Measuring the Unmeasurable, or, How Assessment Substantively Constrains Missions

Measurableness is next to godliness, or at least it seems in higher education. UVU's accreditor, the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU), demands that we assess mission fulfillment based on "analysis of meaningful, assessable, and verifiable data" and conduct "evidence-based assessment of its accomplishments."

In principle, some measurement can be obtained for any goal. In this sense, accreditation and assessment in higher education are hyperpositivist. The logical positivist philosophers at the turn of the 20th Century argued that the only things that existed were those that could be observed, directly or indirectly; all else was metaphysics. That informed the logic of social scientific research especially after World War II and especially in education.

Accreditation and assessment as we currently practice them go beyond that claim; that which is real in the management of higher education institutions is—and is only—that which is measurable, whether quantitatively or qualitatively. With apologies to Mr. Justice Stewart, seeing it isn't enough. One must be able to assign some sort of value to it.

Pragmatically there may be no difference between the two. To say that something was or was not observed is a binary measurement. But the rhetoric is important: measurement is more rigorous than mere observation, and it is the rigor of the process, not its ontological foundation, that legitimizes this approach to managing educational institutions. To pose the proposition that some things may not be measurable is thus to challenge the fundamental legitimacy of educational management.

(You don't think I am going to pass up an opportunity for that, do you?)