage of the two (institutional and student outcomes), by conceptualizing student outcomes as an institutional outcome. This model is salient because it does not ignore the fact that most of what may be found could be institutional in nature, but yet it still maintains a degree of flexibility to accommodate the identification of studies focused on student outcomes. Briefly, the major core values and concepts of the Baldridge organizational framework are: (1) leadership; (2) strategic planning; (3) student, stakeholder, and market focus; (4) information and analysis; (5) faculty and staff focus; (6) process management; and (7) organizational performance results (see Fig. 1). Leadership explores how senior leaders guide the organization, including how they review organizational performance. Strategic
P1: KEG Innovative Higher Education
288
ph261-ihie-484466
March 2, 2004
20:38
Style file version Feb. 11, 03
INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION
Figure 1 Baldrige Organizational Framework. Source: Baldridge National Quality Program (2002). Educational criteria for performance excellence. Milwaukee, WI: Author.
planning examines how organizations establish their strategic objectives and action plans. Student, stakeholder, and market focus is how organizations determine requirements, expectations, and preferences of students, stakeholders, and markets. Information and analysis examines the information management and performance measurement system and how the organization analyzes performance data and information. Faculty and staff focus looks at how organizations enable faculty and staff to develop their full potential. Process management examines the key aspects of organizations’ process management (e.g., learning-focused education and student services). Organization performance results include the usual institutional outcome measures, but it also focuses on key student learning results. To further clarify student outcomes and to operationalize them for this study, an additional framework was employed. Astin (1991) provided a typology for understanding and classifying different types of student outcomes. This typology characterizes student outcomes in terms of the type of outcome (cognitive or affective), and type of data (psychological or behavioral). Type of outcomes reflects what is being assessed while type of data reflects how the outcome is measured. Berger
P1: KEG Innovative Higher Education
ph261-ihie-484466
March 2, 2004
20:38
Style file version Feb. 11, 03
The Nexus
289
Figure 2 Typology of Student Outcomes. Adapted from Berger, J. B., & Milem, J. F. (1998). Organizational behavior in higher education and student outcomes. Handbook on Research in Higher Education, 268–338.
and Milem (1998) combined Astin’s typology into a two-by-two matrix (see Fig. 2). Cognitive-psychological outcomes include subject matter knowledge, critical thinking, and academic achievement. Cognitive-behavioral outcomes include degree attainment, vocational attainment, and awards and special recognition. Values, interests, attitudes, self-concept, and satisfaction with college are examples of affective-psychological outcomes. Lastly, affective-behavioral outcomes include leadership, interpersonal relations, and hobbies. Methodology Any review of the literature must characterize the population of eligible research studies to be examined. The review was limited to refereed journal articles published in the United States on the work of administrators in higher education from 1991 through 2001. For the purposes of this study, the work of administrators was operationally defined as studies that focused on administrators as subjects. To identify relevant articles, a list of terms using the time frame of interest and characteristics of the domains of interests was used. The following terms were selected and included in the search strategy: (1) administrator(s); (2) higher education; and (3) postsecondary education. Computerized advanced literature searches of the ERIC database using these terms were conducted for the period from 1991 through 2001.
P1: KEG Innovative Higher Education
290
ph261-ihie-484466
March 2, 2004
20:38
Style file version Feb. 11, 03
INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION
This initial search strategy produced 866 journal articles for consideration. Full abstracts were printed for these articles and screened by the researchers using the required inclusion criteria (i.e., administrator focus, journal article, and 1991–2001). The abstracts deemed appropriate for this study were identified, and the full articles were read for potential inclusion. Initially, 182 articles were read, and studies that did not meet the aforementioned standards for inclusion were removed. To ensure inclusion of all relevant studies, five expert researchers who published widely on the work of administrators were consulted for the next phase. They were asked to identify studies that may have been overlooked. Collectively, these processes resulted in a total of 78 useable studies for this analysis. Each article was coded in order to identify linkages between empirical findings of research on the work of administrators and outcomes-based results. In the context of this study, this linkage is referred to as a nexus. A first level of coding for nexuses involved noting empirical findings from the articles included in this review; these included such findings that related to outcomes-based results. A matrix was constructed that categorized various forms of data for each study (Miles & Huberman, 1994); this process allowed us to note consistency of data across several studies (see Table I). In a second level of coding, the empirical findings were collapsed to create broader categories that consisted of types of outcomes-based results (e.g., student outcomes), which would govern descriptions of a particular “nexus.” In these matrices, the nexus was listed at the top of each matrix; and the analysis showed the empirical findings that were used in the development of that nexus and the frequency with which they were referenced in the literature base. This process yielded the findings discussed in this study. Findings Findings based on the review of the literature revealed three outcomes from the work of administrators: (1) institutional outcomes, (2) personal outcomes, and (3) student outcomes (see Fig. 3). An outcomes-based model was developed for the work of administrators in higher education based on the review of the literature. In the center is the administrator and his or her work. Surrounding the administrator are three spheres representing the three major areas that emerged from the literature. Most of the literature focused on institutional outcomes (60.3%), followed by personal outcomes for administrators (37.2%). The literature linking the work of administrators directly
1
2
1
2
NSOPFNCES
Single institution
Scope of study Motivationhygiene theory Proportional representation
Theoretical framework
21
= academic affairs; 2 = student affairs; 3 = administrative affairs. = gender; 2 = race/ethnicity. 3 1 = quantitative; 2 = qualitative; 3 = mixed. 4 1 = institution based; 2 = student based; 3 = personal based.
Career advancement
Job satisfaction
Purpose of study
1
2
Administrative diversity2
1
1
Method3
Internal development and promotion
Job enlargement
Implications
1
3
Outcomes4
N/A
N/A
Meta analytic variable
ph261-ihie-484466
11
Administrative sector1
Study number
Innovative Higher Education
Table I Outcome-Based Results From Studies on Administrators in Higher Education
P1: KEG March 2, 2004 20:38
The Nexus
Style file version Feb. 11, 03
291
P1: KEG Innovative Higher Education
292
ph261-ihie-484466
March 2, 2004
20:38
Style file version Feb. 11, 03
INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION
Figure 3 Outcomes-Based Model for the Work of Administrators in Higher Education
to student outcomes was scarce (2.6%). The first two (institutional and personal outcomes) consumed the bulk of the literature, which overwhelmingly focused on the role and duties for the person in the administrative position (97.5%). Evidence of Outcomes for the Work of Administrators in Higher Education Institutional outcomes were prevalent within the research focused on administrators in higher education. Models regarding administrators in higher education tended to focus on the ways that an administrator can impact institutional effectiveness (Heck, Johnsrud, & Rosser, 2000). While the impact administrators have made on institutional effectiveness has historically been defined indirectly in the areas of strategic planning, resource management, and public relations (Franklin, 1998),
P1: KEG Innovative Higher Education
ph261-ihie-484466
March 2, 2004
The Nexus
20:38
Style file version Feb. 11, 03
293
a new measure of administrator effectiveness emerged. According to Henning (2000), this new measure of administrator effectiveness is the ability of an administrator to find supplementary funding or to generate revenue in the form of grants, alumni contributions, and income from non-credit courses. Personal outcomes for administrators were also documented. Most of the literature regarding personal outcomes of administrators focused on the challenges related to the position (e.g., stress and role ambiguity). For example, Reagan (1998) found that counselors who had made a shift to an administrative role (e.g., director of career services) reported dramatic increases in the levels of stress they experienced. Stress is a primary concern for administrators in student affairs where burnout occurs at an extremely high level (Howard-Hamilton, Palmer, Johnson, & Kicklighter, 1998). Blackhurst, Brandt, and Kalinowski (1998) found that female student affairs administrators were significantly less committed to their organization if they reported high levels of role ambiguity and role conflict in the workplace. Further, these women also reported less satisfaction with their lives overall. Role ambiguity is also a major dilemma for administrators in public relations in higher education (Peyronel, 2000). Stress and role ambiguity can be minimized in the workplace if it is acknowledged and if proactive steps are taken to provide a more satisfactory work environment. Beatty (2000) conducted a study regarding the emotions of administrators in education and concluded that collaboration at work proved to be successful in reducing administrator anxiety in the workplace. Additionally, results from a study by Volkwien and Parmley (2000) suggest that supervisors and colleagues exert critical influences on an administrator’s personal satisfaction at work. Therefore, it is logical to assume that administrators could experience less stressful and more satisfying work environments through positive collaboration with supervisors and colleagues. Literature linking administrator roles and duties to student outcomes is noticeably absent from the current pool of scholarly work. Most of the literature linking students to outcomes-based results has focused on the relationship between the student and organizational behavior, further it has primarily been studied at small, private institutions (e.g., Berger & Milem, 1998). However, the impact that administrators have on student outcomes did emerge both directly and indirectly. Administrators acknowledge directly their role in deciding which students will have access to the institution (e.g., Franklin, 1998). However, once the student is at the institution administrators tend to focus on what they can do to assist faculty and staff to impact student outcomes. It is
P1: KEG Innovative Higher Education
294
ph261-ihie-484466
March 2, 2004
20:38
Style file version Feb. 11, 03
INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION
ironic that even though little scholarship exists regarding the impact of administrators on student outcomes, administrators and faculty members’ perceptions of student outcomes are used as a source for evaluating student progress (Berger & Milem, 1998). Regardless, administrators do make policy and program decisions that have a tangible effect on the lives of students and a less tangible effect on student outcomes of college attendance, based on personal perceptions. For example Wechsler, Kelley, Weitzman, Giovanni, and Seibring (2000) surveyed college administrators nationally regarding campus initiatives to reduce college student binge drinking. Administrators made policy and program decisions based on their perceptions of the seriousness of the problem on their campus. Common Themes and Characteristics of the Work of Administrators Seven themes emerged regarding outcomes-based results from this study. Although each theme has connections and relationships with the others, for the purpose of this discussion they are separated into the following: (a) (b) (c) (d)
human resource development and management, diversity/equity issues, balance, gaining understanding of administrative roles and responsibilities, (e) organizational effectiveness, (f) leadership, (g) evaluation.
Human Resource Development and Management. Human resource development and management encompassed outcomes related to the development of better administrative practices, thus encouraging the administrator to improve operational procedures. Additionally, this theme integrates the desire and ability of administrators to promote skill development among colleagues and junior staff members. Belch and Strange (1995) asserted that individuals are responsible for their own growth and development. However, it is easy for new professionals to put professional growth and development on hold when there are numerous organizational issues that are more pressing. For example, a study conducted by Mondschein (1995) found that administrators who are able to combine multiple paradigms into their leadership style
P1: KEG Innovative Higher Education
ph261-ihie-484466
March 2, 2004
The Nexus
20:38
Style file version Feb. 11, 03
295
were viewed as more effective leaders than those who did not. This is a difficult task if the new administrator is overwhelmed with getting a grasp on the daily functions of the institution. Therefore, Piper and Rodgers (1992) suggested assisting new professionals in understanding the complex field of academe. This was deemed equally as important for professionals who are not new to the field but are new to the institution. Diversity and Equity Issues. The theme of diversity and equity issues contains a variety of outcomes that include identifying and overcoming barriers for special populations of administrators (e.g., professional and personal development programs) (Henry & Nixon, 1994; Ramey, 1995). Additionally, this theme included articles that seek to encourage diversity and equity within administrative ranks (e.g., recruitment and mentoring programs) (Cullen & Gaye, 1993; Hollis, 1999). Further, research results have shifted accountability measures to include achieving and managing diversity issues at the department and division level (Marcus, 2000). The promotion of diversity and equity in higher education is increasingly important because the participation of women and students of color has increased (Brown & Globetti, 1991; Cullen & Gaye, 1993). However, simply increasing the number of women and people of color in administration is not enough. Students need strong role models at all levels of the institution’s administration. According to researchers (e.g., Jackson, 2003; Konrad & Pfeffer, 1999; Sagaria & Johnsrud, 1992) this is not the case, White men dominate the top levels of administration while White women and people of color are concentrated in the lower levels of administration. Balance. Balance is a difficult issue for most individuals to address; administrators are no exception. The theme of balance encompassed issues of interest to all individuals working in the academy: work and personal life. Unfortunately, work life and personal life are intrinsically intertwined for administrators; therefore, this question is particularly perplexing. Administrators look for ways to balance career planning (Hickson, Stacks, & Amsbary, 1992) and advancement (Hubbard & Robinson, 1998) with acceptable levels of stress and job satisfaction. Scott (1992) speculated that the absence of a support system may impede an administrator’s ability to deal effectively with stress. The consensus of the literature as it relates to support in higher education administration is in the form of a mentor. Wolverton, Wolverton, and Gmelch (1999) advocated either finding a mentor or being a mentor, both sides of the relationship are beneficial to the involved parties. A mentoring relationship should enable both individuals to act as sound-
P1: KEG Innovative Higher Education
296
ph261-ihie-484466
March 2, 2004
20:38
Style file version Feb. 11, 03
INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION
ing boards for each other. Mentors can also offer guidance and advice as well as provide an understanding of office or institutional protocol and relationships (Hubbard & Robinson, 1998). Gaining Understanding of Administrative Roles and Responsibilities. Administrative roles and responsibilities are as diverse as the variety of institutions at which administrators work. Therefore, the desire to gain an understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the position is an irresistible research area. Studies have been conducted to develop an understanding of the administrator’s roles (Carroll & Gmelch, 1994) and the roles of others in leadership positions with which the administrator interacts (Deekle & de Klerk, 1992). Studies have also been conducted to describe the ways in which presidents of colleges and universities use their administrative advisory groups (Bensimon, 1991) and the preferences administrators express regarding gender roles (Mondschein, 1995). Moreover, there have been studies attempting to define various arenas in the administrator’s environment: leadership (Rank & Hutchinson, 2000); political underpinnings (Newman, 1982); and organizational effectiveness (Franklin, 1998). All of these studies provide administrators with tools to understand and thus effectively navigate the organizational terrain. Organizational Effectiveness. The effective operation of an organization tends to be a desired outcome for everyone involved with institutions of higher education. Therefore, studies of financial conditions have explored the fiscal stability of institutions (Scoby, 1993). Additionally, exploring problems and accomplishments of administrators may serve as benchmarks for other administrators (Smith, 1991). Nonetheless, it is desirable to learn from the accomplishments as well as problems that other institutions are facing. For example, Texas A & M University implemented a senior academic business administrator position that had a very positive impact on the campus (Dooley, 1991), and Hurst and Peterson (1992) found that the presence of a chief planning officer encouraged comprehensive institutional planning. Leadership. There are various views on administrative leadership. Some think that leaders are born, in other words, to be an effective leader you must have innate characteristics that you had at birth. Others believe that leadership constitutes a list of definable/achievable skills; and, when the skills are mastered, the individual will be prepared to be an effective leader. Research has focused on the leadership roles and styles of special populations, for example women of color (Lindsay, 1999), as well as comparing the leadership tendencies of administrators in different positions (Palestini, 1999). Furthermore, a
P1: KEG Innovative Higher Education
ph261-ihie-484466
March 2, 2004
The Nexus
20:38
Style file version Feb. 11, 03
297
study conducted by Krager and Brown (1992) not only compared the decision-making styles of two different administrative groups (chief student affairs officers and housing directors), but also looked at the impact of time constraints. Gmelch and Burns (1993) advocated preparation programs to groom administrators for entry into leadership positions. Evaluation. Obviously administrators want to be viewed as having made a positive impact on the institution. Often administrative performance is assessed by tabulating the impact the administrator has had on defined areas of his or her work responsibilities. Subsequently, studies have been conducted on the perceived duties of administrators (Carroll & Gmelch, 1994). Evaluation procedures are further complicated by the debates over the purpose of administrative evaluation, standards for judging the administrator’s performance, data collection procedures, and the reliability and validity of the assessment (Heck, Johnsrud, & Rosser, 2000). Additionally, questions arise when administrators or others perceive the administrator as having dual roles. For example, should academic deans be held to the same scholarly standards as the faculty (Cronin & Crawford, 1999)? McGowan, Eichelberger, and Nelson (1994) found that many administrators felt ill prepared to accomplish some of the tasks included in their performance evaluations. Subsequently, they found that administrators sought some form of training to help them understand and accomplish the uncertain expectations. Discussion The available literature indicated that the work of administrators in higher education has certain consistent outcomes and themes, as identified earlier in this text. However, in examining these outcomes and themes, very few of them demonstrated how student outcomes are affected by the work of administrators. Nonetheless, the remainder of these outcomes and themes that were identified appear to have been in direct response to the challenges faced personally (personal outcomes) by the administrator and connected to the complex circumstances (institutional outcomes) in which they operate. As such, the research examined the environment in which administrators operated both at work and home. The majority of this work was aimed at helping administrators to understand and negotiate the role conflict and ambiguity embedded in their positions. These personal outcomes and themes were avenues to provide support for administrators so that they
P1: KEG Innovative Higher Education
298
ph261-ihie-484466
March 2, 2004
20:38
Style file version Feb. 11, 03
INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION
could improve institutional outcomes. Therefore, institutionally it was deemed important to promote personal outcomes of the administrators, to improve their ability to increase outcomes for the institution. Collectively, both of these themes and outcomes worked together to improve each other. Further, this study suggests a linkage between the work of administrators and student success, examined to the degree possible in future empirical research. The literature on the work of administrators in higher education could be strengthened by building on the personal and institutional outcomes/themes to achieve the common goal of educating students. Consequently, the research on the work of administrators in higher education did not fully develop linkages to student outcomes. Institutional and personal outcomes form the corpus of empirical results during the last decade of research on administrators in higher education. Indeed, in a system where institutions are growing larger and more complex and where the expectations and requirements of administrative positions are enlarging, these two areas served important needs. Student outcomes tended to be a secondary consideration in this larger discussion. In conclusion, a nascent nexus emerged between the work of administrators and student outcomes. However, as mentioned earlier stronger connections did surface for personal and institutional outcomes. These connections were much easier to document in the research. This study is not intended to be the final work regarding the relationship between the work of administrators and student outcomes. Rather, it is meant to provide an impetus and means for understanding this form of impact on students. Research Implications A significant finding of this review is that almost none of the journal scholarship examined contributes to identifying a nexus between the work of administrators and student outcomes. To the contrary, it collectively failed to mention students, with two exceptions (Aaron & Georgia, 1994; Watts & Wernsman, 1997). However, the studies do extend understanding and knowledge to one additional form of outcomes: personal. What emerged in these accounts are particular kinds of outcomes born of the struggles with balance and effectiveness, but nevertheless associated with personal development and growth. The consistency of these outcomes in the literature demands that it be part of the comprehensive understanding of the work of administrators in higher education.
P1: KEG Innovative Higher Education
ph261-ihie-484466
March 2, 2004
The Nexus
20:38
Style file version Feb. 11, 03
299
Yet, work in this field is not complete because many of the themes and outcomes-based results invite clarification. First, the conceptual model developed for this paper should be examined more closely. Second, the conceptual model (Fig. 3) should be used to develop methods to collect original data to explore this nexus (e.g., student outcomes) further. Third, this review of the journal literature suggests that we should pay closer attention to the interplay between student, personal, and institutional outcomes as it relates to the work of administrators. Additional work on the implications for the work of administrators in higher education begs to be addressed by this line of work, especially as it relates to issues of student success. Unfortunately, a full exploration of this topic must wait until another forum. In the meantime this review indicates that sufficient evidence does not exist to suggest that a clear nexus exists between the work of administrators and student outcomes. As the studies examined confirm, researchers exploring administrative work in higher education should consider the implications of their work for student outcomes. The reverse is also true; researchers examining issues of student success should consider developing implications for the work of administrators in higher education.
Acknowledgment This research was supported in part by a grant from the University of Wisconsin’s Graduate School. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Sacramento, CA, November 21–24, 2002.
References Aaron, R. M., & Georgia, R. T. (1994). Administrator perceptions of student academic dishonesty in collegiate institutions. NASPA Journal, 31, 83–91. Astin, A. W. (1991). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and evaluation in higher education. New York: Macmillan. Baldridge National Quality Program (2002). Education criteria for performance excellence. Milwaukee, WI: Author. Beatty, B. (2000). The emotions of educational leadership: Breaking the silence. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 3, 331–357. Belch, H. A., & Strange, C. C. (1995). Views from the bottleneck: Middle managers in student affairs. NASPA Journal, 32, 208–222. Bensimon, E. M. (1991). How college presidents use their administrative groups: “Real” and “illusory” teams. Journal of Higher Education Management, 7, 35–51. Berger, J. B., & Milem, J. F. (1998). Organizational behavior in higher education and student outcomes. Handbook on Research in Higher Education, 268–338.
P1: KEG Innovative Higher Education
300
ph261-ihie-484466
March 2, 2004
20:38
Style file version Feb. 11, 03
INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION
Blackhurst, A., Brandt, J., & Kalinowski, J. (1998). Effects of personal and work-related attributes in the organizational commitment and life satisfaction of women student affairs administrators. NASPA Journal, 35, 86–99. Brown, C. L., & Globetti, E. C. (1991). Perceptions and experiences of African American student affairs professionals. College Student Affairs Journal, 11, 3–10. Carroll, J. B., & Gmelch, W. H. (1994). Department chairs’ perceptions of relative importance of their duties. Journal of Higher Education Management, 10, 49–63. Cronin, B., & Crawford, H. (1999). Do deans publish what they preach? Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50, 471–474. Cullen, D. L., & Gaye, L. (1993). Women mentoring in academe: Addressing the gender gap in higher education. Gender and Education, 5, 125–138. Deekle, P. V., & de Klerk, A. D. (1992). Perceptions of library leadership in a time of change. Journal of Library Administration, 17, 55–75. Dooley, L. M. (1991). The senior academic business administrator at Texas A & M University: A comparative study of a single personnel intervention. Journal of Higher Education Management, 7, 3–10. Franklin, K. K. (1998). Looking in the looking glass: How administrators define institutional effectiveness. Metropolitan Universities, 9, 7–18. Gmelch, W. H., & Burns, J. S. (1993). The cost of academic leadership: Department chairs, stress. Innovative Higher Education, 17, 259–270. Heck, R. H., Johnsrud, L. K., & Rosser, V. J. (2000). Administrative effectiveness in higher education: Improving assessment procedures. Research in Higher Education, 41, 663–684. Henning, S. (2000). Repetition with variations over time: Reflections on ten years as a department chair. ADFL Bulletin, 31, 8–15. Henry, W. J., & Nixon, H. L. (1994). Changing a campus climate for minorities and women. Equity and Excellence in Education, 27, 48–54. Hickson, M., Stacks, D. W., & Amsbary, J. H. (1992). Administrator-scholars in speech communication: An analysis of research productivity, II. ACA Bulletin, 79, 66–74. Hollis, D. R. (1999). Affirmative action or increased competition: A look at women and minority library deans. Journal of Library Administration, 27, 49–75. Howard-Hamilton, M. F., Palmer, C., Johnson, S., & Kicklighter, M. (1998). Burnout and related factors: Differences between women and men in student affairs. College Student Affairs Journal, 17, 80–91. Hubbard, S. S., & Robinson, J. P. (1998). Mentoring: A catalyst for advancement in administration. Journal of Career Development, 24, 289–299. Hurst, P. J., & Peterson, M. W. (1992). The impact of a chief planning officer on the administrative environment for planning. Research in Higher Education, 33, 1–17. Jackson, J. F. L. (2003). Toward administrative diversity: An analysis of the AfricanAmerican male educational pipeline. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 12(1), 43–60. Konrad, A. M., & Pfeffer, J. (1991). Understanding the hiring of women and minorities in educational institutions. Sociology of Education, 64, 141–157. Krager, L., & Brown, R. D. (1992). Administrative decision-making: Do time, management level, and problem context make a difference? NASPA Journal, 29, 121–130. Lindsay, B. (1999). Women chief executives and their approaches towards equity in American universities. Comparative Education, 35, 187–199. Marcus, L. R. (2000). Staff diversity and the leadership challenge. Equity and Excellence in Education, 33, 61–67. McGowan, R., Eichelberger, R. T., & Nelson, G. M. (1994). Administrator evaluation program processes and outcomes. Journal of Higher Education Management, 10, 29–38. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mondschein, S. R. (1995). Gendered administration: A naturalistic study. JACA, 1, 41–49. Newman, B. K. (1982). Organizational politics in student affairs organizations. College Student Affairs Journal, 11, 4–12.
P1: KEG Innovative Higher Education
ph261-ihie-484466
March 2, 2004
The Nexus
20:38
Style file version Feb. 11, 03
301
Palestini, R. H. (1999). Leadership tendencies of continuing education administrators. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 8, 31–39. Peyronel, A. C. (2000). The role of senior public relations administrators in institutional decision making: Are they at the table? Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 9, 25–36. Piper, T. D., & Rodgers, R. F. (1992). Theory-practice congruence: Factors influencing the internalization of theory. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 117–123. Ramey, F. H. (1995). Obstacles faced by African American women administrators in higher education: How they cope. The Western Journal of Black Studies, 19, 113–119. Rank, M. G., & Hutchison, W. S. (2000). An analysis of leadership within the social work profession. Journal of Social Work Education, 36, 487–502. Reagan, S. D. (1998). Becoming a dean: The impact of humanistic counselor training on a career in academic administration. Journal of Humanistic Education and Development, 37, 21–25. Sagaria, M. A. D., & Johnsrud, L. K. (1992). Administrative promotion: The structuring of opportunity within a university. Review of Higher Education, 15, 191–211. Scoby, J. L. (1993). Financial conditions: An in-depth look at fiscal troubles on campus. NACUBO Business Officer, 27, 24–30. Scott, N. A. (1992). Chief student affairs officers: Stressors and strategies. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 108–116. Smith, R. W. (1991). Problems and accomplishments of college and university presidents. Journal of Higher Education Management, 7, 53–63. Volkwien, J. F., & Parmley, K. (2000). Comparing administrative satisfaction in public and private universities. Research in Higher Education, 41, 95–116. Watts, L., & Wernsman, R. (1997). Administrators as new sources for student journalists. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 52, 34–44. Wechsler, H., Kelley, K., Weitzman, E. R., Giovanni, J. P. S., & Seibring, M. (2000). What colleges are doing about student binge drinking: A survey of college administrators. College Health, 48, 219–226. Wolverton, M., Wolverton, M. L., & Gmelch, W. H. (1999). The impact of role conflict and ambiguity on academic deans. Journal of Higher Education, 70, 80–106.
