Education 622: Proseminar in Higher Education (Fall 2014)

Education 622: Proseminar in Higher Education (Fall 2014)

Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education

University of Michigan School of Education

Professor:Janet H. Lawrence

Office:2117 SEB

Email:

Class:Friday, 1-4:00

Course Description

The goal of ED 622 is to orient entering doctoral students in the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education (CSHPE) to the habits of mind and skills they need to develop and to careers and scholarship in the field of higher education. Higher education is assumed to be a field of study that draws on multiple disciplines and bridges practice, theory, and empirical research.

The specific purpose of this seminar is to acquaint you with:

• The study of higher education as it is approached in our graduate program and by academic researchers across the country. The intention is to help you navigate the doctoral program and organize your knowledge about higher education.
• The expectations for the level of critical thought and quality of work needed to be successful in the CSHPE doctoral program. The goal is to enhance your understanding of the standards for critical reading, thinking, analysis, writing, and inquiry that are required to meet program requirements such as the research practicum, the CQE and the dissertation as well as the demands of your subsequent professional practice.

Course Requirements

The course is organized as a seminar with students actively participating in all class meetings.

Class Participation. As in any doctoral course, students and faculty need to be co-owners and collectively responsible for its quality and outcomes. I take responsibility for the overall design and direction of the course and for the academic requirements, but the course will be facilitated as a seminar in which all participants hold themselves and each other accountable for a strong and rich intellectual enterprise and dialogue.

Your attendance is essential to a successful collective experience. The format of the class requires that each person come prepared to take an active role in guiding and sustaining conversations. This means not only having read the assigned materials, but also being prepared to discuss the salient issues, questions, and problems emerging from the readings, to utilize your knowledge and professional experiences in addressing the readings and any class activities. Class participation also involves opening oneself to challenge and to be challenged by the ideas and topics of the session. The quality of your class participation is worth 60% of your final grade.

Written Assignments. There are two short papersto be completed (October 10th and November 7th) – a journal article critique and a journal article review and a paper proposal for a research conference due on December 5th. Your papers together are worth 50% of your final grade.

Policies on Late Papers and Missed Classes

Please inform me in advance if you must miss class or if you need an extension of time to complete a paper. Missed classes will hurt the class participation grade.

Readings

The course readings are available electronically through CTools, provided in advance each week. Please download and print out these articles at your own convenience.

Academic Integrity

Operating under the highest standards of academic integrity is implied and assumed. Academic integrity includes issues of content and process. Treating the course and class participants with respect, honoring class expectations and assignments, and seeking to derive maximum learning from the experience reflect some of the process aspects of academic integrity. Claiming ownership only of your own unique work and ideas, providing appropriate attribution of others’ material and quotes, clearly indicating all paraphrasing, and providing the trail to the original source of any idea are key components to the content of academic integrity. Aspire to the spirit and highest representation of academic integrity. I would also encourage you to read the University’s General Catalogue, especially the sections that detail your rights as a student and the section that discusses the University’s expectations of you as a student. (See

Accommodation for Students with Disabilities

If you think you need an accommodation for a disability, please let me know at your earliest convenience. Some aspects of this course, the assignments, the in-class activities, and the way I teach may be modified to facilitate your participation and progress. As soon as you make me aware of your needs, we can work with the office of Services for Students with Disabilities to help us determine appropriate accommodations. I will treat any information you provide as private and confidential. See for more information about services for students with disabilities.

Religious Observation

This class observes University defined holidays (such as Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Fall break). Because other days may be of more significance than a University-designated holiday, please inform me as soon as possible if a class day or due date for a class assignment conflicts with your observance of a holiday important to you. I will work with you to accommodate your needs.

Schedule of Readings and Assignments

September 5Introduction to Course

September 12 Higher Education Careers: Plotting a Path

Readings:

Doctoral education

Labaree, D. F. (2003). The peculiar problems of preparing educational researchers.Educational researcher,32(4), 13-22.

Austin, A. E., & McDaniels, M. (2006). Preparing the professoriate of the future: Graduate student socialization for faculty roles. In Smart, J. (Ed.),Higher education:Handbook of theory and research, Vol. XXI (pp. 397-456). Netherlands: Springer.

Lovitts, B. (2008). The transition to independent research: Who makes it, who doesn’t and why. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(3), 296-235.

University of Michigan, School of Education. Spencer Foundation Research Training Grant Document. Crucial Elements of Scholarly Inquiry and Students Learning.

Career paths

Select one(s) most relevant to your career interests:

Rosser, V. (2000). Midlevel administrators: What we know. New Directions for Higher Education, no. 111. 5-13. Downloaded at

Rhodes, F. (Spring 1998). The art of the presidency. The Presidency, 1-6.

Volkwein, J.F. (2008). The foundations and evolution of institutional research. New Directions for Higher Education, no. 141, 5-20. Downloaded at

Supplemental

Gardner, S., Hayes, M., & Neider, X.E. (2007). The dispositions and skills of a Ph.D. in education: Perspectives of faculty and graduate students in one college of

education. Innovative Higher Education, 31, 287-299.

Weidman, J. C., & Stein, E. L. (2003). Socialization of doctoral students to academic norms.Research in higher education,44(6), 641-656.

McCarty, L. P., & Ortloff, D. H. (2004). Reforming the Doctorate in Education: Three Conceptions.Educational perspectives,37(2), 10-19.

Eisenhart, M., & DeHaan, R. L. (2005). Doctoral preparation of scientifically based education researchers.Educational Researcher,34(4), 3-13.

Pallas, A. M. (2001). Preparing education doctoral students for epistemological diversity.Educational Researcher, 30(5), 6-11

Assignment: When you applied to the doctoral program, what did you envision were the knowledge, skills, and habits of mind that you would develop while in graduate school? The figure,Crucial Elements of Scholarly Inquiry and Students Learning, posted on CTools summarizes School of Education faculty expectations of graduate students. How do these fit with what you envisioned as the outcomes of your doctoral education? What do you want to be doing in 7 years; how you will get there (what will you do while here at UM), and what will do to develop the habits of mind and skills expected of doctoral graduates?

September 19Persistent Issues in (Higher) Education Research?

Readings:

Labaree, D. (1998). Educational researchers: Living with a lesser form of

knowledge. Educational Researcher, 27(8), 4-12.

Conrad, C. (1989). Meditations on the ideology of inquiry in higher education: Exposition, critique, and conjecture. The Review of Higher Education, 12(3), 199-220.

Terenzini, P. T. (1996). Presidential Address: Rediscovering Roots: Public Policy and Higher Education Research.The Review of Higher Education,20(1), 5-13. Yes

Johnsrud, L. (2008). Faculty work: Making our research matter – more. The Review of Higher Education, 31(4), 489-504.

Supplemental

Keller, G., Townsend, B. & Moore, K. (1989). Review Essay: Reflections on higher education research. The Review of Higher education, 13(1), 119-136.

Bensimon, E., Polkinghorne, D., Bauman, G., & Vallejo, E. (2004). Doing research that makes a difference. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(1), 104-126.

Silverman, R. (1987). How we know what we know: A study of higher education journal articles. Review of Higher Education, 11(1), 39-59.

Volkwein, J. F., Carbone, D., Volkwein, E.A. (1988). Fifteen years of scholarship. Research in Higher Education, 28(3), 271-280.

Assignment: What do you understand to be the differences between those who consider higher education to be a field of study and those who consider it to be a discipline? What do you think are key questions that researchers in your chosen field/discipline pursue and that hold higher education together as a community of scholars? What do you think is an appropriate balance between research that informs policy and practice and scholarship that advances ourtheoretical understanding of phenomena of concern to higher educators?

What area(s) of inquiry are of primary interest to you– what do you want to be an “expert” in when you graduate; What are you reading, what courses do you plan to take, what professional activities will you engage in to develop this expertise? What is the audience with whom are you primarily interested in communicating?

September 26Paradigm “Wars”

Readings:

Bowler, P. & Morus, I. (2005). Making science (299-318). Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press.

Phillips, D. C. (2006). A guide for the perplexed: Scientific educational research, methodolatry, and the gold versus platinum standards. Educational Research Review, 1, 15-26.

Feuer, M., Towne, L., & Shavelson, R. (2002). Scientific culture and educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 4-14.

Talburt, S. (2004). Ethnographic responsibility without the “real”. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(1), 80-103.

Tierney, W. (2001) The autonomy of knowledge and the decline of the subject: Postmodernism and the reformulation of the university. Higher Education, 41, 353-372.

Supplemental

Bryman, A. (2008). The end of the paradigm wars.In Alasuutari, P., Bickman, L., & Brannen, J. (Eds.). The SAGE Handbook of Social Research Methods (13-25). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Milam, J. H. Jr. (1991). The presence of paradigms in the core higher education journal literature. Research in Higher Education, 32(6), 651-668.

Pallas, A. M. (2001). Preparing education doctoral students for epistemological diversity.Educational Researcher, 6-11.

Siegel, H. (2006). Epistemological diversity and education research: Much ado about nothing much?Educational Researcher,35(2), 3-12.

Walker, V.S. (2005). After methods, then what? A researcher’s response to the report of the national research council. Teachers College Record, 107(1), 30-37.

Assignment: What do you believe are the advantages and disadvantages of being a “low paradigm” field? What are the key points in the Phillips and Feuer et al articles? What are the implications of the readings and discussions of September 19th and 26th with respect to how graduate programs ought to go about preparing higher education researchers? What insights into the “left pole” do Talburt’s and Tierney’s articles offer? What do you find particularly compelling about qualitative and quantitative approaches to constructing knowledge about higher education?

October 3Constructing Theory

Readings:

Lynham, S. A. (2002). The general method of theory-building research in applied disciplines.Advances in Developing Human Resources,4(3), 221-241.

Sutton, R. & Staw, B. (1995) What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371- 384.

Supplemental

Kezar, A. (2006). To use or not to use theory: Is that the question? In Smart, J. (Ed.), Higher education handbook of theory and research, Vol. XXI, (283-344). Netherlands: Springer.

Dimaggio, P. J. (1995). Comments on “What theory is not”. Administrative Science Quarterly. 40(3), 391-397.

Hedström, P. & Swedberg, R. (1998) Social mechanisms: An introductory essay. In Social mechanisms: An analytical approach to social theory (1-31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Freese, L. (1981). The Formalization of Theory and Method.American Behavioral Scientist,24(3), 345-63.

Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of management review,15(4), 584-602.

Assignment: Pairs of students will create a theory of a phenomenon to be discussed in class. We will agree on a list of phenomena from which to choose. Details of the assignment will be posted on CTools.

October 10Quality of Argument: The Big Picture

Readings:

Babbie, E. (2011). The basics of social research (32-63). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Howe, K. & Eisenhart, M. (1990). Standards for qualitative (and quantitative) research: A prolegomenon. Educational Researcher, 19(4), 2-9.

Articles to critique (selected on basis of students’ interests)

Supplemental

Kilbourn, B. (April, 2006). The qualitative doctoral dissertation proposal. Teachers College Record, 4, 529-576.

Assignment: (Paper Due) Using the heuristic posted on CTools and the NRC criteria for scientific endeavors, identify the strengths and weaknesses of one article. Does the research (a) pose significant questions that can be investigated empirically, (b) link research to relevant theory, (c) use methods that permit direct investigation of the questions, (d) provide a coherent and explicit chain of reasoning, (e) yield findings that replicate and generalize across studies, and (f) disclose research data and methods to enable and encourage professional scrutiny and critique. Pay particular attention to how the authors structure their argument – the “chain” of logic – from the statement of the problem through the interpretation of results. (10 pages)

Think about what you discovered you know and don’t now about the substantive areas and methods and why you need to develop a deep understanding of both?

October 17Attending to Modes of Inquiry: Quantitative Research (Rodriguez and Posselt)

Readings:

Babbie, E, op cit. (94 - 127)

Additional readings to be posted

Articles to critique

Assignment: Two faculty members will come to class to discuss the work that resulted in a published article. Be sure to read the article carefully. In addition, using this week’s readings to frame your thinking, look closely at the researchers’ conclusions in the other assigned readings. Usingthe readings for this week and last week as frames, look closely at the researchers’ conclusions. Are they supported by the study design and findings? What flaws do you see in the research designs (these can be issues related to sample selection, phrasing of survey/interview questions, scales used to proxy constructs, statistical method, etc.)? What questions for future research do these methodological flaws prompt? (i.e., what gaps in understanding/inconsistent findings result from these methodological issues?)

October 24Attending to Modes of Inquiry: Qualitative Research (King)

Readings:

Babbie, E., op cit. (419 – 446)

Morrow, S. (2005) Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 250-260.

Additional readings to be posted

Articles to critique

Assignment: Two faculty members will come to class to discuss the work that resulted in a published article. Be sure to read the article carefully. In addition, using this week’s readings to frame your thinking, look closely at the researchers’ conclusions in the other assigned readings. Do the authors’ acknowledge their assumptions and clearly explain their inquiry process? Do you understand how they analyzed their data and accept their interpretations? What aspects of the study design are problematic to you and what questions for future research do these concerns prompt?

October 31Different Approaches - Different Understanding

Readings:

Topics to be identified; each topic will have a pair of articles - one qualitative and one quantitative study – linked to it.

Assignment: Discussion teams will be created for each pair of articles. Each team will be responsible for summarizing their answers to the following questions and leading class discussion about their two articles. What did the authors set out to do; what different types of understanding did you take away from the two studies; what are the strengths and limitations of each study? How would you improve upon these studies in follow-up inquiries?How might you integrate the findings from the two studies in a literature review? Everyone should closely examine readings on two topics - the one they lead discussion about and one other.

November 7Making Scholarship Public: Writing for Journals

Readings:

Donmoyer, R. (March, 1996). Educational research in an era of paradigm proliferation: What’s a journal editor to do? Educational researcher, 25(2) 19-25.

Smart, J. (2005). Attributes of exemplary research manuscripts employing quantitative analyses. Research in Higher Education, 46(4), 461-477.

Elliott, R., Fischer, C., Rennie, D. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 215-222.

Steneck, N. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53-74.

Examples of articles under review to be circulated along with review guidelines from journals.

Supplemental

Anderson, M., Shaw, M., Steneck, N., Konkle, E., Kamata, T. (2013). Research integrity and misconduct in the academic profession. In Paulsen, M. (ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp 217-260), 28. Netherlands: Springer Science and Business Media.

Assignment: (Paper Due) Review draft articles using editorial review guidelines of select journals and make recommendations regarding acceptance for publication. Think about how you would tackle the editorial dilemma Donmoyer poses? (5 pages)

November 14Making Scholarship Public: Conference Paper Proposals

Assignment: Evaluate paper proposals submitted to higher education research conferences according to guidelines provided to proposal reviewers.

November 21Making Scholarship Public: Conference Paper Proposals -

Make a Compelling Case within Limited Space (ASHE Conference)

Assignment: (Paper Due on December 5) Use the class time and draft a research paper proposal for one of the higher education conferences and send the draft to your partner on or before December 2. Bring reviews of your partners’ drafts to class on December 5. In class, we’ll talk about the insights you gained from this exercise and the implications for proposal writing generally (e.g., for dissertation fellowships and grants).

November 28Thanksgiving

December 5Communicating One’s Work: Writing Reports for Decision-

Makers (DesJardins)

Readings:

To be posted

Assignment: Teams will discuss the critiques of draft ASHE or AERA proposals.

December 12 Critical Literature Reviews: Prelude to the CQE

Readings:

Boote, D. & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3-15.

CQE Guidelines

Tentative reviews – examples will be changed to reflect predominant interests of students:

Engberg, M (2004). Improving intergroup relations in higher education: A critical examination of the influence of educational interventions on racial bias. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 473-524.