Roger L. Geiger, The History of American Higher Education: Learning and Culture from the Founding to World War II (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015), 551 pp. ISBN: 9780691149394

Leslie, W. Bruce

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198779919.003.0013

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although other organizations than universities also conduct research, universities constitute dominant actors in this domain of activity. Some universities emerged in the Middle Ages, but most were founded in the 20th century, particularly after the Second World War (see Geiger, 1993, 2015andRüegg, 1992-2011, for Europe). As an organizational form, universities have been very successful: many have been established and few have been closed.…”

Section: Universities As Organizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who is to blame? Evaluations in academia spreading through relationships among multiple actor types

Engwall

Edlund

Wedlin

2022

Social Science Information

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We draw on a general model of the governance of organizations to analyze the dynamics among various actor types given the present ubiquity of evaluations in and around universities. Regulators demand evaluations to assess the return on taxpayers’ money. Market actors, particularly publishers of academic journals, promote different metrics, including citation scores and impact factors. Scrutinizers, such as media companies, professions, auditors, and nongovernmental organizations, create further evaluations by developing university rankings, accounting systems, and investigative reports. There are also initiatives for evaluations inside universities: vice chancellors, department heads, and other academic leaders launch voluntary internal assessments, and researchers assist regulators, market actors, and scrutinizers throughout their evaluations. We conclude that multiple actors are responsible for the current evaluation regime in academia, and that none of them is responsible alone. Rather, it is in the dynamic relationships among actors at different levels that we find the strongest processes driving a seemingly ever-increasing number of evaluations in contemporary academia.

show abstract

Section: Universities As Organizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who is to blame? Evaluations in academia spreading through relationships among multiple actor types

Engwall

Edlund

Wedlin

2022

Social Science Information

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the country's founding, while still beholden to British rule, the populace coming to the New World were in search of freedom-both religious and ideological. It would only make sense that the educated men who came to America back in the early portion of the 17th century were most likely graduates of Cambridge or Oxford back in England (Geiger, 2016). While noting that men coming from England were educated in a particular fashion, such men viewed the education of its colonial citizenry with religious fervor.…”

Section: The Purpose Of Higher Education: a Brief Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Benefiting from the effects of the Industrial Revolution, many higher education systems found themselves beneficiaries of an increased period of expansion coinciding with increased emphasis on philanthropy and educational endowments (Walton, 2019). Creation of the Association of American Universities in 1900 brought together fourteen institutions as charter members, including Johns Hopkins, Columbia, Harvard, Cornell, Yale, Clark, Catholic University, Princeton, Stanford, and the Universities of Chicago, Pennsylvania, California, Michigan, and Wisconsin (Geiger, 2016).…”

Section: Effects Of Land Grant Legislationmentioning

confidence: 99%

I could use a hand here: a quantitative examination of institutional closure profiles among U.S. postsecondary institutions--ten years in review

Cashman

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Colleges are beginning to close in America. As time advances, the risk of further college closures or mergers in American higher education seems to be rising. But why? Why in a country where education is extolled as the foundation of the American Dream can institutions of higher education be at risk of going out of business? This study offers a quantitative analysis of what type of American higher education institutions may be most vulnerable to shifting market conditions resulting in closure or merger.A retrospective, exploratory, open-matched quantitative design will use descriptive, predictive, and time-series analyses to characterize a sample of postsecondary institutions that have closed or merged in hopes of identifying an institutional profile of those that exhibit the highest risk of failure. By comparing target institutions to matched controls, this study aims to identify trends, strategies, or mechanisms associated with viability, resilience, and transformation.The larger purpose of this study serves as an attempt to provide institutions of higher education reliable "warning signs" that can be addressed strategically and proactively. A possible outcome of this study may be a predictive model that can alert institutions to possible trends and patterns, or "red flags," and to stimulate strategic, data-driven decisions about how to move forward, averting closure or merger by: 1. Identifying possible threats to viability.2. Creating a response in the form of crafting safeguards to avoid closing/merger.3. Implementing developed safeguards to stem the tides of rising financial pressures.

show abstract

“…Educational systems have a high level of bureaucracy that makes change both expensive and time-consuming. The higher education culture is entrenched in dogma (Geiger, 2016;Gratz & Looney, 2020;Lucas, 2016). Consequently, higher education institutions have an established way of doing things foundational to their brands, so they view change as a threat to their identities and reputations.…”

Section: Contingent Faculty and Instructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The literature trend so far shows that many contingent faculty are resistant to the full adoption of technology in the classroom. According to Admiraal et al (2017), Geiger (2016; Gratz and Looney (2020); Joo et al (2018);and Lucas (2016), this resistance stems from many factors, including lack of experience with technology as a teaching tool, fear of the equipment, dogmatic entrenchment, and lack of access to quality technology options. What the COVID-19 pandemic illustrated, however, was that when technology adoption was implemented using a "shock therapy" approach, the training could be done quickly, completely, and effectively (Code et al, 2020;Moorhouse, 2020).…”

Section: Different Technologies To Implement; Challenges Implementing...mentioning

confidence: 99%

An investigation of the relationship between self-efficacy levels and technology integration and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) among contingent faculty at Tuskegee University

Price Sampson

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This exploratory study investigated Tuskegee University contingent faculty's integration of technology in instruction, their knowledge of tech-related pedagogy, and self-efficacy regarding learning and integrating technology in the classroom. The data consisted of eight thematic interviews with items derived from the modified HE-TPACK and self-efficacy questionnaires. HE-TPACK is a framework and an instrument to measure the level of technology integration into instruction. It provides insight into how practices and training aspects from the technology content knowledge (TCK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), and technology knowledge (TK) domains interrelate with self-efficacy levels. The results identified several knowledge domains in the HE-TPACK model that were associated with self-efficacy beliefs about technology integration. The eight "second-careerer's" results also indicated that HE-TPACK competencies and learning-centered pedagogy were necessary but insufficient conditions for transformation levels for technology integration for instruction. These "career enders" sought higher education because of the proximity to the student fulfilling their formal positions in the contingent faculty field (Cruz & Shoulder, 2013). The findings of this study are informative to contingent faculty at Tuskegee University, who hope to improve their use of technology in instruction through the LMS, and to leadership to determine more effective ways to support contingent faculty technological needs.

show abstract

Roger L. Geiger, The History of American Higher Education: Learning and Culture from the Founding to World War II (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015), 551 pp. ISBN: 9780691149394

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Who is to blame? Evaluations in academia spreading through relationships among multiple actor types

Who is to blame? Evaluations in academia spreading through relationships among multiple actor types

I could use a hand here: a quantitative examination of institutional closure profiles among U.S. postsecondary institutions--ten years in review

An investigation of the relationship between self-efficacy levels and technology integration and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) among contingent faculty at Tuskegee University

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About