Peer Group Analysis: For Administrators Only

1
Peer Group Analysis For Administrators Only?

• Association of Institutional Research Forum
• San Diego, California
• May 29 June 1, 2005

Tara R. Warne, Associate Research Analyst,
University of Missouri System Kathy Schmidtke,
Graduate Assistant, University of Missouri
System D. Lanette Vaughn, Associate Research
Analyst, University of Missouri System Kathleen
Leonard-Getty, Institutional Research Assistant,
University of Missouri-Columbia
2
Why study peer group analysis?

• Accountability
• Resource Allocation
• External/internal requests
• Organizational learning?

3
Literature Review

• Modern comparative analysis developed in 1980s
  utilizing statistical analysis (Terenzini)
• Used primarily for financial purposes
• Expanded to use a wide range of performance
  indicators
• Graduation rates, employment rates, retention,
  salaries, enrollments, and faculty productivity

4
Literature Review (contd)

• Three different types of peer groups
• Aspirational, peer, predetermined
• Peer analysis is subject to a number of
  limitations
• Descriptive data insufficient
• Varying definitions of variables
• Can limit institutional creativity
• Meaningful use of peer group analysis

5
Research Questions

• What do we want comparative data to tell us?
• Do peer analyses drive institutional change
  processes, in particular, organizational
  learning? Why or why not?

6
Methodology

• Large Midwestern public Doctoral Extensive
  institution
• Qualitative Case Study Approach
• N 10 upper, middle, and lower administrators
• Grounded theory

7
Theoretical Frameworks

• Political (Bolman Deal)
• Competition for resources
• Coalitions with differing missions

• Learning organization
• Double-loop learning (Argyris Schön)
• Defensive reasoning (Argyris)
• Phenomena ? Data ? Information ? Knowledge
  (Bagshaw)

8
Argyris Double loop learning
http//thoughthorizon.com/archives/000277.php
9
Bagshaws Plant Structure
10
Findings

• Institutional Context
• Comparative reports required by upper
  administration for resource allocation
• Original allocation model abandoned
• Reporting requirement retained
• Reporting adapted based on divisional needs

11
Findings (contd)

• Three Overarching Themes
• Broad view of institutional data
• Use of data
• Organizational change

12
Broad View of Institutional Data

• Administrators emphasize comparative data
• Mid-level administrators view comparative data as
  nested

13
Use of Data

• Contribution of department to campus
• Resource allocation
• Internal goal setting and evaluation
• Desired uses
• Challenges

14
Organizational Change

• Fiscal outweighs performance
• Internal competition
• Leadership

15
Conclusions

• Information used from peer group analysis
• Level of teaching, research, and service
• Support for greater resource allocations
• Effectiveness and productivity
• Double-loop learning
• Defensive learning

16
Implications for IR

• Saupe (1990)
• Objective, systematic, and thorough
• the wisdom, integrity, and courage possessed by
  those who share the responsibilities of
  governance used to make decisions

• Volkwein (1999)
• Internal vs external duality
• Bagshaw (1999)
• Learning inhibited institution
• Phenomena ? Data ? Information ? Knowledge
• Shape the intellectual expectations of the
  leadership

17
Discussion and Questions
18
Contact information

• Tara R. Warne
• [phone]
• warnetr_at_umsystem.edu
• Kathy Schmidtke
• [phone]
• schmidtkek_at_missouri.edu
• Kathleen Leonard-Getty
• [phone]
• gettymk_at_missouri.edu