Higher education in the US may be characterized by the complexity
and plurality of the forms of organization, governance, management, financing,
and property. The Ivy League universities and those trying to replicate them, or
so-called `wanna be' universities, coexist with numerous large public institutions,
four-year colleges and community colleges. While the former are
actively involved in business-driven projects in research and services, the latter are
quite distant from these processes. Nevertheless, all of them serve
the industries, primarily by training professionals for these industries. In
this sense, community colleges are not less linked to businesses than major
research universities. Carnegie Foundation classifies several leading private and
public universities in the US as research universities. These institutions
typically offer a wide range of baccalaureate programs, and are committed to
graduate education through doctorate and research, including externally
funded research (Carnegie Classification, 2009). Curriculum in community colleges is
tailored to meet the demands of specific
industries and more often, local labor markets. Financial flows in the higher
education industry, including educational loans, governmental grants, and returns
on endowments are plentiful. As in any other industry, organizational
complexity, unclear nature of the final product,
and significant financial flows serve as necessary grounds for corruption.
Few authors address corruption in the US higher education industry.
While corruption in the American higher education may be pervasive,
scholarly work on this issue is lacking. This situation is quite characteristic
of the studies of higher education corruption worldwide. Case studies
and small scale surveys with a low response rate remain major tools to
assess corruption. The reliability of surveys and interviews is undermined by
the sensitivity of the topiccorruption remains illegal. There are
some methodologies that allow approaching the issue of corruption and measuring
it (Besançon, 2003; Kaufmann and Kraay, 2003; Bellver and Kaufmann, 2005;
and Osipian, 2007a), including legalistic (Kaufmann and Vicente, 2005;
Zimring and Johnson, 2005; and Osipian, 2008f) and economic ones
(Rose-Ackerman, 1978 and 1999). Nevertheless, issues
of conceptualization, theorization, operationalization, and measurement
of education corruption remain largely unresolved. This article comments
on the major works done on corruption in the American higher education
sector, including the methodological tools used by the researchers, and
also offers some methodologies with which this
problem may be addressed in future researches. |