MUSEU BALEAR DE CIÈNCIES NATURALS I JARDÍ BOTÀNIC DE

(CHEA). Although there are several accrediting bodies in the US, the regional

accrediting organizations are best known and most frequently solicited internationally. For programs that have received U.S. accreditation, this GGLEI field records the regional accrediting body.

Gender-Specific — This GGLEI variable denotes programs designed exclusively for male or female students. A university or program that enrolls only women would be noted as female under the “Gender-Specific” variable.

Gender-Segregated — Data in this true/false field indicates whether a program segregates male and female students for academic activities.

Scholarship Availability — This field tracks whether or not scholarships are available to offset the cost of tuition and fees.

Organization / Special Program — This variable was used to designate liberal education organizations, associations, and special initiatives. It signifies those GGLEI entries that support liberal education degree granting programs. Organizations/special programs are discussed further in the findings.

Branch Campus — The branch campus indicator designates programs that are “owned, at least in part, by a foreign education provider; operated in the name of a foreign education provider; engaged in at least some face-to-face teaching; and provided access to an entire academic program that leads to a credential awarded by the foreign education provider” (Kinser & Lane, 2012, p. 2). As defined by the Cross-Boarder Education Research Team (C-BERT) at the State University of New York at Albany, liberal education programs with a positive indicator in the GGLEI can be cross-

referenced at http://www.globalhighered.org/branchcampuses.php with C-BERT’s “Branch Campus Listing.”

Grad Program Indicator — This variable was populated to indicate whether a program offered graduate level degrees and was used for analysis of the GGLEI results. The data for this field is based on a “True” value in any of the master and PhD/terminal degree fields above.

Data Analysis

In terms of data and analysis, this study was unconventional in the realm of qualitative research. It did not involve interviews or focus groups and while electronic documents were the primary data source, analysis of them did not mean combing the text, categorizing themes, or scrutinizing their discourse. Data collected from the documents was cursory compared to traditional qualitative methodology. Further, compiled in the GGLEI using qualitative collection methods, the resulting variables were largely quantitative given that they involved little human quality and many, like the number of faculty, founding date, language of instruction, etc., were or could be reduced to numeric values.

In a famous polarized debate between two international comparativists, Edmund King (1914-2002) and Brian Holmes (1920-1993), this study may have been admonished by Holmes who sought a systematic methodological framework for analyzing data. Conversely, it may have been validated by King who argued that comparative researchers should use whatever “tool for the job” was most appropriate for a given investigation (Phillips & Schweisfurth, 2008, p. 83). With this in mind, analysis of the Godwin Global

Liberal Education Inventory was loosely based on a mixture of the well-known qualitative techniques in grounded theory and constant comparison. Simultaneously, however, quantitative distribution frequencies and cross tabulation analysis were essential and employed both for understanding the data and as a reporting tool.

This study had three outcomes: (1) the GGLEI containing the data described above; (2) an analytical report that explains global trends and findings by themes like location, chronology, public/private status, religion, etc.; and (3) a “liberal education rationale scheme” that helped to organize explanation for why liberal education has emerged globally.

Although no new theory was created by this research, focusing on the exploratory research question, Where, when, how, and why has liberal education emerged globally?, the principles of grounded theory helped to define and direct the analysis. Analyzing data in this study was a highly inductive process in which I endeavored to “ground” conclusions in the data (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Unlike some of the generalizing statements made in the grey literature examined for this research, I desired to stay “close to the empirical domain” (Blumer, 1978, p. 38). Inasmuch as grounded theory is meant to “build theory rather than test theory,” I sought to build an understanding of liberal education in a global context and produce baseline knowledge about this topic for future research (Strauss and Corbin, 1998, p. 13).

Of critical importance to analysis in this study was constant comparison of data, of data to literature, of programs, of countries, and of regions. Paralleling Miles and Huberman’s (1994) description of grounded theory, I began deciphering “what things

mean[t]—noting regularities, patterns, explanations, possible configurations, causal flows, and propositions” from the onset of data collection (p. 11). As distinctive characteristics emerged from comparisons, I documented my descriptive observations moving toward an eventual thematic scheme. This technique reflected, as Patton (2001) together with Strauss and Corbin (1998) explain, the way that grounded theory “begins with basic description, [and] moves to conceptual ordering…organizing data into discrete categories” (original emphasis, Patton, 2001, p. 490). Data collected and recorded in GGLEI are basic descriptive variables. Noting the program “properties and dimensions,” I compared and contrasted similar program qualities and used “description to elucidate categories” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 21).

Arriving at thematic conclusions in this study using constant comparison also required quantitatively unpacking the prevalence of programs and descriptive qualities of inventory data when juxtaposed with other data, timelines, and geographic

characteristics. Frequency distributions, which illustrate the frequency of data values in the inventory, were created using a combination of variables. Developing tables, graphs, and pie charts was not only useful for reporting the frequencies but also for analyzing the magnitude of various GGLEI elements in relationship to each other. Cross tabulations that illustrated independent statistical relationships between variables were used as a simple way of “testing” data elements to look for persistent patters and unusual outliers.

Ultimately, making sense of the analysis meant framing the results in a discussion based on the literature and current, largely unempirical, knowledge about liberal

reported from multiple angles and discussed in conjunction with cultural, social, political, and economic phenomena. Despite unconventional methods of analysis, or combinations thereof, the “tools for the job” provided a wellspring of information otherwise unknown in higher education and international research to date.

The Researcher

A critical aspect of sound qualitative research is the “foregrounding and bracketing of the researcher’s assumptions through a process of reflection and

comparison” (Philips & Schweisfurth, 2008, p. 48). In a qualitative study where I as the researcher am also the “primary instrument for gathering and analyzing data,” I must be vigilant, keenly self-aware of my perspective and continually reflective (Merriam, 2009, p. 160). Despite having lived in the United Kingdom and spent considerable time in Europe, including two experiences studying in France, I am largely a product of the U.S. cultural context. While my experience living and working abroad has made me better equipped to recognize small but critical nuances of cultural difference, it is also a stark reminder of how much I do not know and how much is easily misunderstood.

While my cultural context forms an enormous part of the “bracketing” for this work, so too does my experience with liberal education. My undergraduate experience at a U.S. liberal arts college was overwhelmingly positive. I credit my liberal arts education and the excellent faculty, staff, and peers with whom I worked, as central to my career and academic success as well as my life satisfaction. I participated in a strong

interdisciplinary curriculum, one that included courses co-taught by professors from disciplines as varied as biology and philosophy.

Despite my personal experience with liberal education, I strive to think critically and read deeply about its place in contemporary society. I fathom its reputation

perpetuating elitism. I recognize the classroom and administrative costs associated with liberal education learning objectives. I am leery of the challenges facing the globalized economy, massification, and a strong need to justify higher education with a firm understanding of how one’s education will lead to employment. I also recognize that liberal education that is well executed, based on the operationalized definition in this study, is often academically challenging for both students and faculty, particularly in terms of its interdisciplinarity. I am not convinced liberal education is for everyone, but I do challenge myself to think about ways that it might be made available to more students.

In a global context, I have dichotomous questions about the effects of liberal education emerging in new milieus. In one way, I struggle to see how increasing critical thinking and broadening students’ perspectives about the world could not be a good thing. I think about this particularly in light of ongoing conflicts, social injustice, and the relative ethnocentrism that plagues all societies in some ways. Using a more critical lens, however, I also question whether the “emerging” interest in liberal education is a

byproduct of neo-colonialism, global hegemony, and isomorphic tendencies. Given my experiences and these ideas with which I wrestle, during this research, I strove to

embrace a bias of uncertainty being careful not to allow my opinions to settle on one side prematurely or perhaps at all.

Conclusion

Methodological analysis in this study really occurred at three stages. Once higher education programs were identified, hierarchical criteria analysis was employed to

develop a purposively comprehensive sample that ultimately became the GGLEI. The second stage of analysis involved examining the entire inventory and forming

conclusions. These conclusions are discussed by region in Chapters Four, Five, Six, and Severn. Within each chapter, findings are organized by themes and topics that emerged as most salient in the analysis and in conjunction with concerns in international higher education today. This research culminates in Part III of the dissertation where I examine global findings using a comparative lens as the third stage of analysis. The dissertation concludes with Chapter Nine in which I review key themes, summarize findings, suggest limitations and future research, and raise important questions about the challenges of liberal education emerging in a global environment.