Changing Role of Institutional Researcher in Higher Education
Lori Harris
May, 2008
Introduction
The traditional role of an institutional researcher at a university was regarded as an information powerhouse for the institution. Gerald McLaughlin and Richard Howard (2004) developed a simplified model to serve as a framework for understanding the process which institutional researchers’ are expected to incorporate into data management. The model depicts a continuous circle consisting of three major roles: manager/user, custodian/supplier, and broker/reporter. These roles have compelled the institutional researcher to gather, maintain, and transmit all university data in a manner which is accurate and user friendly. Any and all responsibility for data has customarily remained in the confines of institutional planning/research. This magnitude of responsibility has grown into an unmanageable task, due to the organizational change of many institutions.
Necessity of Clear Strategic Plan
Kathleen Corak and Donald Wharton (1993) documented the culture transition at Minot State University and discovered that the expectations of institutional researchers to maintain accurate and accessible data was extremely problematic due to administrators’ ambiguous goals and the continuous search for alternative strategic planning models. Any organization’s data warehouse is only as powerful as the conciseness of the request for future objectives of data usage. The strategic plan of increasing retention of students at UNLV is an example of an explicit data goal which is manageable for the institutional researcher to oversee data collection needs associated with retention of students, such as alternate admissions criteria. The preciseness of a strategic plan affords the opportunity to foresee future data requests or at the minimal be prepared to render data requests accessible without creating new databases.
Utilization of Tools to Support University’s Strategic Plan
Specific tools and processes are developed by institutional researchers “to meet the needs of strategic planning data collection and reporting...” (Frost, Lucas, & Blankett, 2006). These processes must be formulated in a manner which will ensure that each goal, as designated by the strategic plan, can be monitored via the collection of consistent and accurate data. Once the strategies are clearly specified specific metrics should be created for each strategy to measurably assess the progress (Frost et al, 2006).
Universal Definitions
A key component in developing tools to correctly measure progress is the establishment of institutional definitions applied by all university employees in their data collection endeavors. The consistency of data definitions is “integral to effective analysis and reporting” (Frost et al, 2006). The institutional researcher can successfully collect the data needed to measure the strategic plan’s progress once definitions are established. The reliance on universal definitions allows the researcher to better able determine which department dominates the requested data and the manner to interpret the data to present it in an accessible manner.
Data Experts
The establishment of universal definitions is a seemingly straightforward and standard process; yet, the construction of definitions applied to multi departments is a complex task which is often overlooked. Institutional researchers realize that they lack the knowledge and time to establish proper definitions for all terms affiliated with data and rely on the expertise of others. Once the strategic plan is identified members of the data network team, as a collective unit, will identify appropriate data contacts to establish universal definitions for consistency with data collection.
The data contacts will serve as experts to provide guidance for creating metrics which are measurable and consistent. The experts will assist in the unification of data and creation of more knowledgeable administrators (Frost et al, 2006). The experts’ contribution will eliminate repetitive and overlapping data; which results in distrust of university reports from the public. The data experts will have exceptional relationships with internal and external sources in an effort to adequately capture the true meaning of the goals.
Example of Tools Supporting Strategic Plan
An example of the incorporation of tools and strategic plans can be created using the established data governance structure at UNLV. The current data governance structure at UNLV consisting of data administrators and data stewards is an ideal network of individuals who possess an understanding of the importance and implications of institutional data. The first step is to identify the university’s goals; such as increase retention of students, raising admission standards, or shorten the average student’s graduation time. Once a goal is selected as a focal point in the data collection process the data stewards will convene to identify data experts who will supply universal definitions relevant to the collection of measurable progress for the strategic goal.
The illustration of UNLV’s usage of tools and strategic plans can be depicted in greater details. For instance, the issue of increasing applications is a rising concern at many institutions and will undoubtedly result in alternate admissions policy to secure a larger applicant pool compelling the institutional researchers to spearhead the collection of data and the progress of those students who were admitted under alternate admissions standard. Once the data experts are assembled they will create definitions of all relevant terms which encompass the measurable progress of the new group of admitted students; such as full time students, part time students, standard admissions, alternate admission categories, and graduation time. It is critical that all university employees have a shared understanding of specific terms in order to accurately collect data associated with the students admitted under the new criteria. The data experts responsibilities are not relieved once the initial determination of relevant definitions is satisfied they will remain as an integral part of the data process through a continual effort to define new terms as they arise and serve as experts to identify the various departments which store/collect the requested data.
The next process is data stewards informing the appropriate departments that they are expected to maintain specific information in their database, with precise definitions. In essence, the departments are responsible for collecting and monitoring the data within the identified parameters. In the above example, the office of admissions will serve as a key source of data; thus, it is vital that they are employing the definitions established by the data experts when they collect student data. The roles of data stewards, data experts, data collection and not merely the sole task of the institutional researcher. This concept is a move in the development of a new focus for institutional researchers to use a support system (Wang & Dalrymple 1999).
Roles of Institutional Researchers
The framework provided by McLaughlin and Howard describe key roles which are conducted by the majority of institutional researchers. These key roles are essential to completing the functions associated with data; the functions include identify and measure concepts, collect and store data, restructure and analyze facts, deliver and report information, and influence knowledge (McLaughlin & Howard, 2004). The roles explain the way the functions relate to institutional management and may be viewed as clusters of responsibilities which can be delegated (McLaughlin & Howard, 2004).
The Custodian
The custodian is commonly referred to as the data supplier and is responsible for collecting and supplying the data. Traditionally, this role has been performed by the office of institutional researcher in the form of an overseer. The researcher determines what information needs collected and notifies the relevant data holder of any impending requests. The individual university employee who holds/collects the data generally lacks any accountability for the data which is collected and merely produces a report of predetermined facts regardless of the request or the potential impact on additional data. The researcher is delegating data responsibility to those departments which collect data in an effort to create universal data that is understood and respected by anyone involved with data. Ideally, the institutional researcher’s role as custodian will change to one who provides assistance to all independent departments in their effort to collect data as identified in the metrics.
The Broker
The broker’s role, as described by McLaughlin & Howard (2004) is perhaps the most significant role of all due to the very essence of the duty to generate information from raw data. The broker integrates data from various sources, restructures the data to concentrate on the concerned area, and analyzes the data (McLaughlin & Howard, 2004). The broker will actively participate in the utilization of tools and strategies in an effort to ensure that data experts are assessing appropriate definitions as understood by multi areas. The broker will also aim to ensure that data collectors are correctly obtaining the necessary data to properly measure the progress of the strategic goals. This role is of vital importance to the university because the data is worthless if it is not presented in a manner that is accessible and comprehensible.
The Manager
The role of institutional research manager is comparable to a manager of any organization and is derived on the premise that the manager is the overseer and will possess significant knowledge to ensure the right processes are in existence to create the desired results and recognize when a change must occur to a current ineffective process. According to McLaughlin & Howard (2004) a manager’s core responsibilities include: meeting the needs of the main stakeholders (providing data for Legislature to increase higher education budget), serve as a link between the university and external constituents (determine what data the public expects to receive on the university in an effort to encourage citizens to donate or vote for increase in education taxes), and work within the formal system of the university (ascertain the short and long term data needs of administrators).
The manager role is necessary to the successful outcome of data requests and maintenance and is often regarded as a role with a solid political basis and should remain in the office of institutional research and not delegated to others, not even those individuals serving as data stewards or experts. The manager role is sacred and the owner must possess significant knowledge related to institutional data and strategies; even during times of organizational change.
Conclusion
The institutional researcher is experiencing a long overdue relinquishment of sole responsibility of university data. The current trend is to create an environment where individual departments are responsible for data collection and management as it relates to the university as an entity. The roles of the institutional research during this period of delegation will undoubtedly change and result in the modification of expectations of researchers and lessen the accountability they are expected to incur solely.