This article reports on a qualitative, interpretive case study examining how trustees, administrators, faculty members, and staff members at a rural community college understand their institution’s accountability environment. Data analysis and interpretation established that participants conceptualized institutional accountability as dialogic, involving ongoing communication with state authorities, employers, students, high schools, and universities about the formal and informal expectations assigned to the college. In addition, participants’ understandings of accountability were shaped by their specific roles and responsibilities within the institution. The study’s findings suggest the need for further research on how local institutional contexts influence institutional responses to accountability expectations.
Banta, T.W., & Fisher, H.S. ( 1984). Performance funding: Tennessee’s experiment. In J. Folger (Ed.), Financial incentives for academic quality (New Directions for Higher Education, No. 48, pp. 29-41). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2.
Banta, T.W., Rudolph, L.B., Van Dyke, J., & Fisher, H.S. ( 1996). Performance funding comes of age in Tennessee. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 23-45.
3.
Bok, D. ( 2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4.
Burke, J. C. (Ed.). (2005a). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic, and market demands. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5.
Burke, J.C. ( 2005b). The many faces of accountability. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic, and market demands (pp. 1-24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6.
Burke, J.C., & Minassians, H. (2002). Performance reporting: The preferred "no cost" accountability program-The sixth annual report. Albany, NY: The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 474810)
7.
Burke, J.C., & Minassians, H. (2003). Performance reporting: "Real" accountability or accountability "lite." Seventh annual survey, 2003 . Albany, NY: The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 480586)
8.
Burke, J.C., & Modarresi, S. ( 1999). Performance funding and budgeting: Popularity and volatility- The third annual survey. Albany, NY: The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 432933)
9.
Derthick, M., & Dunn, J.M. ( 2009). False premises: The accountability fetish in education . Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 32, 1015-1034.
10.
Dill, D.D. ( 1997). Higher education markets and public policy. Higher Education Policy, 10, 167-185.
11.
Dill, D.D. ( 2000). Designing academic audit: Lessons learned in Europe and Asia. Quality in Higher Education, 6, 187-207.
12.
Dill, D.D. ( 2003). Allowing the market to rule: The case of the United States . Higher Education Quarterly, 57, 136-157.
13.
Dill, D.D., & Soo, M. ( 2004). Transparency and quality in higher education markets . In P. Teixeira, B. Jongbloed, D. D. Dill, & A. Amaral (Eds.), Markets in higher education: Rhetoric or reality? (pp. 61-85). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
14.
Dougherty, K.J., & Hong, E. ( 2006). Performance accountability as imperfect panacea: The community college experience. In T. Bailey & V. S. Morest (Eds.), Defending the community college equity agenda (pp. 51-86). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
15.
Ewell, P.T. ( 1994). A matter of integrity: Accountability and the future of self-regulation. Change, 26(6), 24-29.
16.
Ewell, P.T. ( 2008). Assessment and accountability in America today. In V. M. H. Borden & G. R. Pike (Eds.), Special issue: Assessing and accounting for student learning: Beyond the spellings commission (New Directions for Institutional Research, Assessment Supplement 2007, pp. 7-17). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
17.
Geertz, C. ( 1973). The interpretations of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
18.
Harbour, C.P. ( 2002). The legislative evolution of performance funding in the North Carolina Community College System. Community College Review, 29(4), 28-49.
19.
Harbour, C.P. ( 2003). An institutional accountability model for community colleges . Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27, 299-316.
20.
Harbour, C.P. ( 2006). The incremental marketization and centralization of state control of public higher education: A hermeneutic interpretation of legislative and administrative texts. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(3), 1-14.
21.
Harbour, C.P., & Nagy, P. ( 2005). Assessing a state-mandated institutional accountability program: The perceptions of selected community college leaders. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 29, 445-461.
22.
Kearns, K.P. ( 1998). Institutional accountability in higher education: A strategic approach. Public Productivity & Management Review, 22, 140-156.
23.
Kirp, D.L. ( 2003). Shakespeare, Einstein, and the bottom line. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24.
Laanan, F.S. ( 2001). Accountability in community colleges: Looking toward the 21st century. In B. K. Townsend & S. B. Twombly (Eds.), Community colleges: Policy in the future context (pp. 57-76). Westport, CT: Ablex.
25.
Maki, P.L. ( 2009). Moving beyond a national habit in the call for accountability . Peer Review, 11(1), 13-17.
26.
Massy, W.F. ( 2004). Markets in higher education: Do they promote internal efficiency? In P. Teixeira, B. Jongbloed, D. D. Dill , & A. Amaral (Eds.), Markets in higher education: Rhetoric or reality? (pp. 13-35). Boston : Kluwer Academic.
27.
Mayes, L.D. ( 1995). Measuring community college effectiveness: The Tennessee model. Community College Review, 23(1), 13-21.
28.
Merriam, S.B. ( 1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
29.
Merriam, S.B. ( 2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
30.
Newman, F., Couturier, L., & Scurry, J. ( 2004). The future of higher education: Rhetoric, reality, and the risks of the market. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pfeiffer, J.J. ( 1998). From performance reporting to performance-based funding: Florida’s experiences in workforce development performance measurement . In J. R. Sanchez & F. S. Laanan (Eds.), Determining the economic benefits of attending community colleges (New Directions for Community Colleges, No. 104, pp. 17-28). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
33.
Stake, R.E. ( 1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
34.
Stein, R.B., & Fajen, A.L. ( 1995). Missouri’s funding for results initiative. In G. H. Gaither (Ed.), Assessing performance in an age of accountability: Case studies (New Directions for Higher Education, No. 91, pp. 77-90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
35.
Williams, G.L. ( 1995). The "marketization" of higher education: Reforms and potential reforms in higher education finance. In D. D. Dill & B. Sporn (Eds.), Emerging patterns of social demand and university reform: Through a glass darkly (pp. 170-193). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
36.
Williams, G.L. ( 2004). The higher education market in the United Kingdom. In P. Teixeira, B. Jongbloed, D. D. Dill, & A. Amaral (Eds.), Markets in higher education: Rhetoric or reality? (pp. 241-269). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
