Advertisement

Tertiary Education and Management

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 69–88 | Cite as

Diversity and Peer Selection: Where Do They Intersect?

  • Daniel W. Lang
Article
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

A common criticism of accountability schemes that are based on comparisons is that they fail to address legitimate and practical questions about how differentiation among institutions can be measured and promoted, and about how distinctive institutional mandates and roles — some of them determined by government mandate — can be recognised and appropriately funded within single systems of higher education. Responding to these queries and suggestions requires some yardstick by which to express and measure similarities and dis-similarities among institutions. At the same time individual institutions, for a variety of reasons ranging from accountability to the allocation of scarce resources, attempt to compare or ‘benchmark’ themselves against other institutions. Both activities involve measurement, classification, and the selection of peers. Although customarily addressed apart from one another, diversity and peer selection can be conceptually closely linked within single scales of similarity and dis-similarity. Existing paradigms that explain diversity might be too simple for reliable peer selection and comparison, and might fail to account for all expressions of diversity.

Keywords

High Education Hybrid Approach Individual Institution Institutional Type Threshold Approach 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Balderston, F.E. & Weatherly, G.B. (1972). PPBS in Higher Educational Planning and Management: From PPBS to Policy Analysis. Office of the Vice-President, Planning, University of California.Google Scholar
  2. Ben-David, J. (1972). American Higher Education. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  3. Ben-David, J. (1977). Centers of Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  4. Birnbaum, R. (1983). Maintaining Diversity in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  5. Blau, P.M. (1994). The Organization of Academic Work, Second Edition. New Brunswick, NJ: Transactions.Google Scholar
  6. Brinkman, P.T. (1987). Effective Institutional Comparisons, New Directions for Institutional Research 53, 103-108.Google Scholar
  7. Brinkman, P.T. and Teeter, D.J. (1987). Methods for Selecting Comparison Groups, New Directions for Institutional Research 53, 5-23.Google Scholar
  8. Bryson, J.M. (1988). Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, B.R. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities. London: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  10. Cleaver, G.S. (1981). Analysis to Determine a Ranking in Similarity for Institutions in Higher Education. Lawrence: University of Kansas. Office of Institutional Research and Planning, July 1981.Google Scholar
  11. Council of Ontario Universities (1993). Report of the Committee on Accountability, Performance Indicators, and Outcomes Assessment to the Minister's Task Force on University Accountability, March 12, 1993.Google Scholar
  12. Huisman, J. (1998). Differentiation and Diversity in Higher Education. In J.C. Smart (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol. XIII. NewYork: Agathon.Google Scholar
  13. Huisman, J. and Morphew, C. (1998). Centralization and Diversity: Evaluating the Effects of Government Policies in the U.S.A. and Dutch Higher Education, Higher Education Policy 11(1), 3-14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jones, G.A. (1996). Diversity within a Decentralized Higher Education System: The Case of Canada. In V.L. Meek et al. (eds.), The Mockers and the Mocked: Comparative Perspectives on the Differentiation, Convergence and Diversity in Higher Education. Oxford: Pergamon/IAU.Google Scholar
  15. Lang, D. (1999). Responsibility Centre Budgeting and Responsibility Centre Management in Theory and Practice, Higher Education Management 11(3), 81-112.Google Scholar
  16. Lang, D. (2000). Similarities and Differences: Measuring Diversity and Selecting Peers in Higher Education, Higher Education 39(1), 93-129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lang, D. & Lopers-Sweetman, R. (1991). The Role of Statements of Institutional Purpose, Research in Higher Education 32(6), 599-624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lang, D., House, D., Young, S. & Jones, G. (1999). University Finance in Ontario. Toronto: Higher Education Group, OISE/UT.Google Scholar
  19. Lee, J. (1987). The Equity of Higher Education Subsidies. College Park: University of Maryland National Center for Postsecondary Governance and Finance, June 1987.Google Scholar
  20. March, J. (1994). A Primer on Decision Making. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  21. Marginson, S. (1997). Markets in Education. St. Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  22. Middaugh, M. (1998). How Much Do Faculty Really Teach, Planning for Higher Education 27(2), 1-11.Google Scholar
  23. Mims, S. & LeLong, D. (1987). The Michigan Peer Institutions Information Study, New Directions for Institutional Research 53, 5-24.Google Scholar
  24. Ontario Ministry of Education and Training, University Accountability: A Strengthened Framework Report of the Task Force on University Accountability, May 7, 1993.Google Scholar
  25. Rawson, T.R., Hoyt, D.P. & Teeter, D.J. (1983). Identifying ‘Comparable’ Institutions, Research in Higher Education 18(3), 299-310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Simpson, W. & Sperber, W. (1988). Salary Comparisons: New Methods For Correcting Old Fallacies, Research in Higher Education 28(1), 49-66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Terenzini, P. & Hartmark, L., Lorang, W. Jr. & Shirley, R. (1980). A Conceptual and Methodological Approach to the Identification of Peer Institutions, Research in Higher Education 12(4), 347-364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Teeter, D.J. & Christal, M.E. (1987). Establishing Peer Groups: A Comparison of Methodologies, Planning for Higher Education 15(2), 8-17.Google Scholar
  29. Whiteley, M.A. & Stage, F.K. (1987). Institutional Uses of Comparative Data, New Directions for Institutional Research 53, 59-71.Google Scholar
  30. Ziderman, A. & Albrecht, D. (1995). Financing Universities in Developing Countries. Washington, D.C.: Falmer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel W. Lang
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Theory and Policy Studies, OISE/UT, Division of Management and EconomicsScarborough Campus, University of TorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations