Election 2020

The Election Process Is Now Open

Help choose AIR’s next leaders! View the candidate profiles below and then cast your vote. Remember, voting closes at 11:59 p.m. EST on March 6, 2020. 

Vote Now


2020 Candidate Profiles

Candidate profiles are provided below for the positions of Vice President, Board Members at Large, and Nominations and Elections Committee members. All candidates responded to a question about the future of institutional research. Vice President and Board candidates also responded to a question regarding outreach to the membership, and Nominations and Elections Committee candidates responded to a question about representation.

Vice President

(2 Candidates / 1 Position Available)

Joseph Hoey

Joseph Hoey, Vice Provost for Academic Services, National University

Over the next five years, what issues will institutional research need to face to maintain and enhance its value to higher education?  

Governance is certainly one of those issues—in our case, data governance. I think the balkanization of higher education into non-institutional providers will challenge IR to understand, interface with, establish good governance for, and at the end include a larger view of processes and data than we have had. I think we'll have to be able to deal fluidly with the growing number of alternative providers and more corporate models of higher education where the nexus between financial, marketing, enrollment, human resources, outcomes and learning data are all expected elements to include in expert systems and for us to be able to interpret for senior management. From a human capital perspective, I think institutions will be severely challenged to attract and retain talented IR professionals - in fact that's already the case now. How do we as a profession continue to attract and retain talent to the world of IR? That's a huge issue in itself. Thinking globally, AIR's international efforts have been substantial, but it seems to me there is a need for substantial strengthening given the global growth in higher education. 

In what ways has your experience with AIR, regional affiliates, or other organizations demonstrated your outreach and service to a broad membership? 

As a WSCUC Commissioner I am in touch with higher education leadership throughout that region, and hear first-hand what issues are rising to the top both with the WSCUC region and nationally. As an avid LinkedIn user with a large contact base, I read about/post about relevant developments in IR and Accreditation. I attend CHEA meetings and workshops to stay abreast of issues in accreditation at the national and international level. I attend CAIR meetings and the AIR Forum as frequently as my schedule will allow. In the past I have attended numerous assessment-related conferences since that was part of my responsibilities. Having rebuilt multiple IR shops over my career, I’m sensitive to the needs of hiring managers as well as new institutional researchers. As the former Chair of the Professional Services Committee, I know how important it is for AIR to provide effective professional development experiences for those new to the profession—often a substantial proportion of AIR Forum attendees. I’ve had the honor of mentoring a number of professionals who are now directors in their own right, and am able to continue mentoring talented colleagues into seeking out leadership positions in AIR to add further value to the organization.  


Institutional Research Service

  • The California Association for Institutional Research
    Invited workshop on board governance, 2017
  • The Association for Institutional Research
    Pilot Participant, Statement of Aspirational Practice in Institutional Research, 2016
    Board member, 2009–2012
    Chair, Professional Development Services Committee, 2009–2011; Member, 2006-2008
    Assessment Institute (founding) Director, 2007–2008
    Foundations II Institute Co-Director, 2006
    Executive Director Succession Committee, 2005–2006
    Student Learning and Outcomes Track Chair, 2005
    Nominations Committee, 2004
    External Relations Committee, 2001–2003
    Track I Proposal Evaluation Committee, 1998
  • The Southern Association for Institutional Research
    President and Past President, 2002-04
    Program Chair and President Elect, 2001–2002
    Board of Directors, 1999–2001
    Nominating Committee, 1998–1999
    Program Committee, 1998–1999 
  • The Georgia Association for Institutional Research, Planning, Assessment and Quality
    President and Past President, 2001–2003
    Vice President and Program Chair, 2000–2001
    Board of Directors, 1999–2000
  • The North Carolina Association for Institutional Research
    Program Committee, 1996 and 1998 

Accreditation Service 

  • Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Senior College and University Commission
    Commissioner, June 2018 – present
    Chair, Assistant Chair, or Team Member, eight institutional teams, 2005-2017 
    Academic Resource Conference proposal reviewer, 2015
    Program Review Workshop presenter and mentor, 2010–2012
    WASC-CAIR graduate program retention and graduation data task force member, 2011 
  • Commission on Colleges, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools
    Institutional Effectiveness Curriculum Development Committee, July 2008–May 2009
    SACS Peer Review Advisory Committee, July 2008–April 2010
    Reaffirmation Team member, eleven institutions, 2001-2008 
    Lead author, Sections 2.5, 3.3.1, and 4.1, SACS Resource Manual for the Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement, 2005 
  • Oman Academic Accreditation Council, Muscat, Oman
    Chair or Team Member, three Accreditation Standards Team Visits, 2009-2016 

Other Higher Education Service 

  • New Leadership Alliance for Student Learning and Accountability, Selection Committee, 2010–2012 
  • Regents’ Administrative Committee on Institutional Effectiveness (RACIE), University of Georgia System, Committee member, 2001–2006
  • National Science Foundation, Research on Learning Environments (ROLE), panel evaluator, 2004 
Junelyn Peeples

Junelyn Pangan Peeples, Director of Assessment and Institutional Research & Accreditation Liaison Officer, Scripps College

Over the next five years, what issues will institutional research need to face to maintain and enhance its value to higher education?  

Institutional researchers have a unique opportunity to spotlight the gaps in higher education, but to do so we must stay abreast of the trends and complexities of the diverse and changing landscape in postsecondary colleges/universities as well as the compliance to federal, state, and local mandates. One important area we face now, that I presume will only become more relevant, is the application of big data analytics. Our profession should lead how to tether and synthesize institutional and national data to inform our institution in their decision-making process and how those decisions influence the direction of our strategic plan at-large. Another important skill we need to impart is our ability to tell the stories that students, faculty, and staff experience at our institution, comprised of both quantitative and qualitative components. “Thick data” offers an opportunity to contextualize our institution’s nuance and enables the storytelling from those who experience the institution directly. We must build bridges beyond the institutional research borders. Collaborative relationships across other departments or divisions; such as information technology, institutional advancement/development, or communications and marketing; help supplement our work. By partnering with different areas in the institution and other institutions, we open our capacity to highlight important issues and potentially minimize the gaps higher education faces in its educational delivery. Finally, it will be imperative that all institutions think about how their students enter a global workforce that requires an ability to think critically, articulate themselves in both written and oral form, and negotiate in complex professional settings that produce effective outcomes regardless of the major in which they have a degree.        

In what ways has your experience with AIR, regional affiliates or other organizations demonstrated your outreach and service to a broad membership? 

Being an AIR member for over 20 years, as well as a member of the California Association for Institutional Research (CAIR), has afforded me an array of resources and tools that I have leaned on to develop professionally, build a comprehensive network, and collaborate with some brilliant researchers. I have had the ability to contribute to critical dialogue and offer creative and innovative solutions that promote transparent relationships and reciprocal interchange by focusing on how to demonstrate institutional effectiveness of students’ success inside and outside of the classroom through my role as an Accreditation Liaison Officer and Peer Reviewer for the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. I am a member of the American Educational Research Association, Association of American Colleges and Universities, Higher Education Data Sharing Consortium, and National Association of Student Personnel Administrators—to name a few of the broad organizations I participate in as an institutional research professional. I think it is important to expand our knowledge and affiliation that connects to different professions, which can offer a holistic perspective to do our work as researchers. For example, I serve as a member in the AIR/EDUCAUSE Advisory Group on IR/IT Collaboration. A subset of us participated in a panel for the 2019 AIR Forum to discuss “An Exploration: What is IR?” I have relied on AIR and other professional colleagues and organizations in helping me successfully serve multiple institutions over the span of my entire career, overseeing institutional effectiveness and evaluating student success. In doing so, I have been able to help institutions use data to inform decisions that support their ability to demonstrate their value in how students achieve their educational goals. Alternatively, the support and professional development I have gained as an AIR member has given me the ability to build relationships across my entire organization and institutions nationally. Within my own institution it has been imperative to effectively communicate about various projects or assignments the college is engaged in, and I have found that meeting with individuals or departments allows a face-to-face connection to initiate my commitment and lay the groundwork in building trust. This approach gives credence to the relationships I build, so when I do reach out, I have attentive ears to the topic or issue I am trying to convey. Outside of my institution it has been my philosophy that collaborations are an important key to professionally develop. When collaborations are not possible, having conversations that tap into a professional commonality can also build the relationships needed to develop professionally.


  • Association for Institutional Research (AIR)
    AIR Impact Session Presenter (2019)
    eAIR Advisory Group (2018-2019)
    eAIR Feature contributor (2019)
    Member of AIR/EDUCAUSE Advisory Group on IT/IR Collaboration (2018-present)
    Recipient of the Julia M. Duckwall Scholarship (2008)
    AIR Forum Peer Reviewer for Conference Proposals (years varied)
  • WASC, Peer Reviewer
  • Presidential Advisory Committee on Diversity and Inclusivity, Institutional Research Representative (2012-2017)
  • Claremont Colleges Assessment and Institutional Research Consortium Group, Lead IR Organizer (2012-2016)
  •  AEA, Peer Reviewer for Conference Proposals (years varied)
  • AERA, Peer Reviewer for Journals (years varied)
  • American Chemical Society (ACS) Publications, Peer Reviewer for Journals (years varied)
  • KAPS, Board Member and Regional Liaison (2002-2012)


(6 Candidates / 3 Positions Available)  

Laura Palucki Blake

Laura Palucki Blake, Assistant Vice President for Institutional Research and Effectiveness, Harvey Mudd College

Over the next five years, what issues will institutional research need to face to maintain and enhance its value to higher education? 

For me, one of the most important issues for institutional researchers is how to involve and engage others on campus (faculty, staff, students, boards of trustees) so that institutional research is not a product (fact books, charts, graphs, tables), but a campus advocate for the systematic and institution-wide use of information for decision-making. That means coaching and providing professional development to others on our campus. Technology is advancing the amount and speed with which we can provide information, but algorithms are still not able to do what humans can, which is provide context for the information generated. Of course, institutional research has an important role to play in helping to improve educational algorithms, but the more important role for me is how we empower a broad network of users on our campus who are data-literate and collectively work to advance the data, tools, and dissemination methods that meet our institution's needs.

Additionally, institutional researchers are often the first to see the cultural shifts happening on campus and are in a unique place to help the institution both understand and adapt to them. For example, institutional researchers have information about what impacts student success and can help advance conversations across campus about flexible programs, accessible courses, and tailored support services that can address the unique needs and challenges of the changing student demographic. How do we, with student success at the center, help our institutions provide the best educational experience for the students we enroll?

Finally, the field of IR should address the issue of outcomes for higher education. More specifically, I would love to see institutional researchers advance the notion that completion is a necessary but insufficient indicator of success for colleges and universities. Completion is important, but conversations in higher education should be about more than retention and graduation rates, job placement rates, starting salaries, and loan indebtedness. Many colleges and universities, especially those with a liberal arts mission, have additional outcomes information which would enrich the national conversation, while other institutions struggle with how to obtain and talk about their outcomes data, much less share it publicly. How does IR help articulate, measure, and make available information on the meaning and value of the degrees our institutions offer?

In what ways has your experience with AIR, regional affiliates or other organizations demonstrated your outreach and service to a broad membership? 

Having served on the board of directors for the Higher Education Data Sharing Consortium (HEDS), a consortium of small, private liberal arts colleges, for six years, three of them as board chair, I have had the opportunity to meet, work with, and learn from the institutions that are members as well as those that use their resources and services.

Harvey Mudd College is a member of the Claremont Colleges, which means that I am fortunate to have six other institutional researchers in close physical proximity to me. While our institutions are similar in size and mission, they vary quite a bit in terms of their cultures and strategic priorities. I am fortunate to have their different perspectives brought to bear on issues relevant to all of us.

Before HMC, I was the Assistant Director of Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP). My position there involved helping institutions use their CIRP survey results for improvement. That work oftentimes included accreditation, strategic planning, and institutional effectiveness activities. Through my position, I was exposed to many different types of institutions—I worked with small private colleges, HBCU’s, and large public systems. I worked with well-resourced institutions and those with considerably fewer resources. I worked with institutions whose governance structures contributed to their ability to be effective and those whose structures were still developing. My position provided me with an insight into how data gets used at different institutions, how different places frame issues, and how they use evidence to further discussions.

I am also involved as a reviewer for our regional accreditor, WSCUC. I serve on the interim report committee and also participate in approximately one reaffirmation review per year. Participating in WSCUC reviews has allowed me to expand my network to different institutional researchers in the region, to understand the different issues that emerge between and across institutions, and to interact with senior-level administrators. This has helped me learn more about the perspective they bring to their work; what their information needs are; and how IR can leverage our knowledge, skills, and abilities to foster environments that maximize the data they have to inform and improve.

Finally, my work as a Teagle Assessment Scholar allowed me to work on teams with other professionals (deans, associate deans, faculty, IT directors, CTL directors) on thorny problems in higher education. That work has been some of the most impactful work I have done to date, allowing me to see issues from other institutional viewpoints, think about short-term and long-term solutions, and creatively advocate for action based on the data they have about their students and their campus. I would draw on all of these experiences and contacts in my work with AIR.


  • AIR
    Award Selection Committee - 2019
    Forum Program Committee - 2017-19
    Forum Proposal Reviewer - 2009-present
    Peer Reviewer - 2014-present 
  • Higher Education Data Sharing Consortium (HEDS)
    Chair, Board of Directors - 2016-2019  
    Member, Board of Directors - 2013-present 
    Interim Report Committee - 2013-present
Mardy Eimers

Mardy T. Eimers, Vice Provost for Institutional Research and Quality Improvement, University of Missouri 

Over the next five years, what issues will institutional research need to face to maintain and enhance its value to higher education? 

I believe the future of institutional research as a profession is more promising today than at any other time in our history. With our challenges come opportunities, and I see at least three areas where our dedicated focus will continue to enhance service to our members and our profession. First, let’s reinforce and accentuate the true value that the institutional research profession brings to higher education. With the proliferation of data science, data tools, and analytics, it seems that nearly everyone has the ability to prepare data, create visualizations, and tell a story. As essential as these skills have become, we bring something to the table that extends well beyond these core abilities: let’s reinforce how our understanding of the context, culture, and questions lead to analysis and recommendations that significantly enhance the decisions, planning, and setting of policy in a multitude of higher education environs. This is an indispensable skill that we must continue to develop among our members and our profession.   

Second, can we continue to make the profession attractive to early and mid-career professionals so that institutional research is their career of choice? This not only requires that we understand what excites our membership professionally, but also that we put an emphasis on career advancement within the profession and fortify the management skills of our current institutional research directors and senior leaders.

Third, with a premium placed on making more data-informed decisions in all facets of higher education, how can AIR help our members promote better access to quality data, streamline data governance and related policy, elevate analysis, and promote appropriate data transparency within and across our higher education institutions? Partnering with IT in the infrastructure of data management holds tremendous potential for higher education.

In what ways has your experience with AIR, regional affiliates or other organizations demonstrated your outreach and service to a broad membership? 

There are various efforts I’ve invested in to keep in touch with institutional research as a profession as well as understanding the needs of those of us working in institutional research and/or related professions. I served on the AIR Board when we first implemented policy governance and continue to attend the AIR Forum and MidAIR conferences when my schedule permits. I have been a member of the AAU Data Exchange since 2003, serving on their Council for six years, first as a Council member and then an ex officio who lead the graduate education data initiative. I also co-authored a chapter in the Handbook of Institutional Research  (2012) on the Practice of Institutional Research. More recently, I’ve helped rethink the AIR Professional File  and served as a member of the AIR Executive Director search committee. I feel that all of these experiences require one to carefully consider the interests and needs of members and non-members tied to the profession. 


  • Association for Institutional Research (AIR)
    Executive Director Search Committee, 2016.
    Board of Directors, 2010 – 2012
    Chair, Publications Committee, 2010 – 2011.
    Member, Membership Committee, 2005 – 2010.
    Member, AIR Forum Research Paper Review Committee, 2004 – 2007.
    Nominating Committee, 2003 – 2004.
    Member, Publications Committee, 1996 – 2001.
    Editor, AIR Professional File, 1996 – 2001.
    Selection Committee, AIR Best Paper Award, 1995, 1997 – 2001.
  • Higher Learning Commission (HLC)
    Peer Reviewer, 2014 – present.
  • American Association of Universities Data Exchange (AAUDE)
    Liaison to AAU and Association of Graduate Schools, 2017 – 2019.
    Council member, 2014 – 2019.
  • Missouri Quality Award Board of Examiners, Examiner, 2012 – 2013.
Laura Fingerson

Laura Fingerson, Director of Institutional Insights, Strategic Education, Capella University, Strayer University 

Over the next five years, what issues will institutional research need to face to maintain and enhance its value to higher education?  

IR/IE professionals have a direct role in responding to and leading the increasing pace of change at our institutions and across higher education in institutional accountability, student access, equity, student success, and return-on-investment measures of the value of a degree. In the next five years, these pressures will continue to increase and we in IR/IE are at the center. We are held accountable for producing the data, reporting the data, making decisions on using the data to measure success of institutional efforts, and telling the story of institutional success. We must not simply respond to institutional requests, but we must step up and lead in these efforts, whether they are for internal improvement or external benchmarking and accountability.

First, we produce data for and measure the success of pilots and initiatives, develop and collect course evaluations and faculty performance data, present key performance indicators of the institution as a whole, and tell the institutional story of access and success both internally and externally. We must respond to the increasing expectations of data and data analytics while protecting and serving our students, as even our smallest IR/IE offices are being asked to develop the skill sets to use data not just for reporting, but also to help drive and evaluate student success initiatives. Data are only getting bigger, whether thick or thin, as described in the 2019 AIR Forum keynote by Tricia Wong.

Second, we are the voice of the students as each piece of data we share represents real students at our institutions. We in IR/IE use data and interpretation to change and improve our institutions; in turn, our institutions directly impact students’ success in their communities and careers, which then can change the world. As I wrote in eAIR in April 2018, as higher education and institutions change, it is our role to advocate for our students and institutions given our unique position looking across all areas of our institutions. As Cathy O’Neil explained in her 2018 AIR Forum keynote, we have a responsibility on the ethical and equity-minded use of algorithms and reporting. The way we gather data, display data, and use data affect each of our students, faculty, and initiatives. 

We in IR/IE must continue to step up and drive the production and use of data, as they are used to tell institutional stories both internally and externally. 

In what ways has your experience with AIR, regional affiliates or other organizations demonstrated your outreach and service to a broad membership?  

Since starting in the field of institutional research at Capella University in 2013, I have dived right in to connecting with IR/IE professionals at AIR and AIRUM (AIR of the Upper Midwest) in volunteer roles, presentations, and writing. Each year, I widen my network both nationally and in my region of the Upper Midwest across institutional types and institutional sizes. In the following three examples from just this year, I show how my network has grown and strengthened. First, I am in my third and last year serving on the AIRUM Steering Committee, where I have had a platform to meet even more people and make stronger connections to my regional colleagues at AIRUM and national colleagues representing AIRUM at the AIR Forum.  Second, my service on AIR’s Data Policy Advisory Group has connected me nationally with policy-minded colleagues and led to my participation again in this year’s second invited “Data Policy” panel presentation at AIRUM. Third, I continue to increase my visibility as an advocate for IR/IE and higher education through my Twitter platform and in my writing, such as my upcoming invited co-authored piece in New Directions for Institutional Research.

Each of these examples would not have occurred had I not spent my time actively networking and meeting colleagues for the improvement of the profession and higher education. Even with this work, my experience in higher education and in IR/IE is at large institutions, in large offices. I believe that the larger institutions and offices are often leading change as we have the pressures of scale and resources to experiment and make change happen. Yet, I acknowledge that I rely on others, both on the board and in the membership, to bring to the conversation the experiences and perspectives of smaller institutions and institutions that are different from the ones I have experienced. It is my responsibility to hear these experiences and perspectives and maintain an enterprise-view across the profession as I engage in IR/IE.


  • AIR service since joining in 2013:
    Data Policy Advisory Group
    Peer reviewer
    Forum Proposal Reviewer
    Forum Advisory Group member
    Forum Program Committee member
    Presenting at AIR Forum 
  • AIR of the Upper Midwest (AIRUM) service since joining in 2013: 
    Steering Committee Member (2018-2020, 3 years)
    Proposal Reviewer
    Presenting at the annual conference
Braden Hosch

Braden J. Hosch, Associate Vice President for Institutional Research, Planning & Effectiveness, Stony Brook University (SUNY) 

Over the next five years, what issues will institutional research need to face to maintain and enhance its value to higher education?  

I have enjoyed and greatly benefited from collaborations with numerous colleagues in recent years on panels and in print about the future of IR, and these opportunities for reflection, discussion, and publication of where the profession is headed inform my daily practice and have made me a more strategic leader on my campus. Some salient issues about the future of IR are: 

Data proliferation—institutions will need to develop a data strategy to encompass all data, not just the frozen data sets that have been the traditional bread and butter of IR. To remain relevant, IR has to take a leading role in the development of this strategy, while adapting to accommodate the exponential increase in the volume of internal and external data.

The commodification of IR —multiple vendors claim to be able to provide components or the entirety of IR functions to institutions, from predictive modelling in-a-box, to data warehousing and analytics in-a-box, to full-suite outsourced IR. The profession needs to develop a way to accommodate, validate, and integrate these services if only to understand how to coexist with them. Their existence in the marketplace is a symptom of IR not meeting institutional demands.

Unit record reporting for IPEDS—with Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) signing on as a co-sponsor of the College Transparency Act in Sept. 2019, unit record reporting is no longer a question of “if” but “when” such reporting will happen. This will transform how IR offices interact with records offices and also require a complete restructuring of AIR’s IPEDS curriculum.

Privacy & Ethics—because of data proliferation and generation and distribution of more personally identifiable data, confidentiality and privacy will become issues like never before. Beyond where our students’ and employees’ data are shared, data from applicants, web visitors, and campus visitors has potential for use and abuse. Development of predictive algorithms and data re-disclosure will be particularly thorny topics. IR will be on the front lines of many of these discussions.

Deepening interconnections among IT and finance—The joint analytics statement from AIR, EDUCAUSE, and NACUBO is a valuable and important first collaboration among the organizations. These ties will and must continue to deepen over the next five years. IR expertise needs to be released in a more unbridled way on problems of the cost curve of higher education and the right way(s) to measure quality.

Opportunities to affect policy—AIR and the IR profession are positioned to inform efforts to reauthorize the Higher Education Act. This opportunity is contingent upon providing thought leadership informed by the disciplinary expertise in AIR about institutional accountability, student success, research impact, quality education, and affordability. This opportunity should not be squandered given the deep knowledge base of membership and policy acumen of leadership. 

In what ways has your experience with AIR, regional affiliates or other organizations demonstrated your outreach and service to a broad membership? 

As a board member of any organization, I hold it as a primary responsibility to communicate with members and represent their positions in leadership decisions. Throughout my career, I have developed a deep set of connections and relationships with other AIR members as co-authors, collaborators, and life-long friends. In addition to my deep involvement with AIR, I am an active member of the North East Association for Institutional Research (NEAIR), the Commission for Information Management and Analysis (CIMA), the Association for Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU), and the American Association of Universities Data Exchange (AAUDE). I have held leadership positions in all of these organizations, and I am a current member of New York’s Association for Institutional Research and Planning Officers (AIRPO). I was a member of the Southern Association for Institutional Research (SAIR) and the South Carolina Association for Institutional Research (SCAIR) when I worked in those regions. I served as an IPEDS Educator for a decade and conducted over 40 workshops for about 1,000 participants; I also developed relationships with IPEDS staff at NCES. I recently completed a 3-year term on the National Postsecondary Education Cooperative and served on 15 technical review panels for IPEDS. I have over 1,500 connections on LinkedIn—most in higher education—and 300 followers on Twitter, including a range of prominent higher education policy experts. These active connections through organizations and activities and my social media platform provide me broad access to colleagues across the spectrum of IR and higher education. 


Service to AIR 

Research & Dissertation Grants Review Panel (2012-2019) 
IPEDS Educator/Trainer (2009-2019)
Forum Program Track Committees/Proposal Reviewer (2006-2019)
Forum Strategy Committee (2016-2018)
Ad Hoc External Vendor Review Committee (2008-10)

Service to AIR Affiliated Organizations

  • Northeast Association for Institutional Research (NEAIR)
    Steering Committee Member, Finance Chair (2016-2019)
    Conference Proposal Reviewer (2010-2019) 
    Nominating Committee (2010) 
  • Southern Association for Institutional Research (SAIR)
    Planning Track Committee (2007) 
  • South Carolina Association for Institutional Research (SCAIR)
    Nominating Committee (2005-2007) 
Elizabeth Lee

Elizabeth A. Lee, Director of Institutional Research, University of Portland 

Over the next five years, what issues will institutional research need to face to maintain and enhance its value to higher education?  

AIR’s phenomenal work creating the Duties and Functions of Institutional Research serves as a foundational framework for IR professionals in assessing their personal and office’s superpowers. I believe IR professionals should continually evaluate their individual and team skillset in order to be best prepared to tackle the pressing and salient concerns for their institution. Skillsets range from areas that are technical (e.g. Python coding to automate data cleaning, predictive machine learning models, effective data visualizations), strategic (e.g. project management for supporting data-informed strategic plans, effective partnership building with marketing and communications units), or functional (e.g. prospect research methods, financial projection modeling, co-curricular participation tracking). A self-assessment can start by applying the benchmarking reports provided by AIR’s National Survey of Institutional Research Offices. Rejuvenating skillsets ensures that IR professionals accomplish more with less as the demands for institutional accountability and value proposition keep increasing.

Additionally, IR professionals continue to navigate complex relationships with their IT department and external data support vendors in order to obtain datasets that substantiate successful student outcomes. As higher education moves from focusing on equity in opportunity access toward equity in on-time degree completion, IR creatively develops and triangulates new datasets. AIR’s recent Statement of Ethical Principles is timely as institutions are increasingly leveraging data in innovative, yet potentially problematic ways. For example, institutions are tracking website usage of prospective students with cookies, partnering with credit reporting agencies to obtain alumni salaries, tracking student movements across campus via Wi-Fi pings, scraping alumni employment data off of social media sites, etc. Some of these efforts are in reaction to federal and state pressures that impact IR. The potential for productive insight must be balanced with responsible, ethical operations.

Lastly, related to navigating high-stake partnerships, I believe IR offices would benefit from guidance on how to navigate the relationship with units responsible for supporting faculty/staff grant proposals, compliance, and evaluation. As I plan for new service capacities I want my office to provide, I have wondered the parameters IR offices establish as a grant services provider. IR is frequently called on to support the institution’s ambitions to obtain and maintain grants, yet this is an area where IR resources can get stretched thinner than ever.

In what ways has your experience with AIR, regional affiliates or other organizations demonstrated your outreach and service to a broad membership? 

I have a track record of serving and leading professional development organizations starting with serving as President of the Graduate Student Committee for the Society for Personality and Social Psychologists (SPSP). I successfully advocated for increased budget and conference programming support for graduate students. I created a new student poster award and supervised the logistics of a peer review system. This experience gave me the confidence to serve and lead my regional IR professional development organization, Pacific Northwest Association for Institutional Research and Planning (PNAIRP). It was a rewarding experience with regular discussions on how to support and engage with IR professionals continually, not just at the annual conference. We can always improve how to be inclusive of professionals who may not feel fully empowered or resourced to explore the field of IR, and I would want to carry that forward in my future work.

I am originally from and was educated on the East coast, worked as a social science post-doctoral researcher at a university in Europe, and currently lead an IR office in the Pacific Northwest. I have been educated and worked at institutions that vary in size, control (public and private not-for-profits only), and mission (top-tier research versus comprehensive, regional university versus small liberal arts college versus religiously oriented). Now, I have learned to identify proudly as a first-generation student and child of immigrants, as my identity and experiences inform how I conduct outreach.

My passion for service derives from wanting to give back to organizations that have enriched my career development and socialized me into the standards and aspirations of the field. My hope is that with a varied base of professional service, regional affiliations, and institutional experiences, I can be as approachable as possible to all members. I look forward to leveraging the infrastructure and process mechanisms at AIR for member outreach in order to build productive relationships among IR professionals with AIR and with each other. My service while a graduate student has especially honed my thinking and advocacy around the concerns of early career professionals. My PNAIRP service has further elevated my network of professionals within my region, and I am excited for the opportunity to apply my past success toward expanding my advocacy. 


For the past six years, I have enthusiastically immersed myself in serving on the board for the Pacific Northwest Association for Institutional Research and Planning (PNAIRP). I served a three-year term as Member-at-Large and then a three-year term as the Treasurer. I managed financial operations while keeping the organization’s long-term sustainability front of mind. Namely, I managed the budget, advised the Executive Board on fiscal pressures/opportunities, maintained PNAIRP’s nonprofit status through federal/state compliance, and prepared materials for the annual audit. One main priority was ensuring PNAIRP remains fiscally sustainable amidst an environment where the cost of business is rising, and members have competing demands on their attention and time. To that end, I researched what is needed for PNAIRP to convert its nonprofit status from a 501(c)6 to a 501(c)3 in order to access organizational benefits (e.g. qualify for free Google for Nonprofits software, enable members to make tax-deductible donations towards a new student scholarship fund, etc).  I led an ad-hoc committee comprised of members that weighed the pros/cons of the nonprofit status change in order to make a transparent recommendation informed by membership wishes.  I am confident that PNAIRP is continuing on a sustainable path. Lastly, the ideas I have contributed and implemented during my years of service culminated with receiving the PNAIRP President’s Service Award for exemplary service to the sustainable functioning of the organization. 

Yan Xie

Yan Xie, Assistant Provost for Institutional Research, The University of Redlands 

Over the next five years, what issues will institutional research need to face to maintain and enhance its value to higher education? 

Over the next five years, institutional researchers need to advocate for “data justice” and collaboratively establish “data property rights” for both our institutions and students. We need to actively engage with higher education data users and owners, particularly students and their families who make high-stake decisions based on data that are collected and provided by the IR professionals, but, unfortunately, are often interpreted and monetarized by data profiteers such as for-profit college rankers.

The current system is full of misaligned incentives and imposes financial injustice on students. IR professionals, whose salaries are mostly funded by tuition revenues or tax revenues from students and their families, supply “free” data and labor when participating in the increasing numbers of external surveys. It is the students and their families who subsidize the foundational component of for-profit data businesses, who then charge students and their families again when reselling the data in different formats, repackaged as ranking tables, online college profiles, and college guidebooks in print. In addition, they charge high annual fees when institutions try to access peer data to understand changes in ranking positions. This financial structure is unjust to both students and institutions, but it benefits the for-profit data industry. In addition, the proprietary ranking methodologies often create counter-productive pressures that push institutions to become more selective/exclusive, expensive (as expenditure is often used as proxy of quality), fragmented and expansive (as the number of programs is often used as proxy of engagement).

I propose that AIR utilizes its leadership position to coordinate IR offices in building a non-profit member-driven data platform, which pools our data in a centralized repository that can be freely provided to students to support their decisions such as college choice, major choice, and career choice. The platform may be seed-funded by a small participation fee from IR offices and time donated by AIR volunteers, but in the long run it should be funded by data access fees paid by for-profit data operations. In addition to data access fees, there should be a rigorous review and approval process to make sure for-profit uses of institutional data meet quality standards (methodological rigor and transparency) and impose no harm on students and institutions. Once operational, the platform may be expanded to program and course levels to streamline the program review and academic planning process. In addition, the member-driven platform will enable institutional researchers to provide relevant peer analysis at more disaggregated levels that are specific to the needs of our diverse student populations.

In what ways has your experience with AIR, regional affiliates or other organizations demonstrated your outreach and service to a broad membership?  

I have been active in the field of higher education since 2000 and in institutional research since 2005. During these years, I have worked at different types of institutions: a regional state university, a large research minority-serving-institution with mostly commuting students, and a non-profit residential university serving both traditional-age and full-time working students. My work in these different sectors has enabled me to understand issues that are of particular interest to colleagues working in diverse settings and facing different challenges.

As an international student, I completed my undergraduate education in China before seeking my doctoral degree in the U.S. The comparative perspectives from the two vastly different higher education systems provide an enhanced understanding of both systems. My bilingual background also makes it easier to connect with international colleagues within the IR profession.

I have been actively connected with colleagues I know from my education, full-time work, volunteer work, and my presentations and attendances at various educational conferences. In person and through social media, I continually have productive and enlightening conversations with professionals, students, and parents, who are from highly diverse backgrounds in terms of gender, age, academic training, professional specialties, culture and ethnicity, national origin, and religious and political beliefs. I am confident that I can reach an even wider audience when I actively promote AIR initiatives that will empower institutional researchers who sometimes feel powerless when facing structural factors that dominate the voices and resources of individual institutions and researchers. 


  • AIR
    Volunteer peer reviewer of conference proposals, presenters at various AIR forum sessions covering topics such as statistical studies of student success and risk factors, embedding program assessment in student success analytics. 
    Member at large, invited presenter at OCAIR panel discussions during AIR forum, invited presenter of OCAIR professional development webinar.  
  • ASHE, AAC&U, NASPA, TAIR, and Grantee Institutions Collaborating on the Lumina MSI Models of Success
    Presenter on topics such as community college transfer student success at minority-serving universities, event history analysis of student persistence, stop-out and returning patterns, building student success knowledge infrastructure collaboratively across institutions.   
  • Volunteer with various local nonprofits that serve K-12 students or low-income population, such as Parents and Teachers at Montessori (PTM) and Helping Hand Food Pantry.

Nominations And Elections Committee 

(6 Candidates / 3 Positions Available)   

Craig Abbey

Craig W. Abbey, Associate Vice President and Director of Institutional Analysis, University at Buffalo 

Over the next five years, what issues will institutional research need to face to maintain and enhance its value to higher education?   

With the growing likelihood of IPEDS unit record submissions and the use of transactional data at institutions, data privacy will be one of the issues institutional researchers must grapple with. Although not yet passed into law, the repeal of the prohibition on IPEDS unit record data will have profound implications for new research that can be carried out but will also carry some known and unforeseen risks. Card swipe data and WiFi usage have the potential to enhance interventions that promote student success but also increase privacy concerns.  Generational differences over data privacy might hamper advanced data analytics efforts because older university administrators’ views are not in line with digitally native students.  Institutional researchers must play a leading role in data privacy conversation to balance the potential benefits and risks.

What different perspectives or voices do you think are important to represent on the Board/NEC? How would you go about ensuring diversity within the slate of candidates? 

The Board and NEC should be representative of AIR membership coming from a range of different institution types and personal backgrounds. Ideally, institutional control (private, public and for-profit), Carnegie Classification and geography would be balanced with race/ethnic, gender and other characteristics. In practice this is difficult to achieve given the number of positions on the Board and NEC and because these positions are elected. Ensuring a diverse candidate slate requires the recruitment of candidates and a balanced set of voices. For more than 10 years, I have taught workshops for AIR and other groups. Through these workshops, I have had the opportunity to meet many institutional researchers from many different types of institutions, public, private and for-profit, from many different parts of the nation and world, and from many different backgrounds. Prior to working at the University at Buffalo, I worked at the SUNY System Administration which gave me a wider view of different types of institutions. Through my work with the AAUDE Data Exchange, I have learned from my colleagues the differences between working at a public and private institution. In Western New York, the IR directors from all sectors meet occasionally to discuss higher education issues facing our community. From these networks, I believe I can reach out to members from different sectors and backgrounds. 


  • AIR
    Forum Committee 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016
    Workshops, 2009 to Present 
  • Association of American Universities Data Exchange (AAUDE)
    Council May 2015 to May 2018, Chair May 2016 to May 2017
    Data Use and Privacy Committee, 2014
    Strategic Planning Committee, Chair, 2019 to 2020
    Annual Meeting Planning Committee, 2020 
  • Commission on Information, Measurement, & Analysis, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities
    2017 to present, Executive Committee, 2019 to present 
  • National Science Foundation
    Expert Panel on Higher Education Research and Development Survey, 2008 to 2009, 2012 
  • AAU
    Working Group on IPEDS Unit Record, 2017 - 2018 
  • AIRPO 
    Conference Local Host, 2016, 2020 
    Program Chair, 2016, 2019 
Ching-Hui Lin

Ching-Hui Lin, Assistant Professor, Center of Teacher Education and Office of Institutional Research, National Sun Yat-sen University

Over the next five years, what issues will institutional research need to face to maintain and enhance its value to higher education?   

There is no doubt that AIR is influential within postsecondary education in many ways. As many countries have found in their efforts to implement institutional research in higher education, however, lack of knowledge and training on the part of IR professionals often results in limited views of institutional research in some affiliated IR associations in other countries, which hinders the development of an evidence-based decision culture in higher education. For example, a holistic view of IR capacity has not been fully understood and adopted by some affiliated IR associations. Therefore, if we, with more experience in the field, could reach key persons in the affiliated AIR associations that are new to IR and build good relationships with them as well as provide needed assistance if necessary that will help AIR professionals make a big impact on the practice of IR internationally.

In addition, around the world, higher education is undergoing a transformation, especially with the technological advancements that impact the instructional activities and the shift from institution-centered to student-centered higher educational policies and research. This shift requires higher education stakeholders to rethink their priorities in order to leverage data analytics to guide decision-making and take appropriate action within an evidence-based decision culture.

What different perspectives or voices do you think are important to represent on the Board/NEC? How would you go about ensuring diversity within the slate of candidates? 

As the field of institutional research has developed over more than 50 years to support improvement of higher education through data-informed and scholarly research, diversity and professionalism have been established as important values of the AIR community (as well as the Board/NEC) Today, IR is ubiquitous across higher education in the U.S. and is also rapidly growing in universities and colleges around the world. I completed my doctoral program as an international student in the U.S. under professors with international reputations in this field (Professors Victor Borden, Gary Pike, and Don Hossler as well as Samuel Peng, who recently retired as director of NCSE). Also, between 2017 and 2018 I co-authored a book chapter with Professor Karen Webber and Korean and Chinese scholars titled, “Building Capacity in Institutional Research and Decision Support in Higher Education."

I returned to Taiwan in 2015 as the government was accelerating the establishment of offices of institutional research, and Taiwan’s Association for Institutional Research (TWAIR) was founded in 2016. Up to the present, I have been invited to give IR presentations in some postsecondary institutions and I am also active in TWAIR and help to reach out to the Ministry of Education and other affiliated IR associations such as the South East Asian Association for Institutional Research (SEAAIR). Moreover, my colleagues and I used to regularly host workshops to which IR professionals were invited to share IR practices and experiences such as when Dr. Peng came to Taiwan for a short visit. In sum, I built good relationships with IR professionals, in addition to which I started teaching the foundations of institutional research to international students this semester, which could have an influential impact in the future. Thus, in both professional and informal ways I have been able to keep connected with the IR community around the world.

Regarding the question about ensuring the slate of candidates is diverse, the first thing is to make sure the composition of the committee is diverse to provide a diverse set of perspectives and avoid unintended bias during the search process. Diverse teams lead to more and better innovation. Moreover, it is important to ensure that the pool of candidates is varied from the start. Moreover, to ensure that the pool of candidates is varied from the start, it is important to take advantage of networking and the connections that team members bring to the process of selecting a diverse slate.


Regarding the service to AIR, I have been active in doing presentations at the AIR in recent years such as panel discussion, group discussion and poster presentation. In addition, I was on behalf of TAIR to connect with AIR for the arrangement of round table sessions in the previous. In terms of services to other associations, I am a member of Taiwan’s Association for Institutional Research (TAIR) and this year (in 2020) I was also elected to one of board of directors within the TAIR. In the past, I was helping to coordinate the international conference with TAIR and hosting guest speakers from AIR and other scholars from the United States. Meanwhile, I was invited to IR meeting as the consultant with the Ministry of Education and other affiliated IR associations such as South East Asian for Association for Institutional Research (SEAAIR). In addition to the aforementioned services, I was coordinating IR seminars with young IR professionals on a regular basis to strengthen IR professional network.  

Bethany Miller

Bethany L. Miller, Director of Institutional Research, Mary Baldwin University 

Over the next five years, what issues will institutional research need to face to maintain and enhance its value to higher education?   

Over the next five years higher education will see many changes and the impact will be felt perhaps most acutely and initially in institutional research. The first wave of big changes will definitely affect the data that we are collecting and how we are using it. IR will also have to think about data structures and how we can track increasing metrics for more students. The move away from cohort only (traditional definition) will impact outcomes reporting. In terms of maintaining and enhancing its value in higher education, institutional research will have to get out of the office so to speak. It has to be clear that the work of institutional research is more than pulling data, making charts, and mandatory reporting. The value of institutional research as an integral part of the data-informed decision-making process cannot be overstated, but must become more of the norm across the field and less of the exception. In order to do this, institutional research must not only be at the table (silent partner pushing data across) but must be an active and vocal partner in the conversation bringing knowledge and context to the thick, rich data that institutions have. This means that as a field of professionals we must continue to stretch ourselves with professional development and the learning of new skills or the advancement of skills that we already possess.

What different perspectives or voices do you think are important to represent on the Board/NEC? How would you go about ensuring diversity within the slate of candidates?

I think that a variety of voices are important as the field continues to move forward in the times of fast change that are currently happening in higher education. It is imperative to have a diversity of voices on the Board and the NEC. The diversity of voices is not just gender and racial diversity, but it is imperative to have a diversity of voices in terms of institution size and type as well as office size and type. The needs of the varying groups are not the same and it is important for the NEC and the Board to hear and consider all of the member perspectives. I have a robust network of colleagues in regional AIR groups as well as in the private college sector. I am always working to expand my network so, that as a professional, I can connect with and bring others into important conversations. In order to ensure a diverse slate of candidates, I would ask whether we are seeing representation from different sectors of higher education, different types of institutions, offices, races, and genders. I would ask my colleagues on the committee to take a longer historical view of the recent nominations to ensure that across time we are keeping our eye on the composition of the Board and NEC long-term so that we don't unknowingly get to a point where we do not have adequate representation.


I have been actively involved in AIR through various volunteer activities including being a Peer Reviewer for Professional Files and Forum proposals. I am also a member of the Forum program committee. I am also a member of the Higher Education Data Sharing (HEDS) Board of Directors.

Wen Qi

Wen Qi, Data Analyst, Office of Vice Provost for Faculty & Academic Affairs, Indiana University Bloomington 

Over the next five years, what issues will institutional research need to face to maintain and enhance its value to higher education?  

I believe the field of institutional research will face two issues in the near future. First, while advanced technology has brought exciting opportunities for us to collect, analyze, and visualize data on students and faculty in higher education, we are also facing the challenges of maintaining data security and privacy. Institutional researchers should be proactive in addressing such challenges and protect our students and faculty with best practices.

Second, the era of “big data” is also changing how our students and faculty are examined and understood. We have witnessed the increasing use of learning analytics and predictive analytics in student assessment, and third-party companies such as Academic Analytics are creating index scores to define and measure faculty productivity. This is further complicated by declining student enrollments and increasingly intense competition in recruiting productive faculty members. While institutional researchers often have the skills to make the best use of available data, it is also important to keep in mind the unquantifiable or unmeasurable aspects of higher education and provide the leadership with the most valid and comprehensive form of decision support. 

What different perspectives or voices do you think are important to represent on the Board/NEC? How would you go about ensuring diversity within the slate of candidates?   

In addition to demographic representation, I believe that it is important to represent perspectives and voices from institutional researchers at different types of institutions, different professional roles, and different career stages. In doing so, we have the opportunity to understand the diverse experience of institutional researchers, the contributions they make to the field and the challenges they are facing.

As a member of AIR since 2007, I have had opportunities to meet and work with many colleagues in the field. Currently, I serve as a survey caretaker at AAUDE (Association of American Universities Data Exchange). My current work in faculty and academic affairs also allows me to communicate frequently with colleagues from other institutions on topics such as equity issues and best practice in reporting faculty service, how to communicate the results from COACHE (Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education) with various constituents, and how to use Academic Analytics to understand faculty departure. As a former Research Graduate Associate at NSSE (National Survey of Student Engagement) and former Assistant Director of Institutional Effectiveness, I am also in touch with many colleagues in student assessment. Finally, I am a member of OCAIR (Overseas Chinese Association for Institutional Research), which is a community of Chinese nationals and colleagues from other countries including the United States.

As a member of the Nomination and Election Committee, I think the following factors should be considered to ensure the slate of candidates is diverse: years of involvement in AIR, gender, race/ethnicity, type of institution/organization, career stage, and organizational role. Of course, we should not focus on finding candidates for the appearance of inclusiveness and diversity. Instead, we should engage candidates who have made substantial contributions to the important issues in the field of institutional research, and who have served the community with passion.


Member since 2007, Association of Institutional Research Survey Caretaker, Association of American Universities Data Exchange (AAUDE).


Justin Rose

Justin Rose, Director of Institutional Effectiveness, Southeastern University

Over the next five years, what issues will institutional research need to face to maintain and enhance its value to higher education?  

Institutional research must develop strategies and capacities for shifting its focus from primarily internal efforts (that is, efforts dedicated largely to institutional, system, and disciplinary needs) to a meaningful investment in public-facing education and empowerment of citizens to make data-informed decisions related to accessibility, cost, effectiveness, and other accountability-related issues in higher education.

Institutional research should also recognize and take seriously the massive paradigmatic shift occurring in the structure and function of public and private higher education, as institutions increasingly model their products and product deliveries around incremental curricula, competency-based education, gamification, learning series, majority non-traditional learner populations, and other upending dynamics. How can these inevitable shifts transpire responsibly in the context of institutions that maintain commitments to the essential aims of liberal education? How can colleges and universities continue to be the primary and trusted providers of STEM education in a market that threatens to turn such confidence over to corporate entities? 

What different perspectives or voices do you think are important to represent on the Board/NEC? How would you go about ensuring diversity within the slate of candidates?  

The NEC should recognize that AIR is advantaged by robustly diverse representation. This diversity should be rooted in both professional dynamics and lived experience (especially privileging the lived experiences of non-majority persons). Voices from educational technology, the liberal arts (especially those with a firm grasp on ethics), veteran IR professionals, institutional and system leadership, First/Native peoples, LGBTQ+ (and allies), African diaspora, and many others would serve the profession well. Obviously, the Board and NEC only has so many positions, so it is imperative that those who serve in such a capacity possess a serious and explicit commitment to the meaningful representation of such voices. Homogeny is too often the mainstay of powerful organizations, even ones with historic commitments to justice and advocacy. It is also important that the Board and NEC not become imbalanced by representation from any one profession, discipline, or institutional type. The NEC should engage in educational opportunities to ensure that it is cultivating a diverse slate of candidates. The development of a rubric that accounts for diverse representation could be useful, though rigorous discussion and education on the topic is at least necessary.

I maintain relationships with a number of organizations from my position in institutional effectiveness, including various assessment solutions companies and other groups. I maintain a healthy social media presence and have connections with members across AIR in that space. As a member of AIR from the state of Florida, I have connections with the associated group FAIR (Florida Association of Institutional Research), which is working to onboard a number of disconnected institutions and professionals who might also join AIR. 


I serve on the AIR Editorial Board and on the planning committee for the Florida Association of Institutional Research's (FAIR) annual conference. I have served on FAIR's Best Paper committee as well.

Meredith Wentz

Meredith Wentz, Assistant Chancellor for Planning, Assessment, Research and Quality, University of Wisconsin-Stout 

Over the next five years, what issues will institutional research need to face to maintain and enhance its value to higher education?   

I think the future of higher education will be challenged by anticipated declines in high school graduates (leading to more competition for students), likely continued declines in public funding, and continued public pressure to keep tuition rates low. As a result, data from IR offices to inform decision-making will become more critical.

UW-Stout was one of the founding institutions of the AIR Statement of Aspirational Practice for Institutional Research, and I think the statement will help shape the future of IR. Consistent with the statement, institutional research has moved from a place where there is one central office that has all of the data and works exclusively with senior leadership, to data being available in many different offices and a broadened definition of decision makers. This will mean that the role of IR professionals will shift more to capacity building, data governance, and building data literacy. I also think that we have shifted from an era where institutions did not have enough data, to an era where there is too much data. Too much data can lead to analysis paralysis and arguments over which data is “right.” The challenge will shift IR work from answering questions about how we collect new data, to how we make the best use of the data we have.

Demonstrating accountability will be a continued challenge that will affect IR as well. The number of accountability projects and metrics keep expanding because the higher education community has different perspectives on how to move forward. We now have the Federal Scorecard, Student Achievement Measure, Voluntary System of Accountability, and accreditation requirements related to student outcomes along with state and institutional requirements. At the federal level, there have been some questions about accreditation, which might lead to further changes about how accountability is measured and how institutions are evaluated. In the next five years, the institutional research community will need to continue to work on how to demonstrate accountability to students and the public.

What different perspectives or voices do you think are important to represent on the Board/NEC? How would you go about ensuring diversity within the slate of candidates? 

I think it’s important to have perspectives from a diverse array of institution types (public/private, large/small, rural/urban, special mission, different Carnegie classifications, etc.), geographic diversity (location of institution), demographic diversity (racial/ethnic minorities, gender, age, years of experience in IR, physical ability/disability, etc.). I think it’s also important to identify people who have a vision for the future of institutional research and can help the field learn and grow. I think we also need people who demonstrate leadership qualities, can share their point of view and provide alternative perspectives on issues, can support group decisions, and are actively involved in institutional research.

I have a number of connections to various individuals and groups that would allow me to identify potential candidates. I have served on the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Board of Examiners for nine years and will be a Baldrige judge starting in 2020 (the judges decide who will receive the award). I also serve on the board for the Wisconsin Center for Performance Excellence. UW-Stout is also leading a national benchmarking initiative in partnership with the National Higher Education Benchmarking Institute. I’m a peer reviewer for the Higher Learning commission and have participated in comprehensive visits, CQR visits, federal compliance reviews, financial indicator reviews, non-financial indicator reviews, four-year assurance reviews, change panels, and AQIP portfolio reviews. I’m an active participant in AIRUM. In 2019, I presented on two topics at the annual AIRUM conference: strategic planning and the benchmarking project. In 2018, I presented with other colleagues about the AIR aspirational statement in practice. I published an article in 2018 in the Midwestern Higher Educational Research journal titled Infusing Data Campus-Wide to Drive Institutional Change and an article in 2018 in the EDUCAUSE Review titled Maintaining Business Process Redesign Efforts through Change Management. Through these groups, I have access to a diverse network of individuals who could be interested in AIR.


UW-Stout was one of the founding institutions for the AIR Statement of Aspirational Practice for IR. I regularly give presentations at the AIRUM annual conference, and have served as a keynote panelist.