Using IPEDS for Panel Analyses: Core Concepts, Data Challenges, and Empirical Applications

Abstract

Responding to demands from policymakers, higher education researchers increasingly utilize econometric modeling techniques to evaluate policies. In particular, researchers have applied panel methods to panel datasets derived from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and its predecessor the Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS). Analyses may yield biased results when panel datasets are not properly constructed, potentially leading to misguided policy recommendations. This chapter provides guidance about how to create institution-level panel datasets that are appropriate for specific research questions. We first provide an overview of institution-level data sources. Second, we describe change over time in the HEGIS/IPEDS sampling universe and the unit of analysis (e.g., institution, campus) represented by each observation. Third, we discuss parent-child reporting, which occurs when institutions complete some IPEDS survey components (e.g., Completions) at the campus level and other survey components at the institution level. Parent-child reporting affects many empirical applications of IPEDS panel data and affects what research questions can be answered using premade panel data from the Delta Cost Project. Fourth, we discuss solutions to common data challenges. Finally, we discuss what kinds of research questions can be addressed using IPEDS data and data from the Delta Cost Project.

References

  1. AICPA. (1974). Audits of colleges and universities. New York: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.Google Scholar
  2. Association for Institutional Research. (2003). AIR Alert # 16: Changes in IPEDS for institutions with multiple campuses AIR Alert. Tallahassee: Association for Institutional Research.Google Scholar
  3. Association for Institutional Research. (2013). Report mapping (IC-Header, 2012–13). Tallahassee: Association for Institutional Research.Google Scholar
  4. Brint, S. G. (2002). Data on higher education in the United States: Are the existing resources adequate? American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 1493–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brint, S., Mulligan, K., Rotondi, M. B., & Apkarian, J. (2013). College and Universities 2000 Databases. Available from University of California, Riverside. http://www.higher-ed2000.ucr.edu/databases.html
  6. Cellini, S. R., & Goldin, C. D. (2012). Does federal student aid raise tuition? New evidence on for-profit colleges. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, R. (2012). Institutional characteristics and college student dropout risks: A multilevel event history analysis. Research in Higher Education, 53(5), 487–505. doi:10.1007/s11162-011-9241-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheslock, J. J., & Gianneschi, M. (2008). Replacing state appropriations with alternative revenue sources: The case of voluntary support. Journal of Higher Education, 79(2), 208–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheslock, J. J., & Rios-Aguilar, C. (2011). Multilevel analysis in higher education 1920 research: A multidisciplinary approach. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 26, 85–123.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, M. P. (1990). Error analysis of estimates for less-than-two-year postsecondary education institutions. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  11. Congressional Research Service. (2007). Institutional eligibility for participation in Title IV student aid programs under the Higher Education Act: Background and reauthorization issues. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
  12. Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2002). The fundamentals of accreditation: What do you need to know? Washington, DC: Council for Higher Education Accreditation.Google Scholar
  13. Curs, B. R., & Jaquette, O. (2013, April). Does non-resident enrollment growth lead to declines in socioeconomic and racial diversity? Paper presented at the 2013 American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  14. Delta Cost Project. (2011). Delta Cost Project documentation of IPEDS database and related products. Washington, DC: Delta Cost Project.Google Scholar
  15. Delta Cost Project. (n.d.). Listing of “grouped” institutions in the Delta Cost Project IPEDS database. Washington, DC: Delta Cost Project.Google Scholar
  16. Deming, D. J., Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (2012). The for-profit postsecondary school sector: Nimble critters or agile predators? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(1), 139–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Doyle, W. R. (2010). Changes in institutional aid, 1992–2003: The evolving role of merit aid. Research in Higher Education, 51(8), 789–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ehrenberg, R. G., & Zhang, L. (2004). Do tenured and tenure-track faculty matter? (NBER Working Paper 10695). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  19. Ehrenberg, R. G., Zhang, L., & Levin, J. M. (2006). Crafting a class: The trade-off between merit scholarships and enrolling lower-income students. Review of Higher Education, 29(2), 195–211. doi:10.1353/rhe.2005.0082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fuller, C. (2011). The history and origins of survey items for the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative.Google Scholar
  21. Hillman, N. W. (2013). Community colleges and labor market conditions: How does enrollment demand change relative to local unemployment rates. Research in Higher Education, Advance Online Publication, 54(7), 765–780. doi:10.1007/s11162-013-9294-7.Google Scholar
  22. Huff, R. A., Chandler, M. O., & NCES. (1970). A taxonomy of instructional programs in higher education. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.Google Scholar
  23. Hyatt, J. A., & Dickmeyer, N. (1980). An analysis of the utility of HEGIS finance data in conducting institutional and higher education sector comparisons. Washington, DC: National Association of College and University Business Officers.Google Scholar
  24. Jaquette, O. (2011). In pursuit of revenue and prestige: The adoption and production of master’s degrees by U.S. colleges and universities. Ph.D. dissertation, Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education, School of Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  25. Jaquette, O. (2013a). Why do colleges become universities? Mission drift and the enrollment economy. Research in Higher Education, 54(5), 514–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jaquette, O. (2013b). In pursuit of revenue and prestige: the production of master’s degrees by U.S. universities.Google Scholar
  27. Jaquette, O., & Curs, B. R. (2013, March). The effect of state appropriations on non-resident enrollments at public universities. Paper presented at the 2013 Association for Education Finance and Policy, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  28. Kraatz, M. S., & Zajac, E. J. (1996). Exploring the limits of the new institutionalism: The causes and consequences of illegitimate organizational change. American Sociological Review, 61(5), 812–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Legal Information Institute. (2013). 34 CFR 668.14 – Program participation agreement. Retrieved June 19, 2013, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/668.14
  30. Long, B. T. (2004). How do financial aid policies affect colleges? The institutional impact of the Georgia HOPE scholarship. Journal of Human Resources, 39(4), 1045–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Malitz, G. S. (1981). A classification of instructional programs (CIP). Washington, DC: Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  32. Malitz, G. S. (1987). A classification of instructional programs (CIP). Washington, DC: Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  33. Middaugh, M. F., Graham, R., Shahid, A., Carroll, C. D., & NCES. (2003). A study of higher education instructional expenditures the Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  34. Morgan, R. L., Hunt, S. E., & Carpenter, J. M. (1991). Classification of instructional programs (1990th ed.). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  35. Morphew, C. C. (2002). “A rose by any other name”: Which colleges became universities. Review 1984 of Higher Education, 25(2), 207–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. National Science Foundation. (2013). WebCASPAR integrated science and engineering resources data system. Retrieved June, 2013. https://webcaspar.nsf.gov
  37. Pennsylvania State University. (2013). Penn State campuses. Retrieved June 22, 2013, from http://www.psu.edu/academics/campuses
  38. Rojas, F. (2006). Social movement tactics, organizational change and the spread of African-American studies. Social Forces, 84(4), 2147–2166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Steele, P. (2011). Suggestions for improvements to the collection and dissemination of federal financial aid data. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative.Google Scholar
  41. The University of Texas System. (2013). The University of Texas System. Retrieved June 22, 2013, from http://www.utsystem.edu/
  42. Toutkoushian, R. K., & Hillman, N. W. (2012). The impact of state appropriations and grants on 1999 access to higher education and outmigration. Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 51–90. doi:10.1353/rhe.2012.0063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Turner, S. E., & Bowen, W. G. (1990). The flight from the arts and sciences: Trends in degrees conferred. Science, 250(4980), 517–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): An improved system. Washington, DC: NCES.Google Scholar
  45. U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). IPEDS finance data comparisons under the 1997 financial accounting standards for private, not-for-profit institutes: A concept paper. Washington, DC: NCES.Google Scholar
  46. U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Classification of instructional programs: 2000 edition. Washington, DC: NCES.Google Scholar
  47. U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System data quality study. Washington, DC: NCES.Google Scholar
  48. U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Changes to race/ethnicity reporting to ipeds. Retrieved June 19, 2013, from http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/news_room/ana_Changes_to_10_25_2007_169.asp
  49. U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). IPEDS Finance DATA FASB and GASB: What’s the difference? Retrieved February 27, 2009, from http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/factsheets/fct_ipeds_finance_03072007_1.asp
  50. U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Introduction to the classification of instructional programs: 2010 edition (CIP-2010). Washington, DC: NCES.Google Scholar
  51. U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Updated finance reporting solutions for jointly audited institutions. Retrieved June 21, 2013, from http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/factsheets/fct_new_finance_03072007_2.asp
  52. U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2013a). About IPEDS. Retrieved June 13, 2013, from http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/about/
  53. U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2013b). IPEDS glossary. Retrieved June 22, 2013, from http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/glossary/
  54. U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2013c). IPEDS survey components and data collection cycle. Retrieved June 13, 2013, from http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/resource/survey_components.asp
  55. U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2013d). Report and recommendations from IPEDS Technical Review Panel #1: Data reporting structures and clustering. Retrieved June 19, 2013, from http://nces.ed.gov/IPEDS/news_room/trp_Technical_Review_03132003_28.asp
  56. U.S. Dept. of Education, & NCES. (1976). Higher education opening fall enrollment, 1976. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Education, NCES.Google Scholar
  57. UA South. (2013). About UA South. Retrieved June 22, 2013, from http://uas.arizona.edu/about-ua-south
  58. University of California. (2013). University of California. Retrieved June 22, 2013, from http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/
  59. University of Wisconsin System. (2013). Campuses. Retrieved June 22, 2013, from http://www.wisconsin.edu/campuses/
  60. Webber, D. A., & Ehrenberg, R. G. (2010). Do expenditures other than instructional expenditures affect graduation and persistence rates in American higher education? Economics of Education Review, 29(6), 947–958. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.04.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Winston, G. C. (1999). Subsidies, hierarchy and peers: The awkward economics of higher education. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13(1), 13–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Winston, G. C. (2003). Differentiation among US colleges and universities. Review of Industrial Organization, 24, 331–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zhang, L. (2010). The use of panel data models in higher education policy studies. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 25, pp. 307–349). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zhang, L. A., & Ness, E. C. (2010). Does state merit-based aid stem brain drain? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(2), 143–165. doi:10.3102/0162373709359683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Educational Policy Studies & Practice, College of EducationUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.Educational Policy Studies & Practice, College of EducationUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations