Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An Empirical Typology of the Institutional Diversity of U.S. Colleges and Universities

  • Published:
Innovative Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Researchers consider a high level of institutional diversity in a higher education system as a strength. While the literature considers key elements of diversity, existing research fails to employ methodological approaches that balance the need for capturing the breadth and depth of similarities and differences across institutions. This article reports on the use of cluster analysis to examine data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and to create a typology of six institutional types present across four-year institutions in U.S. higher education. The typology presented here helps identify the main types of institutions and offers useful insights for understanding the current state of institutional diversity. Drawing from the research on institutional diversity and organizational theory, the findings of this study provide a typology that can inform both researchers and practitioners as they compare different institutions. An enhanced understanding of the similarities and differences between institutions can clarify not only the range of characteristics and features within U.S. higher education, but also guide administrative decision-making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aldersley, S. F. (1995). “Upward drift” is alive and well: Research/doctoral model still attractive to institutions. Change, 27, 50–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M. (2013). Understanding organizational culture. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angulo, A. J. (2016). Diploma mills: How for-profit colleges stiffed students, taxpayers, and the American dream. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbato, G., & Turri, M. (2019). What do positioning paths of universities tell about the diversity of higher education systems? An exploratory study. Studies in Higher Education, 44, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, R. (1983). Maintaining diversity in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braxton, J. M. (Ed.). (2000). Reworking the student departure puzzle. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calinski, T., & Harabasz, J. (1974). A dendrite method for cluster analysis. Communications in Statistics, 3, 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casselman, B. (2016, March 30). Shut up about Harvard. FiveThirtyEight.com. Retrieved from https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/shut-up-about-harvard/

  • Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (2008). The American community college (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, J. R. (2009). The great American university: Its rise to preeminence, its indispensable national role, why it must be protected. New York, NY: PublicAffairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cottom, T. M. (2017). Lower Ed: The troubling rise of for-profit colleges in the new economy. New York, NY: The New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crisp, G., Horn, C., Kuczynski, M., Zhou, Q., & Cook, E. (2019). Describing and differentiating four-year broad access institutions: An emprical typology. Review of Higher Education, 42, 1373–1400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duda, R. O., Hart, P. E., & Stork, D. G. (2000). Pattern classification. New York, NY: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckel, P. D. (2008). Mission diversity and the tension between prestige and effectiveness: An overview of US higher education. Higher Education Policy, 21, 175–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckel, P. D., & Morphew, C. C. (2009). The organizational dynamics of privatization in public research universities. In C. C. Morphew & P. D. Eckel (Eds.), Privatizing the public university: Perspectives from across the academy (pp. 88–108). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gandara, D., & Rutherford, A. (2018). Mitigating unintended impacts? The effects of premiums for underserved populations in performance-funding policies for higher education. Research in Higher Education, 59, 681–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzales, L. D., Martinez, E., & Ordu, C. (2014). Exploring faculty experiences in a striving university through the lens of academic capitalism. Studies in Higher Education, 39, 1097–1115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M. T. (2010). Partiality of memberships in categories and audiences. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 159–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, M. S. (2013). Understanding institutional diversity in American higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, M. S., & Ellis, M. K. (2019). Measuring changes in institutional diversity: The U.S. context. Higher Education, 2019, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, M., & Morphew, C. C. (2008). What’s being sold and to what end? A content analysis of college viewbooks. Journal of Higher Education, 79, 671–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huberty, C. J., Jordan, E. M., & Brandt, W. C. (2005). Cluster analysis in higher education research. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research. XX (pp. 437–547). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

  • Huisman, J. (1995). Differentiation, diversity and dependency in higher education. Utrecht, Netherlands: Lemma.

  • Huisman, J. (1998). Differentiation and diversity in higher education systems. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, XIII (pp. 75–100). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

  • Huisman, J. (2000). Higher education institutions: As different as chalk and cheese. Higher Education Policy, 13, 41–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huisman, J., Lepori, B., Seeber, M., Frolich, N., & Scordato, L. (2015). Measuring institutional diversity across higher education systems. Research Evaluation, 24, 369–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huisman, J., Meek, V. L., & Wood, F. (2007). Institutional diversity in higher education: A cross-national and longitudinal analysis. Higher Education Quarterly, 61, 563–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huisman, J., & Morphew, C. C. (1998). Centralization and diversity: Evaluating the effects of government policies in the U.S. and Dutch higher education. Higher Education Policy, 11, 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, L., & Rousseeuw, J. W. (1990). Finding groups in data: An introduction to cluster analysis. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kinser, K. (2006). From Main street to wall street: The transformation of for-profit higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinser, K., & Levy, D. C. (2005). The for-profit sector: U.S. patterns and international echoes in higher education. Program for research on private higher education (PROPHE), working paper no. 5. Albany, NY: University of Albany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., et al. (2010). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang, D. W. (2000). Similarities and differences: Measuring diversity and selecting peers in higher education. Higher Education, 39, 93–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, D., Stratford, M., & Jaschik, S. (2014, February 7). Rating (and berating) the ratings.InsideHigherEd.com. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/02/07/colleges-and-analysts-respond-obama-ratings-proposal

  • Milligan, G. W., & Cooper, M. C. (1987). Methodology review: Clustering methods. Applied Psychological Measurement, 11, 329–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morphew, C. C. (2000). Institutional diversity, program acquisition and faculty members: Examining academic drift at a new level. Higher Education Policy, 13, 55–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morphew, C. C. (2009). Conceptualizing change in the institutional diversity of U.S. colleges and universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 80, 243–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morphew, C. C., & Hartley, M. (2006). Mission statements: A thematic analysis of rhetoric across institutional type. Journal of Higher Education, 77, 456–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morphew, C. C., & Huisman, J. (2002). Using institutional theory to reframe research on academic drift. Higher Education in Europe, 27, 492–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ness, E. C., Deupree, M. M., & Gandara, D. (2015). Campus responses to outcomes-based funding in Tennessee: Robust, aligned and contested. Nashville, TN: The Tennessee Higher Education Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunez, A.-M., Crisp, G., & Elizondo, D. (2016). Mapping Hispanic-serving institutions: A typology of institutional diversity. Journal of Higher Education, 87, 55–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunez, A.-M., Sparks, P. J., & Henandez, E. A. (2011). Latino access to community colleges and Hispanic-serving institutions: A national study. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 10, 18–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O'Meara, K. (2007). Striving for what? Exploring the pursuit of prestige. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, XXII (pp. 121–179). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

  • O'Meara, K., & Bloomgarden, A. (2011). The pursuit of prestige: The experience of institutional striving from a faculty perspective. Journal of the Professoriate, 4, 39–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapkin, B. D., & Luke, D. A. (1993). Cluster analysis in community research: Epistemology and practice. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 247–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riesman, D. (1975). The future of diversity in a time of retrenchment. Higher Education, 4, 461–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, F. (2009). Increased competition and diversity in higher education: An empirical analysis of the Italian university system. Higher Education Policy, 22, 389–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United States. Oakland, CA: Babson Survey Research Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research : Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teixeira, P., Rocha, V., Biscaia, R., & Cardoso, M. F. (2012). Competition and diversity in higher education: An emprical approach to specialization patterns of Portuguese institutions. Higher Education, 63, 337–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, W. G. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the essentials. Journal of Higher Education, 59, 2–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toma, J. D., Dubrow, G., & Hartley, M. (2005). The uses of institutional culture: Strengthening identification and building brand equity in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trow, M. (1974). Problems in the transition from elite to mass higher education. Berkeley, CA: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trow, M. (1979). Aspects of diversity in American higher education. In H. J. Gans, N. Glazer, J. R. Gusfield, & C. Jencks (Eds.), On the making of Americans: Essays in honor of David Riesman (pp. 271-290). Camden, NJ: University of Pennsylvania Press.

  • van Vught, F. A. (2009a). Diversity and differentiation in higher education. In F. A. van Vught (Ed.), Mapping the higher education landscape: Towards a European classification of higher education (pp. 1–16). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

  • van Vught, F. A. (2009b). Mapping the higher education landscape: Towards a European classification of higher education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

  • Ward, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 236–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisbrod, B. A., Ballou, J. P., & Asch, E. D. (2008). Mission and money: Understanding the university. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Sondra Barringer for her useful feedback on this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Education Policy and Leadership, Southern Methodist University, P.O. Box 750360, Dallas, TX, 75275-0360, USA

    Michael S. Harris

Authors
  1. Michael S. Harris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael S. Harris.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Harris, M.S. An Empirical Typology of the Institutional Diversity of U.S. Colleges and Universities. Innov High Educ 45, 183–199 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-019-09494-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-019-09494-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation