An Essay on the Conflict between Access and Excellence: Some

An Essay on the Conflict between Access and Excellence: Some Perceptions by New Faculty
By
Philip I. Kramer
Rodolfo Rincones
James W. Satterfield, Jr.
Richard D. Sorenson
The University of Texas at El Paso
Educational Leadership and Foundations Department
Contact Information:
Dr. Philip I. Kramer
The University of Texas at El Paso
500 West University Avenue
Education Building, Room 507
El Paso, TX 79968 USA
Phone: (915) 747-7591
Facsimile: (915) 747-5838
E-mail: pkramer@utep.edu
2
An Essay on the Conflict between Access and Excellence: Some Perceptions by New Faculty
Introduction
The purpose of this essay is to describe and evaluate one Hispanic-serving research
university’s efforts to provide relatively open student access to the university and its academic
programs and degrees while, at the same time, promoting academic excellence for its students.
Much of the literature (e.g., Braxton & Nordvall, 1985; Braxton, 1993; Orfield, 1990;
Blanchette, 1997) has described access and excellence as a conflict or a challenge. Strike (1985)
for example, said that “the apparent conflict between excellence and equity” underlies a “more
real and more fundamental tension between the aspirations embedded in two different sets of
purposes for education” (p. 415).
As faculty members, we frequently discuss the challenges of “managing” open student
access and high expectations of student academic excellence (i.e., high rigor) as a game of
academic tug-of-war. The push for greater academic excellence (i.e., higher standards, more
student selectively, “better” prepared graduates) is typically met by the pull for continued open
access and equity (e.g., keeping admission standards lower to ensure broad student participation
and equity in academia) of underrepresented groups (i.e., minorities, women, students from low
socio-economic groups).
We intend to examine the effects of our institution’s joint goals of access and excellence
by primarily describing how the authors--all untenured professors in a graduate education
program--experience the issues of teaching and learning in the community and in the classroom.
Specifically, we will describe the university and its community. Second, we will explore how
access and excellence, vis-à-vis the teaching and learning process, is affected by economic
globalization. Third, we examine how the joint goals of access and excellence challenge the
3
institution and its faculty. Fourth, we describe the effort to develop institutional capacity and
capital. Finally, we question return to the discussion about what we think are the purposes for
education (Strike, 1985) and speculate about whether our educational goals are in harmony or in
conflict with the goals of the institution.
The University and its Community
In 1914, the Texas School of Mines and Metallurgy was opened in El Paso, Texas. In
1919, the institution became part of the University of Texas System and was renamed Texas
Western College. Today, the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) (renamed again in 1967) is a
Doctoral/Research-Intensive university located on the largest bi-national metropolitan area along
the U.S./Mexico border. Ciudad Juarez, Mexico is a few hundred meters from the southern edge
of the campus. The New Mexico-Texas border is less than 20 miles northwest of the campus.
UTEP, like the greater west Texas/southern New Mexico Borderplex region, is overwhelmingly
Hispanic. Many students, faculty, and staff speak and write in both Spanish and English.
There are a number of choices for higher education in this Borderplex region of more
than 3 million people. Within an hour’s drive, one can find a proprietary, for-profit university, a
public community college in El Paso, and a research university in Las Cruces, New Mexico.
Across the border, in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, there are eight universities (four public and four
private). However, the community is overwhelmingly poor: the 1999 median per capita annual
income for El Paso County, for example, was U.S. $13,421 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). The
community is also under-educated; in the same year, only 65.8 percent had obtained a high
school diploma and only 16.6 percent had obtained a bachelor’s degree or higher (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2004).
4
UTEP plays an important role in the community. Many in El Paso see education,
particularly higher education, as the means for individuals to pull themselves out of poverty and
for the community to increase the opportunity and equity of its citizens. In El Paso, higher
education is cherished as both a public and a private good.
The internal and external stakeholders of the university are aware of the important role
the university plays in the community. They are also aware of the substantial educational
achievement gaps between Caucasians and historic minorities in Texas (Linton & Kester, 2003)
and the nation. Nationally, the Hispanic high school drop out rate “is quite grave and…has
serious long-term implications for the education system, Latino communities and the nation as a
whole” (Fry, 2003, p. iii). The stakeholders of the university are familiar with the poor rates of
completion of undergraduate college degrees by Hispanics and realize that Hispanics fall far
behind the college completion rates of other racial and ethnic groups (Fry, 2002). Our
department’s most important stakeholder group-our graduate students-are well aware that
national Hispanic enrollment in graduate school is very small. According to Fry (2002), “Among
25- to 34-year-old high school graduates, nearly 3.8 percent of whites are enrolled in graduate
school. Only 1.9 percent of similarly aged Latino high school graduates are pursuing postbaccalaureate studies” (p. 4).
In a recent Pew Hispanic Center (2004) report, researchers found that Hispanic
participation in postsecondary education was (and is) both less intense and at lower academic
levels than other ethnic groups. The report noted,
Nearly 1.7 million Hispanic students were enrolled in our nation’s 4,100 degreegranting colleges and universities in fall 2002. A big share of these students, 87
percent, are undergraduates (rather than graduate or first-professional students). In
5
comparison, undergraduates make up 81 percent of all white college students (p. 2)
It is in this context that UTEP has made a commitment to both student access and
institutional excellence. We are “increasingly recognized as a model in demonstrating that a
university with a fundamental commitment to access can also achieve high levels of excellence
in academic programs and research” (The University of Texas at El Paso, 2004, paragraph 4).
According to the university’s vision statement, “the UTEP community-faculty, students, staff,
and administrators-commits itself to the two ideals of excellence and access” (The University of
Texas at El Paso, 2004, paragraph 2).
According to a recent report by the Washington Advisory Group (2004),
the university [UTEP] has nearly $33 million in external research funding, 11
doctoral programs, and a student population that is approximately 70% Hispanic,
reflecting the demographic makeup of the region in which UTEP is located. The
University is committed to providing access to a high quality education and to
excellence in research and teaching. It rejects the traditional assumption that
universities that aspire to excellence in research and graduate programs cannot
also foster access to undergraduate education by students from a wide range of
backgrounds. Given the increasingly recognized importance of engaging the
Hispanic population in higher education in general and in science and engineering
in particular, UTEP’s mission–to provide both access and excellence–is of
national, as well as regional, importance p. 58
Teaching and Learning at the University in a Globalized Context
Education is a highly social activity. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the
dynamics of society and society’s impact on education. The environment in which universities
6
operate today forces teaching and learning to mimic the demands of the larger context-the
demands of certain groups in leadership positions. The discussion about access and excellence
takes place at the societal level and in turn is reflected in the university’s core functions of
teaching and learning.
With this perspective in mind, one may then pose questions such as how can we best
approach the study of such complex relations between society and the university? What are the
values behind access and excellence? How do the antinomies of access and excellence generate
conflicts and competition in the confined spaces of the university, a department, or a program?
How can faculty and students best negotiate the contradictory effects of access and excellence?
For this paper, we try to explore how untenured faculty members at a Hispanic-serving
American research university make sense of and adapt to the shifting mission of their university
and to specifically understand how the whirlwind of institutional change affects the teaching and
learning process.
Traditionally, universities have been sites where multiple frames of understanding and
competing discourses meet. These discourses, however, have originated in the larger context of
society, some of which tend to be hegemonic. Faculty and students are infused over time with
some of these hegemonic discourses (as well as non-hegemonic courses). Bourdieu’s concepts of
field and habitus (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 16) help to conceptualize the interplay of
society and education and how the predominant discourses are set at the individual and
organizational levels. Thus, universities can be conceived as a field. A field is defined as the
space in which forces clash and struggle with each other; “a field is simultaneously a space of
conflict and contradiction” which “consists of a set of objective, historical relations between
7
positions anchored in certain forms of power” (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 16). For this
discussion, the issues that clash inside the University are access and excellence.
Habitus “consists of a set of historical relations “deposited” within individual bodies in
the form of mental or corporeal schemata of perception, appreciation, and action” (Bourdieu &
Wacquant, 1992, p. 16). Thus, the understanding of the functioning of the field is facilitated by
the habitus, which represents a set of tools (knowledge) and skills an individual acquires from
and uses in the field to function effectively. The concept of habitus, then, can shed some light
into the behaviors and actions of faculty members and students, either individually or
collectively. Habitus is legitimized through the power structure of society or the organization.
The argument can be made then that the discourse of access and excellence have been
made an integral aspect of faculty and students’ frames of mind to the point that these terms are
not scrutinized as they should. But what are these terms? Where do they come from? Both of
these terms acquired relevance in the last two decades, more precisely since globalization and
neoliberalism were coupled. Harvey (2000) defines globalization as a process whereby
hegemonic ideologies such as neoliberalism makes full use of “geographical reorganization (both
expansion and intensification)” (p. 54), engages in post-Fordist production, flexible
accumulation, and free flow of capital throughout the world. Globalization has always been a
specific project of particular powers to gain benefits and wealth. According to Harvey (2000),
capitalist production has always produced “uneven geographical development” (p.68)
characterized by “geographical differences in ways of life, standards of living, resource uses,
relations to the environment, and cultural and political forms” (p.77).
It seems apparent that two of the consequences of globalization are the segmentation of
geographical areas and sectors of society within geographical areas, and the emergence of new
8
forms of production and social organization. Hence, the world is transformed by those who
globalize, those who are globalized, and those who are left out (Hallak, 1998). When vast
geographical areas are left out of globalization, such as the one El Paso is located in (southern
border of the United States), it offers competitive advantages under the post-Fordist form of
production.
In the 1990s, El Paso and Ciudad Juarez (twin city on the Mexican side of the border)
became the Mecca of the assembly (maquila) industry, mainly because low wages and easy and
relatively inexpensive transportation routes (time-space compression). With the maquila industry
(an arguably prototypical type of post-Fordist production model) came the discourse of
standards, quality, efficiency, and excellence. These are terms that have been “deposited” within
faculty and students. In fact, it is common to hear educators use these terms in their daily
discourse. These terms have been fully imported into education without any serious scrutiny as
to their precedence and their implicit meaning. Today, the identities of universities are tied to the
meaning of these terms, and by incorporating the discourse of the production sector, educational
organizations are moving away from being the place where disparate discourses are presented,
discussed, and tolerated. The discourse of excellence and efficiency move the university more
toward homogeneity and standardization of functions. In other words, universities are becoming
extensions of the corporate state. Thus, under this new vision, the university gains confidence
when self-identity is confirmed by similar others (accrediting organizations) and the market.
Conflicting views are created when contradictory terms such as access and excellence are
used simultaneously. Each one of these concepts originated in a different philosophical
perspective. Access, for example, comes from liberalism, which strives for equity and justice,
while excellence is an empty concept that requires a relative definition every time it is used.
9
But what are the implications of the discussion above for untenured faculty? We would
argue that the implication of framing the functions of the university in the context of
neoliberalism brings up the perennial questions of access, equity, and relevance. We cannot
postpone the questioning of the status quo in society and its organizations. Faculty and students
must reclaim the conditions of realizing the university as suggested by Barnett (2000). We must
engage in critical interdisciplinary, collective self-scrutiny, purposive renewal, move borders,
engage with multiple communities, and endorse communicative tolerance (Barnett, 2000).
Institutional Challenges
In its ninety-year history, UTEP has had remarkable (and compressed) institutional
growth. Such rapid growth and change in the institutional mission has meant that students,
faculty, staff, administrators, and the community have had to grow and adapt much as the
university has had to grow and adapt; as the expectations and perspectives of the institution
change, the expectations and perspectives of students, faculty, and staff, and the community must
also change.
Today, UTEP continues to metamorphosis. Plans are to move UTEP, within a 10 to 15
year period, from a Doctoral/Research-Intensive to a Doctoral/Research-Extensive institution. As
it becomes a Doctoral/Research-Extensive institution, UTEP seeks to continue serving as an
urban university in a minority community, become a preeminent national research university,
and achieve recognition as the national center for understanding and solving U.S./Mexico border
issues. This goal, like any other institutional goal, will be met with challenges along the way. It
is up to each institutional level to help the university's goal.
Faculty Challenges
10
According to Zambroski and Freeman (2004), “transitions between academic settings
require new faculty members to develop expertise consistent with the institutions’ specific
missions. Even those faculty members considered experts in their field must adapt to the
challenges of new work settings” (p. 104). Adaptation includes teaching a new and more
rigorous curriculum, greater research and publication requirements, and different service
obligations. As a result, the nature of tenure and promotion changes; new faculty may have come
in with one set of expectations for tenure and promotion, and because of institutional change,
faculty must quickly adapt or find themselves in jeopardy of not receiving tenure.
As UTEP has begun to put more emphasize on the importance of research and theory to
facilitate its transition to a Doctoral/Research-Extensive status (and the need to create a more
rigorous academic culture of teaching and research), some students have questioned the value of
what they deem as swinging further away from practice. Some students (and some faculty) have
questioned the new emphasis on theory and practice. The challenge of integrating research,
theory, and practice is of longstanding interest primarily to educational researchers, university
professors, and policy makers. Prior research has indicated that many classroom teachers and
administrators (who typically rise from the ranks of classroom teaching) do not appreciate the
potential contribution of research and theory to classroom-based instruction and general school
improvement interests.
As individual faculty, we find nothing wrong with furthering their career objectives.
Moreover, as faculty, we know that students everywhere have a practical motivation for going to
college. Yet, there are times when we pine (as most faculty everywhere probably do) for more
students who are as interested in research as they are in the practical importance of a credential.
11
Collectively, we want students to understand, appreciate, and use research to inform practice
and practice to create the need and the opportunity for research.
Development of Intellectual Capital and Capacity
The translation of the university’s vision statements is that access and excellence are not
mutually exclusive. The belief is that it is possible to have a university deeply committed to
access and institutional excellence. Arguably, broad access means that there is a greater range of
student abilities, skills, and knowledge. We assume the ability range of our students is far wider
than at more selective research-intensive universities. Our institutional mission to welcome
students of varying abilities is not one that other institutions have adopted. Our flagship
institution, the University of Texas at Austin, offers no developmental or remedial courses. It
appears that the two apparent extremes of access and excellence that continually pull for the
attention, resources, and indulgences of our stakeholders (including ourselves), can indeed coexist.
Some researchers have argued that academic rigor and excellence increases as student
selectivity increases. Braxton and Nordvall (1985), for example, found evidence to suggest that
institutional selectivity is “an indicator of institutional quality” (p. 550). Furthermore, Braxton
(1993) said “undergraduate admission selectivity is a common defining characteristic of the
academic quality or excellence of a given college or university” (p. 657). Our experiences
indicate a different conclusion than Braxton and Nordvall-a university low on the student
selectivity scale can very much be a place of great institutional (and instructional) quality.
Our admittedly anecdotal experiences, however, imply that many variables-in addition to
the selectivity variable-influence student rigor, institutional quality, and excellence. As faculty
members, we see our students and ourselves struggle with what Schön (1995) described as the
12
“dilemma of rigor or relevance” (paragraph 11) in modern research universities. For Schön,
the norms and “prevailing epistemology” (paragraph 8) of research universities is such that these
institutions strongly prefer to be institutions of “technical rationality” (paragraph 7) where the
coins of the realm are theory, research, and rigor rather than, for example, the scholarship of
integration and application as identified by Boyer (1990).
Schön said,
there is a high, hard ground overlooking a swamp. On the high ground,
manageable problems lend themselves to solution through the use of researchbased theory and technique. In the swampy lowlands, problems are messy and
confusing and incapable of technical solution (paragraph 11)
Schön was arguing for a new form of scholarship that required a new institutional
epistemology that would incorporate and legitimize the research of reflective and relevant
practice possibly at the expense of some rigor. We, of course, find our concerns to be just the
opposite of what Schön described. Today, we are an institution of more practice than theory.
However, tomorrow, we will need to be far more in balance-we need to still focus on practice but
emphasize more theory and diversify and increase our research productivity.
One of our challenges is to find the balance between the “relevant” practitioner and the
relevant researcher. A goal, then, is to attempt to legitimize ourselves to both “an environment
which includes both a university culture that values basic research and theoretical knowledge and
a professional culture of schooling that values applied research and narrative knowledge”
(Anderson & Herr, 1999, p. 12).
Increasing Faculty, Student, and Departmental Intellectual Capital and Capacity
13
Graduate programs in educational leadership depend on a balance between theory and
practice. The theory and practice interrelationship provides the necessary shaping of productive
futures through a process of self-renewal (Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, Roth, & Smith, 1999;
Senge, Cambron-McCabe, Lucas, Smith, Dutton, & Kleiner, 2000). To enhance the capacity of
change and self-renewal in an organization, we are in the process of involving all parties (e.g.,
faculty, K-12 practitioner/leaders) in continual and sustained dialogue and decision-making
regarding issues of access and excellence. We believe we can change the future. If agents central
to the self-renewal effect are recognized as equal partners in this process by acknowledging their
professionalism and by capitalizing on their skills and expertise, then essential programmatic
change will occur (Darling-Hammond, 1988; Rowan, 1990).
The equal partnership proposition involves the active collaboration of graduate program
professors and K-12 practitioners when assessing programmatic particulars such as curriculum,
course selections, instructional methodologies, assessment techniques and procedures, and other
factors regarding access and excellence. Within this model, graduate program faculty must seek
out ideas, suggestions, insights, and expertise from not only within their ranks but also from
those K-12 leaders who specialize in educational reform and organizational improvement. Thus,
the graduate program leaders are not the sole instructional leaders but the “leaders of
instructional leaders” (Glickman, 1989, p. 6).
The challenge for any organization is to link values and find common ground that
encourages positive change. Access to graduate education in the field of educational leadership
can become the bridge for developing common values in order to resolve the many complex
educational issues. Education remains the key to stimulating diverse populations that have the
potential to build the wealth that benefits the economy and prepares for a prosperous future
14
(Butner, Ferguson, Bean, & Huerta, 2001). Promoting graduate education, specifically for
minority students, will serve to close the growing economic chasm in today’s society.
An important question to ask is, what are the primary functions of graduate education and
how can these functions served to benefit all concerned parties (students, professors, and school
practitioners)? Areas of consideration include (a) general assessment and the proper direction of
change, (b) the prospective supply, demand, and manpower forecast for graduate students, (c)
effective responses to current and potential problems, (d) the support of graduate students, (e)
resources required for high-quality graduate education, (f) the contribution of the university
faculty and school practitioners to the teaching of prospective school administrators, (g) the role
of universities and educational leadership departments in confronting the problems of access and
excellence in graduate education, and (h) the appropriate rigors and expectations with respect to
equal access in graduate education (Kinnick & Ricks, 1990).
When seeking to identify the characteristics of a high quality graduate education program
as it relates to access and excellence, Lipschutz (1998) relates that contemporary research
universities are composed of many autonomous spheres (e.g., undergraduate and graduate
education, professional education, faculty research). Analysis reveals that the spheres are
interconnected, so when the climate and expectations for intellectual exchange and excellence
are improved in one, others can be enhanced, ultimately improving the sense of intellectual
community of a department, or for that matter, an entire university. Analysis by Lipschutz (1998)
has produced focuses on factors that contribute to excellence in graduate education including the
following: (a) academic potential of the students, (b) numbers and capacities of the faculty, (c)
the academic culture, norms, and expectations of a department, (d) student advising (e.g., depth,
cohesiveness, and breadth of the curriculum), (e) and instructional rigor.
15
Most graduate programs with practicum or internship experiences depend on a network
of practitioner leaders in the community to provide access, programmatic expectations, and most
certainly supervision. It is valuable for graduate programs in educational leadership to provide
for exceptional internship programs. All experiences related to research and work-related
activities in the field are value-laden. If an effective practicum or internship experience is
required of students, many valuable lessons are possible. One possible lesson is the supervision
and essential modeling a qualified school leader or field mentor can provide to a student.
Another lesson is the discourse and interaction between school leaders and students that can
serve to develop an appropriate level of excellence, potential assess to administrative positions,
and hopefully a genuine sense of ethics and professional integrity (Werner, 1985).
The equitable distribution of power and authority in a graduate department can affect the
quality of programs in schools of educational leadership and the freedom to innovate them
(Schneider, 1984). The creation of programs in nontraditional areas, the establishment of
relationships with K-12 school leaders, and the recruiting and supporting of graduate students are
all positive benefits of increased communication, enhanced departmental climate and
collaboration, mentorship of junior faculty, and shared decision-making (Lipschutz, 1998). The
research has effectively revealed a notable truism: when all parties participate in the decisionmaking process, the result is equal or relatively equal access to excellent educational
opportunities which in turn produces a political power to be wielded by all beneficiaries.
O’Banion (1974) discussed implications associated with improving access and excellence
in graduate programs. These implications include (a) graduate education must be offered at the
convenience of the students served, (b) differing types of degrees or programmatic focuses must
be explored, (c) all learning experiences must have practical applications, (d) graduate courses
16
must provide for personal, as well as intellectual rigor and development, (e) graduate
education faculty should include as adjunct instructors those professionals who have proven
themselves on the job and who provide student access to graduate level instruction beyond the
on-campus, traditional program approach, (f) technologically innovative educational delivery
systems should be incorporated into the graduate level instructional program, and (g) graduate
programs should work in close cooperation with skilled practitioners in public school systems.
The principal tool or process available to enforce compliance regarding organizational
reform, self-renewal, change, and/or improvement, as well as the advancement of access and
excellence for all relates to two essential elements. Namely, these elements are the (a) emergence
of a collaborative process whereby all faculty actively, freely, and equally participate in the
decision-making process and (b) the formation of an equal and effective partnership between
those individuals and entities (e.g., university faculty and public school officials) who are critical
stakeholders in the overall success of improved access and excellence.
Increasing Institutional Capital and Capacity
The University of Texas at El Paso is committed to access and excellence. Student access
and excellence is a working reality. Clearly there are some barriers to excellence. For example,
approximately two-thirds of our incoming freshmen are enrolled in at least one developmental
academic course. However, unlike our flagship institution, we recognize the remediation as an
opportunity to establish institutional norms and values.
The University of Texas at El Paso’s normative values are representative of a historical
process of institutionalization. The desire to change UTEP’s technical core through increasing its
research focus is rooted in issues of institutional legitimacy. According to Scott (1995), schools
gain legitimacy by their connection to the larger social system. We believe that UTEP’s access
17
and excellence ideology is also rooted in the normative institutional pillar. Norms help
establish institutional goals and objectives. Scott (1995) defines norms as valid means to ends.
Access and excellence are the means; educating and graduating a large Hispanic student
population are the ends. We must not forget, however, that the repercussions of a normative
system centered on access and excellences can be limiting. Scott notes that norms can be
confining, and, at the same time, empowering. This institutional struggle between access and
excellence and a desired shift to a research-extensive institution puts untenured junior faculty in
a difficult position.
Academically, we operate within our normative structure by concentrating on teaching,
advising, and making sure the bulk of our students pass the Texas Examination of Educator
Standards (TexES). (TexES is our state certification for public school administrators). Yet, the
emphasis placed on increasing the percentage of students passing this exam decreases the
emphasis placed on our research and writing. In short, it is difficult to do the things we need to
do to earn tenure. What we do currently will soon be at odds the institutional change.
Although we recognize and support the forthcoming institutional change, we recognize
the regulatory nature of education will present a challenge. The regulative institutional pillar
defines what the institutional rules are and helps regulate behavior. One would think academic
freedom would be an issue here. Yet, the unwritten and informal rule is, “You are here to make
sure each student who is taking the TexES successfully passes the examination.” Therefore, if
part of what we teach is seminal knowledge in the field, it does not matter what we do (or don’t
do) unless we can align our course objectives to what is on the test. Any deviation from this may
cause us to be seen as not being a member of the team. According to North (1990),
institutions are perfectly analogous to the rules of the game in a competitive team
18
sport. That is, they consist of formal written rules as well as typically unwritten codes
of conduct that underlie and supplement formal rules . . . the rules and informal
codes are sometimes violated and punishment is enacted (p. 4).
Another factor that makes access and excellence difficult is the nature of our governance
structure. The nature of our department and the college of education, for that matter, gives way
to the state’s academic desires-not because we want to but because we must give way due to the
regulatory nature of education. Williamson (1985) argued that the regulative aspect of
institutional structures made governance an institution’s primary focus. Scott (1995) said “the
state is simply another organizational actor: a bureaucratically organized administrative structure
empowered to govern . . .” (p. 93).
The amount of control the state has in the governance structure will not change. Colleges
of education will lament for years to come because we are not a profession. True professions
manage through cognitive and normative methods (Scott, 1995). This further creates a
dichotomy within teaching and learning. In addition, it establishes the language, symbols, and
signs we use in our educational activities and provides insight into what we value. Because social
reality is socially constructed, we attach meanings to these things and over time, they become
institutionalized. Scott (1995) said, “they are employed to make sense of the ongoing stream of
happenings” (p. 40).
UTEP’s desire to makes the transition to a research-extensive university cannot ignore
the absence of cultural/environmental perspectives. If those perspectives are absent, the
argument can be made that the transition is to further obtain legitimacy within the larger social
system. In education schools are the dependent variable; they are dependent upon the
communities in which they reside. As previously mentioned, only 65.8% of El Pasoans
19
graduated from high school and only 16.6% of the population obtained bachelors degrees.
Given the norms and values of our regional community in the southwest, as well as the national
academic community, we anticipate a difficult, yet challenging transition. To facilitate this
transition, we must be aware of not only the concomitant demands placed upon individual
faculty, staff, and students and the institution itself, but also how those connected demands
between person and institution can and should be mutually beneficial.
20
References
Anderson, G. L., & Herr, K. (1999). The new paradigm wars: Is there room for rigorous
practitioner knowledge in schools and universities? Educational Researcher, 28(5), 1221.
Barnett, R. (2000). University knowledge in an age of supercomplexity. Higher Education,
40(4), 409-422.
Blanchette, C. M. (1997). Challenges in promoting access and excellence in education.
Washington, DC: Department of Education.
Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Washington, DC:
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Braxton, J. M. (1993). Selectivity and rigor in research universities. The Journal of Higher
Education, 64(6), 657-675.
Braxton, J. M., & Nordvall, R. C. (1985). Selective liberal Arts Colleges: Higher quality as well
as higher prestige? The Journal of Higher Education, 56(5), 538-554.
Butner, B. K., Ferguson, R., Bean, D. L., & Huerta, M. (2001). Minority participation in
graduate education: A social and economic imperative. Washington, DC: ERIC.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Policy and professionalism. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), Building a
professional culture in organizations (pp. 55-77). New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Fry, R. (2002). Latinos in higher education: Many enroll, too few graduate. Washington, DC:
Pew Hispanic Center.
21
Fry, R. (2003). Hispanic youth dropping out of U.S. schools: Measuring the challenge.
Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
Glickman, C. (1989). Has Sam and Samantha’s time come at last? Educational Leadership,
46(8), 4-9.
Hallak, J. (1998). Education and Globalization. Paris: UNESCO-IIEP.
Harvey, D. (2000). Spaces of hope. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Kinnick, M. K., & Ricks, M. F. (1990). The urban public university in the United States: An
analysis of change, 1977-1987. Research in Higher Education, 31(1), 15-38.
Linton, T. H., & Kester, D. (2003). Exploring the achievement gap between White and minority
students in Texas: A comparison of the 1996 and 2000 NAEP and TAAS eight grade
mathematics test results. Retrieved August 27, 2003, from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n10
Lipschutz, S. S. (1998). Improving the climate for graduate education at a major research
university. CGS Communicator, 21(4), 1-3.
North, D.C. (1990) Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
O'Banion, T. (1974). Alternate forms of graduate education for community college staff: A
descriptive review. Paper presented at the Conference on Graduate Education and the
Community College, Warrenton, Virginia.
Pew Hispanic Center. (2004). Hispanic college enrollment: Less intensive and less heavily
subsidized. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
22
Rowan, B. (1990). Commitment and control: Alternative strategies for the organizational
design. In C. B. Cazden (Ed.), Review of Research in Education: Vol 16 (pp. 353-389).
Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Schneider, B. L. (1984). Graduate programs in schools of education: Facing tomorrow, today.
New Directions for Higher Education, 46, (pp. 57-63).
Schön, D. A. (1995). The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Retrieved February 20,
2004, from http://0-search.epnet.com.lib.utep.edu:80/direct.asp?an=9512100782&db=aph
Scott R. W. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2000). Schools
that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares
about education. New York: Doubleday/Currency.
Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G., & Smith, B. (1999). The dance of
change: The challenges to sustaining momentum in learning organizations. New York:
Doubleday/Currency.
Strike, K. A. (1985). Is there a conflict between equity and excellence? Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 7(4), 409-416.
Shulman, L. S. (1999). Taking learning seriously. Retrieved February 6, 2004, from http://0vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lib.utep.edu:80/hww/shared/shared_main.jhtml;jsessionid=FX
W2OOUHUD0XHQA3DILCFFWADUNBIIV0?_requestid=51586
U.S. Census Bureau. (2004a). El Paso County QuickFacts from the U. S. Census Bureau.
Retrieved April 20, 2004, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/48141.html.
University of Texas at El Paso. (2004). The University of Texas at El Paso vision. Retrieved
February 5, 2004, from http://www.utep.edu/admin/index.html
23
Washington Advisory Group LLC. (2004). Report of The Washington Advisory Group, LLC
on Research Capability Expansion for The University of Texas System, The University of
Texas at Arlington, The University of Texas at Dallas, The University of Texas at El
Paso, The University of Texas at San Antonio. Washington, DC: The Washington
Advisory Group, LLC.
Werner, C. M. (1985). Practical and ethical aspects of field research. Paper presentation.
ED263476 ERIC. 1-9.
Zambroski, C. H., & Freeman, L. H. (2004). Faculty role transition from a community college to
a research-intensive university. Journal of Nursing Education, 43(3), 104-106.