3. RESULTADOS Y DISCUSIÓN
3.2 Análisis de Bluetooth 5 en casos de uso general de IoT
3.2.2 Beacons en el sector minorista
The purpose of this study was to understand how a state public policy context that evidences neoliberal ideology affects the public purpose of regional comprehensive universities. To understand how regional comprehensive universities are responding to challenges created by a neoliberal public policy context, Ellen Chaffee’s theory of adaptive versus interpretive strategy was used (1985). Adaptive strategy takes place when an organization is striving to respond to and align itself with the external environment without regard for how these responses will affect the underlying purpose and mission of the organization. Alternatively, interpretive strategy takes place when an organization uses its underlying purpose and mission as a guide for responding to external threats and opportunities. This study explored the role of organizational identity in determining the types of institutional striving and strategy (adaptive or interpretive) taking place at regional comprehensive universities in response to a neoliberal state public policy context. The research questions that guided this study were:
1. How does a public policy context shaped by neoliberal ideology affect the public purposes of that state’s regional comprehensive universities?
2. How do the organizational identities of regional comprehensive universities influence the strategies they employ in response to neoliberal policies?
3. To what degree does a neoliberal public policy engender institutional striving?
Research Design
This study focused on the ways that university policies and practices change in response to neoliberal ideology within a state policy context. Specifically, this study sought to identify how mission enactment with regard to the public purpose of regional comprehensives is changing given these challenges. In light of the research questions that guided this study, qualitative research methods were the best way to gain an understanding of this topic because they allowed
individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem” (Creswell, 2007, p. 37). Strategic direction and mission are enacted by institutional stakeholders in response to external contexts and challenges (Kanter, 1972; Ravasi & Schultz, 2006). Thus, institutions were the most appropriate level of analysis for this study.
Because a phenomenon within a bounded system (mission enactment at regional
comprehensive universities) was studied, a case study approach was most appropriate (Creswell, 2007; Yin, 2014). This study sought to answer “how” and “why” questions. Specifically, how are institutions changing in response to these challenges and what reasons are given by institutional leaders for these changes? (Yin, 2009). Case study analysis allowed for an exploration of how university leaders were governing their institutions given the challenges described herein. More importantly, qualitative research design and case study methodologies provided a view into the complexities of institutional change during times of stress (Patton, 2002). This study sought to shed light on how these pressures are affecting faculty and student life, the strategic direction of the university and its engagement with its region. Qualitative case study methodology allowed for a view into the effects of these decisions on university life.
A cross-case study approach was selected to examine how these challenges are unfolding in a variety of college settings. A bounded time period was selected for analysis – specifically the last 10 years. Within this time period, higher education appropriations declined by nearly 50% and the modern accountability movement within public higher education took shape (SHEEO, 2015; Spellings Commission, 2006; The White House, 2013). This period was selected because it was also when the state in question mandated higher expectations for retention and degree
completion and economic development, and implemented performance based funding. It is within this time period that enrollment fluctuations also took place. A case study analysis of changes to university life given these challenges during this period of time allowed for an exploration of the specificities of how these challenges affect campus life over time.
Purposeful critical case sampling was used to collect data that directly pertained to the questions guiding this study (Patton 2002). The state under study was selected because it evidenced neoliberal public policy through a statewide emphasis on higher education’s role in facilitating the economic recovery of the state following the recession (Berman, 2012; Giroux, 2002). State policymakers have introduced expectations for higher education to build the state workforce through producing more graduates within STEM and health fields, industries assumed to be growing within the state. To realize these goals, state policymakers have used performance based funding to incentivize institutional performance. Performance based funding, a funding strategy borrowed from the private sector, accounts for over half of higher education
appropriations within the state. The goal of this case selection was to first hold the state policy context constant to gain a picture of the nuances of how these policies affect institutional life, and then to select campuses that represented data rich samples of the diversity of founding heritages and missions of regional comprehensive universities and the diversity of regional comprehensive universities in the state.
Site Selection
The specific population of interest was regional comprehensive universities. These institutions were selected because they educate a large share of college students in the U.S. and because they are less well resourced than state flagship institutions and thus more susceptible to the influence of neoliberal public policy (Slaughter & Leslie, 1997). There are 420 such
universities and colleges within the U.S. higher education system (Henderson, 2007). A majority of these institutions are members of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU, 2013). These institutions, given their “muddled institutional character,” are particularly susceptible to mission drift in light of neoliberal public policy and so they were most appropriate units of analysis for the research questions included in this study (Clark, 1987, p. 13; Henderson,
2007, 2009). The following criteria were used to differentiate regional comprehensive universities from other public higher education institutions within the U.S.:
• Founded either as a normal school, a branch campus of a flagship university, a YMCA or
Technical Institute, a Minority Serving Institution, or a community college;
• Four-year, bachelor’s degree granting institution;
• Carnegie designation as ‘comprehensive’ (either currently or historically);
• Historic focus on teaching and learning with little to no disciplinary or basic research; • Relatively open enrollment policies;
• High number of professional schools and master’s degrees awarded;
• High percentage of the student population drawn locally or regionally (at least 80% of
student population);
• Evidence of long-standing efforts to serve as stewards of regional economic and civic
life; and
• Membership within AASCU.
A two stage sampling process was used to select the state and institutions studied. Because it was not possible to study the entire population of regional comprehensives, four universities within one state were sampled. The first stage in the sampling process involved selecting the state and the second involved selecting the four institutions. Selecting a single state allowed for an understanding of how neoliberal public policy was shaping the public purpose of the four universities under study. By studying a single state, it was possible to hold funding levels and state policies constant and track individual institutional changes. Limiting the site selection to a single state also helped gain an understanding of the organizational identities of institutions within the state as members at each university were able to offer their perception of peer regional comprehensive universities in the state.
The first important selection criteria was that the state allocated at least 10% of its appropriations to higher education using performance based funding. At the time of sampling, this narrowed the list of states to 10. Evidence of the following neoliberal public policies related to the governance of higher education were then sought: a decline in state appropriations, incentives for workforce development and degree production within state identified economic growth areas, demands for data collection and use in order to enhance accountability, incentives to broker private sector partnerships and engage in economic development activities, an emphasis on STEM and vocational fields and changes to student aid (including reductions to student aid that solidify the idea that higher education is the responsibility of the students and special scholarships put into place to meet state workforce demands). Governors’ speeches and the strategic initiatives of the state governing body for higher education were analyzed for espoused rhetoric that evidenced neoliberal ideology including statements that narrow higher education’s purpose to its role in improving the economy and the belief that higher education is an individual, private good. Another important selection criteria was that the state had experienced difficulty in recovering following the Great Recession and had below average unemployment rates as
compared to the rest of the country. These economic indicators were important because it was thought that a state whose economy was still in recovery might be particularly susceptible to enacting neoliberal public policies for higher education. After considering which states met all of these criteria, a list of two states resulted. To finalize the selection of the state, two national experts about regional comprehensive universities and public policy were consulted: George Mehaffy, Vice President for Academic Leadership and Change at AASCU, and Joni Finney, professor of higher education policy at the University of Pennsylvania. Drs. Mehaffy and Finney pointed to some of the neoliberal ideology adopted by the state that can be empirically shown in the cases. They also had knowledge of individual institutions that seemed to be actively working
two experts, a single state was selected that evidenced neoliberal public policy and met the listed selection criteria. This state has also experienced difficulty recovering after the Great Recession with sluggish job growth, loss of industries and, during the time of data collection, an
unemployment rate was 1.5% higher than the rest of the country.
Sampling Strategy and Data Collection
The selected state has less than 10 regional comprehensive universities. To finalize site selection, two levels of pilot research were conducted. From this list, data rich cases that
constituted 70% of the universities in the state were selected. Based on preliminary data collected, it was determined that these institutions had evidence of both mission drift and mission
coherence. These institutions represented the five different founding legacies of regional comprehensive universities: two were formal normal schools, one was a former community and technical college and branch of a flagship university, one was a Historically Black University and one was a former YMCA night school. These five institutions also represented the different geographic locations of regional comprehensive universities in the state: two were located in suburban areas, two were located in rural areas and one was located in an urban area. In the second step of the pilot, senior university officials at the presidential and provostial level from each of the preliminary campuses participated in a 30-minute pilot phone interview so that a picture could be gained of how the university was responding to the neoliberal public policy context. These university officials were recommended by national experts including Drs. George Mehaffy, Jennifer Domagal-Goldman, Joni Finney, Marybeth Gasman and Matthew Hartley.
After consultation with the dissertation committee it became clear that a theoretical framework that would help make sense of the type of change being enacted was needed. Ellen Chaffee’s conceptualization of adaptive versus interpretive organizational strategy was selected to examine institutional change, mission coherence and mission drift within the four universities (1985a, 1985b). Adaptive strategy occurs when an organization focuses primarily on being
responsive to external influences and demands. This can occur when client desires and needs change, external threats or opportunities are introduced, or new competitors and products are offered. Organizations that are adaptive will modify organization processes and activities to respond to these external forces with the primary goal of strategy being survival. Alternatively, interpretive strategy takes place when an organization is most concerned with maintaining its own ideologies and cultures in the face of external threats and opportunities. An interpretive
organization will change practices and activities only when these changes align with existing organizational ideology, with the primary goal of strategy being legitimacy. Chaffee found that interpretive organizations tend to fair better during times of stress than adaptive organizations because they are bound by a purpose and ideology larger than simply being responsive to the external environment.
Chaffee’s conceptualization of adaptive versus interpretive organizations was helpful for studying regional comprehensive universities because it provided an organizational typology and theoretical framework for categorizing institutional responses to the challenges and forces examined. If a regional comprehensive is adaptive, it will evidence changes in operations and mission that are responsive the neoliberal public policy context without an institutional reckoning with how these changes in organizational practices align or misalign with existing mission. Alternatively, if a regional comprehensive is interpretive, it will change organizational behavior in ways that protect its public purpose from the neoliberal public policy context.
After conducting pilot interviews, four campuses were selected: two that appeared to be enacting interpretive strategy in response to the challenges it was facing and two that appeared to be enacting adaptive strategy (Chaffee, 1985). Specifically, two had adapted institutional
operations to focus more on survival and alignment with state policies than public purpose and institutional mission. Examples of adaptive strategy included dismantling a center for community
Examples of interpretive strategy included the deepening of regional engagement commitments and the creation of cabinet level positions focused on regional engagement. Another important selection criteria was the presence of language within strategic documents (mission and vision statements, strategic plans, institutional histories, etc.) describing the following three ideals: regional service and/or civic engagement, student-centeredness and status as an open-access and/or accessible university. A final selection criteria for the four universities was their geographic location within the state. Regional comprehensives are located in rural, urban and suburban settings and distributed throughout a state (Henderson, 2007). In order to reflect this geographic diversity and placement, I selected one university in an urban setting, two in rural settings, and one in a suburban setting.
This research study used semi-structured interviews with university officials at the
four universities (Patton, 2002). These officials were identified through recommendations
provided by national experts, suggestions from senior campus leaders and consultations
of administrative cabinet listed on university webpages. Participants included
administrators who had been involved in administrative decision making, senior and
junior professors that could speak to the ways that the institution’s changes were
affecting faculty life and staff members that could speak to changes in centers and offices
involved in enacting the university’s public purpose. Senior administrators (presidents,
provosts, chief financial officers, vice presidents for enrollment management and vice
presidents for multiculturalism and civic engagement) were interviewed with a view to
understanding strategic leadership and the formation of administrative policies.
University officials were asked questions that concerned institutional policies related to
the university’s mission such as if tenure and promotion and faculty requirements had
changed to emphasize research, teaching or community engagement, and if
community/university partnership policies and practices were changing. Finally,
questions were asked about how the university has changed institutional operations in
response to cuts to state appropriations, rising expectations and demands for greater
economic partnerships and engagement.
University staff responsible for community/university partnerships, university/private sector partnerships and student support offices were also interviewed. Staff members were asked about the specifics of these partnerships and student supports: how and why were they
established, how they have evolved over time particularly given funding cuts and how they fit into the university’s larger mission. Senior admissions officers of each institution were
interviewed to understand how enrollment policies and recruitment strategies were changing. This allowed for an examination of any changes taking place with regard to each university’s open enrollment and access mission.
Community members (including nonprofit directors, school principles, teachers and nurses, presidents of chambers of commerce and local mayors) surrounding the four universities were interviewed to gain a sense of the community’s perception of university engagement over the past 10 years. Community leaders were asked if they had felt a change in their interactions with the university. Community members were through recommendations from faculty and administrators and through consulting university websites describing these partnerships.
Representatives from the Chambers of Commerce of the regions surrounding the four universities were selected through consulting the websites of these organizations.
To fully explore the ideology operating in the public policy context, two senior members of the state’s Board of Regents were interviewed: the policy director for the state and the vice president for finance and data management. Additionally, Paul Lingenfelter, the former president of the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association, Thomas Harnisch, the director of
Relations and State Policy for AASCU were interviewed. During these interviews, questions were asked about the higher education policy context under study.
Table 1. Interviews Conducted for the Study Thunder State University
Senior Administrators • President (emeritus and current) (2)
• Provost (1)
• CFO (former and current) (2)
• Vice President, Enrollment Management (1) • College Dean (2)
Professors • Full Professor (1)
• Associate Professor (3) • Assistant Professor (1)
Staff • Director of Government Relations and Civic Engagement (1)
Community Members • Mayor (1)
• Volunteer Coordinator, Partner Organization (1) • Owner, Small Business (1)
TOTAL
PARTICIPANTS 17
City State University
Senior Administrators • Provost (1)
• Vice President, Enrollment Management (1) • Associate Provost for Academic Affairs (1) • Special Assistant to the President (1)
• Vice President, Multiculturalism and Civic Engagement (1) • College Dean (1)
Faculty Members • Associate Professor (3)
• Assistant Professor (1)
Staff • Directors, University Engagement Offices (3)
Community Members • President, Regional Philanthropic Organization (1)
• High School Nurse (1)
TOTAL
PARTICIPANTS 15
River State University
Senior Administrators • President (1)
• Provost (1)
• CFO (1)
• Vice President, Enrollment Management (1) • Vice President, Student Affairs (1)
• College Dean (2)
• Executive Director, Development Foundation (1)
Faculty Members • Professor (1)
• Associate Professor (2) • Assistant Professor (1)
• Director, Student Career Services (1)
• Director, Center for International Education (1) • Director, Admissions (1)
Community Member • President, Chamber of Commerce (1)
TOTAL
PARTICIPANTS 17
Inventor State University
Senior Administrators • President (1)
• Vice President, Multiculturalism and Civic Engagement (1) • Vice President, Enrollment Management (1)
• CFO (1)
• Assistant Vice President, Institutional Effectiveness (1) • College Dean (2)
Faculty Members • Professor (2)
• Associate Professor (1) • Assistant Professor (1)
Staff • Librarian (1)
• Director, Center for Healthy Communities (same as full
professor) (1)
• Director, Women’s Center (1)
• Director, Center for International Education (1)
Community Members • Volunteer Coordinator, Partner Organization (1)
• Owner, Small Business (1)
TOTAL
PARTICIPANTS 16
Policy Experts and Policy Makers
National Policy
Experts •• AASCU (3) SHEEO (1)
State Policy Makers • State Board of Governors (2)
TOTAL
PARTICIPANTS 6
Interview protocols solicited specific information about how current organizational practice was evolving given the challenges facing regional comprehensive universities. (See Appendix A for sample interview protocols used.) Interviews lasted 60-90 minutes and were conducted during campus visits. At least three administrators and three faculty members from each university were interviewed. Additional interviews were conducted as necessary until a point of data saturation was reached (Creswell, 2007; Yin, 2014). All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Transcripts, institutional documents and field notes were password