The Case Method of Instruction in the Preparation of Higher Education Leaders

31 THE CASE METHOD OF INSTRUCTION IN THE PREPARATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION LEADERS Martin J. Finkelstein William J. Davis The University Council for University of Wisconsin, Madison Educational Administration Introduction Historically, the case method has been championed as a means of narrow­ ing the perceived gap between learning about professional practice and learn­ ing to practice. Two basic premises undergird the case method: 1. Professional education should involve not merely the absorption of knowledge, but development of the ability to exercise mature judg­ ment (i.e . , the integration and application of knowledge) in addres­ sing complex situations encountered in professional life; and 2. Mature judgment does not serendipitously spring full-blown from ex­ posure to the knowledge and insights of others, but must be developed through a sequence of active encounters with professional situations in which an individual must pit or test his judgment against the am­ biguous demands of "real life." Thus, the case method sought to bring together students and teachers as co-learners in an attempt to pit their judgments against the "facts" of a concrete, complex professional situation. The classroom became the arena for the democratic competition of ideas rather than the province of the expert lecturer; and students were required to take responsibility for their own learning. Over the years, educators in a diverse array of professional fields have tested and chosen to adopt both the underlying assumptions and practice of the case method. Since its inception in 1970 at the Harvard Law School, the case method has become a widespread and respected tool in the professional preparation of attorneys, physicians, business executives, public administra­ tors, school administrators, and social workers. Given this "track record," one may ask what, if anything, does the case method have to contribute to the preparation of higher education leaders? Insofar as preparation programs in higher education seek to develop the requisite blending of knowledge about the higher education enterprise as well as the capacity for mature judgment in applying that knowledge in profes­ sional life, then the case method would appear to hold considerable promise for contributing to the aims of leadership training. The Study To what extent is the potential of the case method currently being explored /tested in the preparation of higher education leaders? How? With what results? In an effort to answer these questions, the University Council for Edu­ cational Administration sought to obtain responses to a Case Use Inventory from the population of all faculty directly participating in the preparation of higher education leaders in the United States. Direct participation was defined as "teaching one or more graduate courses in the area of higher edu­ cation." In the absence of any reliable enumeration of this population, a strategy of respondent self-selection was employed. The Inventory was mailed to approximately 800 faculty at 140 institutions offering doctoral study in education’ — faculty who had identified themselves in an earlier UCEA survey as 32 professors of higher education. Both the cover letter and the instruction sheet requested that the individuals respond to the Inventory only if they were teaching graduate courses in the area of higher education. The initial mailing of the questionnaire and a follow-up postcard yield­ ed 128 useable responses. Represented among the respondents were 108 faculty affiliated with 39 doctoral programs in higher education and an additional 20 faculty affiliated with 10 universities not currently offering a doctorate in higher education. In the absence of any reliable knowledge of the character­ istics of the population, it is impossible, strictly speaking, to determine whether respondents are "representative" of the population of faculty teach­ ing graduate courses in higher education, let alone those doing so under the aegis of a formally approved doctoral program in higher education. That 70% of the respondents (N = 90) reported using cases in their teaching, would seem to support a hypothesis of "non-representativeness." Unless one were to assume that nearly three-quarters of the higher education professoriate em­ ploy the case method, then it is probable that respondents overrepresent "case users" and underrepresent "non-users." This proposition seems most reasonable in view of the higher likelihood that users would take the re­ quired time to complete a very lengthy...