Results over process?
Time to consider more than just compliance.
Robin Capehart
Oct 5
Paul Hiebert (1932–2007) was a prominent missiologist and anthropologist who made significant contributions to the field of intercultural studies, particularly in the areas of mission theology, anthropology, and the understanding of mission in a global context.
Hiebert served as a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and is known for his theory contrasting “bounded-set” and “centered-set” approaches to understanding churches and religious communities.
In a bounded-set approach, a church or religious community is defined by its boundaries. These boundaries could be doctrinal beliefs, moral codes, or specific religious practices to which members must adhere. Individuals are either in or out based on whether they conform to these boundaries.
In contrast, a centered-set approach focuses on the direction in which members are moving rather than the boundaries they are within. The key question is whether individuals are moving towards or away from the central focus, which is typically Jesus Christ in a Christian context.
Bounded-Set Higher Education
Paul Hiebert’s bounded-set and centered-set theory, originally applied to religious communities, can provide a unique perspective on the American higher education system.
For the most part, the progress of higher education is measured by a bounded-set system in which institutions are defined by their adherence to a set of rules, regulations, and norms that form the boundary. Comparatively, in the American higher education system, the “boundaries” are often set by accreditation bodies, financial aid regulations, and state laws.
The accreditation process exemplifies this bounded-set approach. Institutions are required to comply with specific standards and criteria set by accrediting bodies. These standards cover a wide range of areas, from curriculum and faculty qualifications to financial stability and student support services. The process is heavily rule-based and often criticized for its emphasis on compliance rather than innovation or quality (Ewell, 2008).
The distribution of financial aid is another example. It operates on a model that was designed for a 19th-century agrarian society, where students’ financial circumstances were primarily determined by their family’s agricultural income. Today, this model struggles to accurately reflect the diverse financial situations of contemporary students, yet it remains a key determinant of who receives aid and who does not (Dynarski and Scott-Clayton, 2013).
Similarly, public institutions are often bound by state laws that dictate everything from admission criteria to tuition rates. These laws are typically based on historical precedents and may not adequately address the needs and challenges of 21st-century students (McLendon, Hearn, and Mokher, 2009).
Impact of Bounded-Set Structure on Students
The bounded-set approach to higher education can have significant impacts on students. The focus on compliance with rules and regulations can often overshadow the individual needs and goals of students, potentially limiting their educational experience and outcomes.
Accreditation and Compliance: The emphasis on accreditation and compliance can lead to a one-size-fits-all approach to education, where institutions prioritize meeting external standards over tailoring their programs to the needs of their students. This can limit innovation and flexibility in curriculum design and delivery, potentially reducing the relevance and effectiveness of the education provided.
Financial Aid Distribution: The outdated model for distributing financial aid can disadvantage students from diverse financial backgrounds, potentially limiting their access to higher education. This can exacerbate socioeconomic disparities in educational attainment and outcomes.
State Laws and Public Institutions: State laws can restrict the autonomy of public institutions, limiting their ability to adapt to changing student needs and societal trends. This can result in a disconnect between the education provided and the skills and knowledge required in the modern workforce.
Impact on Learning and Development: The bounded-set approach can also impact students’ learning and development. The focus on compliance and conformity can limit opportunities for critical thinking, creativity, and personal growth, which are key competencies for success in the 21st century.
Impact on Student Relationships and Well-being: The emphasis on rules and regulations can also impact the quality of relationships within the educational community, including relationships between students and faculty. This can affect students’ sense of belonging and well-being, which are important factors in academic success and mental health.
Centered-Set Higher Education
In essence, the bounded-set approach requires “Behave to Belong” (Murphy). It’s a system that focuses heavily on compliance with rules, regulations, and historical norms. This often comes at the expense of institutions’ founding purposes, whether that’s public institutions providing career-focused education or small, private faith-based colleges nurturing well-rounded graduates.
The centered-set approach, on the other hand, could reorient the focus towards the core mission of higher education: producing high quality, competent graduates. Moving towards a centered-set model refocuses higher education towards results over compliance. In this model, the key question is not whether institutions comply with a specific set of rules or norms, but whether they are moving towards or away from this central goal which would include the college’s founding purpose or associated mission.
The founding purpose of an educational institution is its guiding compass, the principle that directs all of its activities. This can vary based on the institution’s type and history. For instance, public institutions often have a mandate to provide education that prepares students for specific careers, while small, private faith-based colleges may aim to develop well-rounded individuals, nurturing their faith, mind, and body.
The public universities, established primarily by the Morrill Land-Grant Acts of 1862 and 1890, were founded with a dual purpose: to provide a practical education accessible to all and to promote research that would drive economic development (Turner and Bound, 2018). Despite the evolution of higher education, these objectives remain relevant today, aligning with the growing demand for career-focused education in a rapidly changing global economy.
Private faith-based colleges, on the other hand, often have a more holistic founding purpose. Many of these institutions aim to cultivate not just the mind but also the spirit and body of their students. This holistic approach to education is supported by research showing that spiritual development can enhance students’ academic and life success (Astin et al., 2011).
While the institution’s founding purpose provides the overarching direction, the day-to-day execution of this purpose falls to the institution’s administration, faculty, and staff. Their mission is to produce high quality, competent graduates, regardless of the specific context or focus of their institution.
This mission is supported by a body of research showing that high-quality teaching and support services improve student outcomes. For instance, studies have shown that effective teaching practices, such as those that engage students actively in the learning process, can significantly improve student learning and retention (Freeman et al., 2014). Similarly, research has shown that student support services, such as academic advising and mental health support, can enhance student success and well-being (Robbins et al., 2004).
Thus, the founding purpose of an institution and the mission of its personnel are two sides of the same coin. Both are essential for fulfilling the ultimate goal of higher education: to educate students and prepare them for success in life and work – standards which align with a centered-set approach to gauging an institution’s progress.
Moving Forward
The American higher education system, rooted in a history of bounded-set approaches, has demonstrated remarkable resilience and adaptability over the years. However, the rapidly changing educational landscape, combined with the increasing diversity and evolving needs of students, suggests that it may be time for a shift in focus from rule compliance to results.
This is not to diminish the value of rules and regulations. They are vital for maintaining quality standards and ensuring fair practices across institutions. Still, an excessive focus on compliance can stifle innovation, limit flexibility, and detract from the core mission of education: to prepare students for success in life and work.
A more balanced approach would be to combine the best aspects of the bounded-set and centered-set approaches. Retain the necessary rules and standards that ensure quality and equity, but also foster a culture that values results – the outcomes and impacts of education on students’ lives.
There are already promising movements in this direction. For example, the student learning outcomes (SLOs) movement in higher education is pushing for a greater focus on demonstrable student learning rather than mere course completion (Kuh, Ikenberry, Jankowski, Cain, Ewell, Hutchings, & Kinzie, 2015). Similarly, competency-based education (CBE) programs emphasize the mastery of specific skills or knowledge areas, offering a more flexible and personalized learning experience (Silva, White, & Toch, 2015).
Moreover, the rising interest in alternative credentials, like badges and certificates, reflects a growing recognition that traditional degree programs are not the only pathway to career success and lifelong learning (Fong, Janzow, & Peck, 2016). Continued exploration and adoption of such innovative approaches could help shift the focus from compliance to results.
In conclusion, a move towards a results-oriented approach in American higher education could provide many benefits. It could foster greater innovation and flexibility, better align education with the evolving needs of students and the workforce, and ultimately, better fulfill the core mission of higher education. It’s a shift that could not just improve the educational experiences and outcomes for individual students, but also strengthen the nation’s future of higher education.
Robin Capehart served 13 years at two different universities: a regional public university and an historically black college (HBCU). He is currently a senior consultant with Collegiate Consulting.