Research

Organizations - Schools - Systems

Summary. My research integrates studies of innovation spread and organizational change with public policy and education reform. My research research studies how dropout prediction data systems spread within and beyond Chicago, Philadelphia, and New York City. Although scholars often assume failure in urban education reforms and quantification strategies, my study suggests a counterexample, detailing the role of networked organizations in bringing about meaningful changes. My research shows the intersection of the three strands of my previous and current research: (1) quantitative studies of K-12 education policies and processes, (2) qualitative studies of organizational change, and (3) methodological studies appropriating causal inference and network analyses to substantive questions. Over the past five years, my research has been published in more than 35 peer-reviewed journal articles, and supported by over 10 grants and fellowships from the American Sociological Association, National Academy of Education, Rand Corporation, and Asian Development Bank.

Impact

Jose Eos Trinidad has important contributions to the study of organizations outside schools, K-12 education policies, and higher education processes. He has introduced the concept of “school improvement organizations,” emphasizing their salient variations in terms of direct school support, research/ advocacy, and philanthropy (Ed Researcher). A number of publications have also introduced or appropriated new concepts like interorganizational coupling (EEPA), organizational positionality (Ed Policy), and interorganizational learning (Qual Soc). While focused on the US, he has new studies on how education nonprofits and social enterprises function within highly centralized education systems in developing countries. Trinidad has been one of the leading voices in studying the intricacies of organizations outside schools—with an emphasis on their interorganizational connections, their strategic work with state institutions, and their emergence in various contexts.

In terms of the quantitative study of K-12 schools as organizations, a number of highly cited papers have discovered how test-based accountability does not just affect students’ performance but can actually have negative consequences for their motivation to perform (Socius), how racial suspension gaps become reified even with suspension reduction policies (Race Ethnicity and Educ), and how the relationship between growth mindset and academic achievement is moderated by socioeconomic status (Social Psych of Ed). Other quantitative papers have explored school organizational issues during COVID-19, school leadership dynamics, social dimensions of expectancy value theory, school achievement in developing countries. Across these various studies, Trinidad has contributed to (1) providing an organizational lens into traditional policy questions and (2) uncovering new issues, mechanisms and outcomes in education.

In terms of the qualitative study of higher education institutions as organizations, similarly highly cited papers have discovered how quantification in higher education can simultaneously be tightly and loosely coupled (Acta Sociologica), how student-centered learning is interpreted and shaped by teachers and students (Journal of Further & Higher Ed), and how organizational identity comes as a product of tension rather than as a set concept (ISCE). Although no longer his primary focus, Trinidad has contributed to studying the dynamics of higher education through specific organizational processes like quantification and identity formation. In both K-12 and higher education, he has shown how organizational perspectives can enrich analysis, offer new insights, and uncover novel mechanisms for change.

Book Project

Why do some organizational and policy changes spread, stick, and scale while others don’t? In urban education in particular where many reforms do not lead to meaningful changes, what factors contribute to successful organizational changes and institutional transformation? Many organizational and education scholars highlight the importance of either top-down state capacity or grassroots buy-in. However, many of these state-led or grassroots movements fail to spread far in a decentralized educational system like the United States. Thus, I flip how schools and institutions are often studied by looking not at leaders or staff within school systems but at individuals outside these in research, philanthropic, and nonprofit organizations.

My current book project, From Boardrooms to Classrooms: Dropouts, Data Systems, and How Organizations Shape American Education, describes and theorizes the process of change brought about by “outside” school improvement organizations. It uses the case of dropout prediction data systems initiated in three urban areas in the early 2000s, and had spread to various U.S. districts. Also known as ninth-grade on-track or early warning indicators (EWIs), these data systems provided color-coded lists of students who were on- or off-track to graduate, leading to actionable improvements by teacher teams and administrators. While teachers were initially resistant to these systems and causal evidence was far from conclusive, these EWIs had spread to more than half of US high schools in less than a decade and had been lauded for reducing urban school dropouts. Rather than study an individual school or district, my research draws on 3 cities, 95 interviews and almost 3,000 pages of organizational documents to investigate the network of research, philanthropic, and nonprofit organizations that have started and scaled up EWIs in Chicago, Philadelphia, and New York City—areas where these initiatives first operated.

In the book, I suggest three “webs of improvement” for how organizations influenced what happened in high schools, through different webs of meanings, relationships, and practices. First, I show that the organizations wanted EWIs to appeal to the accountability and data-driven sensibilities of district officials and philanthropic funders while at the same time appealing to the everyday concerns of teachers. Because of this, organizations drew on what I call flexible logics by showing that the system can be both a tool of accountability and a support for instructional improvement. Second, these organizations employed various networks to spread this initiative. They created interorganizational networks that helped with division of labor between state and non-state agencies, grounded networks of schools that led to its dynamic and organic spread, and resource networks of philanthropists that were more diverse than commonly assumed. Third, to address resistance among teachers, organizations did not so much engage these beliefs directly as they simply proceeded with new organizational routines that led to revised schemas. I show how these strategies were applied in the three cities—at times organically through interpersonal connections while at other times intentionally through systematic and strategic partnerships. When many explanations of school reforms concentrate on state capacity and grassroots buy-in, I show how non-state organizations worked to reform public education by applying and at times challenging theories of institutional logics, entrepreneurship, and routines.

This research contributes to at least three domains of sociological and education research. For the sociology of organization, it suggests concepts to explain the spread of innovation through a multi-level perspective integrating the macro-level of institutional logics, meso-level of institutional entrepreneurship, and micro-level of organizational routines—suggesting a networked approach to institutional theory. For the sociology of education, it shows the importance of studying not only the reforms but also the reformers, particularly the network of school improvement organizations that have recently had a larger influence over policies. In terms of methods, this research uses comparative and network approaches to study school and interorganizational processes, a field that is ripe for greater insight and theorization.

Figure 1. Different Aspects of the Research Project

Panel A shows an example of a typical early warning indicator tool, with data on students’ attendance, average grade, trend, and course failures (rendering by the author). Panel B shows the states in dark gray that have or support EWIs, source: Balfanz & Byrnes 2019. Panel C illustrates the interorganizational map in Chicago with the hollow circles denoting initiators and central actors. Panel D shows exploratory findings for a new paper using sentiment analysis to look at differences among the three cities in terms of the negative and positive words associated with EWIs.

Research Strand 1: Quantitative Studies on K-12 Education Policy and Processes

My research has matured over the past few years, moving from a general interest in education to a more specific niche in using sociological and organizational perspectives in the study of schools and nonprofits. My earlier studies have concentrated on educational policies and practices that used nationally representative data from the United States and the Philippines. In these studies, I integrated sociological and social psychological theories such as status attainment, expectancy-value, and growth mindset theories to better account for the powerful interplay between agency and structure.

Sociological and psychological theories have often emphasized the importance of students’ and parents’ college aspirations. However, I argue that many of these theories offer individualist explanations that fail to show the dynamic nature of how people aspire. Thus, in a set of papers published in journals like International Studies in Sociology of Education, Studies in Educational Evaluation, and Educational Research and Evaluation, I show the importance of focusing on collective expectations among peers in a school, volatile expectations more evident among low-income students, and consistency between parents’ aspirations and children’s expectations. Using hierarchical linear models, I show in these studies ways of furthering the status attainment and expectancy-value literatures, providing new insights for supporting students in their college-going aspirations.

A second set of studies looked into how structural factors potentially influence social psychological processes and academic outcomes. Ability grouping was one such factor that I investigated with a collaborator from the University of Hong Kong. In our study published in Educational Research for Policy and Practice, we highlight how ability grouping predicted inequalities but not achievement gains in Philippine schools, even after controlling for a battery of demographic and school variables. Aside from the theoretical contribution, this study has also widely opened conversation about changing policies on ability grouping in the Philippines, with its close to 3,000 engagements and 4,000 shares on social media. Other studies on structural factors were my research on organizational factors that addressed or exacerbated US teachers’ satisfaction and burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Third, I have also endeavored to use sociological concepts to challenge core psychological ideas. One such example was our study that found that the classic concept of growth mindset predicted achievement only among socioeconomically advantaged students in the US—challenging the common wisdom regarding growth mindset’s importance. This study was published in the prestigious Social Psychology of Education journal, and has contributed to scholarly discussions on interacting sociological and psychological concepts.

Research Strand 2: Qualitative Studies of Organizational Change

Adding to and complementing my portfolio of quantitative studies are my qualitative studies that investigate the processes, dynamics, and lived experiences of organizational change and leadership. These different studies have contributed to the study of (1) universities’ incorporation of quantification and data-driven technologies, (2) their transition to student-centered learning activities, and (3) leadership in higher education.

Studies in sociology and higher education have often emphasized the growing use of quantification in university rankings and data-driven technologies. The findings often show either the discipline of rankings that lead tight coupling of policies and practices, or the loose coupling that promotes myth and ceremony. However, in a manuscript under second review with Acta Sociologica, I argue for the possibility of simultaneous tight and loose coupling as data-driven and effective subunits operated within an ineffective organization that used data for ceremonial purposes. This research suggests the potential hybridity of tight and loose coupling, which augments our understanding of how quantification can lead to both symbolic and real changes.

Another set of qualitative research I have done investigated how college students conceptualized what it means for instruction to be “student-centered.” While many educational studies concentrated on the role of teachers, few looked into what actually students had to say about it. Thus, I led collaborative research studies that have been published in College Teaching, the Journal of Further and Higher Education, and Teaching in Higher Education. These studies highlighted different aspects of how students understand and respond to the change in focus from teacher-centered to student-centered learning (SCL). In particular, we documented how the definitions of SCL were not singular and we suggested a matrix for instructional practices that students found engaging, effective, neither, or both.

A number of theoretical studies have also emerged in my research, focusing on the sociological and organizational aspects of leadership, strategy, and higher education. One paper with the Leadership and Policy in Schools discussed teacher response processes to bureaucratic control while another paper with Industry and Higher Education highlighted directions for a sociology of higher education in developing countries. Together with my current research, these qualitative papers refine my theorization of organizational change and institutional transformation, particularly in the fields of education and nonprofits.

Research Strand 3: Methodological Studies Appropriating Causal Inference and Network Analyses

In addition to these qualitative and quantitative studies, I have also employed experimental data and quasi-experimental methods to understand processes and interventions for youths. Two published studies used new innovative research methods for causal moderation and mediation to show how adversities in childhood impacted later life peer selection. In a study published in Social Science and Medicine, I used heterogeneous treatment effect strategies to understand how the impact of adversities are contextually dependent. My study countered the narrative that disadvantage is wholly injurious and socioeconomic advantage wholly protective. Another study in Children and Youth Services Review integrated mediation analysis through the potential outcomes framework with the study of adverse childhood experiences, providing a map for understanding mechanisms for the negative impact of adversities in childhood.

I have also worked with Dana Suskind and Christy Leung from the University of Chicago’s Center for Early Learning + Public Health, using their experimental data to do longitudinal data analyses and mediation analyses to understand the effects of two parenting programs for low-income parents in the Chicago area. One of our papers has been published in the Journal of Pediatrics and another one is under third review at Parenting: Science and Practice.

Aside from applying various mediation, moderation, and longitudinal analyses to study youth and organizational programs, I have also attempted to modify and appropriate methods from one discipline to another. For example, I modified the econometric difference-in-differences design to study the implementation of a suspension reduction policy in Chicago, and this has been published in Race Ethnicity and Education. Another example is my current research that attempts to bring together comparative and network analyses—often employed in historical and organizational sociology—to the study of education. Taken altogether, this strand of my research shows my facility to collaborate with others, particularly as I contribute my skills in innovating and appropriating current quantitative methods to substantive questions on youths and organizations.

Future Projects Incorporating the Three Research Strands

Aside from these projects, I am also pursuing three other studies that refine my identity as a scholar of organizational change and educational policy. First, I am working with colleagues at Teach for the Philippines, studying how its networks of alumni are leading school reform processes at different levels of governance. Funded by the Asian Development Bank, this project uses interviews and network analyses—similar to what I did in my dissertation—to understand interorganizational connections, brokerage, and consequences. In addition, I am collecting survey data on the alumni’s post-teaching experiences to map out how the experience of teaching could have influenced their decisions and opportunities. The study with Teach for the Philippines will form the foundation of a larger comparative international study with other Teach for All organizations like Enseña por Mexico, Teach for Australia, and Teach First Deutschland. In particular, I plan to compare reform networks among developing countries like Mexico and the Philippines with the networks of actors in more developed countries like Australia and Germany. After this research on the Philippines, I will collaborate with colleagues at Teach for All to find the places to pilot this research. This research will form the base of a large transnational study of education organizations, which tries to extend my theories of school improvement organizations and innovation spread that have mainly concentrated in the context of the United States.

Second, I am collaborating with Guanglei Hong from the University of Chicago and Jonah Deutsch from Mathematica on a study identifying metrics of organizational effectiveness in multi-sited randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This study is motivated by the fact that naïve comparisons among sites may not provide an accurate depiction of organizational effectiveness, particularly given differences in population composition and alternative opportunities for the control group. We suggest new identification and estimation strategies to show the relative importance of sites in multi-site RCTs, with our empirical case being the US Job Corps.

Third, I have a number of collaborative projects studying education policies like one with a colleague at New York University as we study the peer effects of being roommates with international students in a residential liberal arts college in Kentucky, and another with a University of Chicago graduate student as we study Jesuit higher educational institutions and the spread of its practices.

In sum, my research integrates deep engagement of sociological and organizational theories in an effort to understand schools and nonprofits. My methodological training, previous publications, ambitious research agenda, and wide relational networks hint at my potential to be a unique voice in this field.

Research

Get in touch at jtrinidad@uchicago.edu