The Affordances of Comparative Case Study in Understanding Admissions Reform Outcomes

• In Event: Qualitative Evidence and Systemic Interrogations of Admissions Research, Logics, Practices, and Norms

Abstract

Admissions involves a combination of individual evaluation and organizational decision-making, and decisions come about through a mix of formal policy, standard practice, and individual judgment. Test-optional and holistic admissions are increasingly normal practices in undergraduate and graduate admissions alike, particularly in the wake of COVID-19. One potential reason that research studies find variation in the impacts of these approaches on the diversity of admitted and enrolled students may be the local design and implementation processes. In support of an NSF-funded research-practice partnership, we conducted a policy implementation study using comparative case study design of 13 PhD programs that have transitioned to holistic review. We investigated what is changing in the adoption of holistic review, how it stretches existing paradigms, the challenges that come with adoption, and how leaders navigate these challenges.

In addition to discussing findings of this research, the presenter will talk about the benefits of comparative case study for drawing out nuances of context and story that, together, help explain why what is broadly thought of as "holistic review” may yield different outcomes in practice. Deep data, compared across contexts, helps resolve what look like puzzles on the surface and distills essential elements of effective test-optional and holistic admissions. Although puzzles, idiosyncrasies, and contradictions are hardly unique to admissions, addressing them is essential for higher education researchers to support postsecondary institutions in establishing effective, sustainable, equitable policies.

Author

• Julie Renee Posselt, University of Southern California
  Presenting Author