7 minute read
USING DATA TO MAKE BETTER ARGUMENTS SCOTT RADIMER, PH.D.
For better or worse, it is an increasing expectation across the political spectrum that higher education administrators provide data to support arguments and demonstrate the value of programs. Rather than lament this increased scrutiny, educational leaders would be wise to embrace the call for better evidence of the impact of this work. While it may initially feel alien to some, using data to make more persuasive arguments is easier than many fear and can add value to one’s daily work. To do so only requires an ability to articulate what larger goal a program serves, gather data that directly relates to that goal, and present it in an easily relatable manner.
Advertisement
The most important step in making an effective argument is articulating why a program exists. Every program has a purpose and it is critical to clearly articulate it. This should be relatively simple for fraternities and sororities: the founding mission and values of each organization. These foundational elements explain why an organization exists and why others should support its efforts. Regardless of the type of resource requested, there will never be a shortage of other entities competing for the same resources. As such, decision makers need a compelling reason to pick your program over competing interests. “
While this might seem obvious, too often individuals skip past the why and skip to what they want to do and how they plan to do so. When immersed in work, the reasons why something is important may be taken for granted. Talking first about why a program is important builds interest and invites others to become part of the endeavor. This also helps provide the necessary context for decision makers to evaluate what is desired and how you propose to do it. It does not matter how interesting the proposed program is, nor how novel its method of completion if there is no good reason for it to exist in the first place.
The program’s mission will not appeal to every audience and that is okay — no argument works with every audience, nor should it. However, having no argument at all results in leaving it up to the audience to determine a proposal’s value. Audience members may not want to do that work on your behalf, or even worse, could develop their own reasons for why the proposal is important that differ from your own.
Program supporters may have different ideas as to what the program should accomplish. Therefore, it is important to consider if the ability to part ways or say no exists, or if you might find yourself committing to something other than initially envisioned. Finding support for an argument is in many ways like new member recruitment. The goal is to find other individuals and/or organizations with shared values and purpose. This occurs by openly communicating values and purpose to potential supporters. It is not enough to simply get support - the right support is needed to ensure continued success.
While situations where a complete mismatch in values or priorities should be avoided, there will be instances where values overlap but are not exactly the same. In those situations, one should still articulate why a program exists by choosing what parts of the “why” are emphasized. Conduct research on what is important to the target audience and emphasize areas of common ground. This will communicate to the audience a vision for future relationship as an opportunity to work toward common causes, rather than a transactional connection.
After providing a good reason for why an audience should support a program, it needs to be reinforced with data. Every audience will have its own ideas about what kind of support is warranted for the proposed outcomes. Therefore, data must be provided to support why the proposed method is most appropriate. A common first reaction to any proposal is more should or can be done with less. The only way to win against an argument for greater efficiency is to provide data demonstrating the efficacy of current programs or the specific need for proposed programs that are currently unaddressed.
The need to have quality data can feel overwhelming; almost like having an additional job. The good news is if assessment and data collection occurs correctly, it will remove work rather than increase workload. Here, the secret is to focus only on collecting data that leads to achieving mission priorities. For example, if an organization claims to help create better scholars, the impact of the organization and its programs on students’ academic performance should be measured. If an organization promotes moral development of college students, data should be collected on how students’ moral development changes over time. Measurement only needs to occur for the things that directly or indirectly relate to the championed priorities.
Gathering data regarding core priorities informs where time and resources should be directed. Demands for time and resources inevitably exceed what is available. This calls for evaluation of where time and resources are most needed. Focusing on one’s core mission allows for effectively choosing between competing demands and better assigning existing resources. Data that measures the extent to which a mission is actualized allows programs to be discontinued or altered if they no longer achieve stated purposes. It also provides a means to effectively communicate to stakeholders why change is necessary. By focusing on assessing how well core priorities are achieved, it not only leads to having the necessary data to create more persuasive arguments, but also provides a roadmap for how to more efficiently distribute existing resources.
Finally, it is important to emphasize collecting and utilizing data is not the opposite of being people-focused, but rather a way to make sure a situation is viewed realistically and not as we want it to be seen. Human beings are constantly collecting and using information to make decisions. We look for signs that meetings are effective, that other people respond positively to efforts, and that projects progress in positive or negative directions. However, these signs may not be representative or accurate. As humans, we are naturally inclined to pay more attention to things we can directly observe and to familiar patterns. We know what works for ourselves and are inclined to overemphasize those experiences.
This natural human bias toward what is in front of us and what is familiar can cause us to miss the larger picture. Things may not be as good — or as bad — as they seem. We seek to correct blind spots by collecting data. We try to gather information about what is most important from a representative sample — or the entire population — not just the individuals with the loudest voices. However, this does not mean the data should be cold, distant, or unrelatable. While professional researchers have a host of advanced methods for collecting and analyzing data, some of the most effective arguments are made with relatively simple analysis. Reference groups are one of the easiest ways to make an argument. For example, one can demonstrate a program produces superior academic outcomes by presenting stories or numbers to highlight the difference between students who participate in a program and those that do not.
While it is important to recognize some arguments are better supported by numbers and others by stories, the most compelling arguments often use both. Numbers from a representative sample make arguments harder to ignore. They convey to an audience the argument is not just an opinion, but rather carries the weight of the entire population represented in the data. While numbers can effectively show the size or scope of a situation, they can sometimes feel abstract. The remedy for this shortcoming is to put a human face on an argument through quotes or stories from the individuals represented. Combining quantitative and qualitative data reinforces the larger argument and increases the likelihood an audience will be persuaded.
With increased demands to utilize data in decision making, higher education administrators have an opportunity to change and improve the way they approach this work. Rather than view supporting college students as an art that some are born to do and others are not, we should view this work more as a science — something to be systematically approached and improved over time. Through a focus on mission, collecting both quantitative and qualitative data, and making data relatable, one can more effectively persuade others to support ideas, leading to a more effective and efficient use of time and resources.
Scott Radimer, Ph.D. Scott Radimer serves as the director of assessment and planning for the Division of Student Affairs and Enrollment Services at the University of Houston. He has degrees in higher education from Boston College (PhD) and Florida State (MS), and political science from the University of Vermont (BA). Scott is a member of the Phi Delta Theta fraternity.
