The transitional generation faculty sensemaking of higher educat

W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects Summer 2018 The Transitional Generation: Faculty Sensemaking of Higher Education Reform in Ecuador Mary Amanda Johnson College of William and Mary - School of Education, majohnson06@email.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.edu/etd Part of the Higher Education Commons Recommended Citation Johnson, Mary Amanda, "The Transitional Generation: Faculty Sensemaking of Higher Education Reform in Ecuador" (2018). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects.25774/w4-5wj0-aw37 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact scholarworks@wm.

THE TRANSITIONAL GENERATION: FACULTY SENSEMAKING OF HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM IN ECUADOR A Dissertation Presented to the The Faculty of the School of Education The College of William and Mary in Virginia In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy By M. Amanda Johnson 2018 THE TRANSITIONAL GENERATION: FACULTY SENSEMAKING OF HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM IN ECUADOR By M. Amanda Johnson Approved 2018 by Pamela Eddy, Ph. Chairperson of Doctoral Committee James Stronge, Ph.

Guru Ghosh, Ph. Table of Contents Acknowledgments. viii List of Tables. ix List of Figures.

xi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .2 Contemporary Higher Education Reform in Ecuador .5 Faculty Policies and Role in Ecuador .14 The Model of Policy Reaction .14 Significance of the Study .16 Definition of Terms.22 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE .23 History of Higher Education in Ecuador .23 The Spanish Colonial University (1520s-1800s) .24 The Republican University (1800s-1900s) .27 The Progressive University (1900s-2000s) .30 Contemporary Reform of Higher Education .38 Faculty Work and Role Expectations .43 The Model of Policy Reaction .48 iii Neo-institutionalism .66 Cases, Participants, and Sampling .67 Final Site Selection .73 Data Sources and Collection .86 Delimitations, Limitations, and Assumptions .90 CHAPTER 4: CONTEXT, CASES, AND PARTICIPANTS .91 Contemporary Context of Ecuadorian Higher Education .91 Case Institutions and Participants .115 Adapting to Change .131 Evaluation of Work .132 v Institutional Decision-making .138 Access to Resources .142 Language of Publication .147 Sustainability of Reform Efforts .150 Summary of Findings .152 CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS .156 Summary of Findings .157 Discussion of Findings .158 Faculty Sensemaking across Contexts .170 University Policy Implementation .174 The Model of Policy Reaction .181 Implications for Policy, Practice, and Research .188 Appendix A: List of Universities by Institutional Type, Control of Institutions, Location of Institution, and Geographical Location .188 Appendix B: Request for Participation Email .194 Appendix C: Interview Protocol for Faculty .196 Appendix D: Protocolo de la Entrevista de Profesor/Profesora .199 Appendix E: Participant Informed Consent .202 Appendix F: Auditor Informed Consent .207 Appendix G: Translator Informed Consent .209 Appendix H: Matrix of Research Questions, Interview Questions, and Field Notes with Literature .237 vii Acknowledgments I would like to thank my dissertation committee, and especially my dissertation chair, Dr. Pamela Eddy, for all the guidance and support I received during this process. I would also like to extend my hearty thanks to my sister, friend, and advisor, Dr. To my husband, César Toala, I must thank you for your support and many discussions—you are a true partner.

Lastly, my gratitude goes out to César Toala Loor, Jeannette Veloz de Toala, Lesylie Johnson, and David Johnson for their care and support during my fieldwork. viii List of Tables Table 1. Ley Orgánica de Educación Superior Polices Relevant to Faculty Work. Reglamento de Carrera y Escalafón del Profesor e Investigador del Sistema de Educación Superior Policies Relevant to Faculty Work.

Ecuadorian Universities Founded during the Spanish Colonial Era. Ecuadorian Universities Founded Between 1940 and 1970. Timeline of Higher Education in Ecuador within the Context of Socio-economic, Political, and Religious Events from 1492-2007. Highlights of 2010 La Ley Orgánica de Educación Superior.

Timeline of Higher Education Reform in Ecuador Relevant to this Study from 2007 to 2017. Matrix of the Six Selected University Sites and the Primary and Secondary Criteria. Matrix of the Research Participants at Case Sites. Case Site and Participant Disciplines.

A Priori Codes, Code Meaning, Legal Documents where Codes are Found, and Interview Questions Related to the Codes. Budget for Public Universities in Ecuador. Description of Case Universities. Case A University Participant Details.

Case B University Participant Details. Case C University Participant Details. Case D University Participant Details. Case E University Participant Details.

Code Mapping: Four Levels of Analysis. Research Themes, Sub-themes, and Participant Support. Findings at a Glance .153 x List of Figures Figure 1. Model of Policy Reaction for the Study of Faculty Role in Higher Education in Ecuador.

Factors Influencing the Professionalization of the Role of Faculty in Ecuador. A Map of Ecuador by Region with Case Universities. A Conceptual Model to Describe How the Macro, Meso, and Micro Elements of Higher Education in Ecuador React to Top-Down Policy Reform .177 xi Abstract In response to public sector criticism, higher education reform in Ecuador over the past decade has created a nation-wide transformation of faculty roles. The literature from researchers in Ecuador concerning reform and the role of faculty discusses the desired impact of these new expectations; however, very little is known regarding the substantive reality of faculty navigating new roles and work.

This study explored faculty sense making of national reforms relating to their role and work at universities and sought to understand how faculty are navigating both policy and implementation of new work expectations ten years after government top-down reform efforts. The qualitative, cross-case comparison was framed through the perspective of the model of policy reaction. Interviews were conducted with 15 full-time Ecuadorian faculty participants representing hard and social sciences from five case universities located throughout the country. Data analysis resulted in five major findings: a) faculty negotiating uncertainty around work expectations and policy implementation; b) faculty building networks in order to meet expectations and develop research capacity; c) faculty understanding practices to legitimize their work as distrustful and inefficient; d) faculty perceiving policies as constraints to their academic autonomy, and; e) faculty making sense of themselves as a transitional generation building capacity and sustainability for future university stakeholders.

The findings for this study will assist future policy- makers and university authorities in planning and managing change efforts to ensure that faculty stakeholders are involved in the policy-making and implementation processes. xii THE TRANSITIONAL GENERATION: FACULTY SENSEMAKING OF HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM IN ECUADOR CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Si no cambiamos la educación superior, no habrá futuro para el país. If we do not change higher education, there will be no future for the country. Rafael Correa to the National Assembly of Ecuador (Mena Erazo, 2010a) During the 21st century, Latin America has experienced widespread efforts to improve higher education.

Tünnermann (1999) reflected on the role of higher education on development in Latin America and cited the key demands of equity, quality, and relevance for higher education in the 21st century. Several countries in Latin America have implemented national quality assurance and evaluation mechanisms in hopes of improving higher education systems historically plagued by a lack of transparency, under-qualified faculty, and nonexistent research agendas (Bernasconi, 2006, 2008; Ferrari & Contreras, 2008; Montoya, Arbesú, Contreras, & Conzuelo, 2014; Rengifo- Millán, 2015; Schwartzman, 1993; Van Hoof, Estrella, Eljuri, & Leon, 2013). Likewise, the focus worldwide on neoliberal perspectives of the knowledge economy and globalization has led many developing countries in Latin America to place emphasis on the role of higher education in social, cultural, and economic development (Hunter, 2013; Schwartzman, 1993). One way in which Latin American countries are working toward becoming knowledge producers is by improving the quality of post- secondary institutions and reforming the role of faculty in the university to bolster outcomes.

2 Historically, the role of faculty in the Latin American university has been filled by part-time professionals who did not engage in research nor have doctoral degrees; the academic profession has occupied the peripheries of the higher education sector in the region (Altbach, 2003; Bernasconi, 2006; Schwartzman, 1993). However, with quality assurance and knowledge production the leitmotifs of higher education, the role of faculty has become more complex. Faculty members in Latin America constitute the critical ingredient that influences the quality and effectiveness of higher education institutions (Austin, 2002). The professionalization of the academic position in Latin America has meant the rise of the faculty member as an independent expert who possesses academic credentials such as a doctorate, is devoted full-time to academic tasks, creates knowledge through research, and is involved in developing the culture and climate of his or her university (Berrios, 2014).

Altbach, Reisberg, and Rumbley (2009) observed, however, that due to the rapid growth of the academic profession, facilities for advanced degree study are not keeping up—nor are salary levels that encourage the “best and brightest” to join the professorate in developing knowledge economies. Moreover, the focus on faculty research production and publication in Latin America has over-flung universities’ abilities to supply research facilities or support and training for research enterprises (Ferrari & Contreras, 2008). Chile and Mexico within the Latin American higher education market have initiated efforts in the past several decades to improve the quality of the professoriate. Efforts include scholarships for faculty PhD studies abroad, more stringent faculty evaluation mechanisms, and increased salaries for academics—meaning that faculty can survive on academic work alone (Bernasconi, 2006; Montoya et al.

In Chile, 3 Bernasconi (2006) pointed to the rise of the “entrepreneurial professor”—a dedicated and productive researcher able to obtain and manage large research grants, advise governments, and consult on projects while contributing to his or her field and making a high salary—as a new paradigm for the professoriate in Chilean higher education as a result of reform efforts. The Mexican Vice Ministry of Higher Education established in 1996 La Programa de Mejoramiento del Profesorado (PROMEP), a program still existing today which is aimed at improving faculty performance and enhancing academic productivity through incentivization (Montoya et al., 2014; Navarro-Leal & Contreras, 2014). PROMEP offers economic incentives and support in the form of scholarships for postgraduate and post-doctoral study and research collaboration and networks (Montoya et al. With PROMEP came an increase in research productivity and a rise in the number of faculty with a doctorate in Mexico (Montoya et al., 2014; Navarro-Leal & Contreras, 2014).

Situated within the overall context of Latin American higher education reform is the transformation and standardization of the higher education sector in Ecuador since 2007. This small country on the west coast of the subcontinent has experienced top- down reforms from the government designed to improve the quality of the professoriate and develop the university system as a whole. The development of the higher education sector in contemporary Ecuador is absent from the literature on higher education reform in Latin America. The focus of the region’s commitment to universities is to not only educate the population, but also contribute to the region’s knowledge production.

Furthermore, the transformation of the role of the faculty member in higher education in 4 Ecuador, from a part-time instructor to a devoted faculty-member, is also missing from the literature. This study demonstrates the sensemaking faculty members had of this transformation to their roles and their work within the neo-institutional higher education policy reform environment of Ecuador. Contemporary Higher Education Reform in Ecuador Higher education institutions in Ecuador historically had limited government oversight before 2007. Now, the sector operates within a highly politicized and regulatory environment due to policy reforms under a new government (Saavedra, 2012; Van Hoof et al.

Before 2007, universities enjoyed a great deal of autonomy— policies concerning student matriculation to budgeting and hiring were often homegrown and varied from institution to institution (Van Hoof et al.