Christopher C. Morphew and Matthew Hartley - Mission = Statements: A Thematic Analysis of Rhetoric Across Institutional Type

A Thematic Analysis of = Rhetoric Across=20 Institutional Type

Christopher=20 C. Morphew

Matthew=20 Hartley

They're Everywhere! They're = Everywhere!

Mission statements are ubiquitous in higher = education.=20 Accreditation agencies demand them, strategic planning is = predicated on=20 their formulation, and virtually every college and university has = one=20 available for review. Moreover, higher education institutions are=20 constantly revisiting and revising their mission statements: as = recently=20 as the mid-1990s, the Association of American Colleges (1994), = found that=20 fully 80% of all colleges and universities were making major = revisions in=20 their mission statements, goals, curricula, and general education = courses.=20 It would seem that not having a mission statement begs the very = legitimacy=20 of a college or university. Of course, the crafting (and = re-crafting) of=20 such documents consumes considerable institutional resources, = particularly=20 that most precious resource: time. So, why bother? Some would = argue that=20 articulating a shared purpose is a requisite first step on the = road to=20 organizational success. Others are far less sanguine about such = efforts=20 and view them as rhetorical pyrotechnics=E2=80=94pretty to look at = perhaps, but of=20 little structural consequence. The purpose of this study is to = begin an=20 exploration of these hypotheses by first attempting to understand = what=20 institutions actually say in their missions and by exploring the=20 relationship between these rhetorical elements and institutional = type.=20 [End Page 456]

Mission Statements: Half-Full or = Half-Empty?

A furor over mission statements swept over = corporate=20 America nearly three decades ago (Drucker, 1973; Peters and = Waterman,=20 1982). As is the case with other management trends, such ideas = inevitably=20 =E2=80=93 and belatedly =E2=80=93 found their way into the academy = (Birnbaum, 2000).=20 Keller (1983), for example, in his seminal book on strategic = planning,=20 argues that mission statements are a necessary part of an = institution's=20 strategic planning process. Others point to the value of mission=20 statements in expressing a "vision" for the institution's future = (Lenning=20 & Micek, 1976; Schwerin, 1980; Carruthers & Lott, 1981; = Martin,=20 1985; Nanus, 1992). Much of the early research on the utility of = mission=20 statements is limited because, as Davies (1986) notes, it fails to = recognize "the unexamined presuppositions upon which they are = grounded"=20 (p. 85). In short, the researchers take as gospel the notion that = such=20 statements are, to quote Martha Stewart, "a good thing" and that = their=20 assertions are clothed with threadbare anecdotal evidence.

More recent research on postsecondary mission statements has = produced a=20 more nuanced understanding of the role that ideology and purpose = play in=20 organizational life. This literature suggests that the process of=20 articulating an institution's mission has two potential benefits. = First,=20 it is instructional. A clear mission helps organizational members=20 distinguish between activities that conform to institutional = imperatives=20 and those that do not. Second, a shared sense of purpose has the = capacity=20 to inspire and motivate those within an institution and to = communicate its=20 characteristics, values, and history to key external constituents=20 (Drucker, 1973; Keller, 1983; Parekh, 1977; Smith, 1979; Hartley, = 2002).=20 Researchers have also described the experiences of (typically = small)=20 institutions whose discussions about institutional priorities and = future=20 direction, codified in mission statements, have guided decision = making=20 around key issues such as program creation or termination. The = mission=20 statement therefore is rightly understood as an artifact of a = broader=20 institutional discussion about its purpose.

Of course, other practitioners and scholars see the mission = statement=20 glass as half-empty. They view mission statements as a collection = of stock=20 phrases that are either excessively vague or unrealistically = aspirational=20 or both. From this perspective, mission statements ultimately fail = to=20 follow through on or convey any noteworthy sense of an = institution's=20 current identity (Davies, 1986; Chait, 1979; Delucchi, 1997). A = majority=20 of those who have conducted what little empirical analysis exists = of=20 college and university mission statements reside squarely in this = camp.=20 They argue that mission statements, rather than providing focus to = colleges and universities, offer precisely the opposite. Instead = of=20 [End Page 457] direction and constraint, college and = university=20 mission statements provide a means to an uncertain end. More = specifically,=20 the language in mission statements is intended to evoke an = all-purpose=20 purpose. Or, as Gordon Davies (1986) puts it, mission statements = tend to=20 demonstrate "The importance of being general." In other words, = rather than=20 surfacing values that might guide everyday decision making, = colleges and=20 universities fashion mission statements that maximize = institutional=20 flexibility. They communicate that nothing is beyond the reach of = the=20 organization in question. In doing so, they ignore institutional=20 limitations and side-step any effort at prioritizing current = activities or=20 future initiatives.

Even so, sociologists that use institutional theory to explain=20 organizational behavior (e.g., Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Meyer, = Deal and=20 Scott, 1981) would argue that an "all-purpose" mission statement=20 nevertheless fulfills an important function for a college or = university.=20 From this point of view, the utility and general nature of mission = statements go hand in hand. Mission statements are = normative=E2=80=94they exist=20 because they are expected to exist, much the same way that = students expect=20 colleges and universities to award credit in the form of hours and = persons=20 inside and outside higher education expect college campuses to = include=20 "quads," well-landscaped gardens, and football stadiums. = Institutional=20 theorists point to organizational artifacts like mission = statements and=20 knowingly describe them as ritualistic or mythological. From this = point of=20 view, mission statements are certainly important but not for the = direction=20 they provide. Rather, they serve a legitimating function. Mission=20 statements are valuable because they =E2=80=93 and the elements = within them =E2=80=93 show=20 that the organization in question understands the "rules of the = game."=20 And, one of the rules of the higher education game is that you = have to=20 have a mission statement if you want to be considered a legitimate = college=20 or university by, among others, accrediting agencies and board = members.=20

This theoretical proposition assumes that there are some = processes and=20 structures that organizations must incorporate because they are=20 normatively prescribed. This is one of the primary points of = institutional=20 theory, which argues that an organization such as a university = succeeds=20 when everyone inside and outside the organization agrees that it = is a=20 university (Meyer & Scott, 1980; Meyer & Rowan, 1977)! = According=20 to this theory, colleges and universities would be wise to develop = mission=20 statements so that those within the organization (students, = faculty) and=20 outside (accreditors, Regents, prospective students) see that such = a=20 statement exists, in proper form and verbiage. Moreover, the = mission=20 statement developed should incorporate the elements commonly = understood to=20 form the basis for a higher education mission (e.g., search for = knowledge,=20 teaching, service to the community). [End Page 458]

Circumstantial evidence supporting this hypothesis is not hard = to find.=20 College and university mission statements are steeped in symbolism = and=20 many of their pronouncements cannot be objectively measured. For = example,=20 Chait (1979) examined dozens of mission statements and concluded = that they=20 all looked the same in part because of a tendency to include = "vague and=20 vapid goals." The advantage in including this kind of verbiage in = mission=20 statements is that it is impossible to prove that the institution = is=20 failing to progress towards its goals. Further, they are difficult = to=20 contest. After all, Chait asked, "Who cannot rally around 'the = pursuit of=20 excellence' or 'the discovery and transmission of knowledge?'" (p. = 36).=20 Similarly, mission statements provide an opportunity for schools = to lay=20 claim to important terrain. For example, Delucchi (1997) found = that the=20 mission statements of schools dominated by enrollment in = professional=20 fields extolled their institutions' "liberal arts focus." Although = institutional theorists would concede that mission statements may = inform=20 some universities' strategic plans, they would argue that the = primary=20 purpose is to serve normative rather than utilitarian = purposes.¹

Our study

Whether mission statements are a) strategic = expressions=20 of institutional distinctiveness; or b) organizational window = dressings=20 that are normative necessities is, we believe, an important = question that=20 can be answered only with empirical data. Our research study is a = first=20 step on the road to answering this larger question. Our study = examines=20 hundreds of mission statements in an attempt to identify patterns = of=20 difference within these statements. Our goal is analyze these = patterns and=20 to make judgments regarding whether these patterns are consistent = with a)=20 recognized differences among institutional types (e.g., Carnegie=20 classifications, control, etc.); or b) the aforementioned = institutional=20 explanations about why mission statements are so ever-present = within=20 higher education.

The findings of this study have immensely practical = implications.=20 First, those charged with constructing or refining mission = statements will=20 benefit from a greater understanding of the purpose of these = documents. We=20 believe that there is genuine disagreement among many in higher = education=20 currently regarding the appropriate use and purpose of mission = statements.=20 Irrespective of which camp is correct, given the amount of time = and=20 resources colleges and universities spend in planning and = constructing=20 mission statements for audiences like accreditors and prospective=20 students, mission statements are important documents. [End Page = 459] If it can be shown that mission statements reflect the=20 institutional diversity of American higher education then the = proponents=20 of mission statements may be right=E2=80=94mission statements may = be a way of=20 establishing institutional uniqueness and therefore are a = potentially=20 useful tool in institutional decision-making. If, however, the = same=20 analysis reveals that these formal documents do not speak to = recognized=20 institutional differences, it would seem more likely that mission=20 statements exist for other (either aspirational or normative) = purposes. In=20 either case, empirical analysis is likely to produce results = useful for=20 those inside and outside higher education. From a practical = perspective, a=20 better understanding of the use(s) of these documents would allow = those=20 involved in their construction to decide what information to = include or=20 not include and what kinds of organizational actors should be = involved in=20 the construction process.

Study Methods and Rationale=20

Though mission statements are ubiquitous in = higher=20 education, there is precious little empirical research on the = content of=20 these statements. One well-known empirical study of 114 mission = statements=20 conducted over a decade ago merely concluded that these statements = were=20 "amazingly vague, vapid, evasive, or rhetorical, lacking = specificity or=20 clear purpose=E2=80=A6full of honorable verbiage signifying = nothing" (Newsom and=20 Hayes, 1991, p. 29). No researcher has sought to determine whether = college=20 and university mission statements are, in fact, accurate = depictions of=20 organizational reality or whether the differences among mission = statements=20 are the products of recognized differences or aspirations. Our = goal, then,=20 is to construct a more systematic and comprehensive exploration of = mission=20 statements in an attempt to contribute to the beginnings of an = empirical=20 literature on mission statements in higher education.

We randomly selected more than 300 mission statements from a=20 representative sample of U.S. four-year colleges and universities. = Each=20 statement was obtained via the World Wide Web and printed for = analysis.=20 The goal of the study was to determine whether the mission = statements in=20 this representative group of institutions were as varied as the=20 institutions themselves. The research question guiding this study = was:=20

How do college and university mission statements differ = in=20 content, and are any differences reflective of recognized = differences=20 between institutional types?

After the institutions were randomly chosen from a list of = 1,106=20 four-year institutions listed in the 2000 Carnegie Classification=20 list,² each college [End Page 460] and = university=20 mission statement was identified and printed out by a graduate=20 student.³ The study's co-authors initially divided = the=20 statements into two groups and coded them separately. In an effort = to=20 ensure reliability, the co-authors discussed and renamed the = elements=20 identified in the mission statements and separately coded several = of the=20 same institutional mission statements. In the latter case, an = examination=20 of the separately coded mission statements showed that each of the = authors=20 coded the sample mission statements similarly. We coded each = mission=20 statement in its entirety. In the end, we identified 118 distinct = elements=20 that appeared in the mission statements. Beyond our analysis of = each=20 entire mission statement, we also gave unique codes to those = elements=20 appearing in the first 2=E2=80=933 sentences of each mission. We = paid special=20 attention to these elements because of our assumption that this = placement=20 at the "top" of the mission statement reflected an organizational = emphasis=20 on these particular elements.

Using the World Wide Web had at least two advantages. First, = because=20 the data were available electronically, it could be analyzed and=20 categorized more easily. Second, this method allowed us to quickly = and=20 easily gather a representative sample of colleges and = universities. We=20 selected institutions across the range of four-year Carnegie=20 classifications and collected statements from both publics and = privates=20 within each group. We used document analysis techniques to = identify=20 elements that were embedded in these mission statements (Merriam, = 1998).=20 We use the term "element" rather than the more often used "theme," = because=20 we want to convey two things. First, our analysis of these mission = statements sometimes focused on significant single words, as well = as=20 phrases. Second, our goal in this analysis was to identify the = integral=20 pieces of each mission statement in such a way so that, if = necessary, each=20 statement could be reconstructed using only the pieces (or = "elements")=20 that we identified. An apt analogy would be a jigsaw puzzle where = the=20 pieces of the puzzle are of different shapes and sizes and these = specific=20 pieces (or elements) are required to reconstruct the puzzle. This = analysis=20 of mission statements by Carnegie Classification ultimately = allowed a=20 determination of whether these institutions are similar or = dissimilar in=20 the type of students they serve, the kinds of degree programs they = offer,=20 or their historical mission. The method is similar to one employed = in a=20 smaller study of liberal arts college mission statements = (Delucchi, 1997).=20

While we had no a priori standards in place that would = help us=20 designate when a particular argument concerning the usefulness of = mission=20 statements was carried, we did discuss what we might find and how = those=20 findings might be related to the conceptual and empirical = literature on=20 mission statements prior to our analysis of these documents. In = short, we=20 arrived at following quasi-hypotheses. [End Page 461]

Consistent use of elements within Carnegie Classification = would=20 indicate that mission statements express recognized = organizational=20 differences.=20
Consistent use of elements across Carnegie Classifications = would=20 indicate that mission statements discount recognized = organizational=20 differences.=20
Consistent use of elements by institutional control (public = or=20 private) would indicate that mission statements are used to = communicate=20 with different constituent groups.=20
Frequent use of normative or aspirational elements would be = evidence=20 that mission statements are used as legitimating tools. =

Finally, to arrive at a more valid analysis of = the=20 mission statements, we conducted our analysis using only those = documents=20 formally labeled as "mission statements." This reduced our larger = sample=20 of institutional documents to 299.

Findings

Our analysis of mission statement elements = revealed=20 several findings worthy of discussion. These are identified below = in brief=20 with a lengthy discussion appearing later.

Institutional control (public vs. private) is more important = in=20 predicting mission statement elements than is Carnegie = Classification.=20
A few elements (e.g. the notion that the institution is = committed to=20 diversity or to providing a liberal arts education) appear = frequently=20 across institutional types and control groups.=20
There is a prevalence of elements related specifically to = "service"=20 either by the institution or through the inculcation of civic = values in=20 students, although the definition of "service" differs somewhat = between=20 public and private institutions.

As a premise to our discussion of common elements, it is = important to=20 note that there was, among the mission statements we reviewed, a=20 surprising variety. As stated earlier, we ultimately identified = 118=20 distinct elements across all statements. Some institutions used = very few=20 elements and some used many. No two institutions had precisely the = same=20 configuration of elements. Nevertheless, an examination of the = most common=20 elements by institutional control and by Carnegie Classification = (Tables=20 1=E2=80=935)=20 reveals some intriguing patterns. [End Page 462] =

Click for larger view

Table 1 =
Three=20 most common elements among mission statements of = Baccalaureate=20 Institutions. N=3D97. =

Click for larger view

Table 2 =
Three=20 most common elements among mission statements of Master's=20 Institutions. N=3D102. =

Click for larger view

Table 3 =
Three=20 most common elements among mission statements of = Doctoral/Research=20 Institutions. N=3D100. =

[End=20 Page 463]=20

To begin our analysis, we identified the three most frequently = cited=20 elements within each Carnegie Classification.⁴ The potential existed for us to identify = up to 18=20 frequently used elements (that is, if the three top elements for = each of=20 the six Carnegie classifications had all been different). Instead, = we=20 found some striking commonalities across the groups. Among public=20 baccalaureate colleges, master's universities and doctoral = universities,=20 we found only eight common elements. The notion of serving the = local area=20 is an element common to five of the six classifications and is the = top=20 element for public Baccalaureate institutions (general and liberal = arts)=20 and Master's I institutions. "Commitment to diversity" is also an = oft-used=20 element and is found across 4 of the 6 public institutional types. =

The prevalence of certain elements is also striking among = private=20 colleges and universities with 10 shared elements among a possible = 19.=20 (Note: Because of a tie score, private, Baccalaureate-General = institutions=20 have four elements instead of three.) Like their public = counterparts,=20 private institutions had elements that were common across Carnegie = Classifications. "Liberal arts," for example, appears for four of = the six=20 institutional types, as did an affiliation (historical or current) = with a=20 religious denomination.

These three tables also illustrate the relative popularity of = the=20 liberal arts, diversity, and service elements across both = institutional=20 type and control group. For example, if viewed by the six Carnegie = Classifications and by institutional control, there are 12 = distinct groups=20 of colleges and universities. The diversity element appears in 5 = of 12=20 groups; the liberal arts element in seven; and the civic = duty/service=20 (student level) or serves local area (institutional level) element = appears=20 in eight.

As was noted in the methods section, our analysis also = identified those=20 elements that appeared in the first 2=E2=80=933 sentences. We = reasoned that these=20 elements had greater institutional emphasis. Here again we found=20 commonalities. For example, Tables 4=20 and 5=20 below indicate that both public and private universities call = attention to=20 the importance of instilling civic duty in their students, as well = as the=20 importance of a broad, liberal arts education. However, the = elements that=20 public and private institutions choose to emphasize differ = significantly.=20 Public universities heavily emphasize service=E2=80=94both as = institutions within=20 a region and through instilling in students a sense of civic duty. = Several=20 other emphasized elements are largely descriptive in nature and = rather=20 pedestrian=E2=80=94"we're a public institution and we have = undergraduate and=20 graduate programs." Private universities, by contrast, focus more = on the=20 formative aspects of education=E2=80=94promoting "student = development" and helping=20 prepare students for the "real world" through programs that are=20 academically rigorous. [End Page 464]

Click for larger view

Table 4 =
Most=20 common elements in first 2=E2=80=933 sentences. Public = colleges and=20 universities. N=3D158. Institutional types are not equally=20 represented. =

Click for larger view

Table 5 =
Most=20 common elements in first 2=E2=80=933 sentences. Private = colleges and=20 universities. N=3D141. Institutional types are not equally=20 represented. =

A textual analysis of the various ways that elements are = articulated=20 suggests some interesting disparities between public and private=20 institutions. An example is the language around "civic duty" and=20 "service." There is a clear tendency for public institutions to = describe=20 this work as preparing "citizens" or "promoting civic engagement." = The=20 implication is clearly that graduates will stay in-state, vote, = and pay=20 taxes or that the institution contributes in other ways to the = local or=20 state economy. The rhetoric around service for private = institutions was=20 substantially different. Below are excerpts from the mission = statements of=20 three private colleges whose goals are to encourage students to =

"=E2=80=A6engage in the intellectual and social challenges = of their times."=20
"Fulfill the edict of Horace Mann who said: 'be ashamed to = die until=20 you have won some victory for humanity.'" [End Page 465]=20
"=E2=80=A6 enable men and women of diverse backgrounds to = engage and=20 transform the world."

Obviously there is a substantial difference in = promoting=20 "civic duty" and preparing students to "transform the world!" We = might=20 briefly note the desire of the public group to link their work to = serving=20 the state (a principal patron) and of the latter to cast = themselves as an=20 elite training ground for the next generation of leaders (a theme = we will=20 return to later); however, our purpose here is simply to observe = that the=20 disparate emphases in a particular element. Suffice it to say that = what=20 "service" means in one context is clearly not what "service" means = in=20 another.

Discussion

Taken together, what do these findings tell us = about the=20 utility of mission statements? Do they support the claim that = mission=20 statements provide focus and direction to institutions? Or, do = they bear=20 out the arguments of those who criticize mission statements for = their=20 formless generalities? Finally, do the data suggest that mission=20 statements are primarily normative documents, designed to provide = internal=20 and external audiences with evidence of legitimacy? We do not = propose to=20 be able to fully answer these questions with this study. But, our=20 exploration of the differences in mission statement rhetoric = across=20 institutional type is a necessary first step in any attempt to get = at the=20 value and utility of mission statements and suggests several = hypotheses.=20

Signaling Constituents and = Reflecting=20 Distinctive Values

First, as discussed earlier, there are = discernable=20 patterns of the elements in mission statements by institutional = control.=20 The discussion of tables one through three (above) vividly = illustrates=20 this point. Public colleges and universities construct their = mission=20 statements with combinations of elements more similar to one = another than=20 to their private peers of similar focus and institutional type. = This=20 finding invites several interpretations. First, given these = patterns, one=20 might find support for the arguments of the institutional = theorists, who=20 view mission statements as symbolic artifacts. From this = perspective, the=20 use of like elements (e.g. civic duty/service or a commitment to=20 diversity) by unlike =E2=80=93 but similarly funded =E2=80=93 = institutions leads to the=20 conclusions that mission statements are not used to provide = direction or=20 vision, but rather as icons to signal key external constituencies = that the=20 institution in question shares these groups' values and goals. Or, = more=20 simply, public colleges include [End Page 466] mention of = public=20 service because, to ignore this element, might call into question = their=20 very "publicness."

Alternately, this first finding of common elements by = institutional=20 control may reflect substantial differences that are not captured = by=20 Carnegie Classification. From this viewpoint, the finding that = public=20 colleges' and universities' mission statements contain elements = different=20 from those of their private brethren is explained by a flipping of = the=20 cause and effect relationship that we (and others) assume. That = is, these=20 mission statements may reflect, rather than drive, the realities = of these=20 institutions' environments. These environments include the desires = of=20 their students and alumni (and taxpayers). As a result, it should = come as=20 no surprise that the mission statements of colleges attended and = supported=20 by persons who support progressive notions of multiculturalism and = diversity include elements that speak to these values. = Concurrently, the=20 fact that public universities' mission statements speak to the = service=20 that these institutions provide is a reflection of their = environmental=20 reality and, perhaps, their unwillingness to associate themselves = with=20 more progressive ideas that may or may not find support in state = capitols.=20 In short, institutions include in their mission what their = benefactors=20 value. It is, then, these differences in values =E2=80=93 rather = than=20 Carnegie-like differences in degrees conferred =E2=80=93 that are = the=20 self-defining characteristics for postsecondary institutions.

However, one can discern amidst the rhetorical flourishes a = mindfulness=20 of multiple external audiences and their associated = desires/biases. For=20 example, we observed that statements about offering a liberal arts = education are in many instances immediately followed by phrases = such as=20 "=E2=80=A6and professional training." The message? Our education = is formative=20 and useful. (Something both prospective students and = hard-nosed=20 state legislators would appreciate.) Many Master's institutions = described=20 their desire to provide students with greater analytic abilities, = better=20 communication skills, and to help them develop an appreciation for = learning, and yet they never used the term "liberal arts." This = cannot be=20 accidental. Either the authors actively avoided the term "liberal" = for=20 fear its implication would be misconstrued or there was a concern = that the=20 institution might be mistaken for a liberal arts college rather = than a=20 comprehensive university. The point is that if institutions are = using=20 these statement to legitimate themselves, they are doing far more = than=20 creating a symbolic document that they can point to=E2=80=94they = are using these=20 statements in an effort to communicate particular messages, likely = to=20 specific and multiple audiences.

There is also variability in how particular elements (the = example used=20 in the findings section was "civic duty/service") are construed. = Critics=20 [End Page 467] have argued that mission statements use = phrases that=20 are interchangeable. Though much of the language is superficially = similar=20 (that is, the mission statements share certain elements) it is = also the=20 case that some institutions take great care to explicate these = elements=20 and they do so in decidedly different ways. Often this results in = these=20 elements having decidedly different "flavors" at different = institutions.=20 It also should be noted that though some language may appear = generic to an=20 outsider, it may well be charged with meaning within a particular = academic=20 community (Hartley, 2002). The mission statements of an urban HBCU = that=20 draws a majority of its students regionally and boasts an = Afro-Centric=20 curriculum and an innovative partnership with a public housing = project=20 next door and a highly-selective private university that draws its = students nationally and has a well-recognized service-learning = program may=20 both indicate a desire to instill in their students a sense of = "public=20 service," but what is meant by "service" within those two academic = communities may be sharply divergent.

Taken together, our findings do not disconfirm the = institutional=20 theorists. However, they do suggest that the signaling is more = complex=20 than current theory suggests. The distinctive elements emphasized = by=20 public and private universities suggest that their use of mission=20 statements speak to the distinct challenges faced by public and = private=20 colleges and universities. Each occupies different referential = worlds.=20 Public institutions are cognizant of their need to show their = relevance to=20 important external constituent groups, including taxpayers and=20 legislators, as they compete for public funding with groups whose = service=20 to the local region is much more conspicuous. Prisons and social = service=20 agencies, for example, compete for funding at the state level with = colleges and universities and do not share the burden of proving = their=20 relevance to the state. Unlike these other agencies, it is often = easy for=20 citizens who are not attending college or do not have dependents = enrolled=20 at public universities to forget or lose sight of the economic = development=20 or social service role that public higher education institutions = play.=20 Mission statements, it would seem, have important legitimizing = roles, both=20 normatively and politically.

What Wasn't Evident: Aspiration =

The statements we analyzed, in general, did = not=20 aggrandize their institutions. We had expected to see greater = usage of=20 elements whose purpose was to convey prestige or status on the = college or=20 university in question. Instead, aspirational elements (e.g.=20 pronouncements about being or becoming the "best") were = comparatively=20 rare. Therefore, it would seem that arguments that such statements = are=20 primarily intended for legitimating purposes are overblown. = [End Page=20 468]

We did identify certain aspirational elements among the 118 = coded. Some=20 mission statements, for example, extolled the specific = institution's=20 ranking within the last US News report. Others spoke of=20 prizewinning faculty members. Such elements are particularly easy = to spot=20 and label as purely aspirational. However, they are not = operationally=20 substantive. They provide no direction for strategic planning nor = do they=20 help an institution focus its mission or decide which programs to = add or=20 terminate. Instead, they are symbols used to bolster the status of = the=20 institution in question. However, when aggregated, the mission = statements=20 displayed relatively few of these elements. This is important, = because=20 critics of mission statements would have predicted that our = analysis would=20 reveal the popularity of such elements.

This lack of evident aspiration in the mission statements was=20 surprising, but may be related to our earlier discussion of the = ways=20 regarding the utility with which these institutions fashioned = their=20 mission statements. In total, these findings suggest that mission=20 statements may legitimately be viewed as statements for = communication with=20 external audiences that have specific expectations of colleges and = universities. That is, colleges and universities may be using = mission=20 statements not for planning or cultural purposes, but as means of = telling=20 important stakeholders outside the institution that "we understand = what=20 you want and we're going to deliver it to you." This would be = consistent=20 with a lack of aspirational language that these kinds of audiences = would=20 either eschew as inappropriate (and inconsistent with the = realities of the=20 institution) or unimportant. From this perspective, such use of = mission=20 statements represents a maturation on the part of colleges and=20 universities who are getting better at recognizing their patrons = and=20 prospective consumers and focusing their attention on what these = folks=20 want.

Finally, our study of the elements that make up college and = university=20 mission statements suggests that our thinking may need to be = updated.=20 Simple assumptions about mission statements (e.g., they are = meaningless,=20 self-aggrandizing documents; they are essential to the planning = process,=20 etc.) may need to be rethought. While there is evidence that = mission=20 statements are used to signal and symbolize, it seems more likely = that the=20 subject of college and university mission statements is more = complex and=20 that institutions are using these documents to communicate their = utility=20 and willingness to serve in terms that are both normative and = politically=20 apt.

Future Research

Although this initial analysis reveals some = intriguing=20 patterns, it may also be useful to examine the data using other = criteria=20 than Carnegie [End Page 469] classification and control. = For=20 example, common elements may be revealed among institutions such = as urban=20 colleges and universities, women's colleges, HBCUs, or Catholic=20 institutions. There may be important regional differences. It may = even be=20 possible to identify institutions that have substantially similar = clusters=20 of elements. Revealing such commonalities of purpose could = potentially=20 provide an alternative means of categorizing institutions along = the=20 dimension of institutional ideology. However, thus far we have = examined=20 only the surface level of institutional purpose. We do not know to = what=20 degree various elements in the statements are expressed = programmatically=20 or operationally. Our analysis provides only an overview of how = various=20 institutions are representing themselves. We cannot extrapolate = behaviors=20 from espoused values. Of course, there are credible reasons to = believe=20 that institutions are not engaged in wholesale deception. To the = extent=20 that such statements are viewed by multiple = constituencies=E2=80=94internal and=20 external=E2=80=94those drafting statements of purpose would be = unlikely to submit=20 elements that others find patently offensive. Targeted site visits = may be=20 the best means of confirming to what degree these statements are = congruent=20 with institutional behavior and exploring the disparate ways that = academic=20 communities define key values.

Christopher C. Morphew is Associate = Professor at the=20 Institute of Higher Education at the University of Georgia. =

Matthew Hartley is Assistant Professor = at the=20 Graduate School of Education at the University of Pennsylvania. =

Endnotes

1. More importantly, they would argue that those = strategic=20 plans are more important for their symbolic and normative purposes = than=20 for any structural utility.

2. We selected institutions from the following = six=20 categories: Doctoral Universities=E2=80=94Extensive; Doctoral=20 Universities=E2=80=94Intensive; Masters Colleges and Universities = I and II;=20 Baccalaureate Colleges=E2=80=94Liberal Arts; Baccalaureate = Colleges=E2=80=94General.

3. In some cases, "vision statements" or other = such=20 documents were the only documents found on the institution's = website.=20 These were not used for this study.

4. Our initial decision to list the three most = frequently=20 cited elements was somewhat arbitrary, though subsequent analysis = revealed=20 that the frequency of elements cited decreased rather = precipitously after=20 the top three.

References =

American Association of Colleges. (1994). = Strong=20 Foundations: Twelve Principles for Effective General Education=20 Programs. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges. =

Berdahl, R.O. (1985). Strategy and government: = U.S.=20 state systems and institutional role and mission. International = Journal=20 of Institutional Management in Higher Education, 9 (November), = 301=E2=80=93307.

Birnbaum, R. (2000). Management Fads in = Higher=20 Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Carruthers, J.K. & Lott, G.B. (1981). = Mission=20 review: Foundation for strategic planning. Boulder, Colorado: = National=20 Center for Higher Education Management Systems. [End Page = 470]

Chait, R. (1979). Mission madness strikes our = colleges.=20 Chronicle of Higher Education, 18, 36.

Davies, G. K. (1986). The importance of being = general:=20 Philosophy, politics and institutional mission statements. In J. = C. Smart=20 (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. = New York:=20 Agathon Press.

Delucchi, M. (1997). "Liberal arts" colleges = and the=20 myth of uniqueness. Journal of Higher Education, 68(4), = 414=E2=80=93426.=20

DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W. (1983). = The iron=20 cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective = rationality in=20 organizational fields. American Sociological Review, = 48(April),=20 147=E2=80=93160.

Drucker, P. (1973). Management: Tasks,=20 responsibilities, practices. New York: Harper & Row.

Hartley, M. (2002). A call to purpose:=20 Mission-centered change at three liberal arts colleges. New = York:=20 RoutledgeFalmer.

Keller, G. (1983). Academic strategy: The = management=20 revolution in american higher education. Baltimore: Johns = Hopkins=20 University Press.

Lang, D.W. & Lopers-Sweetman, A.R. (1991). = The role=20 of statements of institutional purpose. Research in Higher = Education,=20 32.

Lenning, O.T. & Micek, S.S. (1976). = Defining and=20 communicating institutional mission/role/scope and priorities: The = needs=20 of different types of postsecondary institutions. Paper presented = at the=20 annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, San = Francisco.

Martin, W. B. (1985). Mission: A statement of = identity=20 and direction. In Green, J. S. and A. Levine (Eds.), = Opportunity in=20 adversity . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McKelvie, B. D. (1986). The university's = statement of=20 goals: An idea whose time has come. Higher Education, 15, = 151=E2=80=93163.=20

Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research = and case=20 study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. =

Meyer, J.W. & Scott, W.R. (1980). = Institutional and=20 technical sources of organizational structure: Explaining the = structure of=20 educational organizations. Stanford, California: Institute for = Research on=20 Educational Finance and Governance. No. 79=E2=80=93A9.

Meyer, J.W. & Rowan, B.R. (1977). = Institutionalized=20 organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American = Journal=20 of Sociology, 83(2), 340=E2=80=93363.

Newsom, W.A. & Hayes, C.R. (1991). Are = mission=20 statements worthwhile? Planning for Higher Education, = 19(Winter=20 1990=E2=80=9391).

Peters, T. & Waterman R. (1982). In = search of=20 excellence. New York: Random House.

Schwerin, U. (1980). Institutional mission in = an era of=20 retrenchment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the = Association of=20 American Colleges, Phoenix.

Mission Statements: =

A Thematic Analysis of = Rhetoric Across=20 Institutional Type

Christopher=20 C. Morphew

Matthew=20 Hartley

They're Everywhere! They're = Everywhere!

Mission Statements: Half-Full or = Half-Empty?

Our study

Study Methods and Rationale=20

Findings

Discussion

Signaling Constituents and = Reflecting=20 Distinctive Values

What Wasn't Evident: Aspiration =

Future Research

Endnotes

References =