american business education

8/2/2019 American Business Education

1/24

BOSTON COLLEGE

Lynch School of Education

Department of

Educational Administration and Higher Education

Program

Higher Education Administration

REPUTATION IN AMERICAS GRADUATE SCHOOLS OF EDUCATION:

A STUDY OF THE PERCEPTIONS AND INFLUENCES OF GRADUATE SCHOOL

OF EDUCATION DEANS AND SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS REGARDING U.S.

NEWS & WORLD REPORTS RANKING OF TOP EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Dissertationby

MARY S. NARDONE

Submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

December 2009


2/24


3/24

Copyright MARY SHEPHERD NARDONE

2009


4/24

REPUTATION IN AMERICAS GRADUATE SCHOOLS OF EDUCATION:

A STUDY OF THE PERCEPTIONS AND INFLUENCES OF GRADUATE SCHOOL

OF EDUCATION DEANS AND SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS REGARDING U.S.

NEWS & WORLD REPORTS RANKING OF TOP EDUCATION PROGRAMS

by

Mary S. Nardone

Dr. Ana M. Martinez-Alemn, Dissertation Chair

ABSTRACT

This study explored the perceptions and influences of the respondents to the U.S.

News & World Reports (USNWR) reputational survey for graduate schools of education

(GSOEs). These respondents represent two unique stakeholder groups for graduate

programs of education: GSOE deans and school superintendents. The existing literature

regarding the USNWR rankings has been predominantly quantitative, with an emphasis

on methodological problems with the rankings. This study employed mixed methods:

quantitative analysis to determine the weight of the reputational surveys in the rankings,

and qualitative to explore the perceptions of the raters of reputation for GSOEs.

This study highlights several unique challenges in the ranking of GSOEs,

including the multiple missions and widely varying programs across schools of

education. In particular the rankings fail to distinguish between the GSOE predominant

dual purposes of preparing researchers and preparing practitioners. The rankings may be

contributing to the divide between research and practice in the academy.


5/24

This study confirms with the GSOE deans that the rankings do matter, on and off

campus, influencing the public perception of their programs. At a weighting of 40%, as

stated by USWNR, reputation carries the greatest weight of all categories of input

variables in the rankings. In terms of the reputational survey respondent groups, this

study finds a significant difference between their levels of engagement with the rankings.

This study finds a lack of meaningful participation in the rankings by the superintendents,

resulting in an input variable that is biased, methodologically flawed, and contributing to

erroneous fluctuations in rank. In contrast, this study finds the GSOE deans are reluctant

but active participants in the rankings. They are vested competitors in the rankings

business. The results indicate that the dean holds a critical role in the reputation

management of their programs. These findings suggest that the rankings steer the role of

the deanship toward an external focus, with an emphasis on publicizing the scholarship

and scholars of the GSOE, to establish and maintain a degree of prominence among peer

GSOE deans.


6/24

i

Dedication

This is dedicated to my mother, Janice Marsh Shepherd.

Thank you for your love and encouragement, and foralways asking,

How was school today?


7/24

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the deans, associate deans, and school superintendents who

participated in this study. Given the evident demands on your schedule, you were

extremely generous with your time. I found your feedback candid and passionate. In

particular, the GSOE deans were generally immediately receptive to scheduling an

interview, which in itself offered much encouragement in my research.

I also thank my dissertation committee for their counsel during this effort. Each

member brought a distinct perspective on my research which was critical to its success.

To my chair, Dr. Ana Martinez-Alemn, I appreciated your candor and your push. To

Dr. Joseph Pedulla, you brought not only great quantitative advice, but a critical eye to

detail. To Dr. Elizabeth Twomey, you introduced a key perspective from practice and a

great enthusiasm. You were all accommodating of my teaching breaks, and my busy

summer construction period.

I am also grateful to many colleagues at Boston College, who offered

encouragement and support. In particular I am indebted to my Comps Group for advice

and support, and staying in touch throughout this process.

Finally, I thank my husband, Paul, for his never-ending enthusiasm for my efforts

and his patience with my timeline. You have been there, cheering me, in this and other

marathons, always encouraging me to keep going.


8/24

iii

Table of Contents

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1

BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ..................................................................................... 1PURPOSE OF THE STUDY .............................................................................................................................. 6CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK......................................................................................................................... 6RESEARCH QUESTIONS................................................................................................................................ 8SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY.................................................................................................................... 10OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH DESIGN...................................................................................................... 11DEFINITION OF TERMS............................................................................................................................... 14OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY......................................................................................................................... 15

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................................................................... 16

ORIGINS OF COLLEGE RANKINGS .............................................................................................................. 17RISE OF COLLEGE RANKINGS .................................................................................................................... 19U.S.NEWS&WORLDREPORT:AMERICAS BEST COLLEGES ..................................................................... 22

CRITICISMS OF THE U.S.NEWS&WORLDREPORTRANKINGS ................................................................... 24Methodology and Validity .................................................................................................................... 24Institutional Response .......................................................................................................................... 28Philosophical Basis.............................................................................................................................. 31

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE .................................................................................................................. 33AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF EDUCATION ........................................................................................................ 34U.S.NEWS&WORLDREPORT:AMERICAS BEST GRADUATE SCHOOLS .................................................... 39

Law Schools ......................................................................................................................................... 40Graduate Schools of Business .............................................................................................................. 43Graduate Schools of Education ........................................................................................................... 44

STAKEHOLDERS:GSOEDEANS AND SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS............................................................ 46CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK....................................................................................................................... 48

Reputation and Reputation Management ............................................................................................. 49Reputation Management in Higher Education .................................................................................... 52Reputational Survey ............................................................................................................................. 54

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................. 61

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN ............................................................................................ 63

RESEARCH QUESTIONS.............................................................................................................................. 64MIXED METHODS ...................................................................................................................................... 64USNWRRANKINGS OF GSOES: OVERVIEW ............................................................................................. 66PHASE I:ANALYSIS OF THE USNWRRANKINGS DATA ............................................................................. 68

Data Collection .................................................................................................................................... 69Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 73

PHASE II:FEEDBACK FROM RESPONDENT GROUPS TO THE USNWRREPUTATIONAL SURVEY.................. 78GSOE Deans: Sampling....................................................................................................................... 80GSOE Deans: Interview ....................................................................................................................... 82School Superintendents: Sampling ...................................................................................................... 83School Superintendents: Survey ........................................................................................................... 84

Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 86INTEGRITY OF THE STUDY ......................................................................................................................... 87EXAMINATION OF THE USNWRMETHODOLOGY....................................................................................... 89CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................ 89


9/24

iv

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ....................................................................... 91

INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................... 91PHASE I:ANALYSIS OF THE USNWRRANKINGS DATA ............................................................................. 93

2009 USNWR Data .............................................................................................................................. 94THE REGRESSION MODELS........................................................................................................................ 97REPUTATION AND RANK........................................................................................................................... 98

INFORMING PHASE II:DEANSSCORE AND SUPERINTENDENTSSCORE.................................................. 114INFORMING PHASE II:EXTREME CASES .................................................................................................. 124THE EARLIERRANKINGS 19962002 .................................................................................................... 125PHASE ISUMMARY.................................................................................................................................. 126PHASE II:FEEDBACK FROM RESPONDENT GROUPS TO THE USNWRREPUTATIONAL SURVEY................ 127DEANS AS RELUCTANT BUT ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................... 130

Significance of the USNWR Rankings ................................................................................................ 132Impacts on Decision Making ............................................................................................................. 135Competition and Gaming ................................................................................................................... 136

SUPERINTENDENTS AS PARTICIPANTS ANDNON-PARTICIPANTS ............................................................. 140Superintendents: USNWR Methodology ............................................................................................ 140

Deans Perceptions RE: The Participation of Superintendents ......................................................... 141Superintendent Survey ....................................................................................................................... 143

UNIQUE CHALLENGES AND CRITICISMS IN RANKING GSOES ................................................................. 151Apples and Oranges: Multiple Purposes of GSOEs and Across GSOEs ........................................... 152USNWR: Methodological Issues ........................................................................................................ 154USNWR: Lack of Clarity of Purpose ................................................................................................. 158

REPUTATION:DEANSPERCEPTIONS....................................................................................................... 159The Reputational Survey: Deans Factors and Behaviors ................................................................. 159The Reputational Survey: The Superintendents Role ....................................................................... 161

Influences on Reputation ................................................................................................................... 162USNWR: GSOE Rankings vs. Program Specialty Rankings .............................................................. 164

SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................... 167

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS............................................ 169

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .......................................................................................................................... 169DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS........................................................................................................................ 172

The USNWR Model ............................................................................................................................ 172Apples and Oranges ........................................................................................................................... 175

Dual Rankings: Research and Practitioner ....................................................................................... 179

Deans Interactions and Influence with USNWR ............................................................................... 183

Gaming .............................................................................................................................................. 187Alternatives to the USNWR Rankings ................................................................................................ 188Reputation .......................................................................................................................................... 191

IMPLICATIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 193Superintendents .................................................................................................................................. 193GSOE Deans ...................................................................................................................................... 195Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs) .......................................................................................... 199U.S. News & World Report ................................................................................................................ 201

RELEVANCE TO THE LITERATURE............................................................................................................ 203LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH ............................................................................................................. 205SUGGESTIONS FORFUTURE RESEARCH ................................................................................................... 206CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................................... 208


10/24

v

APPENDIXES ........................................................................................................................................... 211

APPENDIX A: USNWR UNDERGRADUATE RANKINGSBEST COLLEGES(2008) ............................... 211APPENDIX B: USNWRGSOERANKINGSTOP EDUCATION PROGRAMS(2009)................................ 212APPENDIX C: USNWRMETHDOLOGY CHANGES FORGSOERANKINGS 1996-2010 .............................. 213APPENDIX D: USNWRDATANOT PUBLISHED 1996-2009 ..................................................................... 215

APPENDIX E:SAMPLE USNWRSURVEY OF SUPERINTENDENTS.............................................................. 216APPENDIX F:SAMPLE USNWRSURVEY OF GSOEDEANS ...................................................................... 217APPENDIX G:SAMPLE DATA USNWRTOPEDUCATIONPROGRAMS(2009) ......................................... 218APPENDIX H:INTERVIEW PROTOCOL:GSOEDEANS .............................................................................. 219APPENDIX I:SURVEY INSTRUMENT:SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS ........................................................... 223APPENDIX J:SUMMARY OF REGRESSION MODELS 2003-2010 ................................................................ 226APPENDIX K:CORRELATIONS ACROSS USNWRINPUT VARIABLES ........................................................ 230APPENDIX L:THEMES AND SUB-CODES DEFINITIONS ............................................................................. 232APPENDIX M:SUMMARY OF EXTREME CASES ........................................................................................ 236

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 238


11/24

vi

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1 Regressions for Overall Score on Reputation Variables, 2003-2010 101

Table 2 Regressions for Reputation and Research, 2003-2010 102

Table 3 Regressions for All USNWR Variables, 2003-2010 103

Table 4 Unique and Joint Contributions of USNWR Categories, 2003-2010 104Table 5 Correlations Across USNWR Variables, 2010 107

Table 6 Factor AnalysisRotated Factor Loadings, 2003-2010 111

Table 7 Factor AnalysisFactor Loadings Before Rotation, 2003-2010 112

Table 8 Annual Mean Scores Across GSOEs (Deans and Superintendents), 2003-2010 115

Table 9 Correlations: Deans Scores and Superintendents Scores, 2003-2010 116

Table 10 F-test of Variances of Mean Scores by Year, 2003-2010 117

Table 11 F-test of Variances of Mean Scores Across the Years by GSOE, 2003-2010 119

Table 12 Deans & Superintendents Score and Research Variables, 2003-2010 120

Table 13 Deans & Superintendents Score and Faculty Resources Variables, 2003-2010 121

Table 14 Deans & Superintendents Score and Student Selectivity Variables, 2003-2010 122

Table 15 Strongest Deans Score Model, 2003-2010 123

Table 16 Strongest Superintendents Score Model, 2008-2009 124

Table 17 Representativeness of Sample of GSOE Deans 129

Table 18 Themes and Sub-Code Mapping 131

Table 19 Superintendent Responses RE: USNWR GSOE Rankings 147

Table 20 Superintendent Responses RE: Superintendent Role in GSOE Rankings 149

Table 21 Comparisons Across Four GSOEs 177

Table 22 Comparison of Programs Across Four GSOEs 178

Figure 1 Deans and Superintendents Reputation Scores (2009) 5

Figure 2 Change in Reputation Score (2009 vs. 2008): Deans and Superintendents 5

Figure 3 Graphic Model of the Research Design 13

Figure 4 Graphical Representation of the USNWR Rankings Categories and Weights 73

Figure 5 Graphical Representation of Analysis 92

Figure 6 Graphical Representation of Categories and Weights 175


12/24

1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Background and Statement of the Problem

An article in theBoston Business Journalcaptures the obsession with college

rankings, in particular the U.S. News and World Report(USNWR) annual rankings:

The rankings have become, in a way, the educational equivalent of a stock

pricethe boiling down of many factors, both real and perceived, into a single,

perhaps overly simplified, number. And just as companies do what they can to

raise their stock prices, universities labor to raise their rankings (Kladko, 2006).

While the earliest academic quality rankings were buried in scholarly journals, the mass

media has moved the college rankings to the newsstand. The annual college issue sells so

many more copies than the regular monthly issues that one college president has referred

to them as the swimsuit issues (D.S. Webster, 1992, p. 20). Scholars have soundly

criticized the USNWR rankings in terms of methodology, validity, philosophical basis,

and lack of transparency but the research has confirmed that the rankings do matter; there

is substantial anecdotal and empirical evidence that the USNWR rankings have an

influence on trustees, presidents, provosts, deans, and students (Dugan, 2006; Ehrenberg,

2003; Griffith & Rask, 2007; Hossler & Foley, 1995; Meredith, 2004; Monks &

Ehrenberg, 1999b; Walleri & Moss, 1995). All of the evidence indicates that the rankings

are here to stay and that the rankings are impacting policies and programs in colleges and

universities. What started out as an innocuous consumer productaimed at

undergraduate domestic studentshas become a policy instrument, a management tool,


13/24

2

and a transmitter of social, cultural and professional capital for the faculty and students

who attend high-ranked institutions (Hazelkorn, 2008).

The approach taken by USNWR in ranking institutions or graduate schools

involves both subjective and objective measures, or indicators, of institutional quality.

The U.S. News rankings system rests on two pillars. It relies on quantitative measures

that education experts have proposed as reliable indicators of academic quality, and it's

based on our nonpartisan view of what matters in education (Morse, 2009). These inputs

are standardized about their means, weighted and summed, and then rescaled into an

overall composite score, along with an ordinal rank. While perhaps USNWR has involved

select education experts, the selection of quality indicator variables, the weights

applied to each, and thus the rankings themselves, are a USNWR construct of

institutional quality. Widespread criticism of the USNWR rankings includes the charge

that they are presented with a misleading implication of scientific basis and a false degree

of precision, as well as a fundamental argument against the ordinal ranking of an

unrankable phenomenonacademic quality.

Included in the criticisms is a charge that the USNWR input measures of academic

quality lack any defensible empirical or theoretical basis, as cited by the National

Opinion Research Center (NORC), hired by USNWR to critique their methodology

(National Opinion Research Center, 1997). The more objective measures include

categories such as student selectivity, faculty resources, and financial resources.

However, the most heavily weighted inputs are the subjective measuresthe reputational

surveys that ask select peers and stakeholders to rate institutions. Critics of the rankings


14/24

3

find that this subjective emphasis of the rankings and USNWRs approach to the

reputational survey, contribute to an atmosphere that is similar to that of a beauty contest.

For graduate schools, in particular for graduate schools of education (GSOEs), the

USNWR rankings are the only game in town, and for these rankings, reputation is the

prime driver of rank. This is because the foundation of these GSOE rankings is the

reputational survey, which is assigned a weighting of 40% in the USNWR formula,

though prior research has made the case that the actual weighting could be even greater

(T.J. Webster, 2001). The reputational survey consists of a list of over 250 schools,

organized alphabetically by state, with each school to be marked by the survey

respondent on a scale of 1 (marginal) to 5 (outstanding), or DK (dont know), in

terms of the overall academic quality of the graduate programespecially research

quality (see sample USNWR surveys, Appendix E, Appendix F).

Two unique stakeholder groups are the respondents to the GSOE reputational

survey: deans of graduate schools of education and school superintendents. USNWR has

stated that superintendents were selected for participation in the survey because

superintendents either hire or have Ph.D.s or Ed.D.s, or people working for them in

various capacities who are working on doctorate degrees (R. Morse, personal

communication, November 12, 2007). USNWR published a response rate of 49% for

deans and 23% for superintendents in 2006thus these reputation scores reflected the

opinions of over 250 deans and approximately 150 school superintendents. The evidence

suggests that these 400 survey respondents have a significant influence in the resultant

rankings.


15/24

4

USNWR reports a score for each GSOE for each of these stakeholder groups,

thus the reported Deans Score represents the mean of the scores for this GSOE by

deans responding to the survey, and the reported Superintendents Score represents the

mean of the scores for this GSOE by superintendents responding to the survey. However,

it is unknown how many dean or superintendent scores are reflected in the mean Deans

Score or Superintendents Score for any particular GSOE because while USNWR reports

the general response rate from the two groups, they do not report how many deans or

superintendents rated any specific GSOE. Thus while there may have been 400 survey

respondents to the USNWR survey in 2006, it is unknown how many respondents were

involved in rating any particular GSOE. In particular, the low response rate of

superintendents to the reputational survey provokes a question for GSOE deansdoes

the mean Superintendents Score for my institution, weighted at 15% in the overall

rankings, reflect the opinions of a hundred superintendents, a handfulof superintendents,

or asingle superintendent?

An initial inspection of the recent reputation scores indicates two immediate

differences between the stakeholder groups. First, one observes a difference between the

mean Deans Score and the mean Superintendents Score across the top 50 GSOEs. This

difference is indicated in Figure 1 for the 2009 rankings. Second, one observes that the

change in reputation score by the deans for each GSOE, year to year, appears more stable

than the change in reputation by the superintendents for each GSOE, year to year. This is

indicated in Figure 2 for the change in reputation score from the 2008 to the 2009

rankings.


16/24

5

Deans' Scores and Supts' Scores (2009)

2.5

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 3 9 41 43 45 47 49

GSOE Rank

Deans Supts

ReputationScore

Figure 1:Deans and Superintendents Reputation Scores (2009)

Change in Deans' Score and Supts' Score (2009 vs 2008)

-0.7

-0.5

-0.3

-0.1

0.1

0.3

0.5

0.7

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41

GSOE Rank (2008)

Supts' Deans'

ChangeinReputationScore

Figure 2: Change in Reputation Score (2009 vs. 2008): Deans and Superintendents


17/24


18/24

7

demonstrated a significant impact on reputation. Of particular importance to the graduate

schools ranked by USNWR is that multiple constituencies are included in the reputational

survey, such as academic deans and judges (for schools of business), or academic deans

and school superintendents (for schools of education). Vidaver-Cohen (2007) observes

that a schools reputation among its key stakeholders may vary considerably, depending

on the degree to which these different groups perceive a school has fulfilledtheir

expectations for quality (p. 286). The institutions, in turn, respond to the rankings by

taking actions to maintain or improve their positional standing, a form of reputation

management.

The review of the existing reputation literature will outline two distinct definitions

for the concept of reputation: reputation as prominence (an awareness, or visibility); and

reputation as perceived quality (an assessment, or judgment). While over the years

USNWR has changed the name of this category in the rankingsfrom reputation in

1996 to quality assessment starting in 2003, the approach to the survey remains

unchanged. Thus the category remains a reputation construct, as supported by the

literature. It is unknown if the survey respondents interpret this as reputation as

prominence, or reputation as perceived quality. The concepts of prominence versus

perceived quality, reputation management as asset management, and differences in

stakeholder expectations, inform the inquiry with the GSOE deans and school

superintendents.


19/24

8

Research Questions

There are three major research questions, and related sub-questions. One objective

of the research is to identify, and quantify, the actual role that the reputational survey

plays (based on respondents scores) in the USNWR GSOE rankings. As noted

previously, prior research of the undergraduate rankings indicates that the reputational

aspect significantly drives the overall ranking of the institutions. Thus the first research

question:

Q1. What is the significance of the reputational survey in U.S. News & WorldReportsannual ranking of Graduate Schools of Education (GSOEs)?

Another objective of the research is to explore the behaviors and perceptions of

the survey respondentsthe GSOE deans and school superintendents. Specifically the

research will explore their perceptions about the GSOE rankings themselves, in terms of

what purpose the rankings might serve, and their perceptions about the reputational

survey component of these rankings. More specifically, the study aims to understand their

level of awareness of the reputational survey, their understanding of their impact on the

rankings, their level of responsiveness to the survey, and their methods and approach to

responding to the survey. Why do they, or do they not, respond to the survey? Do they

personally respond to the survey? Do they consult with other colleagues? An important

emphasis of the research will be on exploring the differences in perceptions and

behaviors between these two stakeholder groups. These objectives are captured in the

second research question:


20/24

9

Q2. How do GSOE deans and school superintendents differ in their perceptionsabout, responsiveness to, approach to, and behavior regarding, the

reputational survey in U.S. News & World Reportsannual ranking of

GSOEs?

Finally, this research will explore the concept of reputation with these survey

respondents. The literature (Barnett, Jermier, & Lafferty, 2006; Rindova, Williamson,

Petkova, & Sever, 2005) indicates that reputation is generally conceptualized as either

prominence or as perceived quality. This research asks the two stakeholder groups what

forms the basis of their rating of institutions when responding to the USNWR survey. Do

they consider the quality of the program graduates? Do they consider the quality and

production (output) of faculty research? Do they consider the glossy promotional

materials that cross their desk? Do they consider the level of sponsored research? Do they

consider student selectivity? Do they consider the published rankings themselves? This

will explore whether this important ranking category captures reputation as either

prominence, or perceived quality. Again, an important emphasis is the examination of

the differences between the two stakeholder groups. Thus, the third research question:

Q3. How do these two unique stakeholder groups differ, when rating the GSOEs,in their conceptual definition of reputationreputation as prominence, or

reputation as perceived quality?

This study does not join the active debate over the best indicators or measures of

quality, but instead accepts reputation as an asset of value for the university and


21/24

10

explores the perceptions and behaviors of two stakeholder groups involved in the rating

of academic reputation.

Significance of the Study

The significance of the study rests primarily on the contribution of important

feedback to the critical stakeholders of GSOE programs, regarding the USNWR rankings

of these programs. Contributing to the significance is the scope of the field of education,

including the level of enrollments in GSOEs, the role of GSOEs in the American

education system, and the widespread commentary about education schools. More than

300,000 graduate students are enrolled in graduate education programs, the largest share

of the total U.S. graduate student enrollment, with more than 100,000 applicants to

GSOEs annually according to the Council of Graduate Studies (CGS) 2006 Survey of

Graduate Enrollment(Council of Graduate Studies, 2007). GSOEs have an important

role in preparing educators and education leaders. In particular, research-oriented

education schools prepare most of the faculty members who staff the teacher preparation

programs in the country; they produce most of the research about education; and they

prepare most of the educational researchers. As a result of playing these roles, research-

oriented ed schools exert an enormous impact on how we carry out teacher education and

about how we think about teaching, learning, educational reform, and educational policy

(Labaree, 2004, p. 13). Yet, a review of the literature confirms enduring criticism of, and

a troubling lesser status for, the education school. As Labaree (2004) observes, people

frequently complain about professional education in a wide range of fields other than

teaching, but they dont generally adopt this same tone of scorn (p. 4).


22/24

11

Of equal significance, the study provides an important contribution to the

literature, in terms of filling an evident gap in the research regarding the perceptions and

behaviors of survey respondents to the USNWR reputational survey for the GSOE

rankings. It will also offer a contribution to the reputation literature which is currently

heavily concentrated in the field of business management. For the higher education

leaders within GSOEs, who are charged with strategic management of their programs

reputational capital (Fombrun, 1996), the study provides a new perspective from peer

academic leaders.

Of course, the study also contributes to the ongoing debate regarding the

relevance and validity of the graduate school rankings, specifically by bringing the GSOE

deans into the debate more deliberately given that the literature indicates a gap in their

input when compared to the deans of graduate schools of business or schools of law

(Corley & Gioia, 2000; Dahlin-Brown, 2005; Sauder & Epseland, 2006). Finally, for

USNWR, this study provides valued feedback regarding their methodology, in particular

their selection of stakeholder groups for the reputational survey, their sampling approach

and structure of the reputational survey, and the weighting of these reputation scores.

Overview of the Research Design

The design is an exploratory mixed methods study, involving quantitative

secondary data analysis of the published USNWR annual rankings data, and a primarily

qualitative study of the stakeholder groups surveyed by USNWR for reputation opinion.

The rationale for the mixed methods design is to accommodate the readily available

quantitative rankings data, and yet to pursue an in-depth understanding of the perceptions


23/24

12

and behaviors of the reputational stakeholder groups. The mixed methods design also

provides for: triangulation (the convergence of results from different methods),

complementarity (the results from one method illustrating the results of the other

method), and development (the results from one method informing the other method), as

outlined by Greene, Caracelli, and Graham (1989, p. 259). The study is somewhat

sequential, with the first phase a purely quantitative secondary analysis of the USNWR

published rankings data, and the second phase employing mixed methods, using both

survey and interview, to gather feedback from the respondent groups to the annual

USNWR reputational surveyschool superintendents and GSOE deans.

The intent of the first phase is to demonstrate and quantify the significance of the

reputational survey in the actual rankings, answering the first research question, and to

inform the research instruments for the qualitative inquiry. The second phase will then

explore the other two research questions regarding stakeholders perceptions and

behaviors regarding the reputational survey, and their conceptualization of reputation.

Based on the response rates to the reputational survey as reported by USNWR, the deans

have demonstrated a significantly greater commitment to these rankings than the

superintendents, perhaps indicating that the superintendents may be similarly

disinterested in the present study. Thus, my approach toward each stakeholder group, in

terms of sampling and data collection, is tailored to their apparent investment in these

rankings, as well as my access to these individualsin-depth interviews with a sample of

GSOE deans, and a brief electronic survey of a sample of superintendents. The complete

research design, including the design rationale, is outlined in detail in chapter three.


24/24

Figure 3 represents a graphic model of the research design.

Figure 3: Graphic Model of the Research Design (Note: mixed methods sequential design

elements depicted here based on R.B. Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004, pp. 21-22)

Conceptual Framework

REPUTATION

REPUTATION MGMT

SURVEY

SURVEY

INTERVIEW

Superintendents

Deans

USNWR

GSOE

Rankings

College Rankings/USNWR Rankings ReputationQuality or Prominence Reputation Management GSOEs Deans/Su erintendents

LITERATURE REVIEW

QUALquan

american business education

Documents