Approximately 10% of post-secondary institutions are classified as doctoral universities. The Carnegie Classification model identifies doctoral universities as either research or professional/doctoral universities. Research universities are further classified as R1, considered the most organizationally complex and prestigious, with very high research activity; or R2, next-tier research universities with high research activity. This study examined the increasing number of institutions shifting from R2 classification to R1, and the early resultant institutional and public policy tradeoffs arising with reclassification.
Research universities have evolved over time and are presently recognized as having tripartite missions of teaching, service, and research. As research universities aspire to increase their prestige and reputation, they do so in a system that incentivizes research productivity and output.
Although public research universities enjoy strong societal interest, they continuously navigate financial stress. Governed by publicly appointed boards, they are often directly regulated by or indirectly impacted by state agencies. Public research universities aspiring to transition from R2 to R1 status do so while competing for limited market resources and funding from state legislatures. In an effort increase their prestige and competitiveness, many public research universities emulate the prestigious post-secondary models that attract top faculty and students, shifting to R1 status over time. Yet pursuing R1 status may introduce unintended consequences and tradeoffs during and after the process of achieving R1 status.
This study revealed R2 institutions seeking to attain R1 status undergo institutional isomorphism, defined as a phenomenon in which organizations in a similar field grow more and more alike as they evolve. The study determined that R2 institutions face external and societal pressures, adopt models from successful research institutions, and experience change throughout their faculty, administration, and professional networks as they attain R1 status.
Specifically, this study examines the 2010–2018 increase in the number of R2 public research universities pursuing R1 status, the strategies those institutions implemented to attain R1 status, and the early resultant institutional and public policy tradeoffs arising with R1 status.
|Advisor:||Finney, Joni E.|
|Commitee:||Hartley, J. Matthew, Pritchett, Wendell|
|School:||University of Pennsylvania|
|Department:||Higher Education Management|
|School Location:||United States -- Pennsylvania|
|Source:||DAI-A 82/3(E), Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||Higher education, Higher Education Administration|
|Keywords:||higher education, institutional isomorphism, public university, R2 institutions, research|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be