Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Accounting for diverse missions: can classification systems contribute to meaningful assessments of institutional performance?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Tertiary Education and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although they have been developed for a variety of purposes, classification systems for tertiary or postsecondary education institutions offer a foundation for recognizing diverse institutional missions in policy, research, and practice. Diverse missions, in turn, are important to achieving broad societal goals of educating an increasingly diverse array of learners, contributing to scientific, technological and professional development, and addressing increasingly complex social issues in an increasingly interconnected global community. After reviewing the purposes and consequences, intended and unintended, of several popular classifications, this article addresses the potential for current or future classification systems to promote and support institutional differentiation. Specifically, we consider how appropriately designed classifications can properly recognize mission differentiation and assess the future prospects for contextualizing performance and accountability assessments through the lens of classification.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alekseev, O. (2014). First steps of Russian universities to top-100 global university rankings. Higher Education in Russia and Beyond, 1(1), 6–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastedo, M. N. (2009). Convergent institutional logics in public higher education: State policymaking and governing board activism. Review of Higher Education, 32, 209–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bastedo, M. N., & Gumport, P. J. (2003). Access to what? Mission differentiation and academic stratification in U.S. public higher education. Higher Education, 46, 341–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bastedo, M. N., & Jaquette, O. (2011). Running in place: Low-income students and the dynamics of higher education stratification. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33, 318–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, S., & Ma, J. (2010). Tuition discounting: Institutional aid patterns at public and private colleges and universities. In Trends in higher education series. New York: College Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, R. (1983). Maintaining diversity in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borden, V. M. H., Coates, H., & Bringle, R. (2018). Classifying higher education institutions: Past, present and future trends. In E. Hazelkorn, H. Coates, & A. C. McCormick (Eds.), Research handbook on quality, performance and accountability in higher education. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, D. J., Gates, S. M., & Goldman, C. A. (2001). In pursuit of prestige: Strategy and competition in U.S. higher education. Brunswick: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brint, S., Riddle, M., & Hanneman, R. A. (2006). Reference sets, identities and aspirations in a complex organizational field: The case of American 4-year colleges and universities. Sociology of Education, 79, 229–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caplow, T., & McGee, R. J. (1958). The academic marketplace. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. (1973). The purposes and the performance of higher education in the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dynarski, S. (2002). The behavioral and distributional implications of aid for college. American Economic Review, 92, 279–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, H. D., & Diamond, N. (1997). The rise of American research universities. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harman, C. (2007). Theorizing neoliberalism. International Socialism: A Quarterly Journal of Socialist Theory, 117. Accessed March 10, 2018 from http://isj.org.uk/theorising-neoliberalism/

  • Harris, M. (2013). Understanding institutional diversity in American higher education: ASHE Higher Education Report, 39(3). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazelkorn, E. (2011). Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: The battle for world class excellence. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, N. W., Tandberg, D. A., & Fryar, A. H. (2015). Evaluating the impacts of “new” performance funding in higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 501–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, N. W., Fryar, A. H., & Crespín-Trujillo, V. (2018). Evaluating the impact of performance funding in Ohio and Tennessee. American Educational Research Journal, 55, 144–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kok, S.-K., Douglas, A., McClelland, B., & Bryde, D. (2010). The move towards managerialism: Perceptions of staff in "traditional" and "new" UK universities. Tertiary Education and Management, 16(2), 99–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, K. (2014). New managerialism, neoliberalism and ranking. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 13(2), 141–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, S. (2017). Horizontal diversity in higher education systems: Does the growth of participation enhance or diminish it? Center for Global Higher Education Seminar presented on 6 July 2017. Accessed March 11, 2018 from http://www.researchcghe.org/perch/resources/cghe-6-july-2017-diversity.pdf

  • McCormick, A. C. (2007). Hidden in plain view. Inside higher Ed. Accessed March 28, 2018 from https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2007/05/10/hidden-plain-view

  • McCormick, A. C. & Borden, V. M. H. (2017). Higher education institutions, types and classifications of. In J. C. Shin & P. Teixeira (eds.), Encyclopedia of international higher education systems and institutions, Dordrecht: Springer. Accessed March 11, 2018 from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9553-1_22-1.

  • McCormick, A. C., & Zhao, C.-M. (2005). Rethinking and reframing the Carnegie classification. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 37(5), 51–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olssen, M., & Peters, M. A. (2007). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: From the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), 313–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perna, L. W., McLendon, M. K., Dougherty, K. J., Jones, S. M., Lahr, H., Natow, R. S., Pheatt, L., & Reddy, V. (2014). Performance funding for higher education: Forms, origins, impacts, and futures. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 655(1), 163–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Protopsaltis, S., & Parrott, S. (2017). Pell Grants—A key tool for expanding college access and economic opportunity—Need strengthening, not cuts. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Accessed March 11, 2018 from https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/pell-grants-a-key-tool-for-expanding-college-access-and-economic-opportunity.

  • Rhoades, G. (1990). Political competition and differentiation in higher education. I In J. C. Alexander & P. Colomy (eds.), Differentiation theory and social change: Comparative and historical perspectives, New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 187–221.

  • Ruef, M. & Nag, M. (2015). The classification of organizational forms: Theory and application to the field of higher education.I In M. W. Kirst and M. L. Stevens (eds.), Remaking college: The changing ecology of higher education, Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp, 84–109.

  • St. John, E. P. (2000). The impact of student aid on recruitment and retention: What the research indicates. New Directions for Student Services, No. 89 (Spring) 61–75. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teichler, U. (1996). Diversity in higher education in Germany: The two-type structure. In V. L. Meek, L. Goedegebuure, O. Kivinen, & R. Rinne (Eds.), The mockers and the mocked: Comparative perspectives on differentiation, convergence and diversity in higher education (pp. 117–137). Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thelin, J. R. (2004). A history of American higher education (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Vught, F. A., Kaiser, F., File, J. M., Gaethgens, C., Peter, R., & Westerheijden, D.F. (2010). U-map: The European classification of higher education institutions. Enschede: CHEPS. Accessed March 11, 2018 from http://about.u-map.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/09/U-MAP_final_report.pdf.

  • Wechsler, H. S., Goodchild, L. F., & Eisenmann, L. (Eds.). (2007). History of American Higher Education, 3rd edition. ASHE reader series. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zemsky, R., Shaman, S., & Ianozzi, M. (1997). In search of strategic perspective: A tool for mapping the market in postsecondary education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 29(6), 23–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zha, Q., & Hayhoe, R. (2014). The “Beijing consensus” and the Chinese model of university autonomy. Frontiers of Education in China, 9(1), 42–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Postsecondary Research, School of Education, Indiana University Bloomington, 201 N. Rose Avenue, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA

    Victor M. H. Borden & Alexander C. McCormick

Authors
  1. Victor M. H. Borden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexander C. McCormick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Victor M. H. Borden.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Borden, V.M.H., McCormick, A.C. Accounting for diverse missions: can classification systems contribute to meaningful assessments of institutional performance?. Tert Educ Manag 26, 255–264 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-019-09045-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-019-09045-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation