Scott Inghram

EDF 625

1
Summer 2016

Final Essay
I interviewed Dr. Charles Chuck Becker, Vice President of Business and Finance at
Concord University, on Thursday, June 23, 2016. The interview was in regard to his experience
in the private sector and how it translated into his current role within the public sector. The
event went as planned and each of the questions developed prior to the meeting was
addressed. There was an issue, however, with question seven as it was too cumbersome to
relay as written. This issue was quickly resolved as I paraphrased it to get to the intent. The
interview lasted one-hour but was interrupted at approximately forty three minutes and eleven
seconds (43:11) into the interview. Dr. Boggess, the University President, asked for Dr. Becker. I
waited an hour for Dr. Becker to finish and I believe that interruption did affect the overall
tambour of the interview. It felt that we had lost some of the ground covered and the context
derived throughout the process in the remaining third.
Part One: Analyzing the Interview
The overall purpose of the interview, other than to complete an assignment, was to
discuss Dr. Beckers private sector experience prior to his transition to public higher education
and determine if this experience had any bearing on the manner in which he approached his
current work in public higher education administration. I learned that Dr. Becker had worked in
the public sector before his transition to higher education. Although it did not affect my
questioning, it did surprise me to hear that he had worked as public accountant almost
concurrently with his first exposure to teaching. This, the work experience of Dr. Becker, was
the first theme that emerged from the interview. According to Dr. Becker, he felt that his work
in the private sector has helped both him and the University. The interview brought out a
discussion regarding the trend toward privatization of public higher education and the
relevance of Dr. Beckers prior experience. Specifically, that it is more relevant now than it
would have in earlier times.
Dr. Becker indicated that his experience as faculty was also very instrumental in his
current work. This notion took me off guard in that I assumed that he would focus more on his
work in the private sector in that he refers to this experience often during shared decisionmaking opportunities. According to Dr. Becker, a person coming straight from the private sector
would have significant difficulty directing institutional finance without an understanding of the
academic operation of an institutional organization. Once Dr. Becker made this connection, the
experience made sense to me as being integral, but it was almost completely discounted by me
in the planning of the interview. I had initially planned for him to have placed greater emphasis
on his private sector experience when considering the benefit of his work history to his current
position. From this theme, it is evident that there is a pepper of experience from which Dr.
Becker relies on to engage in the responsibilities of administrating the fiscal aspects of the
university.
In line with the discussion regarding Dr. Beckers various positions in both the public and
private sectors, was the second theme regarding transitions. I had initially planned to focus in
on his work transitions as I believe there is an inherent value in learning from someone later in

Scott Inghram
EDF 625

2
Summer 2016

a career path. I am from the mindset that from an early age, we are led to believe that ones
career must be determined upfront and as early as possible in order for one to achieve
professional Zen. Leaders, like Dr. Becker, are important to hear from in regard to the
unplanned nature of their work trajectory. Dr. Beckers transitions are important to learn from
in that they provide comfort to those early in their professional life. As delineated by Dr.
Becker, his career path possessed many twists and turns which are relied upon when making
important decisions for an institution facing difficult times. His pepper of experience, from my
view, strengthens his ability to make decisions. In my view, this strength would not be present if
he were to have entered a specified training regimen early in life to assume the responsibility
he now holds.
Dr. Becker is also a great story teller, which is one of the many reasons I chose to
interview him. From his ability to tell stories comes the third theme, Dr. Becker as a pilot.
Primarily from his fond, and often, reminiscence of the times he was a recreational piolet, Dr.
Becker discusses various situations, or at least anecdotes, from his flying experience. His
interview was not a departure from this trend, but it did deliver a perspective, or context, to
the subject at hand. As the vice president in charge of the fiscal operations of the institution, a
connection can be made that Dr. Becker is responsible for navigating the Concord University
though a time where fiscal resources are draining for various reasons.
As mentioned in the interview, there is a trend toward privatization in higher education
and Dr. Becker must navigate Concord University through the fiscal hardships posed by a
disinvesting in the service (Hurley, 2014). Although the topic of Dr. Beckers experience as a
piolet came in a different context, to the interviewer, this seemed as a powerful metaphor to
his job at hand. In connecting one of his stories, Dr. Becker explained in detail an experience he
had piloting a plane through tough weather. Due to a limited license and the navigation
capabilities of the plane, Dr. Becker described his being forced inland due to a storm and his
difficulties finding visual navigation cues in the Great Dismal Swamp. Dr. Becker described
direct leadership experience where he had to rely on his own judgement while maintaining
calm. This metaphor is powerful considering the context under which he must operate. This,
along with its direct mention, leads to a much more relevant phenomenon to study, the
privatization of public higher education as experienced by small public undergraduate
institutions.
Of the three themes mentioned, a researcher could explore the perceived value of
experience of public higher education administrators, the importance of transitions during
ones career in the context of garnering knowledge, and/or the importance of other leadership
roles and how they shape a leaders decisions. Various forms of questioning could arise in each
of these themes and rich context could be derived from them. A qualitative researcher could
pursue each vigorously as the themes are important to the academy for various reasons as
discussed. Each deserves further insight to determine if and how much they matter in the fields
of leadership and higher education administration. Overall to me, however, the burning insight
which needs further clarification is the afore-mentioned privatization of public education and
further how these themes may interrelate. Specifically this phenomenon should be studied

Scott Inghram
EDF 625

3
Summer 2016

from the viewpoint of administrators of small public regional undergraduate institutions.

As Wong (2015) discusses, small colleges are facing a harsher environment where they
are more likely to close. Granted Wong focuses in on the private institutions like Sweet Briar,
but the danger still applies to their public counterparts. It is important for researchers to
understand the labor, and environment, of which administrators at these institutions are
working. Interviews as well as ethnographic studies should be completed in order to capture
rich detail regarding this transition in higher education. An attention to this phenomenon is
important as some institutions will survive this shift, while others will collapse. Looking at
administrative decisions is one way to figure out what ended up working, but working with
administrators by giving context to their approach through their understanding of the
phenomenon gives meaning to their decisions. It is also provides valuable insight into the
leadership culture at these institutions.
If a small institution is to survive among others, understanding these elements in the
midst of other insight provided by high-ranking administrators at small public institutions would
be instrumental in determining why some colleges prosper, while others suffer under the
privatization shift. In further consideration, this information will only tell half of the story. It is
assumed that the administrative approach to dealing with the issues aligned with privatization
is shaped by their perception of the problem. It is with understanding that I would want to
involve these administrators to shape and define the issue from their own standpoint. I would
use a snowball sampling method to identify key participants.
These participants would be doctoral students with access to high-ranking
administrators employed at small public regional undergraduate institutions. The Carnegie
classification system would be used as reference to ensure proper classification. Once these
participants are engaged, I would then elicit their support in managing their own ethnographerconsultant teams. This approach is used as the high level officials, the cabinet members, will not
have significant time to devote to the process and, therefore, the students can create drafts for
the administrators comment and discussion. This approach is in line with Lassiters use of the
method in The Other Side of Middletown project. Also, it is hoped that a large number of
students (ethnographers) and administrators (consultants) would participate due to the
number of institutions meeting the classification requirements. As indicated by Lassiter, this
method of collaboration works well with projects with a large number of ethnographers and
consultants (p. 142).
In regard to the questions being asked, they need to provide some flexibility in order to
respect not only the varying characteristics of each institution and participant, but the
ethnographer must also consider the ethical and moral obligations to the administrators. There
is a complex web of varying stakeholders at these institutions including the political, the
employed, and current and past students. Each group has their own characteristics which
complicate the administrators ability to discuss realities for the institution. As an example, a
vice president would have difficulty discussing a dearth of alumni support in fear of alienating
those who do offer their backing. The participants would also have some issue discussing their

Scott Inghram
EDF 625

4
Summer 2016

role in a collapsing system. Each ethnographer should be sensitive to these issues along with
the promise of anonymity, which is difficult, maybe impossible in this form of research. Simple
questions, which allow for probing, should be utilized. A list of example questions is provided
below:
1.
Please tell me a little about yourself and your role at the institution.
2.
Please tell me a little about your work experience. What do you find most
helpful in your current role?
3.
What type of a leader are you?
4.
Do you believe that there is a trend toward the privatization of public higher
education?
5.
What does the privatization of public higher education mean to you?
6.
Is your institution effected by this trend? If so/not how?
7.
Is your institution doing anything to address this trend? If so/not how?
8.
Are you affected by this trend? If so/not how?
9.
Are you doing anything differently in your role due to this trend? If so/not
what?
10.
Have there been a discussion regarding this trend in cabinet?
11.
If so, to what regard?
12.
How would you describe the leadership at your institution?
In addition to these questions, other valuable information can be gathered as data regarding
each institution including their financial and enrollment trends. This is a complicated issue and
the involvement of each ethnographer-consultant team is integral in shaping what is important
regarding this phenomenon at each institution. This approach again pairs with Lassiters Other
Side of Middletown project as it does not capture the phenomena in its entirety but provides a
valuable discussion regarding its unfolding during a pivotal time in higher education in the midAtlantic region of the United States.
Part Two: Exploring Collaboration
It is not enough to indicate that collaboration is key to this study. In line with Schwandts
view of collaborative ethnography, this study requires full participation of the population (p.
34). As indicated in section one above, example questions were only provided to give a general
direction for each ethnographer consultant team. Each institution has its own
conceptualization in regard to the privatization phenomenon and various other characteristics.
By allowing a true collaboration, the project would appreciate individuality at the planning,
working, and analyzing stages. The impetus of the study is to understand the phenomena at a
deeper level as defined by the administrators themselves. Without their full involvement, the
overall purpose of the study would be missed. From an ontological standpoint, this design
underscores the subjective reality of participatory research as discussed by Lincoln and Guba (p.
258). This subjectivity is embraced in this model as each institution, collaborator, and,
therefore, team will develop their own take on the phenomena which is based in their own
subjective realities. This also underlies the epistemology of the design as it is both transactional
and experiential therefore forming a living knowledge (pp. 258-259).

Scott Inghram
EDF 625

5
Summer 2016

Interpretation.
In order to successfully carryout this design, as lead researcher it is paramount that I
engage the participant community early where we can co-develop a code of ethics and
priorities for the study. Embracing a co-commitment to not only one-another, but the integrity
of the issue at hand will enable each ethnographer consultant team to develop their own
practical insight tilted toward major revelation regarding privatization. The exciting notion for
this research is that even the lack of consensus can signify to administrators and the higher
education community that privatization is subject to the individual characteristics assigned by
each collaborative group. This rich bed of knowledge can, therefore, be applied in various forms
by administrators, if action should be taken at all.
There is inherent difficulty first in the development of a collaborative ethnographic
project in just organizing such diverse individuals and the information they produce. Further
complicating this issue is the ethical dilemmas inherent in this approach. In navigating the
complexity of both mitigating risk in the study which utilizes multiple independent
environments experiencing the phenomena differently, and also understanding the sensitivity
behind the issue for the participants, it is important to understand that the process is highly
complex. Using the co-developed code of ethics and allowing each collaborative group the
autonomy to develop their own narrative is important. As described by Lassiter in his approach
to the Other Side of Middletown, each group must contextualize and codify their individual
moral commitments to one another and the process (p. 91). This allows each analysis, part of
the whole, to respect each groups desire in regard to identity or anonymity to be respected.
Each complex moral and ethical consideration can be navigated at the group level with the
understanding that the final authored piece will contain only the information proffered forward
by each collaborative group.
This does not, however, let the author off the hook in regard to the final piece. It must
be understood in the beginning process, the overt goal of the research, therefore, the final
piece, is nuanced in both overt outcome/goal consideration and the value of the knowledge
carried forward. An understanding to the sensitivity of the issue must be acknowledged as well
as the final outcome may be the last testament of the leaders of institutions that fell victim to
the privatization phenomenon, or at worst, mismanagement. There is highly delicate narrative
that must be first acknowledged for its sensitivity then in regard to its importance to the body
of knowledge (Schwandt, p. 316). A true collaborative ethnography would be proffered to the
community as the student, administrators, and the lead researcher responsible for the drafting
of the final piece would work together to address the privatization of public higher education
phenomena and its effect on specific mid-Atlantic public regional undergraduate institutions as
explored by cabinet level administrators.
Reframing the initial material.
The material provided by the Dr. Becker interview could only be used in the framework
under which it has already been provided. This is not to say that it does not have value, but to

Scott Inghram
EDF 625

6
Summer 2016

hold true to a collective approach required under the interpretation framework of a

collaborative ethnography requires more significant participation on his part in the
development of the questions, the interview, and the research process as a whole. Dr. Becker
would be given a different objective as opposed to the one initially presented. Instead of being
informed that he would be interviewed in regard to his experience in the private sector and
how it translated into his current role within the public higher education sector, he would be
informed of my intent to better understand the privatization of public higher education
phenomena and its effect on specific mid-Atlantic public regional undergraduate institutions as
explored by cabinet level administrators. It is understood that the original material provided in
the interview led the researcher to further develop the direction of the research. From a
collaborative standpoint, Dr. Beckers participation in the initial information gathering interview
led to the larger more refined study.
The concept of collaboration is important here as Dr. Beckers interview acted as the
exploratory stage to identify the trajectory of further research. The initial work led to further
pursuit of the new question that needed asked. Without his connection to the value of his
experience in the private sector to the current higher education climate, the privatization
phenomena would not be further explored as proposed. The collaborative ethnographic
approach to the redeveloped research has its roots in the interview provided by Dr. Becker. It
is thorough his connection and the spirit of collaboration that that the new question would be
further pursued. Although the initial interview would not lead to further analysis under the new
research method, the value of Dr. Beckers contribution is evident.
Redeveloping the initial approach.
If one were to pursue the initial interview from a collaborative ethnography method,
prior to the interview Dr. Becker would have also taken part in an earlier activity where a code
of ethics was mutually developed by the Concord group. He would have a full understanding of
the parameters of anonymity along with other codified group defined considerations aligned
with participation. The interview would also be very different in regard to the delivery of the
revised list of questions and probes specific to the Concord University environment and his role
as Vice President of Business and Finance within the university structure. These questions
and/or probes only serve to provide ideas and would not have a significant role in the
collaborative process. Care would have also been taken to ensure that Dr. Beckers
participation would not end with the interview but he would be considered a consultant
throughout the process. It is, therefore, understood that the research would look very different
moving forward as it would assume a more collective identity.
The first step in the collaboration would be to identify possible institutions fitting the
criteria of the project. Institutions would require a Carnegie classification Baccalaureate College
with a Special Arts & Sciences or Arts & Sciences + Profession Focus. They would also be
considered public with a regional mission and be located in the mid-Atlantic region. Once
possible institutions are located, willing education doctoral students would be recruited to act
as ethnographers of their group. Ideally these collaborators would be either employed or

Scott Inghram
EDF 625

7
Summer 2016

engaged with an identified eligible institution. The student would then be trained as necessary
to carry out the initial phase of the research, engaging the cabinet members of the respective
institution. Ideally every member of each cabinet would agree to participate as a consultant in
their institutions ethnographer consultant team. Although initial questions would be
provided as a framework, ongoing conversations between the student and cabinet would occur
to develop a written narrative of the phenomena at their institution. Each of the narratives
would have their own subjective reality in regard to the privatization phenomena which would
have been commented on and discussed by each independent team. It is understood that each
team would produce their piece together with the student ethnographer drafting and
redrafting until the final piece is developed. This activity mirrors Lassiters utilization of
ethnographer-consultant teams in the Other Side of Middletown project (p. 124).
Each narrative would then be compiled into one document and disseminated to each of
the student ethnographers, along with the lead researcher where the creation of a co-written
analysis would occur. The objective of the analysis would be to form one or more chapters
focused on compiling the narrative data into agreed upon trends. It is important to note that
the analysis will only identify unifying trends as the goal of this process is not to produce a
positivist reality, but to condense the material for some readers. The analysis, once agreed
upon by the student ethnographers and the lead researcher, will be provided with the other
narratives. Careful consideration will be taken to ensure that the code of ethics agreed upon by
each team will not be breeched by the compilation of narratives and the analysis. Those
institutions wishing not to be named will not be named, while those wanting credit will receive
credit. This process will occur in the acknowledgement section as well as other important
acknowledgements. Credit will be given in this manner to help mediate the possibility that
certain narratives could be assigned to certain institutions. Of course, this will be negotiated in
the beginning as suggested by Lassiter, and all collaborators will understand the process prior
to engaging the research. Anonymity will not be promised but every protection will be
considered by the collaborative team. Access to the final product will be given to each team
member.
This process would be developed with the consideration of making the research
significant. It is believed that through engaging the participants as collaborators, a better
product will be developed. Careful consideration for ethical and moral obligations will be
evident throughout the process as well as explaining limitations. Throughout the process
delivered, I believe that a true collaborative ethnography would be provided and support would
be garnered through experts in the field. This approach would lead to a better understanding
of the privatization of public higher education phenomena and its effect on specific mid-Atlantic
public regional undergraduate institutions as explored by cabinet level administrators.
Part Three: Symbolic Interactionalism and Closing Remarks
As contrary to my initial thoughts, there is one major similarity between collaborative
ethnography and symbolic interactionalism, they both involve continuing processes. In regard
to the process of symbolic interactionalism, it centers on the processes actors use to create

Scott Inghram
EDF 625

8
Summer 2016

and recreate experiences from one interaction to the next (Carter & Fuller, p. 3, 2016). In
regard to collaborative ethnography, content is validated through a continuous process. Aside
from this similarity, which admittedly is weak, the proposed research would change drastically
if one were to shift away from collaborative ethnography and redesign the study. Most
importantly is the focus, as symbolic interactionalism observes a behavior of others, while in
collaborative ethnography phenomena are explored by the researcher collectively with the
participants. There is also a shift from the ontological relativism of symbolic interactionalism to
the subjectivity of collaborative ethnography. Not only would the collaborator become the
subject but there would be a huge shift in paradigm considering the transactional approach of
symbolic interactionalism as opposed to the participatory transaction of collaborative
ethnography (Lincoln and Gubda, p. 258).
In essence, there are vast differences among approaches and the research would
change radically. I do not think that I would subscribe to the symbolic interactionalism
approach in future research. Although I find it interesting, I have a hard time with the premise
that phenomena can be broken down into interaction and that its meaning/value is derived
from that action. I see how this works on an individual level, but along with the theorys critics, I
have a hard time applying this theory to the macro level (Carter & Fuller, 2016).
My research.
I enjoy the pursuit of knowledge, and therefore, I enjoy research. I often tell my
students that once someone understands the tenets of research, they have a good chance of
answering their own questions. Right now I am struggling with identifying my dissertation
question/topic; I believe it will come in time. Although I am struggling to identify the topic of
my dissertation, I know that I want it to involve a social justice issue as related to higher
education.
As far as research that I participate in, I analyze data for a joint SBIRT program between
all Social Work Education Consortia schools in West Virginia. I enjoy this responsibility as it
helps my colleges and I get to use the quantitative information I have learned throughout my
educational program. I am also responsible for gathering and analyzing data for our Social Work
programs Council on Social Work Education accreditation, which is a huge responsibility. The
program has historically used a qualitative (loosely stated) section in its evaluation, and since
the inception of this class, I have been thinking of ways I can improve our process. It is weak by
design and acts more as a meet and greet verses a means to collect data.
Since this seminar, I have learned more regarding qualitative analysis and have garnered
more respect for the process. I am happy to have had my mind changed in regard to there
being a divide between qualitative and quantitative research. I realize that I have been taught a
false separation between the two concepts. I hope to apply qualitative technique to more of my
research in the future.

Scott Inghram
EDF 625

9
Summer 2016

References
Carter, M. J., & Fuller, C. (2016). Symbols, meaning, and action: The past, present, and future of
symbolic interactionalism. Current Sociology. Doi: 10.1177/0011392116638396
Hurley, D. J. (2014, Jan 24). Stopping the privatization of American public higher education. The
Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-jhurley/stopping-the-privatizatio_b_4617230.html
Wong, A. (2015, Oct 2). Farewell to Americas small colleges: The Sweet Briar phenomenon. The
Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/10/
demise-of-small-private-colleges/408592/