Why does being permitted to do something not make an institution do it? A bounded qualitative case study of credit for prior learning at a single USG institution — and the study tools built to rehearse it.
Two interactive plates: the theoretical architecture (frame, object, three sensitizing concepts) and the literature funnel (four clusters narrowing to the gap). Every element opens with its definition, anchor sources, and the question a committee member is most likely to ask.
Open the map →Every source cited in the Q3 framework and Q2 literature review, plus the uncited orbit. Searchable and filterable; each entry carries its synopsis, strengths, weaknesses, and the work it does in the dissertation — with the look-alike citations disambiguated up front.
Open the library →A permissive, soft-mandate system policy produces wide variation in institutional response. The framework is inhabited institutionalism; the object is governance configuration; the mechanism is information asymmetry; the enactment is sensemaking and legitimacy. The frame is sensitizing, not predictive.
SQ1 · The structure How is authority over CPL distributed — formally and informally? SQ2 · The enactment How do the actors inhabiting those positions make sense of CPL? SQ3 · The mechanism Whose operational knowledge reaches the decision room, and how does that gap shape outcomes?