View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Implicit Resilience Theories: A Qualitative Study of Context-Shapers at Higher Education Institutions

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Implicit Resilience Theories: A Qualitative Study of Context-Shapers at Higher Education Institutions
Language: English
Authors: Datzer, Daniela (ORCID 0000-0001-7795-2729), Razinskas, Stefan (ORCID 0000-0002-3100-5969), Hoegl, Martin (ORCID 0000-0002-4339-8616)
Source: Studies in Higher Education. 2022 47(12):2553-2574.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 22
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Resilience (Psychology), Higher Education, College Students, Dropouts, Dropout Rate, STEM Education, Dropout Prevention, School Holding Power, Foreign Countries
Geographic Terms: Germany
DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2022.2091538
ISSN: 0307-5079
1470-174X
Abstract: High dropout rates in STEM disciplines are certainly among the most crucial challenges that higher education is facing. While prior research has mainly applied an individual-centered approach that has helped identify factors explaining student dropout, an important yet under-examined issue is how those responsible for shaping the academic environment of students vary in their implicit assumptions of why some students persist while others drop out. In this study, we shift the focus toward the narratives regarding the reasons for student drop out. We report on an in-depth qualitative interview study comprising 59 deans of studies, administrators (i.e. quality managers and student advisors), and student representatives. This group of individuals contributes to the challenge of reducing student dropout by shaping the teaching and learning environment of students at German higher education institutions. Our grounded-theory model indicates that these context-shapers attend to different implicit theories on what constitutes resilient versus non-resilient students. The implicit resilience theories, in turn, result in dropout being legitimized in different ways, which determines the judgements made by context-shapers in terms of actions suitable to reduce student dropout.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1371287
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFClwR6JUC2hrlUMY6jx1ThAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDK3f4SGwlXypg17k3wIBEICBm6C9fXHMu6c80XK2r6IFYVB6smSXVRGjNYhGATVmW-zc4DfucnpPswEw9TtBK2DAld55M2V0BMKhLOe_P0EzppcKFf_fbwOdv3k1JOA74n-bBqPCsq_rId9_exg0F5u0kyT11V24c-7ODzcXPCMSvr9hwhLLkW9GCaOenbDak6EZQbfOkh_Y7d2WAvDfHdDcHAu3eeQrUYxy41hK
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0160004210;she01dec.22;2022Nov04.06:35;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0160004210-1">Implicit resilience theories: a qualitative study of context-shapers at higher education institutions </title> <p>High dropout rates in STEM disciplines are certainly among the most crucial challenges that higher education is facing. While prior research has mainly applied an individual-centered approach that has helped identify factors explaining student dropout, an important yet under-examined issue is how those responsible for shaping the academic environment of students vary in their implicit assumptions of why some students persist while others drop out. In this study, we shift the focus toward the narratives regarding the reasons for student drop out. We report on an in-depth qualitative interview study comprising 59 deans of studies, administrators (i.e. quality managers and student advisors), and student representatives. This group of individuals contributes to the challenge of reducing student dropout by shaping the teaching and learning environment of students at German higher education institutions. Our grounded-theory model indicates that these context-shapers attend to different implicit theories on what constitutes resilient versus non-resilient students. The implicit resilience theories, in turn, result in dropout being legitimized in different ways, which determines the judgements made by context-shapers in terms of actions suitable to reduce student dropout.</p> <p>Keywords: Implicit theories; resilience; higher education; work role responsibilities; context-shapers</p> <hd id="AN0160004210-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The phenomenon of student dropout – or college student mortality as referred to in one of the earliest studies on this topic (McNeely [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref1">61</reflink>]) – has puzzled researchers for several decades. Particularly STEM subjects (i.e. science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) struggle with high dropout rates. In the U.S., for example, 'fewer than 40% of students who enter college intending to major in a STEM field complete a STEM degree' (Olson and Riordan [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref2">63</reflink>], 5). In Germany, institutions of higher education similarly struggle with dropout rates of up to 40 percent in STEM-related subjects, which are substantially above the average dropout rate of 27 percent seen across all disciplines and subjects (Heublein, Richter, and Schmelzer [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref3">35</reflink>]). It is consequential that a great deal of research is devoted to better understanding student attrition in STEM fields (Chen [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref4">12</reflink>]; Geisinger and Raj Raman [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref5">28</reflink>]; Graham et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref6">32</reflink>]; Jenson et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref7">36</reflink>]; Kokkelenberg and Sinha [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref8">45</reflink>]; Price [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref9">66</reflink>]; Rask [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref10">67</reflink>]).</p> <p>While early research on student dropout followed a sociological reasoning and developed heuristic models that illuminate how students are integrated into their educational system (e.g. Tinto [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref11">74</reflink>]; Spady [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref12">70</reflink>]), more recent literature reasons dropout from a psychological perspective that accounts for motivational, behavioral, or cognitive factors and their interplay with environmental conditions (e.g. Chen [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref13">12</reflink>]; Geisinger and Raj Raman [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref14">28</reflink>]; Georg [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref15">29</reflink>]; Kemper, Vorhoff, and Wigger [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref16">42</reflink>]; Xu [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref17">80</reflink>]). This latter reasoning has also seen a shift in paradigm away from a deficit-oriented perspective, which investigates reasons for students to fail, more toward a strengths-oriented perspective, looking at reasons for students to succeed despite the presence of significant challenges and adversity in their academic life (Backmann et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref18">4</reflink>]; Hartley [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref19">34</reflink>]; Lessard et al. [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref20">49</reflink>]). One of the most prominent explanations in this respect is the concept of student resilience, which is defined as the students' capacity to overcome setbacks (Martin and Marsh [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref21">59</reflink>]; Martin [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref22">58</reflink>]). However, common to both the deficit- and strengths-oriented perspectives is the innate adoption of a student-centered perspective that investigates how college leavers differ from persisters (for a comprehensive overview, please refer to Aljohani [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref23">2</reflink>]; Barbera et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref24">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although this student-centered approach undoubtedly offers valuable insights, an important but overlooked question is whether and to what degree such insights are accounted for and put into practice by those who are responsible for shaping the academic context. This lack of scholarly attention is particularly unfortunate since – although major reforms are driven by national policy makers – the actual design of a productive learning environment is mostly in the hands of an institution itself (Kezar, Gehrke, and Elrod [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref25">44</reflink>]). Accordingly, institutions typically draw on committees that are composed of different groups of individuals, which we label as context-shapers throughout our article given their capacity to actually impact student resilience by influencing contextual circumstances. Whether and to what degree the perceptions of context-shapers about their students' ability to overcome setbacks diverge has not been systematically investigated so far. This is problematic because literature indicates that the implicit theories one holds about others serve as action guide and may trigger different patterns of response to (major) work challenges (Levy, Chiu, and Hong [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref26">50</reflink>]). Especially in highly autonomous contexts – like the one we see in higher education – responsibilities and perceptions about the role in addressing work challenges are not primarily driven by formal role descriptions, but they are rather idiosyncratically shaped (Dierdorff and Morgeson [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref27">22</reflink>]). All of this may contribute to the continuing experience of high dropout rates in STEM disciplines.</p> <p>With this shortcoming in mind, the aim of our study is to further our understanding of similar versus divergent narratives context-shapers attend to in addressing the challenge of student dropout. Given the notable prevalence of dropout in STEM disciplines in German higher education (Heublein, Richter, and Schmelzer [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref28">35</reflink>]), we focus on context-shapers in this particular context. In so doing, we draw on literature on implicit theories as influencing how to enact one's functional role as context-shaper. We particularly look at deans of studies, administrators such as quality managers and student advisors, and student representatives because all of them are considered advocates of the students' interest (Seyfried and Pohlenz [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref29">69</reflink>]; Lizzio and Wilson [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref30">52</reflink>]; Bass [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref31">6</reflink>]). Biddle ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref32">7</reflink>]) contends that the experiences individuals gain from acting in certain environments ultimately form their judgements about work role responsibilities. Building on this, the identification of implicit theories as an integrated mental set of prior knowledge (Dweck, Chiu, and Hong [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref33">23</reflink>]) is particularly suited to explain why different accounts emerge of how to best tackle the perennial challenge of student dropout. On this basis, our research is guided by the following two questions: What are implicit theories to which context-shapers attribute as to why some students adapt to the challenges of their study program while others fail to do so? How do such implicit resilience theories influence the context-shapers' legitimation of student dropout and, ultimately, their account of suitable actions?</p> <p>We intend to contributing to the understanding of resilience and drop-out in higher education institutions in two ways. First, we aim at showing that the implicit theories regarding student resilience of those considered to represent the interest of students relate to their legitimation of student dropout and, ultimately, to their account of shaping their students' academic context. In so doing, we seek to connect two so far distinct literature streams and inform the literatures on both implicit theories (Dweck, Chiu, and Hong [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref34">23</reflink>]; Levy, Chiu, and Hong [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref35">50</reflink>]) and the formation of role responsibilities (Wrzesniewski and Dutton [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref36">79</reflink>]). Although research indicates that individuals from highly autonomous contexts – like the one we see in higher education – are more likely to idiosyncratically shape their role responsibilities (Dierdorff and Morgeson [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref37">22</reflink>]), past research in higher education has put professional roles center stage when analyzing institutional decision making (e.g. Bass [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref38">6</reflink>]; Lizzio and Wilson [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref39">52</reflink>]). In contrast, our approach is open to the possibility that – despite occupying similar professional roles – respondents may attend to quite different implicit narratives regarding the reasons for student resilience, and that those with rather different professional roles may yet converge in their narratives. Thus, we aim at shedding light on why context-shapers, who are assumed to put the needs of their students center stage when shaping the academic environment, prioritize divergent aspects of their professional role responsibilities.</p> <p>Second, by identifying and analyzing context-shapers' narratives that describe their assumptions of why some students overcome difficulties in their studies while others fail to do so, we aim at contributing to the resilience discourse in learning and education (Lessard et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref40">48</reflink>]). Past research on resilience focused primarily on the role of students in fostering their own resilience (e.g. González-López, Pérez-López, and Rodríguez-Ariza [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref41">31</reflink>]; Morrison and Pidgeon [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref42">62</reflink>]; Yeager and Dweck [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref43">81</reflink>]; Backmann et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref44">4</reflink>]). In contrast, we examine the perceptions of context-shapers at higher education institutions regarding the students' personal and environmental factors that they believe to determine the resilience of students. Thus, the results move away from an ontosystem perspective, which focuses on innate or acquired personal characteristics, more toward an exosystem perspective, which emphasizes the social environment to which the individual (i.e. the affected student) does not directly belong (Lessard et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref45">48</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0160004210-3">Theoretical background</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0160004210-4">Decision-making authorities and the emergence of implicit theories</hd> <p>From their qualitative examination, Kezar and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref46">44</reflink>]) conclude that STEM faculties have a rather isolated position in higher education institutions, and that the departments within STEM faculties (e.g. mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology) represent the dominant organizational unit. This is why the administrators of such departments are assumed to have significant influence in addressing dropout rates and shaping the teaching and learning environment. While decision-making processes at higher education institutions vary across nations, governance tend to be shared in Western higher education systems that rely more on departmental committees, which comprise the joint efforts of different interest groups (Crellin [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref47">19</reflink>]; Zuo and Ratsoy [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref48">82</reflink>]). Past research has already devoted attention to different parties that enact decision-making roles and responsibilities in such committees. Three parties appear to be particularly influential in terms of shaping teaching and learning environments, that is, deans of studies, student representatives, and administrators.</p> <p>First, a heightened focus is put on deans of studies, who are also referred to as senior student affairs officers, vice presidents for student affairs, vice presidents for student development, or vice presidents for student services (Bass [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref49">6</reflink>]). Their responsibilities seem to be just as manifold as their titles (Kelly and Kelly [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref50">41</reflink>]). As middle managers they are not only confronted with multiple responsibilities (Gallos [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref51">26</reflink>]) but also challenged by balancing individual, institutional, communal, and social needs (Wepner, D'Onofrio, and Wilhite [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref52">77</reflink>]). In their role as context-shapers, deans of studies are assumed to be the students' advocate and engage in a vital exchange with student representatives to address their concerns and, eventually, help students succeed (Bass [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref53">6</reflink>]). Such an exchange is considered particularly relevant in institutions that have students serving on the board of trustees (Bass [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref54">6</reflink>]), which is the case in German higher education institutions.</p> <p>Moreover, as most decisions made by the governing body of higher education institutions affect students directly, participation of students as organizational members in departmental committees has become an expected right (Lizzio and Wilson [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref55">52</reflink>]). As such, the involvement of student representatives is anticipated to enhance the quality and accountability of decision-making at higher education institutions (Zuo and Ratsoy [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref56">82</reflink>]). From a consumerist perspective, they are assumed to address and voice the preferences students have in terms of the educational process and thereby to contribute to better teaching and learning environments (Luescher-Mamashela [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref57">54</reflink>]). Nonetheless, although student representatives have a say or vote in decision-making processes, the legitimate position of student representatives is typically of lower status than that of faculty and administrators and sometimes even entirely questioned by staff (Lizzio and Wilson [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref58">52</reflink>]).</p> <p>Therefore, it is all the more important that students' feedback is captured systematically. In this regard, administrators such as quality managers and student advisors can more easily access knowledge about the needs of their students, which enables them to contribute distinguished expertise to questions related to the design of study environments. Specifically, quality managers usually collect data via polls, surveys, and personal exchanges – which is then used as a solid basis for better decisions intended to alter study conditions (Luescher-Mamashela [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref59">54</reflink>]). In this regard, it is highlighted that quality management can also significantly shape study environments (Seyfried and Pohlenz [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref60">69</reflink>]). In a similar vein, a study on student counseling services revealed that – despite their primary task being their work with clients (e.g. students at risk) – counselors' contributions to policy decisions are perceived as an important responsibility (Wheeler and Hewitt [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref61">78</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although research and practice point to the important role of these different interest groups in the decision-making about how to shape study environments in the best interest of students, their responsibilities are often not formally defined and leave much room for their own interpretation (Kelly and Kelly [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref62">41</reflink>]; Bass [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref63">6</reflink>]). For example, research indicates that the responsibilities of the deans of studies are manifold and demanding, which often causes them to perceive ambiguity with respect to their roles (Gallos [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref64">26</reflink>]; Kelly and Kelly [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref65">41</reflink>]). Student representatives also report being burdened by contradictory and conflicting expectations that staff and students have (Lizzio and Wilson [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref66">52</reflink>]). Finally, administrators are confronted with increasingly complex job requirements (Katz and Davison [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref67">40</reflink>]), which are likely to result in a lack of clear role expectations (Coll and House [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref68">16</reflink>]; Coll and Rice [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref69">17</reflink>]). As a result, highly autonomous contexts like the one we are seeing in higher education in Germany (and other Western countries) represent fertile ground for perceptions about responsibilities being idiosyncratically formed (Kezar, Gehrke, and Elrod [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref70">44</reflink>]; Braun et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref71">10</reflink>]; Dierdorff and Morgeson [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref72">22</reflink>]). This is unfortunate, as such varying assumptions are likely to manifest in context-shapers' pattern of responses to student dropout. In other words, although all three formal roles described above are considered to be students' advocates, we expect divergent accounts regarding the context-shapers' beliefs of how to best deal with student dropout. Against this background, we argue that personal views and convictions (rather than the professional role) are decisive for how decision-makers perceive the phenomenon of student dropout and what actions they consider promising if at all aiming at reducing dropout. Such views are often described as implicit theories, which we will discuss in the following.</p> <hd id="AN0160004210-5">Implicit theories about students' resilience and legitimate dropout</hd> <p>Implicit theories reflect fundamental assumptions about the occurrences of certain events to simplify the social world and, as a consequence, decisively determine individuals' sense-making processes (Levy, Chiu, and Hong [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref73">50</reflink>]). They are implicit in that even though individuals can voice simple versions of their causal beliefs and articulate agreement or disagreement with the theories' core assumptions, such theories tend to operate below consciousness (Cooley, Keith Payne, and Jean Phillips [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref74">18</reflink>]; Detert and Edmondson [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref75">21</reflink>]). Therefore, individuals tend to be unaware of the tremendous impact they have on their behavior (Levy, Stroessner, and Dweck [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref76">51</reflink>]; Detert and Edmondson [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref77">21</reflink>]). While there are several concepts that capture individuals' fundamental beliefs about the (social) world (e.g. lay theories, mindsets, and naïve theories) (Lüftenegger and Chen [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref78">55</reflink>]; Levy, Chiu, and Hong [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref79">50</reflink>]), the concept of implicit theories has become widely accepted, especially in the field of learning and education. Since the term implicit theory not only constitutes a narrative representation of fundamental assumptions but also implies that these assumptions encompass an explanatory component about cause and effect (Anderson and Lindsay [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref80">3</reflink>]), it is particularly apt for our investigation of context-shapers' perceptions of why some students overcome setbacks and problems while others dropout of their study programs.</p> <p>In this regard, the term implicit theory is strongly connected to work by Dweck and colleagues (Dweck and Leggett [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref81">24</reflink>]). The core premise of this theoretical approach is that people perceive personal characteristics such as intellectual abilities from either a growth or a fixed mindset (Dweck and Leggett [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref82">24</reflink>]). While individuals with a growth mindset assume that abilities are malleable, individuals with a fixed mindset tend to base their explanatory assumptions on stable person-inherent factors such as intelligence as a predetermined trait (Dweck, Chiu, and Hong [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref83">23</reflink>]). However, mindsets vary not only with regard to the imposed malleability of person-inherent factors but also in terms of people's tendency to focus on traits rather than contextual and situational factors in their narratives (also referred to as lay dispositionism). Only a minority of studies has yet systematically and simultaneously examined both dimensions and their interplay (e.g. Chiu, Hong, and Dweck [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref84">13</reflink>]; Plaks et al. [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref85">64</reflink>]; McConnell [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref86">60</reflink>]). Moreover, whereas the focus in educational research has mainly been on implicit theories concerning students' beliefs about their own abilities, Dweck and Leggett pointed out in their early work ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref87">24</reflink>]) that implicit theories are not limited to self-beliefs but can also refer to beliefs about other individuals or even phenomena and events. As a consequence, implicit theories may inform context-shapers' predictions about others and are hence likely to have important motivational implications regarding actions in favor of their target group (Levy, Chiu, and Hong [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref88">50</reflink>]).</p> <p>In this regard, research has shown that implicit theories influence the actors' efficacy beliefs, which determine the faith of whether efforts are fruitful and greatly impact individuals' willingness to take action (Van Zomeren, Saguy, and Schellhaas [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref89">76</reflink>]; Cohen-Chen and Van Zomeren [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref90">15</reflink>]). In a similar vein, we assume that the implicit theories one holds in terms of why not all students overcome setbacks in their studies decisively inform personal judgments about student dropout and, ultimately, determine if and which actions are taken. We argue that these underlying assumptions correspond to the potential of students for positive adaptation in the face of setbacks, and we hence label them implicit resilience theories.</p> <hd id="AN0160004210-6">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0160004210-7">Research context and sample</hd> <p>Since we aim at in-depth analyses, we conducted semi-structured interviews with people of different positions in higher education institutions. The interview partners were recruited from eleven German universities and universities of applied sciences. We exclusively focused on study programs from the STEM disciplines (i.e. science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) and blended programs with a significant STEM proportion because their high dropout rates constitute an ideal setting for examining how context-shapers' implicit theories about the resilience of their students are formed and connected to their accounts of whether and how to act on student dropout. We purposefully sampled for contact persons who are formally or informally responsible for either organizing the study program or assuring the quality of academics and teaching. After each interview, we also asked for further contact persons. Overall, we interviewed deans of studies, administrators, and student representatives. In summary, our approach corresponds to the recommendations of a theoretical and purposive sampling strategy (Strauss and Corbin [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref91">72</reflink>]; Teddlie and Yu [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref92">73</reflink>]) and allows for a holistic understanding of those involved in shaping the teaching and learning environment. As we derived confirmation and repetition in the appearing codes, and since additional interviews did not provide further informative richness (Bowen [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref93">9</reflink>]; Creswell [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref94">20</reflink>]), we are confident of reaching theoretical saturation (Strauss and Corbin [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref95">72</reflink>]).</p> <p>All interviews were conducted in German, either in person or via phone, and were recorded and transcribed by applying transcription rules as suggested by Kuckartz ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref96">46</reflink>]). Overall, 54 interviews with 59 respondents (50 interviews with one respondent each, three group interviews with two respondents, and one group interview with three respondents) were conducted. In total, we interviewed 23 deans of studies (mean organizational tenure = 11.42 years; s.d. = 6.90 / mean functional tenure = 4.37 years; s.d. = 4.13), 23 administrators (mean organizational tenure = 9.50 years; s.d. = 7.92 / mean functional tenure = 5.91 years; s.d. = 4.47), and thirteen student representatives (mean tenure = 2.82 years; s.d. = 0.72). We present further demographics of our interviewees in Table 1. An interview took 40 minutes on average.</p> <p>Table 1. Overview of the multi-respondent sample.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Respondent</td><td>Institution</td><td>Respondent Group <xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">a</xref></td><td>Role Account <xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">b</xref></td><td>Interview Characteristics</td><td>Respondent Characteristics</td></tr><tr><td>Format</td><td>Duration</td><td>Gender</td><td>Highest Degree</td><td>Tenure (in years)</td></tr><tr><td>Organization</td><td>Function</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">2</td><td>1 & 2</td><td>Virtual</td><td>51 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>Ph.D.</td><td char=".">20</td><td char=".">7</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">2</td><td>2 & 4</td><td>Virtual</td><td>69 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>University</td><td char=".">12</td><td char=".">11</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">4</td><td>Virtual</td><td>52 min.</td><td>Female</td><td>Ph.D.</td><td char=".">6</td><td>< 1</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">2</td><td>Virtual</td><td>35 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>Ph.D.</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">5</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">4</td><td>Virtual</td><td>38 min.</td><td>Female</td><td>University</td><td char=".">26</td><td char=".">8</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">4</td><td>Virtual</td><td>56 min.</td><td>Female</td><td>Ph.D.</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">3</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">1</td><td>2 & 3</td><td>Virtual</td><td>49 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>Ph.D.</td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">2</td><td>2 & 3</td><td>Virtual</td><td>Jointly with resp. 7</td><td>Male</td><td>University</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">1</td><td>Virtual</td><td>55 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>Ph.D.</td><td>–</td><td char=".">3</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">2</td><td>1 & 2</td><td>In person</td><td>46 min.</td><td>Female</td><td>Ph.D.</td><td>–</td><td char=".">4</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">2</td><td>1 & 3</td><td>In person</td><td>Jointly with resp. 10</td><td>Female</td><td>University</td><td>–</td><td char=".">4</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">2</td><td>Virtual</td><td>46 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>Ph.D.</td><td char=".">17</td><td char=".">15</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">3</td><td>In person</td><td>38 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>Ph.D.</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">3</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">1</td><td>2 & 3</td><td>In person</td><td>27 min.</td><td>Female</td><td>Ph.D.</td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">1</td><td>1 & 2</td><td>Virtual</td><td>40 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>Ph.D.</td><td char=".">3</td><td>< 1</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">3</td><td>Virtual</td><td>33 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>High school</td><td char=".">1</td><td>< 1</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">1</td><td>In person</td><td>37 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>Ph.D.</td><td char=".">20</td><td char=".">12</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">1</td><td>1 & 2</td><td>In person</td><td>49 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>Ph.D.</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">1</td><td>In person</td><td>35 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>High school</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">2</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">2</td><td>In person</td><td>29 min.</td><td>Female</td><td>High school</td><td char=".">2</td><td>< 1</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">4</td><td>In person</td><td>33 min.</td><td>Female</td><td>University</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">5</td></tr><tr><td>22</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">1</td><td>1 & 2</td><td>In person</td><td>38 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>Ph.D.</td><td char=".">25</td><td char=".">10</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">1</td><td>1 & 4</td><td>Virtual</td><td>44 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>Ph.D.</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">2</td></tr><tr><td>24</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">1</td><td>Virtual</td><td>38 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>University</td><td char=".">10</td><td char=".">10</td></tr><tr><td>25</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">1</td><td>Virtual</td><td>27 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>High school</td><td char=".">4</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>26</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">2</td><td>1 & 2</td><td>In person</td><td>67 min.</td><td>Female</td><td>Ph.D.</td><td char=".">10</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>27</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">1</td><td>2 & 4</td><td>Virtual</td><td>49 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>Habilitation</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">4</td></tr><tr><td>28</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">2</td><td>Virtual</td><td>28 min.</td><td>Female</td><td>High school</td><td char=".">3</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">4</td><td>Virtual</td><td>45 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>High school</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">3</td></tr><tr><td>30</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">1</td><td>Virtual</td><td>57 min.</td><td>Female</td><td>University</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">6</td></tr><tr><td>31</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">4</td><td>Virtual</td><td>52 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>Ph.D.</td><td char=".">13</td><td char=".">7</td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">1</td><td>Virtual</td><td>60 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>Ph.D.</td><td char=".">10</td><td char=".">10</td></tr><tr><td>33</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">2</td><td>Virtual</td><td>41 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>High school</td><td char=".">3</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>34</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">1</td><td>In person</td><td>34 min.</td><td>Female</td><td>Ph.D.</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">4</td></tr><tr><td>35</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">2</td><td>1 & 4</td><td>In person</td><td>33 min.</td><td>Female</td><td>Ph.D.</td><td>–</td><td char=".">5</td></tr><tr><td>36</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">3</td><td>In person</td><td>22 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>High school</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">2</td></tr><tr><td>37</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">4</td><td>In person</td><td>39 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>High school</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">2</td></tr><tr><td>38</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">1</td><td>2 & 4</td><td>In person</td><td>31 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>Ph.D.</td><td char=".">23</td><td char=".">9</td></tr><tr><td>39</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">2</td><td>1 & 4</td><td>In person</td><td>44 min.</td><td>Female</td><td>Ph.D.</td><td>–</td><td char=".">3</td></tr><tr><td>40</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">2</td><td>In person</td><td>39 min.</td><td>Female</td><td>High school</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">3</td></tr><tr><td>41</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">2</td><td>Virtual</td><td>41 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>Ph.D.</td><td char=".">8</td><td>< 1</td></tr><tr><td>42</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">4</td><td>Virtual</td><td>39 min.</td><td>Female</td><td>University</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">6</td></tr><tr><td>43</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">2</td><td>2 & 3</td><td>Virtual</td><td>49 min.</td><td>Female</td><td>University</td><td char=".">14</td><td char=".">14</td></tr><tr><td>44</td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">2</td><td>1 & 2</td><td>In person</td><td>55 min.</td><td>Female</td><td>University</td><td char=".">27</td><td char=".">19</td></tr><tr><td>45</td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">3</td><td>In person</td><td>15 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>Ph.D.</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>46</td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">4</td><td>In person</td><td>40 min.</td><td>Female</td><td>University</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">2</td></tr><tr><td>47</td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">4</td><td>In person</td><td>44 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>Ph.D.</td><td char=".">14</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>48</td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">2</td><td>In person</td><td>42 min.</td><td>Female</td><td>Ph.D.</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">2</td></tr><tr><td>49</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">1</td><td>1 & 2</td><td>In person</td><td>21 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>Ph.D.</td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">4</td></tr><tr><td>50</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">3</td><td>In person</td><td>30 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>Ph.D.</td><td char=".">24</td><td char=".">2</td></tr><tr><td>51</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">1</td><td>In person</td><td>27 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>Ph.D.</td><td>–</td><td char=".">4</td></tr><tr><td>52</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">2</td><td>In person</td><td>28 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>University</td><td>< 1</td><td>< 1</td></tr><tr><td>53</td><td char=".">10</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">4</td><td>In person</td><td>45 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>Ph.D.</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>54</td><td char=".">10</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">2</td><td>In person</td><td>Jointly with resp. #53</td><td>Female</td><td>Ph.D.</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>55</td><td char=".">10</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">2</td><td>In person</td><td>Jointly with resp. #53</td><td>Male</td><td>Ph.D.</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>56</td><td char=".">10</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">4</td><td>In person</td><td>21 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>High school</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>57</td><td char=".">10</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">4</td><td>In person</td><td>Jointly with resp. #56</td><td>Female</td><td>High school</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>58</td><td char=".">11</td><td char=".">1</td><td>3 & 4</td><td>In person</td><td>26 min.</td><td>Male</td><td>Ph.D.</td><td char=".">10</td><td>< 1</td></tr><tr><td>59</td><td char=".">11</td><td char=".">3</td><td>1 & 2</td><td>In person</td><td>33 min.</td><td>Female</td><td>High school</td><td char=".">3</td><td>–</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 The different respondent groups are (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref97">1</reflink>) deans of studies, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref98">2</reflink>) student advisors and quality managers, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref99">3</reflink>) student representatives.</p> <p>2 As outlined in the results section, the role accounts are (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref100">1</reflink>) gatekeepers, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref101">2</reflink>) genuine context-shapers, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref102">3</reflink>) competitive selectors, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref103">4</reflink>) critics of the system.</p> <hd id="AN0160004210-8">Data analysis</hd> <p>As we wanted to preserve the exploratory character of qualitative research, we followed the recommendations by Gioia, Corley, and Hamilton ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref104">30</reflink>]) and did not make our procedure of analyzing the data conform to a mold. Instead, we analyzed the data using inductive analysis techniques (Gioia, Corley, and Hamilton [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref105">30</reflink>]; Strauss and Corbin [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref106">72</reflink>]) with a certain emphasis on theory-method fit (Gehman et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref107">27</reflink>]). We particularly considered that the sample was composed of respondents with different backgrounds and functions, though all respondent groups are in a position to influence and shape the teaching and learning environment. While we applied open coding as a first step, we further enforced the dimensionalization of categories to achieve theoretical sensitivity (Strauss and Corbin [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref108">72</reflink>]) and pursued a reduction of codes as recommended by Gioia, Corley, and Hamilton ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref109">30</reflink>]). Eventually, we developed a data structure comprising first-order codes, second-order themes, and aggregate dimensions, as well as overarching theoretical themes (please see the supplemental material for a more detailed overview in this respect). We consulted the respective literature to develop our theoretical model until an initial data structure has been derived. Following the central principle of (grounded) theorizing (Gioia, Corley, and Hamilton [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref110">30</reflink>]; Locke, Golden-Biddle, and Feldman [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref111">53</reflink>]), we iteratively cycled between relevant literature and identified codes and eventually transformed the static data structure into an empirical model that reflects the phenomenon of interest.</p> <p>Building on this result, we were further concerned with the differences in the narratives that context-shapers use to legitimize student dropout. To identify variation across individuals, we focused on the differences in the narratives of the respondents with regard to the second-order themes. Finally, to bolster confidence in our results, we discussed preliminary results in a plenum consisting of our contact persons from each participating institution. While considering the specific setting at each of these institutions, this plenum allowed us to minimize the risk of misconceptions and maximize the rigor and validity of our findings. Moreover, in a further attempt to increase the rigor of our analysis, we trained an independent coder, who is no author of this article, in coding the material. While the initial coding was guided by an inductive approach, the additional coding was based on a deductive coding strategy. As such, we presented vignettes of the identified types of context-shapers and asked the independent coder to assign the interviewees to their best-fitting type. Discrepancies in coding were then discussed and resolved.</p> <hd id="AN0160004210-9">Findings</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0160004210-10">The core process of forming implicit resilience theories and perceptions of dropout</hd> <p>The first step after coding the material focused on developing a theoretical model that answers our research questions: what are the implicit resilience theories of context-shapers and how are they related to both the legitimation of student dropout and the account of actions to take against dropout. The model depicted in Figure 1 incorporates the aggregated dimensions and theoretical themes that have emerged during data analysis. The analysis of respondents' narratives reveals that their implicit assumptions regarding students' resilience are determined by the two core elements that reflect the process perspective of resilience, that is, assumptions about (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref112">1</reflink>) the occurrence of setbacks and periods of hardship and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref113">2</reflink>) the factors that determine the post-difficulty response. Together, these assumptions constitute the perceived potential for the positive adaptation of students facing adversity. At the same time, these cause–effect beliefs are used to establish an understanding of why some students fail to overcome adversity and eventually drop out of the study program. Implicit resilience theories provide a basis of legitimation regarding student dropout. These legitimation beliefs are not only reflected in divergent opinions on how to best act on student dropout but also correspond to perceptions of how to enact responsibilities as defined in one's role account as context-shaper.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. A model of implicit resilience theories in the context of student dropout.</p> <p>Although our data captures a cross-sectional snapshot of the status quo, we see the links specified in our model unfold differently across respondents. While the depicted model might evoke the impression of causality, it is our understanding that implicit theories about student resilience will develop and change in iterative cycles that become visible when shifting the perspective to boundaries in this process. Specifically, respondents seem to diverge in their proactive outreach and incorporation of (new) information. In other words, due to new experiences that context-shapers make and information they continue to acquire while fulfilling their self-imposed roles, we also expect alterations in their implicit resilience theories once in a while. Although the derived scheme supports the distinctiveness between context-shapers, we need to consider the possibility of mixed types because some respondents showed characteristics that could be assigned to more than one type. Nonetheless, based on our emerging themes, four main types of implicit resilience theories and role accounts of context-shapers can be distinguished. In the following, we outline the divergent implicit assumptions and corresponding responsibilities as perceived with regard to student dropout. For a better illustration, we outline prototypical cases and support our identified categories with power quotes, as suggested by Pratt ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref114">65</reflink>]). Table 2 provides an integrative overview of the core differences between the four identified types of context-shapers.</p> <p>Table 2. Core differences between context-shapers.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Gatekeepers</td><td>Genuine Context-Shapers</td><td>Competitive Selectors</td><td>Critics of the System</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><bold>Causes Attributed to the Occurrence of Setbacks</bold></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Account of person-endogenous causes of setbacks</p></list-item><list-item><p>Limited account of person exogenous causes of setbacks</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Limited account of person-endogenous causes of setbacks (rather accidental)</p></list-item><list-item><p>Account of person-exogenous causes of setbacks</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Account of person-endogenous causes of setbacks</p></list-item><list-item><p>Limited account of person exogenous causes of setbacks</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Limited Account of person-endogenous causes of setbacks</p></list-item><list-item><p>Account of person-exogenous causes of setbacks</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td><bold>Factors Determining the Post-difficulty Response</bold></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>No malleability of person-inherent resources</p></list-item><list-item><p>Limited account of boundary conditions</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Malleability of person-inherent resources</p></list-item><list-item><p>Account of boundary conditions</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Malleability of person-inherent resources</p></list-item><list-item><p>Limited account of boundary conditions</p></list-item></list></td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>No malleability of person-inherent resources</p></list-item><list-item><p>Account of boundary conditions</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td><bold>Implicit Resilience Theory</bold></td><td><bold>Resilience as a stable personal characteristic</bold></td><td><bold>Resilience as the sum of personal and contextual factors</bold></td><td><bold>Resilience as a malleable ability</bold></td><td><bold>Resilience determined by unfavorable conditions</bold></td></tr><tr><td><bold>Legitimation of Student Dropout</bold></td><td>Student dropout as the result of an insufficient person-environment fit</td><td>Student dropout as the result of an inadequate learning environment</td><td>Student dropout as the necessary evil</td><td>Student dropout as an unavoidable result of societal and political problems</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Actions to Take Against Student Dropout</bold></td><td>Improving entrance criteria and attracting eligible applicants</td><td>Shaping the context by providing tailored support and improving study conditions</td><td>Competitive selection of students to ensure an outstanding qualification</td><td>Maintaining the status quo and shifting responsibility to policy makers</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0160004210-11">Identifying differences between context-shapers</hd> <p>In general, our data reveals that context-shapers may arrive at similar role responsibilities despite holding different professional roles. At the same time, our findings likewise suggest that individuals may arrive at different understandings of their enacted responsibilities despite holding the same professional roles. This finding is particularly relevant, as our data suggests that context-shapers are inclined to judge others by their professional roles. For example, a dean of studies (resp. 27) is surprised by the rather passive role of student representatives:</p> <p> <emph>'Well, I have to honestly say, the study representatives, they actually rarely voice any major problems to me. I can of course now tell you the numbers of our dropout rates, these are of course just bare numbers for our problems, but the daily wishes and demands of the students do not reflect those. It is rather the lecturer who calls 'So many[students] failed. Is that bad?', but students standing in front of my door almost never happens in that respect.'</emph> </p> <p>To better understand how role accounts might diverge between and within professional roles, we outline below the dominant types that we were able to identify in our data.</p> <hd id="AN0160004210-12">Gatekeepers</hd> <p>We labeled the first role account that emerged 'Gatekeeper.' We observed that the respondents in this group hold implicit beliefs regarding 'resilience as a stable personal characteristic.' Missing personal prerequisites, such as a lack of motivation and professional knowledge, are seen as reasons for the occurrence of setbacks, which we argue reflect person-endogenous and stable factors. A quality manager (resp. 9) summarizes this as follows:</p> <p> <emph>'You can clearly see that those who bring a very bad high school diploma with them have big knowledge gaps in mathematics, which causes big problems in their studies and those people usually fail.'</emph> </p> <p>Moreover, person-exogenous factors that contribute to the occurrence of setbacks are hardly integrated in the respondents' narratives, indicating a high lay dispositionism. In this regard, a dean of studies (resp. 23) points to the student as the most important reason for problems to occur:</p> <p> <emph>'The most important parameters are the students themselves. They generally get in their own way.'</emph> </p> <p>Regarding the post-difficulty response, respondents seem to hold an entity mindset and, therefore, perceive person-inherent resources as rather not malleable. In particular, self-defeating behavior is seen as a symptom of insufficient and not malleable personal abilities. In this regard, the same dean of studies (resp. 23) describes how students respond to academic setbacks:</p> <p> <emph>'The first mechanism that is always used by students is that they appeal against decisions of the examination board. (...) and another mechanism that automatically comes into play is going to the physician to get the appropriate medical certificates, and then to hide – to hide the fact that they are simply not able to organize themselves or to fulfill their duties.'</emph> </p> <p>In correspondence with the implicit assumptions about students' resilience, dropout is particularly legitimized based on a lack of fit between the (fixed) prerequisites of students and the requirements of higher education in STEM subjects. For example, a student representative (resp. 19) justifies dropout as follows:</p> <p> <emph>'Because the people are just not suited for [this study program]. This is the reason why people leave or change [to another study program].'</emph> </p> <p>Respondents corresponding to the role of gatekeepers see the main lever to reduce dropout rates in the sharpening of entrance criteria that allows for optimizing the fit between the study program and the students permitted to enroll in it. According to these respondents, the best way to reduce dropout rates is to improve selection processes and to increase the number of eligible applicants, the latter being stretched out by one dean of studies (resp. 51):</p> <p> <emph>'We need a larger pool from which to choose, so to speak, so we would have fewer problems with dropouts.'</emph> </p> <p>Another dean of studies (resp. 18) states that they were more concerned with acting on student dropout early in the course of studies:</p> <p> <emph>'This is why we have now created barriers (...), so that we can help someone who really can't make it and whom we can't help either, so that they know early on.'</emph> </p> <p>When reflecting on their role as decision-makers, context-shapers which are characterized as gatekeepers rather emphasize their mission to secure high-quality standards within teaching and study programs. This is particularly prevalent with regard to deans of studies and administrators, which is shown, for example, by one dean of studies (resp. 17) stating that:</p> <p> <emph>'If it's purely a matter of organization, then the study coordinator takes care of that. However, if it concerns the quality of teaching, then I try to do something about it.'</emph> </p> <p>Moreover, it becomes also evident that gatekeepers seem to be less proactive in reaching out to students. For example, one counselor and quality manager (resp. 39) compares her behavior with that of her colleague (resp. 38):</p> <p> <emph>'We get the average grades and if you see that someone is scratching at the bottom all the time, then [resp. 38] tries to call that student in and to discuss immediately what is going on. But I don't do that kind of thing. I wait, so to speak, for the students in need to come to me to talk.'</emph> </p> <hd id="AN0160004210-13">Genuine context-shapers</hd> <p>We found that genuine context-shapers hold an implicit theory corresponding to 'resilience as the sum of personal and contextual factors.' Setbacks are rather not perceived as self-conflicted but accidental, which indicates a low lay dispositionism. In this regard, a student representative (resp. 20) describes the experience of setbacks from the perspective of students by saying:</p> <p> <emph>'You are then disappointed with yourself and ask yourself, what have you done wrong? Even though you have not done anything wrong (...).'</emph> </p> <p>With regard to the post-difficulty response, the respondents also express thoughts that point to the malleability of person-inherent resources, as they refer to aspects that are more in line with the view of a growth mindset regarding the attitudes and abilities of students. In this regard, a quality manager (resp. 48) clearly shows an optimistic take on all high-school graduates' ability to develop:</p> <p> <emph>'That someone with a high school diploma is too stupid for any study, even though it might be different from the high school diploma from 20 years ago, I don't think so. I think it has more to do with the fact that they do not have the right approach to studying.'</emph> </p> <p>In a similar vein, a student representative (resp. 40) points out:</p> <p> <emph>'Often, I believe that it is really not about the inability of the students, but they need to be held by the hand or shown how it could be done better.'</emph> </p> <p>The perceived responsibility of genuine context-shapers is to continuously improve the conditions at the university, so that all students (even the supposedly weak ones) can be offered the best possible support. They thus attach great importance to being well informed about the support structures and programs of other higher education institutions and using such information for best practices. For example, one quality manager (resp. 1) explains:</p> <p> <emph>'Because from time to time we also talk to the representatives [of other institutions] and we hear a good example from another university, (...) best practice is a good thing, and such network meetings help.'</emph> </p> <p>When reflecting on their responsibility for shaping the academic context, genuine context-shapers tend to emphasize their priority of addressing the needs of their students and provide them guidance. In this regard, a dean of studies (resp. 12) says:</p> <p> <emph>' ... and I so to speak – I would say – that I am the trusted advocate for the students when there are really things that cannot be solved according to the principle of subsidiarity.'</emph> </p> <p>In a similar vein, a student representative (resp. 28) describes her role as follows:</p> <p> <emph>'I advocate for the interests of the students to make sure that teaching is not neglected, especially when the board meets, to see how we can somehow establish better contact between professors (...).'</emph> </p> <hd id="AN0160004210-14">Competitive selectors</hd> <p>Respondents assigned to this account seem to perceive resilience as a malleable ability, although they rarely incorporate contextual factors in their assessment of students' ability to adapt positively. For example, one student representative (resp. 36) points out that the conditions are good and it is up to the students to make use of that:</p> <p> <emph>'You should really want to learn something. Because it is also a lot of learning material, it is important to deal with it. [The learning content] is also often repeated in the different semesters, so that it is made easy or at least easier (...).'</emph> </p> <p>An emerging pattern of reasoning seems to be the respondents' beliefs that positive adaptation in the face of adversity must be achieved by own efforts, so that students can grow. This is why competitive selectors tend to legitimize student dropout as a necessary evil and may even ask for a meaningful dropout rate, as suggested by one dean of studies (resp. 13):</p> <p> <emph>'I believe that higher education in itself is simply a new stage in life and that it must come inevitably with this new freedom that people fail. If we want to push all those who enter the first semester into the last semester, then we are not doing it right. Because that's exactly the point where personality development happens and that's why there has to be a meaningful dropout rate.'</emph> </p> <p>Our data suggests that competitive selectors define their main responsibility and that of the higher education institution in terms of maintaining a high level of requirements to ensure an outstanding qualification, which they expect to safeguard the employability of future generations. In this respect, one dean of studies (resp. 50) points out that he sees no need for improvement in the support offered:</p> <p> <emph>'For the moment, we do not want to increase the support offers and their acceptance [among students] because we do not want to offer it to those who do not need it. (...) And besides, it doesn't hurt if the increased workload is practiced from the beginning, because they will need it later.'</emph> </p> <p>This is echoed by one student representative (resp. 16), saying that:</p> <p> <emph>'Well, as far as the exams are concerned, in the first two semesters it is actually normal (...) that the exams are more difficult. Simply to select the best, and to reward those who really want to push themselves to the limit. So, I would agree and understand why the exams are a bit harder or why the exam stress has to be present.'</emph> </p> <p>When reflecting on their role as context-shapers in more general, competitive selectors seem to engage in the assurance of quality and focus on formalities while, at the same time, they have a rather distant relationship to students. For example, a dean of studies (resp. 13) defines his role responsibilities as follows:</p> <p> <emph>'As dean of studies, I am in charge of teaching, i.e. the teaching responsibility at the faculty. (...) my focus is primarily on fairly extensive quality screenings, events, and teaching reports. (...) I am technically also the students' contact person for needs and concerns. However, this is hardly noticed.'</emph> </p> <p>While this quote already points to a rather distant relationship to students, this becomes even more apparent when he further elaborates on the question of how he recognizes if students struggle during their studies:</p> <p> <emph>'In my function as dean of studies, not at all. Because I'm already the next level in the faculty's hierarchy, and therefore for many students I'm not the trusted person I'm maybe supposed to be. They don't know me, why should they come to me?'</emph> </p> <p>Subliminally, this rather distant attitude toward students (at risk) is also evident in the case of a student representative (resp. 16), who sees himself more as a messenger than an advocate for student affairs:</p> <p> <emph>'I have now assumed my position as if I were the communicative node, so to speak, or the information broker between professors and students. So that's how I feel in this position.'</emph> </p> <hd id="AN0160004210-15">Critics of the system</hd> <p>Respondents pertaining to the last type of context-shapers define the potential for positive adaptation by factors that cannot be altered, or at least not easily. In terms of the occurrence of setbacks, these critics of the system mainly see person-exogenous reasons that reside either inside or outside the higher education institution. For example, they attribute students' lack of motivation more to poor career prospects than to the students themselves. In this regard, a quality manager (resp. 6) states:</p> <p> <emph>'The effort and benefit are questioned because the effort is extremely high in these subjects, but people ask themselves, 'You hear biologists are unemployed everywhere, should I go through with this now?"</emph> </p> <p>Critics of the system perceive the resilience of students as rather 'determined by unfavorable conditions.' Our findings indicate that they mostly hold an entity mindset about students' ability to adapt positively. The following quote from a quality manager (resp. 5) suggests that the problems of students start already before even entering university:</p> <p> <emph>'(...) it starts in schools, in the parental home, in the peer group that people have, because that's crucial. People come here in their early 20s, they don't really know what they want.'</emph> </p> <p>As a consequence, student dropout is legitimized as an unavoidable consequence due to societal reasons and the current educational policy. A central motive of critics of the system, therefore, is to shift the responsibility to policy makers, to insufficient school education, and even to societal issues, which can be seen in statements on structural deficits provided by a quality manager (resp. 5):</p> <p> <emph>'I'd have lots of ideas about what else could be done, it's not like that I haven't. I just need more people. That is somewhat trivial. (...) The universities also receive money for each new student and the lecturers get credit especially for research, and in my opinion, these are simply structural deficits.'</emph> </p> <p>Another quality manager (resp. 6) further criticizes the structures that became manifest in Germany in general and her institution in particular:</p> <p> <emph>'Psychological research, cognitive research, learning research is ready, but how much of it is being implemented in Germany so far? Because there are political and structural things you can't stand up to, because there are enough, in fact here alone [at the university] are about 20 old men who say 'It's not possible, it's totally pointless and totally stupid' and I think that this is a subject that needs to be looked at more closely.'</emph> </p> <p>At the same time, some critics of the systems yet emphasize the importance of preserving a good teaching and learning environment within the scope of the existing possibilities. One dean of studies (resp. 47) points out that the ratio of supervision is not more than acceptable:</p> <p> <emph>'At the end of the day, each of the professors here subsidizes teaching with manpower from positions that are actually financed by third-party funds. Even though we are aware that this is not formally permissible, what should we do?'</emph> </p> <p>When reflecting on their role as context-shapers, the critics of the system seem to adopt a rather passive account. At the same time, they clearly emphasize their priority to account for students' needs. One dean of studies (res. 47) states in this respect:</p> <p> <emph>'My tasks as dean of studies, I can now give you a formal answer. Take a look at the law on higher education, where it is written long and wide. At the end of the day, it's all about organizing the course of studies, of course with the support of many people who actually have to do the hard work. (...) But, in concrete terms, much of what I do here in my role as dean of studies is characterized by the fact that we try to do very little in a top-down manner, to simply dictate or reproach the students.'</emph> </p> <p>A quality manager (resp. 39) similarly points to action not being initiated, which holds true for her and others in her institution:</p> <p> <emph>'At some point, a change will come. But at the moment, everything is on-hold, which is certainly not clever. Someone should just say, 'Well, I'm going to start now! We'll start with the study regulations and then we'll see.' But it's always so easy to say this, because study regulations can't be changed overnight; it often takes several years.'</emph> </p> <hd id="AN0160004210-16">Relational dynamics in the emergence of the different types of context-shapers</hd> <p>So far, our findings were based on the premise that implicit theories about students' resilience are reflected in the account of role responsibilities and actions to take against student dropout. We now shift the focus more to the relational dynamics of our model because our data reveals that the availability and incorporation of information emerge as boundaries in this model, which points to the possibility that the formation of implicit resilience theories mutually interferes with the emergence of role accounts. Specifically, the availability and incorporation of (new) information seem to influence both the implicit resilience theories one holds and the corresponding perceptions of one's role responsibilities. Whether or not new information is gathered yet appears dependent on context-shapers' experiences that, in turn, are determined by their role enactment. Context-shapers seem to be driven by, among other things, the motive to seek (new) information that informs their narratives regarding student dropout. In this regard, a quality manager (resp. 48) explains:</p> <p> <emph>'We work with the data in such a way that we keep statistics over the years and look at how long our students take and how many students actually leave or drop out of their studies, how high is the success rate. We also regularly look at teaching evaluations, and if we think that a conversation is necessary, then the dean of studies talks to the people concerned and tries to work out what could be done now. (...) But sometimes it would be nice if you could get even more out of [the data].</emph>'</p> <p>Although critics of the system also seem to reach out to students and seek information, they do not seem to consider the information to be reliable and therefore do not use it to form their opinions. For example, a dean of studies (resp. 3) explains that she does not see their students being pressed to perform, despite receiving information from them that contradicts her view:</p> <p> <emph>'When I listen to our student representatives, it is like that. They say to themselves [that the pressure to perform is high]. I wouldn't actually see it that way. Well, I don't see it that way. I don't have the impression that the pressure is any different than when I studied for my diploma.'</emph> </p> <p>A study advisor (resp. 21) further points to the challenge of acquiring valid data on questions that really matter for better understanding student dropout:</p> <p> <emph>'But I would really like to know what made the individual [to drop out]? What was it actually? Well, that's what I find so difficult. For example, with this study that we tried to do, we didn't find that out, because we rarely got any answers.'</emph> </p> <p>In contrast to genuine context-shapers and critics of the system, competitive selectors keep a rather distant relationship to students (at risk) by engaging less in exchange with other parties, which results in less information being available for changing their implicit resilience beliefs. For example, a dean of studies (resp. 13) – whom we identified as a competitive selector during data analysis – reflects on his collaboration with the counseling service of his institution:</p> <p> <emph>'Well, it always depends on what is meant by collaboration. There is collaboration, but it is not like a close or weekly one. (...) We know each other and one would know where to go in case of difficulties, but I do not actually experience this in my daily work life. So, for the student counseling and psychological counseling service, it's more the other way around: that they introduce themselves to us again and again and keep reminding us and reporting how things are going with them.'</emph> </p> <p>A quality manager (resp. 24) – that we spotted as a gatekeeper – even appears to deliberately avoid the confrontation with certain situations, which increases the risk of reinforcing prejudices. As such, he admits to not attending orientation courses for first-year students:</p> <p> <emph>'I honestly don't participate in those freshman classes. Here, they show how to top up a canteen card and explain how the bus line runs, so that [the students] can come here to study. That's exactly the point, you take care of them exactly like in their parents' house. You show them the library, all that's missing is that someone opens a book and shows them how to read.'</emph> </p> <p>The preceding quotes attest that one's role account seems not only to determine the exchange one has with students at risk or other parties in higher education institutions but also to restrict the availability and incorporation of information. Since the availability and incorporation of information may likewise inform implicit theories, our model appears to be dynamic in nature with reinforcing cycles among its main components. This becomes particularly evident with regard to genuine context-shapers. A quality manager (resp. 1) – who showed clear tendencies of a genuine context-shaper by repeatedly disclosing a growth mindset of students' abilities – says that there might be an exception in the field of mathematics:</p> <p> <emph>'That's my personal opinion now, but I think for mathematicians it's more like for artistic subjects, you need a basic talent like that and if you don't have it, then you'll never become a very good mathematician and that's why many people leave, but that's my personal opinion now. But I think that maybe it's not empirically supported yet, but I think that it might be true.'</emph> </p> <p>This quote indicates that missing information leads him to make statements that appear to be in conflict with his dominant role account. Nevertheless, the existence of mixed types does not mean that there is no distinctness between types. Although respondent 27 (i.e. a dean of studies with mixed-type of genuine context-shaper and critics of the system) cannot be clearly assigned to one role account, he sets himself apart from the account as a gatekeeper as he says:</p> <p> <emph>'No, what I just wanted to say is that if you had talked to someone else about study success, some of my colleagues would be obsessed with taking entrance tests. They would say 'We don't want to increase the number of graduates; we want to decrease the number of entrants.' So, there are already strong opinions in my faculty, I always have to fight them because the [effect of entrance tests] is not so well proven.'</emph> </p> <p>To conclude, although the notion of distinct role accounts is supported by our data, we also see some variation within the same respondents in terms of their implicit assumptions and accounts of actions. In fact, some respondents make statements that deviate from what we have identified as their dominant role account. Others seem to even adopt a take on student dropout that is so nuanced that our classification is not always depicted clear-cut. Despite the existence of similarities between and differences within our identified types, our data analysis has proven sufficient distinctiveness between these types.</p> <hd id="AN0160004210-17">Discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0160004210-18">Theoretical implications</hd> <p>In summary, our results show that respondents hold different implicit assumptions about students' resilience and legitimize student dropout irrespective of their professional roles. They derive divergent accounts of their roles as context-shapers and define divergent work role responsibilities to reduce dropout. These findings hence enrich the literature in multiple ways. First, especially in the field of higher education, much research has been conducted to better understand the roles and responsibilities of authorities and administrators (e.g. Kelly and Kelly [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref115">41</reflink>]; Pugh Sr et al. [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref116">71</reflink>]). However, past research focused on professional roles and the demands and role expectations incorporated in them. We add to this by showing that role accounts regarding the goal of reducing student dropout are rather independent of the professional role examined (i.e. academic deans, quality managers, or student representatives) and more grounded in individuals' implicit assumptions regarding student resilience. Our data indicates that idiosyncratically formed role responsibilities determine the exchange with other context-shapers, which influences the availability of information. It further points to a mutual interdependency between implicit resilience theories and the emergence of role accounts. Therefore, our study sets apart from prior (mostly quantitative) approaches that assumed the relationship between implicit theories and (collective) action to be uni-directional (e.g. Cohen-Chen et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref117">14</reflink>]; Cohen-Chen and Van Zomeren [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref118">15</reflink>]). Our study further provides initial evidence that the implicit theories of some of the respondents (e.g. that of gatekeepers) tend to survive disconfirming information, while other respondents (especially genuine context-shapers) express the wish for more objective data to make decisions that are better informed. As a consequence, we assume implicit theories of certain groups to be more stable than that of others. In this regard, we want to point to two contradicting theories that may offer important insights regarding this pattern, that is, the theories of system justification (Jost and Banaji [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref119">39</reflink>]) and shared reality (Hardin and Tory Higgins [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref120">33</reflink>]). System justification theory proposes that the justification and rationalization of the status quo is a general psychological tendency (Jost and Banaji [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref121">39</reflink>]). Research indicates that individuals with strong system justification motives tend to show defensive responses on behalf of the system even though the system might disadvantage certain people (Jost [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref122">38</reflink>]). This theory, therefore, provides a sound explanation for why some respondents ignore new information, which causes them to be more distinct in their role accounts. In contrast, shared reality theory states that individuals are motivated to engage in a process of social verification to derive a mutual understanding (i.e. shared reality) with others (Hardin and Tory Higgins [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref123">33</reflink>]). Participants with motives corresponding to such a shared-reality approach are thus more likely to steadily incorporate new information and, in turn, tend to exhibit an unstable and rather mixed role account. We hope that our research stimulates further investigations in this regard.</p> <p>Second, similar to research conducted in the context of primary and secondary education (Jonsson et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref124">37</reflink>]; Lynott and Woolfolk [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref125">57</reflink>]; Leroy et al. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref126">47</reflink>]), our findings are in line with the core tenets of implicit theories, revealing that context-shapers' narratives disclose aspects of fixed or growth mindsets regarding students' abilities. Nonetheless, our identified core processes regarding the formation of implicit theories suggest that the context-shapers' causal attributions regarding the process of why students eventually drop out of study programs are more complex. Specifically, we found that the respondents accounted for the roles of both students and their environment. In this respect, the tendency to incorporate contextual factors in causal explanations is commonly referred to as lay dispositionism (Chiu, Hong, and Dweck [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref127">13</reflink>]). Past research has shown that a growth mindset is usually associated with a low lay dispositionism, while an entity mindset is associated with a high lay dispositionism (Chiu, Hong, and Dweck [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref128">13</reflink>]). The quotes used to characterize competitive selectors disclose their narratives to be more likely assigned to a growth mindset. However, at the same time, they largely disregard the active influence of the environment both in the experience of setbacks and in predicting the post-difficulty response. With these results, we not claim to refute the correlation of lay dispositionism and type of mindset, but we point to cases that might contrast with this pattern. These more extreme cases, in turn, may have the potential to explain additional variance seen between individuals in terms of their sense-making processes.</p> <p>Finally, our research further contributes to the exosystem perspective of resilience in higher education. Research conducted in higher education predominantly focused on individual-level characteristics so far (e.g. Turner, Husman, and Schallert [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref129">75</reflink>]; Yeager and Dweck [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref130">81</reflink>]; Martin [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref131">58</reflink>]), which connects to an ontosystem perspective (Lessard et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref132">48</reflink>]). Surprisingly little attention has been devoted to the exosystem perspective of resilience. The exosystem reflects the potential influence of the larger system (Lessard et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref133">48</reflink>]), which in higher education comprises the institution and its decision-makers who contribute to the teaching and learning environment. Since the implicit theories of context-shapers seem to manifest in their judgments regarding work role responsibilities, our results indicate that they are likely to influence students' social ecology. Context-shapers' assumptions about contextual influences and the malleability of person-inherent factors ultimately determine the perception of the students' potential for positive adaptation. We find that respondents' assumptions correspond to what Luthar, Cicchetti, and Becker ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref134">56</reflink>], 543) refer to as the process perspective of resilience, wherein resilience is defined as 'a dynamic process encompassing positive adaptation within the context of significant adversity.' More specifically, the respondents' narratives include assumptions regarding the two core elements of resilience: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref135">1</reflink>) the occurrence of an adverse event and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref136">2</reflink>) the post-difficulty response by affected individuals. Overall, context-shapers hold divergent assumptions about the malleability of students' resilience, and this ultimately leads to different assumptions about the need for change regarding environmental boundary conditions. In this regard, our study supports concerns that failure runs the risk of being stigmatized as a character flaw if resilience is treated as (malleable or fixed) person-inherent rather context-independent characteristic (Adler [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref137">1</reflink>]; Britt et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref138">11</reflink>]; Bonanno, Westphal, and Mancini [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref139">8</reflink>]). All of this can severely inhibit the continuous improvement of study conditions.</p> <hd id="AN0160004210-19">Practical implications</hd> <p>Our study provides several important insights for decision-makers at institutions of higher education. Most notably, our study reveals a structural problem at higher education institutions that might hinder the successful implementation of dropout-reducing initiatives. Our results show that different implicit resilience theories and corresponding role accounts – rather than the actual professional role one holds – determine perceptions of how to act on student dropout. Given these varying perceptions, disagreement among context-shapers about whether and to what extent further actions are needed can result. In a similar vein, past research in the academic context has already demonstrated that the implementation of interventions is often executed without fully understanding what change is needed (Kezar, Gehrke, and Elrod [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref140">44</reflink>]). In line with research on implicit theories in leadership (Schyns et al. [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref141">68</reflink>]), we suggest that a vital first step is to make implicit assumptions explicit. This could foster the alignment of the intended goal and the strategy with which the respective goal is pursued, hence the likelihood of a successful implementation of targeted initiatives. Raising the awareness of decision-makers for the existence of similar versus divergent implicit theories could further contribute to overcoming internalized norms and thus aid collective action. Especially with regard to large and innovative change projects in higher education, the disruption of entrenched norms is an important approach to resolve barriers to change (Kezar [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref142">43</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0160004210-20">Limitations and future research</hd> <p>Despite providing valuable insights, some limitations of our study warrant note. Due to the in-depth nature of the study, the question as to how these results are transferable to other contexts and cultures arises. On the one hand, the sample turns out to be of great strength given its multi-respondent perspective, the inclusion of different types of higher education institutions, and the comparatively large sample size. On the other hand, it is critical to note that the context of higher education underlies country-specific regulations that lead to specific characteristics in the respective systems. System-related statements about authorities at German higher education institutions may hence differ from non-European contexts like that of Northern America and Australia. However, as we were primarily interested in the underlying perceptions and motives of context-shapers, we are confident that the theoretical and practical implications that we derive are transferable to a wide array of educational settings, particularly to those that are characterized by strong autonomy and interdependency of different stakeholders.</p> <p>Our findings are further limited by our inability to monitor the development of implicit resilience theories and their impact on role accounts over time. While our study provides first insights into potential underlying mechanisms that influence the emergence of implicit resilience theories and role accounts, these insights are based on narratives of respondents at one point in time. Our interviews grasp current and retrospective sense-making processes and thus are subjects to cognitive biases (Eisenhardt and Graebner [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref143">25</reflink>]; Gehman et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref144">27</reflink>]). In these particular settings, Eisenhardt and Graebner ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref145">25</reflink>]) recommend including various and highly knowledgeable groups of respondents, and Gioia, Corley, and Hamilton ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref146">30</reflink>], 26) further endorse keeping a 'backtrack to prior informants.' Due to the possibility to discuss first preliminary findings with some representatives of the institutions of higher education that we interviewed, we were able to maintain as much flexibility and keep open the possibility for further inquiries. We yet encourage future research to take a longitudinal perspective, so that the malleability of implicit resilience theories and role accounts can be investigated in more depth.</p> <p>Finally, past research has indicated that implicit theories determine whether individuals engage in collective action (Cohen-Chen and Van Zomeren [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref147">15</reflink>]; Cohen-Chen et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref148">14</reflink>]). Specifically, Cohen-Chen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref149">14</reflink>]) found that implicit beliefs about the malleability of target groups increase the tendency toward collective actions in favor of these groups. Although our study points to the importance of more thoroughly investigating the occurrence of implicit resilience theories that may diverge among those who are considered to advocate for students' interests, our qualitative data follows an individual-level perspective that is limited in its ability to draw conclusions in terms of the collective actions taken by context-shapers. Future research is asked to shift the focus to a multilevel perspective that investigates how individuals' implicit resilience theories can be harmonized so that context-shapers in higher education become more likely to engage in collective actions against perennial problems like that of student dropout.</p> <hd id="AN0160004210-21">Acknowledgement</hd> <p>The authors would like to thank Yvette Hofmann and Nestor Burgmann for their valuable help in this study.</p> <hd id="AN0160004210-22">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0160004210-23"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref97" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2022.2091538.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref23" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0160004210-24"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Adler, Amy B. 2013. " Resilience in a Military Occupational Health Context: Directions for Future Research." In Building Psychological Resilience in Military Personnel: Theory and Practice, edited by Robert R. Sinclair, Thomas W. Britt, Robert R. Sinclair, and Thomas W. Britt, 223 – 235. Washington, DC, U.S : American Psychological Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Aljohani, Othman. 2016. " A Comprehensive Review of the Major Studies and Theoretical Models of Student Retention in Higher Education." Higher Education Studies 6 (2): 1 – 18. doi: 10.5539/hes.v6n2p1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref80" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, Craig A., and James J. Lindsay. 1998. " The Development, Perseverance, and Change of Naive Theories." Social Cognition 16 (1): 8 – 30. doi: 10.1521/soco.1998.16.1.8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref18" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Backmann, Julia, Matthias Weiss, Michaéla C Schippers, and Martin Hoegl. 2019. " Personality Factors, Student Resiliency, and the Moderating Role of Achievement Values in Study Progress." Learning and Individual Differences 72 : 39 – 48. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2019.04.004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref24" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Barbera, Salvatore, A. Steven, D. Berkshire, B. Boronat Consuelo, and Michael H. Kennedy. 2020. " Review of Undergraduate Student Retention and Graduation Since 2010: Patterns, Predictions, and Recommendations for 2020." Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 22 (2): 227 – 250. doi: 10.1177/1521025117738233.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref31" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bass, Janet Heeter. 2006. " Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students: Is it Possible to do it all? " New Directions for Student Services 2006 (116): 45 – 52. doi: 10.1002/ss.224.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref32" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Biddle, Bruce J. 1986. " Recent Developments in Role Theory." Annual Review of Sociology 12 (1): 67 – 92. doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.12.080186.000435.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref139" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bonanno, George A, Maren Westphal, and Anthony D Mancini. 2011. " Resilience to Loss and Potential Trauma." Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 7 : 511 – 535. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032210-104526.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref93" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bowen, Glenn A. 2008. " Naturalistic Inquiry and the Saturation Concept: A Research Note." Qualitative Research 8 (1): 137 – 152. doi: 10.1177/1468794107085301.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Braun, Dietmar, Martin Benninghoff, Raphael Ramuz, and Adriana Gorga. 2015. " Interdependency Management in Universities: A Case Study." Studies in Higher Education 40 (10): 1829 – 1843. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2014.914913.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Britt, Thomas W., Winny Shen, Robert R. Sinclair, Matthew R. Grossman, and David M. Klieger. 2016. " How Much Do We Really Know About Employee Resilience? " Industrial and Organizational Psychology 9 (2): 378 – 404. doi: 10.1017/iop.2015.107.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, Xianglei. 2013. STEM Attrition: College Students' Paths into and out of STEM Fields. Statistical Analysis Report. NCES 2014-001." National Center for Education Statistics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chiu, Chiu-yue, Ying-yi Hong, and Carol S Dweck. 1997. " Lay Dispositionism and Implicit Theories of Personality." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73 (1): 19 – 30. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen-Chen, Smadar, Eran Halperin, Tamar Saguy, and Martijn van Zomeren. 2014. " Beliefs About the Malleability of Immoral Groups Facilitate Collective Action." Social Psychological and Personality Science 5 (2): 203 – 210. doi: 10.1177/1948550613491292.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen-Chen, Smadar, and Martijn Van Zomeren. 2018. " Yes we Can? Group Efficacy Beliefs Predict Collective Action, but Only When Hope is High." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 77 : 50 – 59. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2018.03.016.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coll, Kenneth M, and Reese M House. 1991. " Empirical Implications for the Training and Professional Development of Community College Counselors." Community College Review 19 (2): 43 – 52. doi: 10.1177/009155219101900207.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coll, Kenneth M, and Robert L Rice. 1993. " Role Conflict among Community College Counselors." Community College Review 21 (1): 58 – 67. doi: 10.1177/009155219302100108.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cooley, Erin, B. Keith Payne, and K. Jean Phillips. 2014. " Implicit Bias and the Illusion of Conscious Ill Will." Social Psychological and Personality Science 5 (4): 500 – 507. doi: 10.1177/1948550613506123.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crellin, Matthew A. 2010. " The Future of Shared Governance." New Directions for Higher Education 2010 (151): 71 – 81. doi: 10.1002/he.402.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Creswell, John W. 2007. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Traditions 2ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, U.S. : Sage Publications, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Detert, James R., and Amy C. Edmondson. 2011. " Implicit Voice Theories: Taken-for-Granted Rules of Self-Censorship at Work." Academy of Management Journal 54 (3): 461 – 488. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.61967925.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dierdorff, E. C., and F. P. Morgeson. 2007. " Consensus in Work Role Requirements: The Influence of Discrete Occupational Context on Role Expectations." Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (5): 1228 – 1241. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1228.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dweck, Carol S, Chi-yue Chiu, and Ying-yi Hong. 1995. " Implicit Theories and Their Role in Judgments and Reactions: A Word from two Perspectives." Psychological Inquiry 6 (4): 267 – 285. doi: 10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dweck, Carol S, and Ellen L Leggett. 1988. " A Social^Cognitive Approach to Motivation and Personality." Psychological Review 95 (2): 256 – 273. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenhardt, Kathleen M., and Melissa E. Graebner. 2007. " Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and Challenges." Academy of Management Journal 50 (1): 25 – 32. doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.24160888.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gallos, Joan V. 2002. " The Dean's Squeeze: The Myths and Realities of Academic Leadership in the Middle." Academy of Management Learning & Education 1 (2): 174 – 184. doi: 10.5465/amle.2002.8509367.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gehman, Joel, Vern L. Glaser, Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, Denny Gioia, Ann Langley, and Kevin G. Corley. 2017. " The Dean's Squeeze: The Myths and Realities of Academic Leadership in the Middle." Academy of Management Learning & Education 1 (3): 174 – 184. doi: 10.5465/amle.2002.8509367.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geisinger, Brandi N., and D. Raj Raman. 2013. " Why They Leave: Understanding Student Attrition from Engineering Majors." International Journal of Engineering Education 29 (4): 914 – 925.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Georg, Werner. 2009. " Individual and Institutional Factors in the Tendency to Drop out of Higher Education: A Multilevel Analysis Using Data from the Konstanz Student Survey." Studies in Higher Education 34 (6): 647 – 661. doi: 10.1080/03075070802592730.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gioia, Dennis A., Kevin G. Corley, and Aimee L. Hamilton. 2013. " Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research." Organizational Research Methods 16 (1): 15 – 31. doi: 10.1177/1094428112452151.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> González-López, María José, María Carmen Pérez-López, and Lázaro Rodríguez-Ariza. 2019. " Clearing the Hurdles in the Entrepreneurial Race: The Role of Resilience in Entrepreneurship Education." Academy of Management Learning & Education 18 (3): 457 – 483. doi: 10.5465/amle.2016.0377.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham, Mark, J. Jennifer Frederick, Angela Byars-Winston, Anne-Barrie Hunter, and Jo Handelsman. 2013. " Increasing Persistence of College Students in STEM." Science 341 (6153): 1455 – 1456. doi: 10.1126/science.1240487.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hardin, Curtis D, and E. Tory Higgins. 1996. " Shared Reality: How Social Verification Makes the Subjective Objective." In Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: The Interpersonal Context, edited by R. M. Sorrentino, and E. T. Higgins, 3 – 17. New York, NY, U.S. : Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hartley, Michael T. 2010. " Increasing Resilience: Strategies for Reducing Dropout Rates for College Students with Psychiatric Disabilities." American Journal of Psychiatric Rehabilitation 13 (4): 295 – 315. doi: 10.1080/15487768.2010.523372.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heublein, Ulrich, Johanna Richter, and Robert Schmelzer. 2020. " Die Entwicklung der Studienabbruchquoten an den Deutschen Hochschulen." DZHW Brief 3 : 1 – 12. doi: 10.34878/2020.03.dzhw_brief.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jenson, Ronda J., Alexis N. Petri, Arden D. Day, Kevin Z. Truman, and Kate Duffy. 2011. " Perceptions of Self-Efficacy Among STEM Students with Disabilities." Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 24 (4): 269 – 283.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jonsson, Anna-Carin, Dennis Beach, Helena Korp, and Peter Erlandson. 2012. " Teachers' Implicit Theories of Intelligence: Influences from Different Disciplines and Scientific Theories." European Journal of Teacher Education 35 (4): 387 – 400. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2012.662636.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jost, John T. 2019. " A Quarter Century of System Justification Theory: Questions, Answers, Criticisms, and Societal Applications." British Journal of Social Psychology 58 (2): 263 – 314. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12297.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jost, John T., and Mahzarin R. Banaji. 1994. " The Role of Stereotyping in System-Justification and the Production of False Consciousness." British Journal of Social Psychology 33 (1): 1 – 27. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Katz, Daniel S., and Karen Davison. 2014. " Community College Student Mental Health." Community College Review 42 (4): 307 – 326. doi: 10.1177/0091552114535466.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelly, Bridget Turner, and Robert D Kelly. 2019. Keep Calm and Call the Dean of Students: A Guide to Understanding the Many Facets of the Dean of Students Role. Sterling, VA, U.S. : Stylus Publishing, LLC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kemper, Lorenz, Gerrit Vorhoff, and Berthold U Wigger. 2020. " Predicting Student Dropout: A Machine Learning Approach." European Journal of Higher Education 10 (1): 28 – 47. doi: 10.1080/21568235.2020.1718520.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kezar, Adrianna. 2011. " What is the Best way to Achieve Broader Reach of Improved Practices in Higher Education? " Innovative Higher Education 36 (4): 235 – 247. doi: 10.1007/s10755-011-9174-z.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kezar, Adrianna, Sean Gehrke, and Susan Elrod. 2015. " Implicit Theories of Change as a Barrier to Change on College Campuses: An Examination of STEM Reform." The Review of Higher Education 38 (4): 479 – 506. doi: 10.1353/rhe.2015.0026.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kokkelenberg, Edward C., and Esha Sinha. 2010. " Who Succeeds in STEM Studies? An Analysis of Binghamton University Undergraduate Students." Economics of Education Review 29 (6): 935 – 946. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.06.016.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuckartz, Udo. 2014. Qualitative Text Analysis: A Guide to Methods. Los Angeles, CA, U.S. : Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leroy, Nadia, Pascal Bressoux, Phillippe Sarrazin, and David Trouilloud. 2007. " Impact of Teachers' Implicit Theories and Perceived Pressures on the Establishment of an Autonomy Supportive Climate." European Journal of Psychology of Education 22 (4): 529 – 545.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lessard, Anne, Lynn Butler-Kisber, Laurier Fortin, and Diane Marcotte. 2014. " Analyzing the Discourse of Dropouts and Resilient Students." The Journal of Educational Research 107 (2): 103 – 110. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2012.753857.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lessard, Anne, Laurier Fortin, Diane Marcotte, Pierre Potvin, and E. Royer. 2009. " Why did They not Drop out? Narratives from Resilient Students." Prevention Researcher 16 (3): 21 – 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levy, Sheri R, Chi-yue Chiu, and Ying-Yi Hong. 2006. " Lay Theories and Intergroup Relations." Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 9 (1): 5 – 24. doi: 10.1177/1368430206059855.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levy, Sheri R, Steven J Stroessner, and Carol S Dweck. 1998. " Stereotype Formation and Endorsement: The Role of Implicit Theories." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74 (6): 1421 – 1436. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1421.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lizzio, Alf, and Keithia Wilson. 2009. " Student Participation in University Governance: The Role Conceptions and Sense of Efficacy of Student Representatives on Departmental Committees." Studies in Higher Education 34 (1): 69 – 84. doi: 10.1080/03075070802602000.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Locke, Karen, Karen Golden-Biddle, and Martha S Feldman. 2008. " Perspective—Making Doubt Generative: Rethinking the Role of Doubt in the Research Process." Organization Science 19 (6): 907 – 918. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1080.0398.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luescher-Mamashela, Thierry M. 2013. " Student Representation in University Decision Making: Good Reasons, a new Lens? " Studies in Higher Education 38 (10): 1442 – 1456. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.625496.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lüftenegger, Marko, and Jason A Chen. 2017. " Conceptual Issues and Assessment of Implicit Theories." Zeitschrift für Psychologie 225 (225): 99 – 106. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000286.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luthar, Suniya S, Dante Cicchetti, and Bronwyn Becker. 2000. " The Construct of Resilience: A Critical Evaluation and Guidelines for Future Work." Child Development 71 (3): 543 – 562. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00164.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lynott, Donna-Jean, and Anita E Woolfolk. 1994. " Teachers' Implicit Theories of Intelligence and Their Educational Goals." Journal of Research & Development in Education 4 (27): 253 – 264.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin, Andrew J. 2002. " Motivation and Academic Resilience: Developing a Model for Student Enhancement." Australian Journal of Education 46 (1): 34 – 49. doi: 10.1177/000494410204600104.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin, Andrew J, and Herbert W Marsh. 2006. " Academic Resilience and its Psychological and Educational Correlates: A Construct Validity Approach." Psychology in the Schools 43 (3): 267 – 281. doi: 10.1002/pits.20149.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McConnell, Allen R. 2001. " Implicit Theories: Consequences for Social Judgments of Individuals." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 37 (3): 215 – 227. doi: 10.1006/jesp.2000.1445.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNeely, John Hamilton. 1938. College Student Mortality. Vol. 11. Washington, DC, U.S. : United States Government Printing Office.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morrison, Renee, and Aileen M Pidgeon. 2017. " Cultivating Resilience and Self-Control among University Students: An Experimental Study." Universal Journal of Psychology 5 (1): 1 – 7. doi: 10.13189/ujp.2017.050101.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olson, Steve, and Donna Gerardi Riordan. 2012. " Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Report to the President." Executive Office of the President.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plaks, Jason E, Steven J Stroessner, Carol S Dweck, and Jeffrey W Sherman. 2001. " Person Theories and Attention Allocation: Preferences for Stereotypic Versus Counterstereotypic Information." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80 (6): 876 – 893. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.876.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pratt, Michael G. 2009. " From the Editors: For the Lack of a Boilerplate: Tips on Writing up (and Reviewing) Qualitative Research." Academy of Management Journal 52 (5): 856 – 862. doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.44632557.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Price, Joshua. 2010. " The Effect of Instructor Race and Gender on Student Persistence in STEM Fields." Economics of Education Review 29 (6): 901 – 910. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.07.009.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rask, Kevin. 2010. " Attrition in STEM Fields at a Liberal Arts College: The Importance of Grades and pre-Collegiate Preferences." Economics of Education Review 29 (6): 892 – 900. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.06.013.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schyns, Birgit, Tina Kiefer, Rudolf Kerschreiter, and Alex Tymon. 2011. " Teaching Implicit Leadership Theories to Develop Leaders and Leadership: How and Why It Can Make a Difference." Academy of Management Learning & Education 10 (3): 397 – 408. doi: 10.5465/amle.2010.0015.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seyfried, Markus, and Philipp Pohlenz. 2018. " Assessing Quality Assurance in Higher Education: Quality Managers' Perceptions of Effectiveness." European Journal of Higher Education 8 (3): 258 – 271. doi: 10.1080/21568235.2018.1474777.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spady, William G. 1970. " Dropouts from Higher Education: An Interdisciplinary Review and Synthesis." Interchange 1 (1): 64 – 85.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sr, Pugh, J. Daniel, Everrett A Smith, Ashley Tull, Judd Harbin, and Aisha Kenner. 2018. " Legacy of the Dean: A 40-Year Update on Roles and Assumptions." College Student Affairs Journal 36 (1): 150 – 166. doi: 10.1353/csj.2018.0010.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. 2nd edition. Newbury Park, CA, U.S. : Sage Publications, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teddlie, Charles, and Fen Yu. 2007. " Mixed Methods Sampling." Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1 (1): 77 – 100. doi: 10.1177/1558689806292430.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tinto, Vincent. 1975. " Dropout from Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent Research." Review of Educational Research 45 (1): 89 – 125. doi: 10.3102/00346543045001089.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turner, Jeannie E, Jenefer Husman, and Diane L Schallert. 2002. " The Importance of Students' Goals in Their Emotional Experience of Academic Failure: Investigating the Precursors and Consequences of Shame." Educational Psychologist 37 (2): 79 – 89. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3702_3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Zomeren, Martijn, Tamar Saguy, and Fabian MH Schellhaas. 2013. " Believing in "Making a Difference" to Collective Efforts: Participative Efficacy Beliefs as a Unique Predictor of Collective Action." Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 16 (5): 618 – 634. doi: 10.1177/1368430212467476.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wepner, Shelley B, Antonia D'Onofrio, and Stephen C Wilhite. 2008. " The Leadership Dimensions of Education Deans." Journal of Teacher Education 59 (2): 153 – 169. doi: 10.1177/0022487107313745.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wheeler, Sue, and Elizabeth Hewitt. 2004. " Counselling in Higher Education: The Experience of Lone Counsellors." British Journal of Guidance & Counselling 32 (4): 533 – 545. doi: 10.1080/03069880412331303312.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wrzesniewski, Amy, and Jane E Dutton. 2001. " Crafting a job: Revisioning Employees as Active Crafters of Their Work." The Academy of Management Review 26 (2): 179 – 201. doi: 10.2307/259118.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xu, Yonghong Jade. 2016. " Attention to Retention: Exploring and Addressing the Needs of College Students in STEM Majors." Journal of Education and Training Studies 4 (2): 67 – 76.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yeager, David Scott, and Carol S Dweck. 2012. " Mindsets That Promote Resilience: When Students Believe That Personal Characteristics Can Be Developed." Educational Psychologist 47 (4): 302 – 314. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2012.722805.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zuo, Bing, and Eugene W Ratsoy. 1999. " Student Participation in University Governance." Canadian Journal of Higher Education 29 (1): 1 – 26.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Daniela Datzer; Stefan Razinskas and Martin Hoegl</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref138"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref141"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref142"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref143"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1371287
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Implicit Resilience Theories: A Qualitative Study of Context-Shapers at Higher Education Institutions
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Datzer%2C+Daniela%22">Datzer, Daniela</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7795-2729">0000-0001-7795-2729</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Razinskas%2C+Stefan%22">Razinskas, Stefan</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3100-5969">0000-0002-3100-5969</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hoegl%2C+Martin%22">Hoegl, Martin</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4339-8616">0000-0002-4339-8616</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Studies+in+Higher+Education%22"><i>Studies in Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2022 47(12):2553-2574.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 22
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Resilience+%28Psychology%29%22">Resilience (Psychology)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Dropouts%22">Dropouts</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Dropout+Rate%22">Dropout Rate</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22STEM+Education%22">STEM Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Dropout+Prevention%22">Dropout Prevention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Holding+Power%22">School Holding Power</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Germany%22">Germany</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/03075079.2022.2091538
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0307-5079<br />1470-174X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: High dropout rates in STEM disciplines are certainly among the most crucial challenges that higher education is facing. While prior research has mainly applied an individual-centered approach that has helped identify factors explaining student dropout, an important yet under-examined issue is how those responsible for shaping the academic environment of students vary in their implicit assumptions of why some students persist while others drop out. In this study, we shift the focus toward the narratives regarding the reasons for student drop out. We report on an in-depth qualitative interview study comprising 59 deans of studies, administrators (i.e. quality managers and student advisors), and student representatives. This group of individuals contributes to the challenge of reducing student dropout by shaping the teaching and learning environment of students at German higher education institutions. Our grounded-theory model indicates that these context-shapers attend to different implicit theories on what constitutes resilient versus non-resilient students. The implicit resilience theories, in turn, result in dropout being legitimized in different ways, which determines the judgements made by context-shapers in terms of actions suitable to reduce student dropout.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1371287
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1371287
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/03075079.2022.2091538
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 22
        StartPage: 2553
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Resilience (Psychology)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Dropouts
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Dropout Rate
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: STEM Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Dropout Prevention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Holding Power
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Germany
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Implicit Resilience Theories: A Qualitative Study of Context-Shapers at Higher Education Institutions
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Datzer, Daniela
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Razinskas, Stefan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hoegl, Martin
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0307-5079
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1470-174X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 47
            – Type: issue
              Value: 12
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Studies in Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1