Transfer Receptive Culture: Grassroots Leadership Lessons to Create Culture Change in Higher Education Institutions
Access to higher education is an important factor for diverse student populations to pursue and complete their post-secondary degrees in their goal to advance themselves in their society. In addition to serving this private good, institutions of higher education must consider serving the public good to prepare students for their political roles as active citizens in the nation (Labaree, 1997). In serving its mission, institutions such as public land-grants institutions must focus on ensuring access to historically underrepresented student populations including those from low socio-economic backgrounds, first generation, and students of color. Students from these historically marginalized backgrounds frequently begin their journey in higher education at two-year institutions such as a community college (Quaye & Harper, 2015). These students either stop their educational pursuits upon obtaining their associate degree, transfer to larger 4-year institutions, or attend multiple institutions before obtaining their degree (Quaye & Harper, 2015).
Shapiro et al. (2018) define transfer as “any change in a student’s initial enrollment institution irrespective of the timing, direction, or location of the move, and regardless of whether any credits were transferred from one institution to another” (p. 6). Student mobility describes the movement of students between institutions (Shapiro et al., 2018). Shapiro et al. (2018) reported that 40.8% of over 2.8 million students who were enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities for the first time in fall 2011 initially enrolled at a public two-year institution. Additionally, 37.6% enrolled at a public four-year institution with the overall six-year transfer and mobility rate at 38% (Shapiro et al., 2018). Based on these trends, it is prudent for 4-year public institutions to focus on their retention efforts surrounding transfer students. Specifically, it is crucial to identify the ways that transfer students engage with their institutions to inform institutional responses that support these students’ persistence to degree completion (Kuh, 2015).
The research has largely attributed transfer student retention and success at four-year institutions post-transfer to student characteristics and engagement on campus. Consistent with Astin’s theory of student involvement (1984), research has primarily focused on transfer students’ “input” characteristics and engagement in their “environment” as factors affecting transfer students’ persistence to degree-completion and retention (Adelman, 2005; Enzi et al., 2005; Hoover, 2010; Lee & Schneider, 2018; Tobolowsky et al., 2014; Tobolowsky & Cox, 2012; Townsend & Wilson, 2009). Input characteristics include student demographics, their background, and experiences that they bring with them to college. Environment refers to the students’ ability to engage within the receiving institution such as having the capital to navigate articulation agreements, enrollment policies, and degree requirements. These student characteristics and the ways in which these students engage in their receiving institution play a large role in their “outcomes” upon degree completion such as student experience and success.
While research has predominantly focused on student characteristics and engagement at the institution, researchers in the last few years have changed their focus to institutional barriers as factors affecting their persistence to degree-completion and retention. These studies have highlighted barriers within the institution that hinder degree completion for this population regardless of input/student characteristics or indicators of engagement in the institutional context (Bensimon & Dowd, 2009; Chen, 2012; Mooring & Mooring, 2016; Nuñez & Yoshimi, 2017; Owens, 2010; Senie, 2016; Tobolowsky & Cox, 2012). Institutions must identify these barriers and address them to create a transfer-receptive culture that provides this student population the resources and support structures they require to persist to degree completion, thus increasing their access to higher education.
Although studies surrounding transfer student retention and persistence to degree-completion have predominantly focused on student-centered perspectives of engagement in their institutional environment, institutional barriers also affect persistence and retention. To increase retention and persistence to degree, it would be beneficial for institutions to reconcile the factors within their institution that drive transfer student engagement with factors that manifest as institutional barriers. Creating a transfer-receptive culture, by addressing institutional barriers to transfer student success, and creating engagement opportunities that support this population will increase retention for this diverse student population.
The next section begins with a literature review that elaborates on current knowledge in the field surrounding transfer student populations and institutional barriers to their persistence and retention. Taken as a whole, the extant scholarship on transfer student success suggests that institutional leaders who invest in the development of a transfer-receptive culture will realize more robust gains by transfer students. Such a culture change would require deep change involving addressing the underlying assumptions and values of the institution surrounding this population. Lessons from community organizing literature and a “tempered” approach in its application to higher education is one way to support the creation of such a culture. This paper concludes with implications for practice for grassroots leaders in higher education.
