Abstract
In the fall of 1997, institutional research staff in the central office of the Oregon University System were asked to build a set of peer comparators for the state's seven diverse public universities. The peer groups were to serve the analytic needs of budgeting, performance measurement, and trend analysis. Because of several critical political issues requiring interinstitutional unity, the peer groups had to be developed and implemented with the participation and support of the seven university presidents. In addition, the peer groups had to be understood and accepted by board members, legislators, and the governor's office. Through a process that combined detailed statistical information with a sensitivity to the political dynamics and judgments of campus presidents and staff, the system office developed a set of peer groups that found acceptance in both the political and analytical environments. Ten conditions that contribute to the creation of peer groups on a systemwide basis are identified and offered as guidance to other university systems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Berthold, Carol A. (1996). Aids to navigation: Using interinstitutional databases in the University of Maryland System. Paper presented at the Thirty-Sixth Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Albuquerque, NM, May 1996 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED397715).
Blanks, Edwin E. (1998). Peer institution selection process. Paper presented at the Thirty-Eighth Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Minneapolis, MN, May 1998.
Brinkman, Paul T., and Teeter, Deborah J. (1987). Methods for selecting comparison groups. In Paul T. Brinkman (ed.), Conducting Interinstitutional Comparisons New Directions for Institutional Research, no. 53, pp. 5–23. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1994). A Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, 1994 Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Christal, Melodie E., and Others (1984). Using HEGIS data in institutional comparisons. Paper presented at the Twenty-Fourth Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Fort Worth, TX, May 1984 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED246768).
Curry, Denis J. (1972). The seven comparison states: Their selection, use, and applicability for higher education comparisons. A report in response to HFR 1972–39. Olympia, WA: Washington State Council on Higher Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED095768).
Ingram, John A. (1995). Using IPEDS data for selecting peer institutions. Paper pre sented at the Thirty-Fifth Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Boston, MA, May 1995 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED387010).
Maryland State Board for Higher Education. (1983). The utility of HEGIS data in making institutional comparisons. Annapolis, MD: Author (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED240959).
McCoy, Marilyn. (1987). Interinstitutional analysis at the system and state level. In Paul T. Brinkman (ed.), Conducting Interinstitutional Comparisons, New Directions for Institutional Research, no. 53, pp. 73–81. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Prather, James E., and Carlson, Christina E. (1991). Using institutional comparisons for administrative decision support. Paper presented at the Thirty-First Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, San Francisco, CA, May 1991 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED335794).
Rawson, Thomas M., Hoyt, Donald P., and Teeter, Deborah J. (1983). Identifying “comparable” institutions. Research in Higher Education 18(3): 299–310.
Teeter, Deborah J. (1983). The politics of comparing data with other institutions. In James W. Firnberg and William F. Lasher (ed.), The Politics and Pragmatics of Institutional Research, New Directions for Institutional Research, no. 38, pp. 39–48. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Teeter, Deborah J., and Brinkman, Paul T. (1992). Peer institutions. In Meredith A. Whiteley, John D. Porter, and Robert H. Fenske (ed.), The Primer for Institutional Research, pp. 63–72. Tallahassee: Association for Institutional Research.
Teeter, Deborah J., and Christal, Melodie E. (1984). A comparison of procedures for establishing peer groups. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Association for Institutional Research, Little Rock, AR, October 1984 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED258499).
Terenzini, Patrick T., Hartmark, Leif, Lorang, Wendell G. Jr., and Shirley, Robert C. (1980). A conceptual and methodological approach to the identification of peer institutions. Research in Higher Education 12(4): 347–364.
Whiteley, Meredith A., and Stage, Frances K. (1987). Institutional uses of comparative data. In Paul T. Brinkman (ed.), Conducting Interinstitutional Comparisons, New Directions for Institutional Research, no. 53, pp. 59–71. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Zhao, Jisehn, and Dean, Donald C. (1997). Selecting peer institutions: A hybrid approach. Paper presented at the Thirty-Seventh Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Orlando, FL, May 1997 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED410877).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Weeks, S.F., Puckett, D. & Daron, R. Developing Peer Groups for the Oregon University System: From Politics to Analysis (and Back). Research in Higher Education 41, 1–20 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007089728061
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007089728061