WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH & PLANNING (WARP) (AKA DATA Group)
January 24, 2001, 9 a.m.
Video Conference Meeting Notes

1. DATA Group (WARP) survey results. Discussion topics prepared by Doug Whittaker

1. Respondents' experience in IR and in the CTC system: About half of respondents have been in IR-related fields and in the CTC system for less than six years. Nationally, about 1/3 of AIR members have been in their positions for less than four years.

   Role for WARP: designing training and professional development opportunities and formalizing mentoring relationships that already happen informally. Need to meet the needs of both new and veteran members.

   The survey was loosely modeled on the AIR survey; should we share the results with AIR? Caveat: small n (26). Questions or concerns about sharing the data should be directed to Maureen Pettitt. She will also check to see if the results from the 1998 national survey are available.

2. Position location and reporting relationships: Most respondents report directly to the college president or a vice president. The nature of the position depends on the culture of the college.

   Role for WARP: Advising colleges hiring IR staff for the first time. What should the position look like? Role of IR in assessment is critical; how focused on assessment is IR at an institution? Faculty are likely to view IR and assessment as "outside". IR gets credibility from president and VP. What assumptions should president, VP make about IR? What should they expect from IR? Administrators often don't know what to do with IR. IR roles and responsibilities vary greatly: for some, most of the work is mainly related to instruction; for others it is more administrative.

3. The task list (question 5): At least half of the respondents had primary responsibility or provided regular support in the following areas: external performance indicators, survey design, research design, statistical analysis, academic program review, and accreditation self-study

   Role for WARP: The list can guide training sessions and show areas where WARP members would like to be more involved if training is available. Of particular interest are the low-incidence areas, especially those perceived to have "high criticality" (operational/short term planning might be one example). It can also be used for structuring IR offices.

   Recommendation: if we do the survey again ask respondents to rate the criticality of tasks.

4. Meeting frequency: Greatest support for fall (62%) and spring (73%) meetings. Least interest in a summer meeting (35%).

   Comments/considerations: 1. The fall meeting in conjunction with PNAIRP has worked well recently, but budget constraints and roles other than/in addition to IR limit attendance for some. Difficult to justify having more than one person from a college attend PNAIRP. PNAIRP travel grants are available. 2. Winter meetings are difficult for members from colleges in Eastern Washington. 3. Given the low interest in having a summer meeting, this might be a good time for subgroups to meet.

5. Added topic: How can institutional researchers communicate? The IR function is becoming broader and broader. How do people in IR-related positions get everything covered? How are others dealing with this issue?

   Role for WARP: providing a forum for sharing ideas and problem-solving. Fostering communication among colleges.

2. Mission follow-up and next steps

   We did not spend much time reviewing the mission and goals statement, since these were distributed previously for review and comment. Current wording was accepted unanimously by a roll call vote. A subgroup was formed to work on a constitution and by-laws, which we will vote on at the April meeting.

   Subgroup: Judi, Dan W., Kristy, Geneva. Also check to see if Pat H? can participate.

3. Finalize agenda for April 19 & 20 meeting

   The structure for Thursday afternoon was finalized, and facilitators/discussants were tentatively identified. There will be three discussion groups:

   • How does IR fit into accreditation-Marsha Brown, Dan Weinstein, Geneva Blake (2:00-3:00)
   • Coding issues-Debbie Reynvaan, Ellen Hoffman (tentative) CBC registrar (tentative) (3:15-4:00)
   • Instruments: alternatives to the CCSEQ; climate surveys-Maureen Pettitt, Paul Landrum? (4:00-4:45)
   
   

   Several of the workshops on Friday still needed facilitators. The following people graciously volunteered (or were volunteered):

   • Data Warehouse-SMS-SMIS-Ty Jones (9:00-10:00)
   • Using Data Warehouse: Best Practices-Doug Whittaker (9:00-10:00)
   • Using DLOA for experienced Access users-Sherry Bond (tentative) Kristy Anderson cannot attend the meeting but will help plan the workshop. (11:30-12:15)
   • MRTE for Access users-Darryl Dieter, Tina Leimer (tentative) (1:15-2:30)


4. Update on the National survey of Student Engagement Loretta gave an update on the status of the community college version of the National Survey of Student Engagement, a short form of the CCSEQ. Development hasn't been fully funded yet, but it is expected to be.


5. College research expectations of the SBCTC

   Jan Yoshiwara solicited input from the group about the kinds of qualities/skills we'd like the new research manager to have. She explained that although David Prince now has Loretta's old title as Senior research manager, he will focus on all the workforce related "stuff", and will be more policy-oriented. He will take the lead on accountability reporting. The new hire will be more involved in enrollment, distance learning, staffing, and basic academic skills issues, and will be more data/analysis oriented. This person will take the lead on the Academic Year and Fall Enrollment & Staffing reports. Both David and the new hire will report to Jan. Loretta has taken the transfer piece with her to her new position.

   Suggestions from the group:

   • must have direct experience with issues unique to community /technical colleges.
   • an advocate for ctc's and able to communicate to a broad spectrum of audiences including the legislature, the business community, ctc presidents, four-year college and university administrators, etc.
   • sensitive, responsive to needs of individual colleges, doesn't think only at the system level.

   The Board's expectations for the position:

   • good analytical and interpretive skills;
   • ability to communicate research findings to diverse audiences;
   • strong presentation skills.

   Jan encouraged people to email her with additional comments/suggestions about the position. Her address is:

   Jyoshiwara@sbctc.edu

   Screening starts on Feb 13. She is hoping to have someone on board by April 1.

6. Other

   David Prince reported on the LAAP project. Comments are invited. The on-line survey will be conducted again this spring.