This material resides on an Indiana State University server and is maintained by Will Barratt.
Please forward any problems and comments to him.
From James Thurber
"...It may interest you to know that I have made a lifelong study of lemmings, just as you have made a lifelong study of people. Like you, I have found but one thing about my subject which I do not understand."
" 'And what is that?' Asked the lemming. 'I don't understand', said the scientist, 'Why you lemmings all rush down to the sea and drown yourselves.' "
" 'How curious,' said the lemming. 'The one thing I don't understand is why you human beings don't.' " (Thurber, 1937)
Lemmings
Lemmings are small, mouselike rodents and are well known for "suicidal" trips to the sea. (Odum, 1975) Dubos (1965) gives the following account. "According to an ancient Norwegian belief, the lemmings periodically experience an irresistible 'collective urge' either to commit suicide or to search for their ancestral home on the lost Atlantic sea." "The migration of Norwegian lemmings was so massive in 1960-61 that a steamer entering the Trondheim Fjord took one hour to pass through a two-mile-long pack of swimming and sinking rodents!" (Page 103). While the exact mechanism for this population crash is not known, one factor that is suspected is crowding.
The "carrying capacity", or the maximum population that a particular environment can support indefinitely without leading to degradation, is a concept that is suggested by Ellen (1982). The concept may be useful in our attempt to understanding student attrition.
Students As Lemmings
"I don't understand," said the campus administrator, Why you students all rush down to the registrar's office to stop out or drop out?" "How curious", said the student, "The one thing I don't understand is why you administrators don't." (Apologies to Thurber!)
Student Attrition
While student attrition may not be "suicidal" it does represent the failure to reach an educational objective. It has been well documented that "between 40 and 45 of every 100 first-time entrants will leave without earning a degree of any sort." (Tinto, 1985). What is the "carrying capacity" of a campus environment? Do the students know something that we don't?
We do know that if all the students enrolled suddenly for some reason decided not to be an attrition statistic and continued their enrollment that the college or university would self-destruct. There would not be enough faculty, classrooms, staff, etc. We plan and design our educational environment based on the prediction of a status-quo attrition rate. Our ability to "carry" is based on a large number of our students rushing to the Sea of Attrition!
Improving Carrying Capacity
ACT (1985) lists the following as "common retention strategies" to improve what could be termed the "carrying capacity":
Perhaps a "carrying environment" in higher education could be summarized as a "caring environment"!
References:
ACT (1985). Midstate worksheets and activities. Iowa City: The American College Testing Program.
Dubos, R. (1965). Man adapting New Haven: Yale University Press.
Ellen, R. (1982) Environment, subsistence and system. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Odum, E.P. (1975). Ecology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston
Thurber, J. (1937). Interview with a lemming. In My world And welcome to it. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company
Tinto, V. (198:). Topping out and other forms of withdrawal from collegesIn L. Noel, R. Levitz, D. Saluri, and Associates (Eds.), Increasing Student Retention, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
| CONTEXT | ||
| ISSUES | ||
| Freedom
vs. Control |
1. Is it voluntary participation? 2. Are respondants informed? 3. Who requested the assessment? 4. Etc. |
1. Who planned intervention? 2. By what authority? 3. Level of manipulation? 4. Etc. |
| Privacy | 1. Informed consent? 2. Anonymous? 3. Level of confidentiality? 4. Etc. |
1. Invasion of privacy? 2. Balance between privacy and community good. 3. Etc. |
| Competence | 1. What assessment competencies are involved? 2. Qualifications of researcher? 3. Experience level? 4. Etc |
1. What intervention skills are present? 2. Have unintended outcomes been addresssed? 3. Etc. |
| Political Position |
1. By what authority? 2. Is assessment fair? 3. Etc. |
1. Who is to benefit? 2. By what authority? 3. Etc. |
| Value System |
1. Whose values reflected in assessment? 2. What are the values? 3. Etc. |
1. Whose values are reflected in the intervention? 2. Who will benefit? 3. Etc. |
HOW TO USE THE MODEL
At the interface of the ethical issue and the context of the research, several questions are raised. The exploration of these questions and others (Etc.) should help campus designers proceed in a more enlightened manner regarding the ethical issues involved. The ecosystem design model suggests that the participation of all who will be impacted by the assessment and/or intervention should participate in the exploration of the questions. (Note: The Resource Reference section of the back page of this newsletter lists references focusing on research/ethical issues.)
Banning, J.H. & Kaiser, L. (1974). An ecological perspective and model for campus design. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 52(6), 370-375.
Boruch, R. (1971). Maintaining confidentiality of data in educational research: A systematic analysis. American Psychologist, 26, 413-430.
Conyne, R.K. & Clack, R.O. (1981). Environmental assessment and design: A new tool for the applied behavioral scientist. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Ethical principles in the conduct of research with human participants. (1973). American Psychologist, 29, 79-80.
Kaiser, L. (1975). Designing campus environments. NASPA Journal, 13(1), 33-39.
Kelman, H. (1969). Manipulation of human behavior: An ethical dilemma for social scientist. In W.G. Bennis, K.D. Benne, & R. Chin (Eds.), The Planning of Change (2nd Ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Kessler, M. & Albee, G. (1975). Primary prevention. Annual Review of Psychology, 26, 557-592.
Kopkind, A. (1967). The future planners. New Republic, Feb. 25, 19-23.
Krasner, L. (1962). Behavior control and social responsibility. American Psychologist, 17, 199-204.
Lefcourt, H. (1973). The function of the illusion of control and freedom. American Psychologist, 28, 417-425.
Michael, D. (1967). Social engineering and the future environment. American Psychologist, 22, 888-892.
Privacy and behavioral research: Preliminary summary of the report of the panel on privacy and behavioral research. (1967). American Psychologist, 22, 345-349.
Reubhausen, O. & Brim, O. (1965). Privacy and behavioral research. Columbia Law Review, 65, 1184- 1211.
Roe, A. (1959). Man's forgotten weapon. American Psychologist, 14, 261-266.
Rogers, C.R. (1955). Persons or science: A philosophical question. American Psychologist, 10, 267-278.
Rogers, C.R. & Skinner, B.F. (1956). Some issues concerning the control of human behavior: A symposium. Science, 124, 1057- 1066.
Scully, M. (1976). 'A moral crusade' is raging within the social sciences. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Sept. 13, 9.
Shore, M. & Golann, S. (1969). Problems of ethics in community mental health: A survey of community psychologist. Community Mental Health Journal, 5(6),
Skinner, BF. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New
Sommer, R. (1972). Design awareness. San Francisco: Rinehart Press
Ulrich, R. (1967). behavioral control and public concern. Psychological record. 3, 339-344.
This material resides on an Indiana State University server and is maintained by
Will Barratt.
Please forward any problems and comments to him.