MODULE 650

www.changemag.org 45

Christina Leimer ([email protected]) is associate vice president for institutional effectiveness at California State University-Fresno. Drawing on her experience at two universities and a community college, she conducts research, writes, speaks, and consults about organizing for evidence-based decision making and improvement and how we define, judge, and achieve effectiveness.

By Christina Leimer

ORGANIZING FOR Evidence-Based

Decision Making and Improvement

In today’s accountability climate, regional accrediting bodies are requiring colleges and universities to develop and sustain a culture of evidence-based decision mak-ing and improvement. But two-thirds of college presidents in a 2011 Inside Higher Ed survey said their institutions are not particularly strong at using data for making decisions. And despite accreditors’ intense focus on learning outcomes as a core piece of evidence of institutional effectiveness, a 2009 National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA) survey revealed that 60 percent of provosts believe that they need more faculty engagement and more technical expertise to strengthen the assess- ment of learning on their campuses.

In my 17 years of working in institutional research, learning outcomes assessment, strategic planning, and accreditation, I have watched the external demands for the col- lection and use of information escalate. The response is often an increased data flow that occurs a year or so before the accreditors arrive and ebbs when they leave campus. But I have also experienced faculty and administrators becoming enthusiastic as they engage in the design, collection, analysis, and discussion of data and the decision making that it informs. When sustained, this enthusiasm for information about institutional performance becomes part of campus culture.

When this doesn’t happen, it is generally not for a lack of expertise about how to con- duct such research—colleges and universities are filled with people who know how to do just that. Nor is the problem solely about autonomy, although that certainly plays a major role in resistance to accountability demands, as do concerns about unfair comparisons of institutions and the difficulty of measuring complex skills and organizational impacts.

Instead, two major elements are often missing that are necessary to spark and sustain evidence-based decision making and improvement. One is leadership in making sense of, strategically applying, and communicating data and findings to diverse audiences in ways that prompt organizational learning and stimulate people’s desire to know more and then to act on the information. The other is a highly visible institutional research (IR) function that is integrated with complementary functions such as assessment and planning and that is widely recognized as integral to shaping institutional policy and practice.

46 Change • July/August 2012

The Role of leadeRship in evidence-Based decision Making

Evidence-based decision making—which accreditors expect colleges and universities to engage in continuously— combines professional experience with data, research, and literature to draw conclusions, make judgments, and determine courses of action. When an information-based mode of thinking and working is part of the culture, people reflexively ask questions and search for relevant data before deciding on a new program or developing initiatives. They routinely evaluate learning, processes, and progress toward goals to determine whether the programs and initiatives are achieving the desired outcomes. In such a culture, reflecting on practice and asking “how do we know?” is standard fare.

Developing such a culture takes sustained effort over a long period of time at multiple levels of the organization. But someone needs to take the lead—to advocate for, and maintain focus on, this mode of thinking and practice. On most campuses, no position or office is assigned this role.

An IR office and other operational units may provide data, but this in itself does not promote their use, nor is their application self-explanatory. For culture to change, someone must turn data into information and institutional knowledge through analysis and interpretation. Then someone needs to be responsible for setting that knowledge in the context of institutional goals and disseminating it in multiple formats that are appropriate to particular stakeholders, in order to inform recommendations and planning.

By participating in initial and ongoing discussions of pro- grams and initiatives, personnel with research and evaluation backgrounds can help frame questions so that they can be answered empirically and relate to issues of concern. They can then help communicate the results to the campus. Over time, an accumulation of examples of the positive effects of data use will help keep evidence-based decision making a valued component of campus life.

IR offices can play a significant role in such change, yet they are often underutilized. In a 1996 survey, 90 percent of college presidents said they wanted their IR offices to be proactive, but only half said that they were fulfilling this ex- pectation. Some long-term IR professionals also recognize

that the conventional IR role is too narrow for the issues fac- ing higher education today, but their offices may have insuf- ficient staff or expertise to take on higher-level challenges. It is often the case as well that campus leaders perceive IR as a merely technical or reporting office that is too low in the hierarchy to be involved in strategic discussions.

Whatever the reason, at most campuses, IR has neither been assigned nor assumed a prominent role in culture change. This is why I sometimes hear from senior admin- istrators and faculty accreditation leaders that “more” than IR is needed. But it is often unclear what that “more” is and how to achieve it.

new Models foR fosTeRing evidence-Based decision Making

Literature on the mechanics of learning outcomes assess- ment and the technical aspects of conducting IR is volumi- nous, but not many models exist for how to organize for ev- idence-based decision making and improvement. During the last 15 years, institutional effectiveness (IE) offices and units have emerged as one response: The Directory of Higher Education listed 43 IE offices in 1995 and 375 in 2010. The number of IR offices increased during this period as well, from 672 to 1,499. So what are the differences between these two types of operation?

To find out, I analyzed 30 IR and 30 IE office websites to examine their missions, structures, staffing, and responsibili- ties; to identify similarities and differences between the two; and to look for clues about why IE emerged.

The responsibilities and purposes of these offices differ across campuses. In some cases, IE is simply a rebranding of IR. In others, the primary responsibility of IE offices is learning outcomes assessment. However, another configu- ration attempts to fill needs beyond those of conventional IR. In this arrangement, IE is an umbrella title for a unit or department that performs multiple “quality” functions: IR, planning, assessment, academic and administrative program review, and accreditation.

To further investigate the purposes and operations of this configuration, I conducted semi-structured phone interviews with the lead managers of such offices at 19 US colleges and universities. The purpose was to determine how and why these offices began, how they are organized, why this con- figuration was chosen, and its benefits and challenges.

The institutions studied include a range of public and pri- vate institutional types, sizes, Carnegie classifications, ac- creditation regions, and geographic locales. They are all not for profit, with enrollments from less than 5,000 to 30,000, although the sample contains more smaller than larger insti- tutions.

In only six of the 19 cases were these offices designated as IE; one was entitled IR. Most often, they had hybrid names such as Institutional Research, Assessment, and Planning. While many offices are named this way, they usually do not have administrative oversight of all of these functions. Instead, they provide data and research that supports some of these functions, which are carried out by others.

When an information-based mode

of thinking and working is part of

the culture, people reflexively ask

questions and search for relevant

data before deciding on a new

program or developing initiatives.

www.changemag.org 47

Because the names vary, I refer to the configuration that combines administrative responsibility for the quality func- tions for the purpose of evidence-based decision making and improvement as the integrated model (IM). Most of the of- fices in my study had assumed an integrated form within the last nine years, and they were still changing as they adapted to new needs.

The inTegRaTed Model (iM) The IM model is a solution to a need for culture change

that exceeds the capabilities of conventional IR offices to support. While they still analyze data, IM offices take more of a leadership role than conventional IR ones do. IM personnel educate and advocate for the use of evidence in decision making. They may also bring their knowledge of external trends and issues affecting higher education and their institutions into presentations, analyses, and discus- sions in ways that can help challenge assumptions, deepen questioning and exploration, and prompt reflection that can lead to change.

Personnel in these offices advise and consult with execu- tives, middle managers, and faculty. They coordinate, facili- tate, and develop processes, procedures, and structures that help make data use part of the culture, such as workshops, blogs, research review teams, or linkages between assess- ment and planning. They monitor and document progress to- ward strategic planning goals and play a key role in program review or accreditation. Evaluating initiatives and programs or partnering with operational managers to do so is common.

IM office personnel may participate in establishing insti- tutional goals through committee memberships, consulting with managers, and/or facilitating goal-setting processes such as retreats, forums, or other planning activities. They offer methodological training to managers and faculty to help them assess performance in their own areas.

In assuming responsibility for encouraging the use of re- sults, these offices act as catalysts for change. For instance, they may initiate opportunities to engage constituents in the institution’s research agenda. Doing so creates familiarity with the process, demonstrates its value, garners support, and improves the quality of research and evaluation by bringing diverse perspectives to complex questions.

By linking the use of evidence to problems of interest to constituents, they may be able to spark curiosity and influ- ence attitudes and perspectives that help develop an appre- ciation for data use. Integrating these functions coordinates a set of tools that helps executives, senior managers, and faculty identify where the organization is successful and

where it is lagging, thereby helping to focus on internal im- provement.

At many colleges and universities both IR and assessment offices are chronically understaffed, as presidents respond- ing to a 1996 survey acknowledged. Despite 15 years of increasing demands, most IR offices are still one- or two- person departments, and in a 2009 survey, NILOA found few resources devoted to learning outcomes assessment. In such cases, staffing may need to increase.

However, integrating quality-improvement functions and drawing on their natural fit, respondents in the study said, creates greater efficiency, better products, synergies, and focus. So while the configuration does not allow for fewer staff, the office’s productivity may well increase. Staff in in- tegrated offices can more equitably distribute their work and make better use of individuals’ strengths. Bringing together their multiple skills and perspectives allows for richer analy- ses and a larger view of institutional issues and provides op- portunities for staff to learn from each other. This is helpful for developing the implications of and contextualizing data and other research findings.

Uniting complementary skill sets creates another benefit. In general, IR professionals have stronger technical skills than assessment professionals, and assessment professionals possess better interpersonal skills than their IR colleagues. Both skill sets are needed, but the combination may be dif- ficult to find in one individual. When assessment and IR pro- fessionals work together, the products and services they can offer become a stronger force for change.

In addition to this greater tangible value, a high-visibility department whose responsibilities reflect the organization’s commitment to effectiveness can keep this method of operat- ing in collective awareness. Personnel who find opportunities to consult, providing user-friendly information and engaging in ongoing discussions of institutional goals and problems, create an effectiveness orientation and normalize the use of evidence in making decisions.

Changing culture is a complex undertaking that requires ongoing effort from many people in different parts of the organization using their various types of authority and influ- ence. The IM office can be a crucial participant in this effort.

Building capaciTy

Integrating Functions Integrating the quality functions can fill both the leader-

ship and infrastructure gaps that impede data-informed deci- sion making and the development of a culture of evidence and improvement. But to do so, institutions first need to take stock of the existing functions, their current locations, and the extent to which they are collectively performing culture- development tasks. Not only will this illuminate gaps in responsibilities and institutional impediments to change—it may identify personnel with unused skills who can be culti- vated or professionals who want to expand their skill sets.

The 19 IM offices studied included some similar ele- ments. The majority combined IR, assessment, and

IM personnel educate and

advocate for the use of evidence

in decision making.

accreditation. Nine had strategic-planning responsibilities as well, and five included academic and/or administrative pro- gram review. Some offices performed additional functions, such as institutional budgeting, business intelligence, grant management, market research, and the student evaluation of teaching.

All of the offices in this study combined their chosen set of functions in a centralized unit, although the compo- nents included varied. One research university, for example, merged IR, learning outcomes assessment, program evalu- ation, decision support, and business intelligence into a single unit. An undergraduate teaching university combined IR, learning outcomes assessment, strategic planning, ac- creditation, testing, program review, and university relations and communications in creating the IM office. Although it was not part of my study, perhaps the oldest and best-known integrated unit is at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis, where the division is called Planning and Institutional Improvement. Its functions include IR, informa- tion management, institutional planning, learning outcomes assessment, program review, economic modeling, and the testing center.

Integration can be achieved in a more decentralized manner as well. At my own institution, California State University–Fresno, IR and learning outcomes assessment are the functions of the IM office, but strategic planning is located with the president, accreditation with the associate provost, and academic program review with the undergradu- ate and graduate deans. My membership on the strategic planning committee, the accreditation core team, and aca- demic program-review teams allows me to apply the tools of my office to university goals and quality-assurance processes and to recommend ways to improve them.

In addition, these functions link up in various ways. For example, ongoing learning outcomes assessment is incorpo- rated into periodic program review through the self-study. Like most of the offices in my study, we continue to develop mechanisms that strengthen these connections as this six- year-old configuration evolves.

Developing the Structural Configuration The majority of the offices in the study were developed

intentionally, prompted by accreditation requirements and/ or the vision of the president. Four have evolved in this di- rection over time, and five are being developed on the fly as needs arise. In some cases, the offices are brand new; in oth- ers, existing offices are being expanded or multiple offices merged.

Executives’ authority and engagement in evidence-based decision making is critical to planning and developing such a configuration. The lead manager of an IR, assessment, or planning office may propose a plan, as happened at some in- stitutions in the study, but only presidents and provosts have the authority to change infrastructure, allocate resources, and set institutional priorities and direction. Therefore, they must visibly take the lead in establishing such a configuration and must support this new approach on an ongoing basis to en- sure that it succeeds in influencing culture.

Crucial to this support is a multi-year plan in which the unit is incorporated into relevant decision-making venues, responsibilities are shifted or added, staff are relocated or hired, and personnel and office titles are changed as needed. Depending on need, circumstances, and resources, the con- figuration can be created gradually or rapidly.

An existing IR or assessment office usually serves as the nucleus to which the other functions are added. Independent offices in different divisions are sometimes merged into a single unit. Especially in large colleges and universities, in- dividual staff members often perform IR or assessment work in an operational unit such as a registrar’s or dean’s office. Moving them into the new IM office may be an option that provides them with colleagues from whom they can learn and gain support while adding capacity or gaining efficien- cies. Any type of organizational relocation or merging of offices and personnel requires ongoing attention to facilitate a smooth transition, help a group of individuals coalesce into a team, and ensure that managers who lose staff members continue to get their needs met.

Two cautions should be kept in mind in developing and managing an integrated office. First, the focus and efficiency of such an office can be unintentionally diluted by add- ing responsibilities that detract from the goal of fostering an evidence-based decision-making culture. One manager described her developing office as attracting programs that were not working with the expectation that she would im- prove them. Another said that activities for which there was no other home or that no one else wanted were given to her department. This vulnerability is heightened in offices that evolve organically and in ones that have been renamed IE without their responsibilities being clearly defined.

The second caution is to ensure that the new configura- tion does not become a super-compliance office, orienting the majority of its activity to external accountability rather than to internal improvement. One manager suggested that accreditation should be excluded from this new arrange- ment because it carries so much weight that it could have this effect.

48 Change • July/August 2012

Bringing together their multiple

skills and perspectives allows for

richer analyses and a larger view

of institutional issues and provides

opportunities for staff to learn from

each other.

www.changemag.org 49

Reporting Lines Almost all of the lead managers of these offices reported

directly to the president or the chief academic officer—one to both. Only one of them reported below the vice-presiden- tial level. Access to high-level decision makers is impor- tant to IM managers’ ability to work across organizational boundaries and stay abreast of institutional issues on which they can bring the tools of their offices to bear. More than half of the lead managers in my study held a title higher than director, ranging from senior director to vice president. Five were members of their presidents’ cabinets.

Naming As mentioned, there is no consistency in the titles of these

offices. It appears that the name IE reflects accreditors’ em- phasis on demonstrating effectiveness, regardless of the spe- cific set of tasks or functions that comprise the office.

Among the offices in the study that were named IE or for which there were plans to do so, the title was chosen for two reasons. First, it reflected the purpose for which the tools of planning, research, and assessment were going to be used— institutional improvement and effectiveness, as institutionally defined—rather than focusing on the tools themselves. The other reason was because the responsibilities were intended to be broader than those of any of the functional areas.

Tidewater Community College is an example of an institu- tion that uses the name IE for the entire unit, without losing the titles that connote specific functions: Departments within the unit are called IR and Student Outcomes Assessment (SOA). The unit manager’s title is director of IE, while staff positions are designated with a title followed by the quali- fiers IR or SOA.

While there may be institution-specific reasons for par- ticular titles, the dissimilarities and incongruencies between titles and responsibilities across campuses is detrimental in multiple ways. Making institutional comparisons and locating

models that are the most efficient and effective is nearly im- possible when they cannot be identified by a common title.

Hiring also becomes more difficult because the department and staff titles candidates have can include skills and experi- ences that may be quite different from those the hiring man- ager might expect based on those titles. The scope of respon- sibilities of individuals with the same title can vary widely, as can their salaries. In the current climate, where financial considerations are paramount at most institutions, greater consistency in the titles of units, personnel, and responsibili- ties would help make organizing for evidence-based decision making more effective and perhaps less costly.

Staffing As is true of freestanding IR and assessment offices, staff-

ing is a challenge in integrated offices. The primary issue is too few staff and, to a lesser degree, insufficient expertise of the existing staff. Several of the offices in the study were understaffed, usually by at least one position. And even when funding is allocated for positions, experienced IR and as- sessment professionals are difficult to find.

In implementing an integrated model, campus leaders should conduct an analysis to determine workload require- ments and gaps in functioning. Personnel will need to be trained to fill those gaps, and additional staff may be needed. However, it is also possible that some tasks can be elimi- nated or shifted to other departments to optimize the use of existing personnel.

For instance, a common complaint among IR profession- als is that external reporting requires so much of their time that they cannot use their research methods and statistical skills for institutional improvement. Not only does this mis- match rob the institution of the full value these professionals can offer—it is a reason many new IR professionals leave the field. In light of changes in computing technology that allow pre-packaged reports to be developed, it may be pos- sible to shift some external reporting to other departments, such as the operating unit that generates the data or to the information-technology unit.

Since the range of responsibilities in integrated offices is broader than those of a typical IR office, so are the skills, abilities, and personal traits that lead managers in IM of- fices need. To varying degrees, experience with and skills in research methods, statistical techniques, data analysis, statis- tical software, and database management are fundamental. But organizational, project-management, group-facilitation, and written and oral communication skills are important too, as are strong interpersonal skills that enable these managers to work effectively with a range of institutional constituents, from line staff and faculty to middle managers and execu- tives. The abilities to build consensus, negotiate, communi- cate in non-technical language, coordinate people and proj- ects, and lead are key.

Personal characteristics needed include sensitivity, open- mindedness, flexibility, a capacity to listen, enthusiasm, a commitment to learning, a sense of humor, the ability to build others’ self-confidence and motivate them, creativity,

A common complaint among

IR professionals is that external

reporting requires so much of

their time that they cannot use

their research methods and

statistical skills for institutional

improvement.

50 Change • July/August 2012

team-building and problem-solving capacities, a thick skin, a tolerance for ambiguity, and patience. So too are the abilities to educate, build trust, and use data to tell a compelling story.

It is essential that IM professionals know what data are available and how they can be applied, as well as which methodologies can be used to answer questions. They need to understand the types of problems higher education man- agers must address, how colleges and universities operate, and how decisions are made there. They need to understand the political world of academia and how to work with oth- ers to reach institutional goals. They need to comprehend higher education culture and the culture of their particular institutions, as well as the external environment at the local, regional, national, and even international level as it impinges on institutional operations, problems, and goals.

Developing a solid understanding of the intricacies of institutional data and their appropriate use at a particular institution takes years. Consequently, these offices will be better able to assist with institutional improvement and goal achievement if they retain early-career professionals.

Most of the lead managers in the study were long-term IR or assessment professionals—primarily the former—with at least 10 years of experience. A little more than half had worked in the field at least 15 years. Half had developed

their skills and knowledge within their institution; the other half were recruited externally. Most seemed to revel in the challenges and opportunities of changing culture.

These professionals’ combination of technical, interper- sonal, and organizing skills allowed them to shape their new offices and positions. When recruiting candidates to lead integrated offices, the Association for Institutional Research

IM professionals…need to

understand the types of

problems higher education

managers must address, how

colleges and universities operate,

and how decisions are made there.

Leadership in integrated offices is more strategically than technically oriented. In an article that has become a classic in the IR profession, Terenzini (1999) describes three forms of intelligence that are necessary for high-performing IR staff: technical/analytical skills, a knowledge of the issues, and contextual intelligence. Leadership that can influence culture requires all three; I describe how each can affect culture change in the right-hand column of the following table.

Intelligence Type Actions

Technical/Analytical • Select appropriate institutional data and assure the accuracy of their use • Offer technical, research, and assessment expertise • Demonstrate utility of data-driven decisions to campus constituencies

Issues • Combine research capability and familiarity with the campus community and its issues for richer analyses

• Explicate the implications of research findings and make evidence-based recommendations

• Strengthen planning and program development • Anticipate stakeholders’ needs • Collaboratively frame and refine questions and focus possibilities for

change

Context • Communicate institutional issues in a broader context • Bring knowledge of higher education trends and issues to internal

discussions to expand awareness • Apply knowledge and research findings to challenge institutional

assumptions, prompt reflection, and stimulate change • Utilize institutional alliances and understanding of the institution’s

culture to spread the use of data in decisions

TaBle 1. TeRenzini’s Typology and iTs effecTs on culTuRe change

www.changemag.org 51

n Davenport, T. H., Harris, J. G., & Morison, R. (2010). Analytics at work: Smarter decisions, better results. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

n Green, K. C., Jaschik, S., & Lederman, D. (2011). Presidential perspectives: The 2011 Inside Higher Ed survey of college and university presidents. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered. com/sites/default/archive/storage/files /SurveyBooklet. pdf

n Harrington, C. F., Christie, R. L., & Chen, H. Y. (1996). Does institutional research really contribute to institutional effectiveness? Perceptions of institutional research effectiveness as held by college and univer- sity presidents. Paper presented at the 36th Annual AIR Forum, Albuquerque, NM, May 5–8.

n Knight, W. E., & Leimer, C. (2009). Will IR staff stick? An exploration of institutional researchers’ inten- tions to remain in or leave their jobs. Research in Higher Education, 51(2), 109.

n Kuh, G., & Ikenberry, S. (2009, October). More than you think, less than we need: Learning outcomes as- sessment in American higher education. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA). Retrieved from http://www.learningoutcomeassessment. org/MoreThanYouThink.htm

n Leimer, C. (2009). Taking a broader view: Using in- stitutional research’s natural qualities for transformation. New Directions for Institutional Research, 143, 85–93

n Leimer, C. (2010, July). Wave of the future? Integrating institutional research, outcomes assessment, planning, program review and accreditation. Education Resources Information Center, ED521064. Retrieved from http://20.132.48.254/ERICWebPortal/search/re- cordDetails.jsp?ERICExtSearch_Descriptor=%22Cour se+Descriptions%22&ERICExtSearch_Facet_0=facet_ de&ERICExtSearch_FacetValue_0=%22Higher+Educat ion%22&_pageLabel=RecordDetails&accno=ED52106 4&_nfls=false

n Leimer, C. (2011). The rise of institutional effective- ness: IR competitor, customer, collaborator, or replace- ment? AIR Professional File, 120.

n Morest, V. S. (2009). Accountability, accreditation and continuous improvement: Building a culture of evi- dence. New Directions for Institutional Research, 143, 17–27.

n Terenzini, P. T. (1999). On the nature of institutional research and the knowledge and skills it requires. New Directions for Institutional Research, 104, 21–29.

n Volkwein, J. F. (2011, March 24). IR roles, respon- sibilities and reporting lines. [Webinar]. Tallahassee, FL: Association for Institutional Research, Professional Development Services Committee.

Resources (AIR) and possibly the Society for College and University Planning would be reasonable places to contact, as would the AIR regional affiliates and regional accreditors.

However, since IM offices are a recent phenomenon and the lead-manager role is a relatively new one, there is no for- mal training for developing and supporting leaders in deal- ing with the challenges of this emerging area. As this form of organizing grows, more professionals with this complex skill set will be needed.

Because these professionals work closely with executives and across divisions and hierarchy, an executive-level leader- ship training program that addresses the challenges of a high level of ambiguity and a lack of direct operational authority in negotiating, mediating, facilitating, and changing culture would help mid-career IR and assessment professionals take on this role. In addition, it would offer the possibility of a career ladder to new professionals, many of whom leave IR within a few years, in part because opportunities for career advancement are typically scarce.

Establishing Role Boundaries Creating anything new involves ambiguities and raises

questions; hence, careful consideration must be given to defining the IM manager’s boundaries and authority. The primary responsibility for goal-setting and evaluation within particular units or departments should remain with the op- erational manager and, in the case of learning outcomes and academic program review, with the faculty.

IM managers should not take on sole responsibility for assessing everything or for overseeing quality in general. Instead, they should make recommendations and develop processes, structures, and policies as a member of an execu- tive team.

Advocating for use of evidence in decision making and institutional improvement and educating about how to do so is the most central role of an IM office. Effective advocacy requires a nuanced understanding of the institution’s culture and people in order to know when to make the best use of positional or expert authority, when to draw on relationships, and when to utilize high-profile or low-key approaches. Making research-based recommendations for change is an aspect of the role, but institutional decision making rests with those who are charged with the responsibility.

conclusion When external environments become more complex

and demanding, internal administrative structures usually become more complex to deal with those demands. Better access to data and more of it will not, in itself, meet the pub- lic’s expectations for higher education to be accountable and effective. It requires instead changes in both organizational structure and leadership. Integrating institutional research, learning outcomes assessment, strategic planning, program review, and accreditation can help colleges and universities achieve the culture of evidence and improvement needed to respond to external demands and move the institution into its chosen future. C

Copyright of Change is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to

multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users

may print, download, or email articles for individual use.