Carnegie Basic Classification: stakeholder perspectives

References

• Altbach, P.G. (1973). Comparative Higher Education. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ed082623
   Google Scholar
• Altbach, P.G. (2015). The Carnegie Classification of American Higher Education: More—and less—than meets the eye. International Higher Education, 80(80), 21–23. Article 80 https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2015.80.6153
   Google Scholar
• Altbach, P.G., & Engberg, D. (2001). Higher education: A worldwide inventory of centers and programs. Greenwood Publishing Group.
   Google Scholar
• Altbach, P.G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E. (2009). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. UNESCO.
   Google Scholar
• Anafinova, S. (2020). The role of rankings in higher education policy: Coercive and normative isomorphism in Kazakhstani higher education. International Journal of Educational Development, 78, 102246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2020.102246
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andreescu, L., Gheorghiu, R., Proteasa, V., & Curaj, A. (2012). Institutional diversification and homogeneity in Romanian higher education: The larger picture. In A. Curaj, P. Scott, L. Vlasceanu, & L. Wilson (Eds.), European higher education at the crossroads: Between the bologna process and national reforms (pp. 863–885). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3937-6_44
   Google Scholar
• Bailey, K.D. (1994). Typologies and taxonomies: An introduction to classification techniques. SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Bartelse, J.A., & Van Vught, F. A. (2007). Institutional profiles: Towards a typology of higher education institutions in Europe. IAU horizons, 13(2–3), 10–12.
   Google Scholar
• Bartelse, J., & van Vught, F. (2009). The European higher education classification: Objectives and concepts. In F. van Vught (Ed.), Mapping the higher education landscape: Towards a European classification of higher education (pp. 57–69). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2249-3_4
   Google Scholar
• Bastedo, M.N., & Gumport, P. J. (2003). Access to what? Mission differentiation and academic stratification in U.S. Public higher education. Higher Education, 46(3), 341–359. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025374011204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birnbaum, R., & Bensimon, E. M. (1983). Maintaining diversity in higher education. Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Bonaccorsi, A., & Daraio, C. (2009). Characterizing the European university system: A preliminary classification using census microdata. Science and Public Policy, 36(10), 763–775. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234209X475245
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borden, V., Coates, H., & Bringle, R. (2018). Emerging perspectives on measuring and classifying institutional performance. In E. Hazelkorn, H. Coates, & A. C. McCormick (Eds.), Research handbook on quality, performance and accountability in higher education (pp. 189–205). Edward Palgrave Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Borden, V.M.H., & McCormick, A. C. (2020). Accounting for diverse missions: Can classification systems contribute to meaningful assessments of institutional performance? Tertiary Education & Management, 26(3), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-019-09045-w
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brint, S., Riddle, M., & Hanneman, R. A. (2006). Reference sets, identities, and aspirations in a complex organizational field: The case of American four-year colleges and universities. Sociology of Education, 79(3), 229–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070607900303
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carnegie Classifications. (2022). https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/lookup/standard.php
   Google Scholar
• Cloete, N., Maassen, P., Fehnel, R., Moja, T., Gibbon, T., & Perold, H. (2006). Transformation in higher education: Global pressures and local realities. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, B.E., McIntosh, K. L., Reason, R. D., & Terenzini, P. T. (2011). A culture of teaching: Policy, perception, and practice in higher education. Research in Higher Education, 52(8), 808–829. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-011-9223-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Croucher, G., & Woelert, P. (2016). Institutional isomorphism and the creation of the unified national system of higher education in Australia: An empirical analysis. Higher Education, 71(4), 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9914-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curry, D.J. (1972). The seven comparison states: Their selection, use, and applicability for higher education comparisons. A report in response to HFR 1972–39. Washington State Council on Higher Education.
   Google Scholar
• Daemen University. (2022, February 1). Carnegie reaffirms Daemen as a top-tier doctoral/professional university.
   Google Scholar
• DiMaggio, P.J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fumasoli, T., & Huisman, J. (2013). Strategic agency and system diversity: Conceptualizing institutional positioning in higher education | SpringerLink. Minerva, 51(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-013-9225-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gioia, D.A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonzales, L.D. (2012). Responding to mission creep: Faculty members as cosmopolitan agents. Higher Education, 64(3), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9497-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonzales, L.D., & Núñez, A.-M. (2021). The ranking regime and the production of knowledge: Implications for academia. In A. Welch & J. Li (Eds.), Measuring up in higher education: How university rankings and league tables are re-shaping knowledge production in the global era (pp. 75–101). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7921-9_4
   Google Scholar
• Gumport, P.J. (1997). In search of strategic perspective: A tool for mapping the market in postsecondary education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 29(6), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091389709602344
   Google Scholar
• Gumport, P.J., & Bastedo, M. N. (2001). Academic stratification and endemic conflict: Remedial education policy at CUNY. The Review of Higher Education, 24(4), 333–349. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2001.0009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hancock, B., Ockleford, E., & Windridge, K. (2007). An introduction to qualitative research. The NIHR RDS EM/YH.
   Google Scholar
• Harmon, P., McKnight, S., Hildreth, L., Godwin, I., & Greenwood, M. (2019). An alternative to the Carnegie Classifications: Identifying similar doctoral institutions with structural equation models and clustering. Statistics and Public Policy, 6(1), 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/2330443X.2019.1666761
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, M.S. (2020). An empirical typology of the institutional diversity of U.S. Colleges and universities. Innovative Higher Education, 45(3), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-019-09494-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hermanowicz, J.C. (2005). Classifying universities and their departments: A social world perspective. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(1), 26–55. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2005.0005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howard, R.D., Hitz, R., & Baker, L. (1998). A national study comparing the expenditures of teacher education programs by Carnegie Classification and with other disciplines. Action in Teacher Education, 20(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.1998.10462921
   Google Scholar
• Howells, J., Ramlogan, R., & Cheng, S. (2008). The role, context and typology of universities and higher education institutions in innovation systems: A UK perspective. Discussion Papers and Project Reports, Impact of Higher Education Institutions on Regional Economics: A Joint Research Initiative.
   Google Scholar
• Huisman, J. (1998). Differentiation and diversity in higher education systems. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, XIII, 77–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3971-7_3
   Google Scholar
• Huisman, J. (2008). World-class universities. Higher Education Policy, 21(1), 1–4.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, M. (2021, December 20). USU Attains Prestigious Carnegie R1 Classification, Joins Highest Level of Research Institutions. Utah State University. https://www.usu.edu/today/story/usu-attains-prestigious-carnegie-r1-classification-joins-highest-level-of-research-institutions
   Google Scholar
• Kehm, B.M. (2014). Global University Rankings—impacts and unintended side effects. European Journal of Education, 49(1), 102–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12064
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelchen, R. (2018). Higher education accountability. Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kent State University. (2022, February 7). Kent State Awarded the Highest Recognition for Research Universities, the Prestigious R1 Carnegie Classification. https://www.kent.edu/kent/news/success/kent-state-awarded-highest-recognition-research-universities-prestigious-r1-carnegie
   Google Scholar
• Kondra, A.Z., & Hinings, C. R. (1998). Organizational diversity and change in institutional theory. Organization Studies, 19(5), 743–767. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069801900502
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kosar, R., & Scott, D. W. (2018). Examining the Carnegie Classification Methodology for Research Universities. Statistics and Public Policy, 5(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/2330443X.2018.1442271
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krause, K.-L. (2022). Higher education sector institutional diversity: An Australian case study. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 44(4), 393–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2022.2051221
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lagrosen, S., Seyyed‐Hashemi, R., & Leitner, M. (2004). Examination of the dimensions of quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 12(2), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880410536431
   Google Scholar
• Leech, N.L., Haug, C. A., Iceman-Sands, D., & Moriarty, J. (2015). Change in classification level and the effects on research productivity and merit scores for faculty in a school of education. Studies in Higher Education, 40(6), 1030–1045. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.881341
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linneberg, M., & Korsgaard, S. (2019). Coding qualitative data: A synthesis guiding the novice. Qualitative Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-12-2018-0012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loyola Marymount University. (2019, February 19). Loyola Marymount University breaks into Carnegie Classifications’ ‘high research’ category. https://newsroom.lmu.edu/campusnews/loyola-marymount-university-breaks-carnegie-classifications-high-research-category/
   Google Scholar
• Marginson, S. (1999). Diversity and convergence in Australian higher education. Australian Universities’ Review, 42(1), 12–23.
   Google Scholar
• Marginson, S., & van der Wende, M. (2007). To rank or to be ranked: The impact of global rankings in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 306–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315307303544
   Google Scholar
• Marshall, M.N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice, 13(6), 522–526. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/13.6.522
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, G.S. (2016, February 2). Northeastern achieves highest classification for research activity. Northeastern University. https://news.northeastern.edu/2016/02/02/northeastern-achieves-highest-classification-for-research-activity/
   Google Scholar
• Massy, W.F., & Zemsky, R. (1994). Faculty discretionary time. The Journal of Higher Education, 65(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1994.11778471
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCormick, A.C. (Ed.). (2001). The Carnegie Classification of institutions of higher education (2000 ed.). Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
   Google Scholar
• McCormick, A.C., & Borden, V. M. H. (2020). Higher education institutions, types and classifications of. In P. N. Teixeira & J. C. Shin (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of higher education systems and institutions (pp. 697–705). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8905-9_22
   Google Scholar
• McCormick, A.C., & Cox, R. D. (2003). Classifying two-year colleges: Purposes, possibilities, and Pitfalls. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2003(122), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.106
   Google Scholar
• McCormick, A.C., Pike, G. R., Kuh, G. D., & Chen, P.-S. D. (2009). Comparing the utility of the 2000 and 2005 Carnegie classification systems in research on students’ college experiences and outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 50(2), 144–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-008-9112-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCormick, A.C., & Zhao, C.-M. (2005). Rethinking and reframing the Carnegie classification. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 37(5), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.3200/CHNG.37.5.51-57
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, J.W., Meyer, J. W., & Scott, W. R. (1980). Institutional and technical sources of organizational structure explaining the structure of educational organizations. Publications, Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance, School of Education/CERAS Bldg. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED202142
   Google Scholar
• Morphew, C.C. (2002). “A rose by any other name”: Which colleges became universities. The Review of Higher Education, 25(2), 207–223. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2002.0005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morphew, C.C. (2009). Conceptualizing change in the institutional diversity of U.S. Colleges and universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(3), 243–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2009.11779012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oakland University. (2006, February). Understanding the basic Carnegie Classification system. https://ern.oakland.edu/Assets/Oakland/oira/files-and-documents/Understanding-Basic-Carnegie-Classification-System.pdf
   Google Scholar
• O’Meara, K., & Bloomgarden, A. (2011). The pursuit of prestige: The experience of institutional striving from a faculty perspective. Journal of the Professoriate, 4(1), 39–73.
   Google Scholar
• Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Pike, G.R., Kuh, G. D., & Gonyea, R. M. (2003). The relationship between institutional Mission and students’ involvement and educational outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 44(2), 241–261. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022055829783
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Proulx, R. (2007). Higher education ranking and leagues tables: Lessons learned from benchmarking. Higher Education in Europe, 32(1), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/03797720701618898
   Google Scholar
• Rakic, V. (2001). Converge or not converge: The European Union and higher education policies in the Netherlands, Belgium/Flanders and Germany. Higher Education Policy, 14(3), 225–240.
   Google Scholar
• Reichert, S. (2009). Institutional diversity in European higher education: Tensions and challenges for policy makers and institutional leaders. Europ. Univ. Assoc.
   Google Scholar
• Riesman, D. (1975). The future of diversity in a time of retrenchment. Higher Education, 4(4), 461–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00154470
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruef, M., & Nag, M. (2015, 4). The classification of organizational forms: Theory and application to the field of higher education. 4. The classification of organizational forms: Theory and application to the field of higher education (pp. 84–110). Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804793551-007
   Google Scholar
• Saldana, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Schmelzer, A. (2022, February 25). Bradley’s New Carnegie Classification Explained. Bradleyscout. https://www.bradleyscout.com/news/bradleys-new-carnegie-classification-explained/
   Google Scholar
• Schumacher, J. (2021, December 16). UWM Again Achieves Top-Tier Research Status with Carnegie Classification. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. https://uwm.edu/news/uwm-again-achieves-top-tier-research-status-with-carnegie-classification-2/
   Google Scholar
• Shin, J.C. (2009). Classifying higher education institutions in Korea: A performance-based approach. Higher Education, 57(2), 247–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9150-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shin, J.C., & Toutkoushian, R. K. (2011). The past, present, and future of university rankings. In J. C. Shin, R. K. Toutkoushian, & U. Teichler (Eds.), University rankings: Theoretical basis, methodology and impacts on global higher education (pp. 1–16). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1116-7_1
   Google Scholar
• Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville. (2020, November 10). Final Carnegie report. https://www.siue.edu/graduate-faculty/pdf/Final_Carnegie_Report.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Stensaker, B., Lee, J. J., Rhoades, G., Ghosh, S., Castiello-Gutiérrez, S., Vance, H., Çalıkoğlu, A., Kramer, V., Liu, S., Marei, M. S., O’Toole, L., Pavlyutkin, I., & Peel, C. (2019). Stratified university strategies: The shaping of institutional legitimacy in a global perspective. The Journal of Higher Education, 90(4), 539–562. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2018.1513306
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teichler, U. (2009). Types, ranks and profiles: The patterns and causes of diversity in higher education. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics, 91, 115–132.
   Google Scholar
• Toutkoushian, R.K., & Smart, J. C. (2001). Do institutional characteristics affect Student gains from college? The Review of Higher Education, 25(1), 39–61. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2001.0017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Triventi, M. (2014). Higher education regimes: An empirical classification of higher education systems and its relationship with student accessibility. Quality & Quantity, 48(3), 1685–1703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-013-9868-7
   Web of Science ®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). University of Pennsylvania Press.
   Google Scholar
• University of Alaska-Fairbanks. (n.d.). UAF strategic plan 2027 goal 3: Achieve tier 1 research status. https://www.uaf.edu/strategic/goal-3.php
   Google Scholar
• University of Hawai‘i–West O‘ahu. (2021, March 31). Institutional report for reaffirmation of WSCUC accreditation. University of Hawaii-West Oahu. https://westoahu.hawaii.edu/wp-content/uploads/docs/accreditation/UWHO_WSCUC_IRR_June2021.pdf
   Google Scholar
• University of Maine. (2022, February 16). UMaine Achieves R1 Carnegie Classification, Ascends to Top-Tier of Research Universities in the Nation. https://umaine.edu/portland/2022/02/16/umaine-achieves-r1-carnegie-classification/
   Google Scholar
• University of Montana. (n.d.). Carnegie foundation rankings. https://www.umt.edu/research/resources/council/ResearchReport.pdf
   Google Scholar
• University of North Texas. (n.d.). R1 our way task force. https://vpaa.unt.edu/provost/initiatives/r1
   Google Scholar
• van der Wende, M. (2008). Rankings and classifications in higher education: A European perspective. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education (pp. 49–71). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6959-8_2
   Google Scholar
• van Vught, F. (2008). Mission Diversity and Reputation in higher education. Higher Education Policy, 21(2), 151–174. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2008.5
   Google Scholar
• van Vught, F. (2009). Diversity and differentiation in higher education. In F. van Vught (Ed.), Mapping the higher education landscape: Towards a European classification of higher education (pp. 1–16). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2249-3_1
   Google Scholar
• Viaene, J.-M., & Zilcha, I. (2013). Public funding of higher education. Journal of Public Economics, 108, 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2013.09.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villanova University. (n.d.). Responding to a changing landscape. https://www1.villanova.edu/content/dam/villanova/president/CarnegieReclassificationOverview.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Watson, G. (2021, December 17). Carnegie Classification Reaffirms Texas Tech as Tier One Research University. Texas Tech University. https://today.ttu.edu/posts/2021/12/Stories/Carnegie-Classification-Reaffirms-Texas-Tech-as-Tier-One-Research-University#:~:text=This%20week%2C%20Texas%20Tech%20was,as%20a%20top%20research%20university
   Google Scholar
• Whitman, K.J. (2020). Using latent profile analysis to derive a classification of four-year colleges and universities. Arizona State University. https://keep.lib.asu.edu/items/158690
   Google Scholar
• Zapp, M., & Ramirez, F. O. (2019). Beyond internationalisation and isomorphism – the construction of a global higher education regime. Comparative Education, 55(4), 473–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2019.1638103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zha, Q. (2009). Diversification or homogenization in higher education: A global allomorphism perspective. Higher Education in Europe, 34(3–4), 459–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/03797720903356628
   Google Scholar
• Zhao, K., & You, Z. (2021). Isomorphism, diversification, and strategic ambiguity: Goal setting of Chinese higher education institutions in the Double World-class project. Higher Education Policy, 34(4), 841–860. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-019-00168-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar