A comparison of the nontraditional self-study and the traditional self-study of selected institutions within the region of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast the reasons for conducting the traditional or nontraditional self-study; the process and procedural differences between the traditional and nontraditional self-study; and the outcomes, benefits, impacts, and results between the traditional self-study and the nontraditional self-study. Out of 696 postsecondary institutions within the region of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, 9 have elected to conduct the nontraditional self-study. This may have significance for other eligible institutions if it offers tangible advantages. This study has provided management information data that will assist college and university administrators in deciding the type of institutional self-study which best meets their needs. Data were collected at three of the nine institutions where the nontraditional self-study was conducted and three institutions which used the traditional self-study to compare and contrast the impetus, procedures, and impacts resulting from the type of self-study selected. The research techniques used were the semi-structured interview, observation, and review of archival data. For each of the six institutions, a case study was developed and analyzed. The first level of analysis was to compare and contrast the three nontraditional self-studies with the three traditional self-studies. A second level of analysis was made on matching pairs of institutions with similar characteristics. Each case study required a site visit to the institution for interviews of key personnel involved in the institution's self-study. Documents reviewed included the self-study and other relevant publications such as the faculty handbook, student handbook, and institutional catalog. As a group, staff members of the institutions conducting the nontraditional self-study had strong impetus in the performance of self-evaluation. Procedures were classified as moderate for two of them and strong for the third. Impacts were moderate in one case and strong in two cases. In the cases of the institutions where the traditional self-study was conducted, impetus was weak at all of these institutions, procedures were moderate at all of these institutions, and impacts were weak at two of the institutions and moderate at the third. Summarized, the effects of the nontraditional self-study were more positive in terms of evaluative needs of institutions conducting that self-study in terms of impetus, procedures, and impacts than the effects of the traditional self-study on the evaluative needs of the three other institutions. Matched pairs of institutions show opposite or contrasting results for impetus, generally similar results for procedures, and contrasting results for impacts. These results indicate that the nontraditional self-study appears to get stronger impetus, the opportunity for stronger procedures, and stronger impacts or outcomes. These results favor the selection of the nontraditional self- study for the administrators of institutions that desire the use of an optional method of self-evaluation for additional outcomes. The opportunity to participate in the nontraditional self-study might well be expanded to developing institutions where the administrators may use this type of self-study as a change agent if a compelling reason for change exists.