Does Sherman Dorn hold a double standard on interview studies?

Rick Hess writes in response to my last entry commenting on a piece by Ben Wildavsky that I “snarked that the research was qualitative and that Ben didn’t offer up a quantitative analysis. Now, I thought it interesting that education scholars who often argue the merits of methodological diversity (an argument I heartily endorse, so long as the work in question is well done ((emphasis added))), were quick to lash out at qualitative work whose conclusions they disliked. But, more to the point, I don’t recall any of these same concerns being raised about the qualitative, anecdotal, and interview-driven hit jobs done against for-profits recently by The Nation or the New York Times. How about it, folks? What’s the deal?” Just a few things:

• Hess is assuming I disagree with every observation of the former elite-school administrators on the public/non-profit side who moved to for-profit universities. He’s jumping to conclusions just a wee bit: the failure of Wildavsky to meet Hess’s “well-done” criterion is what made my eyes roll.
• Regarding the double-standard accusation, I guess Hess didn’t read what I wrote about Stephanie Mencimer’s and Lee Fang’s articles on either October 19 or November 27. I wouldn’t call either of my comments drooling approval of the articles, and I haven’t commented on the most recent (NY Times) article Hess links to. I can’t demand that my blog be made required reading at AEI, but if you’re going to accuse me of a double-standard, you may want to check I’ve held a double standard you can document.

Here’s another way to slice my concern: I strongly suspect that if Geri Malandra had moved from the University of Texas to Cal State Long Beach or Miami-Dade College instead of Kaplan, and if everyone else interviewed by Wildavsky had had a chance to be an administrator at Cal State Long Beach, Miami-Dade, or similar public and non-profit teaching-oriented institutions, the researchers vs. teachers comment would have been framed as public flagships and private research universities vs. the workaday world of the majority of the public and non-profit sphere. Taking all comments from interview subjects at face value led Wildavsky to a narrow frame, by ignoring the larger reality of higher ed. That’s why the conclusions drawn about faculty at public and non-profit colleges and universities vs. faculty at for-profits is specious and an example of researcher indulgence.

If I were sitting on a dissertation committee for a student who wanted to interview people who had moved between public, non-profit, and for-profit institutions, I would strongly suggest finding people who moved between similar roles and institutions with at least plausibly similar missions. There are plenty of such people, including those who move from public to for-profit and back to public (as the anonymous Dean Dad has done), and it would make sense to take advantage of faculty and administrative swirling in such a study. ((“Swirling” is usually used in higher ed to refer to students who move between multiple colleges and universities as undergraduates, but we might as well use it to refer to faculty and administrators who also move between different sectors.)) But let’s face reality: Geri Malandra was hired last year to provide cover for Kaplan after a huge publicity hit. Other former administrators from elite, research institutions are unlikely to be hired by the for-profits for their expertise in teaching initiatives. Wildavsky’s interview paper uses a sample of convenience and draws generalizations that are unwarranted from the positions of his interviewees.