Baker dissertation public version

This is an unofficial version of my doctoral dissertation. The official version is available Open Access through ProQuest/UMI at http://pqdtopen.html or you can find this unofficial version at www. Thanks! Baker III, F. Policies related to the implementation of openness at research intensive universities in the united states: A descriptive content analysis (Doctoral Dissertation).

Retrieved from http://pqdtopen. POLICIES RELATED TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF OPENNESS AT RESEARCH INTENSIVE UNIVERSITIES IN THE UNITED STATES: A DESCRIPTIVE CONTENT ANALYSIS A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of South Alabama in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctorate of Philosophy in Instructional Design and Development July 2014 by Fredrick William Baker III B., University of South Alabama, 2008 July 2014 Copyright © 2014 Fredrick William Baker III All rights reserved. Dedicated to the educators in my life: The Lord God for your mercy and guidance; Those few teachers who never accepted my excuses; Family members who always offered love and devotion; My three strong boys for teaching me meaning and permanence; My beautiful wife Amy, for teaching me love, dedication, sacrifice, and purity. I am who I am through you.

ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Without the following people in my life, this process would have fallen apart. My Amy: Thank you for your unending love and support. You are always there to catch me when I fall, guide me when I am lost, and share joy when I am strong. May it be ever so; My three amazing boys—George, Charlie, and Sam: Thank you for your longsuffering.

You always help me rediscover what is important—love, laughter, and being together. My prayer is that this absence gives us more time in the future; My committee: Thank you for all of your support and for your senses of humor. You made the dissertation so much better, and this process much more enlightening; Dr. Dan Surry: You have been an amazing mentor throughout my time in graduate school.

Thank you for chairing so much of this process, and for investing so much in me. You have helped me grow more than I can express; Dr. Joe'l Lewis: Thank you for your nurturing guidance, compassion, and support. You helped me be comfortable in my role and think more deeply about its purpose.

I am glad we are in each other’s circles; The Center for Design and Performance Improvement (CDPI) Research Studio: May the Perrier and muffins abound! iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES. vii LIST OF FIGURES. xii CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .1 Organization of Dissertation .10 Implementation of Openness .21 The Critical Role of Policy in Change .24 Statement of the Problem .26 Purpose of the Study .28 Significance of the Study .29 Limitations of the Study.31 Definition of Key Terms .34 CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .36 Philosophy of Openness .37 Technology and Openness .41 Openness in Education .47 The Transitioning Role of Higher Education in a Digital Age .54 Openness in Higher Education.59 Open Source Software .64 Open Teaching & Learning .65 Other Areas of Openness .67 iv Organizational Change & Organizational Development .68 Using Policy to Address Change in Higher Education .71 RIPPLES Implementation Model .84 CHAPTER III: METHOD .86 Institutional Review Board .88 Population and Sampling .115 CHAPTER IV: RESULTS.117 General Notes On The Policy Documents .124 Results of Research Questions .125 Research Question One .126 Research Question Two .138 Research Question Three .153 Research Question Four .171 Policy Statement Recommendations.185 Openness Policies and Implementation .186 Discussion of Primary Findings .188 Main Finding: Openness is Human-Centered .189 Related Recommendations for Practice.201 Related Recommendations for Future Research.204 v Main Finding: Few Institutions Addressing Openness Through Policy .205 Related Recommendations for Practice.213 Related Recommendations for Future Research.215 Main Finding: Wide Variance in How Institutions Actually Address Openness .216 Related Recommendations for Practice.223 Related Recommendations for Future Research.225 Main Finding: More Attention to Open Access Than Other Areas of Openness .227 Related Recommendations for Practice.231 Related Recommendations for Future Research.231 Main Finding: Content Analysis as a Viable Method .232 Related Recommendations for Practice.235 Related Recommendations for Future Research.293 Appendix A- Institutional Review Board Response Letter .297 Appendix B-All RU/VH: Research Universities .298 Appendix C- Open Policy Rubric .304 Appendix D- Coded Statements from Private Institutions .305 Appendix E- Coded Statements from Public Institutions .320 Appendix F- Keyword and Relevant Keyword Tables for Private and Public Institutions .327 Appendix G- Idealized Policy Statements Faculty Handbook .331 Appendix H- Idealized Policy Statements Strategic Plan .334 Appendix I- Idealized Policy Statements Technology Plan .340 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Stratified Random Sample of Private RU/VH Institutions.

Stratified Random Sample of Public RU/VH Institutions. Keywords Used in the Search of Policy Documents………………. Results of Keyword Search…. Sample Institutions by Region….

Directness of Relevant Statements By Sample Strata ……………………. Number of Policy Documents with Relevant Statements by Strata………………. Mean Number of Statements per Policy Document with Relevant Statements by Strata. Number of Policy Documents with Relevant Statements by Strata Excluding Brown University………………………….

Mean Number of Statements per Policy Document with Relevant Statements by Strata Excluding Brown University…. Combined Institutional Ranking by Rubric Score………. Private RU/VH Institutions Strata with Rubric Score of Zero. Public RU/VH Institutions Strata with Rubric Score of Zero.

Mean Rubric Score by Strata Excluding Brown University………. Combined Institutional Ranking by Number of Relevant Statements. Relevant Statements by Area of Openness and Policy Document. Relevant Statements by Area of Openness and Policy Document Excluding Brown University………….

Relevant Statements by Area of Openness and Policy Document in Public Institutions. Relevant Statements by Area of Openness and Policy Documents in Private Institutions……. Relevant Statements by Area of Openness and Policy Document in Private Institutions Excluding Brown University. Relevant Statements per School by Area of Openness.

Policy Role of Direct Statements by Strata. Policy Role of Direct Statements by Strata Excluding Brown University…………156 24. Policy Role of Direct Statements by Policy Document. Policy Role of Direct Statements by Policy Document Excluding Brown University.

Policy Role of Direct Statements by Policy Document in Public Institutions……………………………………………. Policy Role of Direct Statements by Policy Document in Private Institutions …………………………. Combined Institutional Ranking by Number of Relevant Statements. Neutral and Enabler Statements by Combined Institution……………………….

Enabler Statements by Institution……………………………. Enabler Statements by Institution Excluding Brown University……. Policy Role of Statements by Area of Openness…………………. Percent of Policy Role of Statements by Area of Openness……………………….

Policy Role of Statements by Area of Openness Excluding Brown University. Percent Policy Role of Statements by Area of Openness Excluding Brown University. Policy Role of Statements by Area of Openness For Private Institutions. Percent Policy Role of Statements by Area of Openness For Private Institutions.

Policy Role of Statements by Area of Openness For Private Institutions Excluding Brown University…. Percent Policy Role of Statements by Area of Openness For Private Institutions Excluding Brown University…. Policy Role of Statements by Area of Openness for Public Institutions……. Percent Policy Role of Statements by Area of Openness for Public Institutions….

Total Keyword Count, Rubric Score, and Their Ratio for Private Institutions with Non-Zero Rubric Scores. Total Keyword Count, Rubric Score, and Their Ratio for Public Institutions with Non-Zero Rubric Scores…………….…177 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Concept Map of Dissertation Organization. Matrix of Openness…………………………………….

Organization of Chapter Two. Open Educational Designs Taxonomy……………………. Rubric Cell Value Tree……………………. Geographic Map of Institutions in the Sample……………….

Graduate Instructional Program Classification for Doctoral Programs……………. Graduate Students as Percent of Full Time Equivalent Enrollment……………. Relevant Statements by Policy Document ……. Distribution for the Number of Relevant Statements Made by Each Institution …………….

Relevant Statements by Area of Openness………………………. Analysis of Statements Dealing with Other Areas of Openness. Relevant Statements by Area of Openness Excluding Brown University …………140 14. Relevant Statements at Public Institutions by Area of Openness………………….

Relevant Statements at Private Institutions by Area of Openness. Relevant Statements at Private Institutions by Area of Openness Excluding Brown University …………………………………………………. Total Keyword Use by Public and Private Institutions ………. Mean Keyword Use by Public and Private Institutions………….

Total Relevant Keyword Use by Public and Private Institutions………. Total Relevant Keyword Use by Public and Private Institutions Excluding Brown University …………………………………………………. Number of Relevant Statements by Area of Openness Excluding Brown University………………………………………………………………….228 xi ABSTRACT Baker III, Fredrick William, Ph., University of South Alabama, July 2014. Policies Related To The Implementation Of Openness At Research Intensive Universities In The United States: A Descriptive Content Analysis.

Chair of Committee: Joe'l P. In this dissertation, I describe a study examining institutional policy documents for statements related to the implementation of openness. The purposes of this study were to explore the current state of policies related to the implementation of openness in higher education, and to provide guiding recommendations to higher education institutions looking to address the issue of implementation of openness in their own policies. Policy plays a critical role in the implementation of innovations such as openness.

The policy environment is complex and potentially confusing. Technology enables the proliferation of openness, and higher education institutions are now facing a number of challenges associated with the implementation of openness. Not much is known about the stance of higher education or the state of its response to openness. As a result, there was not much guidance available for institutions looking to address the implementation of openness in their institutions.

This dissertation involved a descriptive study that follows summative content analysis methodology. The research design was a qualitative dominant sequential mixed methods model, meaning that I focused primarily on the qualitative elements of the study and provided limited descriptive quantitative analysis derived from the qualitative data. xii Five major areas of openness affecting higher education institutions were drawn from the literature. These are Open Access Research, Open Content, Open Teaching and Learning, Open Source Software, and Other, less pronounced, areas of openness.

I searched the Faculty Handbooks, Strategic Plans, and Technology Plans of a stratified random sample of research-intensive higher education institutions for keywords related to the major areas of openness. I then evaluated the resulting statements based on the directness with which they address openness and on their policy role as enabler, barrier, or neutral toward the implementation of openness. I provided 45 idealized policy statements as well as the best-found policy statements from the study. These statements were intended to be used as recommendations for guiding institutions in crafting their own policy statements to address openness through policy.

The idealized statements were intended to fit in the three policy documents (Faculty Handbook, Strategic Plan, Technology Plan), serve each policy role (enabler, barrier, and neutral), and address area of openness (Open Access, Open Content, Open Source Software, Open Teaching and Learning, and Other Areas of Openness). Five major findings emerged from the study. These include the realization that openness is really a human-centered approach, and the discovery that openness is not commonly addressed in higher education policies. Additionally, I found that there was wide variance in how institutions actually address openness, that Open Access is addressed more than other areas in policy, and that content analysis is an effective method for obtaining information related to higher education policies.

I provided my reflections and conclusions on the study in Chapter Five. xiii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The concept of openness has been intertwined with the field of education for centuries (Broudy & Palmer, 1965; Giaconia & Hedges, 1982; Peters & Britez, 2008; Peters & Roberts, 2012). However, it is often poorly defined and used in confusing or ideological ways (Baker III & Surry, 2013a; Peters & Britez, 2008; Peters & Roberts, 2012; Peters, 2010). It has been picked up like a banner, wielded like a weapon, chanted like a rallying cry, and cast as a scapegoat to escape responsibility (Baker III, 2012; Hays, 1991; Nyberg, 1975).

More recently, openness has been used in efforts to promote broad innovation and change in education (Abel, 2006; Couros, 2009; Digital Connections Council of the Committee for Economic Development, 2006, 2009; Liyanagunawardena, Adams, & Williams, 2013).