December 10th, 2004
Campus Security Changes since September 11th, 2001
MIT President Charles Vest, in an October 9, 2001 letter, addressed the MIT community about campus security and terrorism. He noted that he would be forming a Task Force to evaluate current security and consider increasing security if deemed necessary. Several months later, the Task Force reported its findings. After stating that "there are few, if any, measures that will protect people and property from the dedicated terrorist attack," the report nevertheless recommended several security increases. Sure enough, card readers which keep track of when students enter buildings have been installed on many doors and students are restricted from more areas of campus. At other college campuses, similar reports were issued and security was consequently increased. In many cases, these security increases have few conceivable ties to terrorism. For example, one college included increasing random drug testing of students in their assessment of how to decrease potential terrorist attacks on campus. Similarly, locking more doors on MIT's campus will also arguably not decrease the threat of terrorism. In other cases, the university's response was overblown and unrealistic: in February of 2002, New York University President John Sexton announced to students that the university had purchased large quantities of duct tape and plastic sheets to counter terrorism.
These examples, while somewhat more extreme than at most campuses, are not isolated. It has been rumored that universities across the country have increased security as a response to September 11th, but thus far no one has conducted a comprehensive study of these changes. In this project, I will examine the effects of the September 11th attacks on campus security policies and realities in United States colleges and universities. Through the interview process, I hope to gain an understanding of how campus security decisions are actually made.
I. Literature Review
There is little literature specifically about campus security policy. Only some universities have reports about specific safety measures on their campuses, and almost none have reports about campus security post-September 11th. Even those that have these reports do not always use them when determining day-to-day security policies. (For example, MIT campus police admitted that MIT does not really use their official reports - much is determined by individual police officers and administrators without using formal decision-making procedures.)
Furthermore, when official security policies are written, they often are in direct contradiction to theoretical writings about security. Thus, there seems to be a wide disconnect between the theory and practice of campus security.
One might wonder, even if security is increasing for the wrong reasons, isn't that good anyway since it will prevent crime? To answer this, I will look at literature related to the sociological effects of security on the mindset of groups and individuals. I will use this literature to highlight the importance of this study and the implications for a community in a university setting.
Given that campus security decisions do not seem to be made by formalized and centralized methods and that there is little written about what security measures are actually in place, I want to find out whether this is true for college governance in general. I will look at more general literature on college governance to explore how decisions are made within the university administration. Then, I will evaluate it in terms of the decision making process for campus security in particular.
In order to claim that messages about security from universities have real effects on students, I will rely on literature that shows that in general students are affected by the social messages that schools send. For this, I will rely on studies of the effects of social messages on students.
Then, I will also look at analysis of security and crime-fighting trends since September 11th. Do the changes at the university level reflect the changes on a national scale?
I will try to merge these topics to provide a backdrop for showing how security measures have resulted from terrorism–related fear on the college campus.
Finally, I will also look at studies that use similar methodologies as models for how to conduct this research. I will be relying mainly on interviews with students, faculty, administrators, and campus police. To learn how to conduct these interviews with as much accuracy and little bias as possible, I will look at literature written on conducting interview research in the social sciences.
A. SOCIOLOGY OF FEAR AND DISCIPLINE
1. Governing Through Crime
This research project is loosely motivated by “Governing through Crime” by Jonathan Simon. Simon claims that since the 1970s, politicians have created a cycle of competing to appear “tough on crime” (Simon iv). Politicians mobilize voters by reminding citizens of potential (but certainly highly unlikely) dangers. However, while the fears that the public has are often unfounded, citizens are easily swayed to rally behind a candidate who promises safety: “The fear of crime can have a more powerful effect on people and neighborhoods than crime itself,” said Simon. “Fear of crime governs us in our choices of where to live, where to work, where to send our children to school. And those choices are made with increasing reference to crime” (Simon 25).
Simon claims that the cycle of “governing through crime” is evidenced by the extremely high incarceration levels in America as well as the trend towards gated communities and installing metal detectors in public schools – all of which result from politicians’ need to pacify a frightened electorate.
“Governing through Crime” paints a picture of politicians’ exploitation of fear which can certainly be applied to what has occurred more clearly since September 11th. “Governing through crime” has reached a new height. The electorate is more scared than ever, as suggested by Tom Ridge’s terrorist alert system and the passing of the Patriot Act. A culture of fear and the exploitation of that fear by politicians demonstrate a complex cycle of increased concern for terrorism which leads to security measures which are not always necessary.
As a sort of microcosm of society, the college campus provides a useful case study for the ability of fear to affect policy changes on a community. This research attempts to evaluate what changes have actually occurred as a result of the culture of fear (as distinguished from those resulting from legitimate safety concerns) in America as a result of September 11th.
2. The Morning After: Sex, Fear, and Feminism on Campus
Katie Roiphe wrote The Morning After in response to what she views as a growing epidemic of fear related to rape on the college campus. Roiphe is concerned that fear of rape can do nearly as much damage to a community as rape itself, that placing “blue lights” on campus (emergency phones that reach campus police) actually harms more than helps: “The blue lights mark a new and systematic sense of danger. People may have always been scared walking around campuses late at night, but now, bathed in blue light, they are officially scared” (Roiphe 23).
Regardless of whether rape or fear causes more damage, Roiphe makes an important point: fear has real, measurable, and harmful effects on a college campus community. Furthermore, the actions of a community which are intended to keep it safe may have the unintended side-effect of increasing fear, thereby making people more suspicious and feel victimized and unsafe.
3. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison
Foucault is primarily concerned with power in relationships. According to Foucault, essentially all human interaction can be analyzed as a struggle by both parties to demonstrate their power over each other. Foucault might have said that post-September 11th fear and our responses to it ultimately result from a basic need to assert ourselves in a world in which we feel increasingly powerless.
According to Foucault, the primary ways that authority asserts its power are through discipline and punishment. Punishment, for Foucault, is a legal response to a perceived crime while discipline is a method of controlling the “movement and operations of the body,” a form of power that creates “docile bodies” (Foucault 154). Discipline, like security, coerces people to behave in calculated, specific ways. Unlike punishment, discipline and security do not apply only to criminals; they apply to everyone. Like security, discipline is preventive rather than responsive, a non-specified but powerful threat which affect every action of every being.
Foucault’s quintessential example of discipline is Bentham’s Penopticon, a famous design for a pentagonal prison which would allow guards to observe any prisoner without allowing prisoners to know when they are being observed. This is comparable to installing security cameras on campus which let students know that someone might be watching at any moment.
One mechanism of campus security is telling people that “for your safety” one may not act in certain ways (such as be in a building after a certain time). The latent message is that everyone is a potential criminal, that every act is suspect. This is a powerful example of discipline: a person who is disciplined in this manner internalizes the message and is reminded of their comparative lack of power.
B. INSTRUCTIONAL GUIDES FOR ADMINISTRATIONS ABOUT CAMPUS SECURITY
1. “Addressing the Challenges of Campus Security”
As I previously stated, there has been little written on campus security and it is unlikely that what little has been written is actually being used by administrators. However, there have been a few reports with recommendations for improving security since September 11th, most notably this report by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities.
The report claims that “no campus, from those located in large urban settings to institutions nestled in small rural environments, is immune to being a potential target of domestic or international terrorism.” The report recommends a variety of methods of increasing safety:
- increase surveillance of students
- review crisis communication plans with “parents and stakeholders”
- “increase administrative inspections of persons and their possessions entering critical facilities”
- monitor food preparation facilities to avoid contamination of food with ricin and other poisonous substances (The report also indicates that universities should be wary of allowing international students and immigrants to work in these areas.)
- train campus police to “recognize vulnerable spots for potential targets”
- train campus police to “be aware of known terrorists and individuals listed on national criminal files”
- establish partnerships with local FBI offices and regional Joint Terrorism Task Forces
- invite terrorism and crime experts to campus to “help them become familiar with the institution, its leadership, and the complexity of its operations”
- “establish a management team responsible for directing the implementation of a campus emergency operations plan”
- “assign campus security officers as liaisons with international student groups”
- “establish a single point of access for each critical facility and institute 100% ID checks”
- implement a campus-wide “emergency alert and communication system” that all students, faculty, and visitors should be familiarized with
I will use these and other recommendations in the report as the starting point for a checklist for comparisons across universities. If I find that universities have implemented these types of changes, I will also analyze the likely effectiveness of each of these security measures on those campuses in fighting terrorism.
2. “UCS Campus Safety Measures”
This report by the Office of Domestic Preparedness lists many of the same policy recommendations, with some additional ones which will also become part of my checklist of security changes:
- conduct a school-wide risk assessment inventory
- “educate students faculty, and staff on what constitutes physical and/or behavioral indicators of 'out of the ordinary' and what steps to take to notify authorities”
- “review policies and procedures for unattended items . . . and educate students, faculty, staff, and visitors on expectations”
3. “911! A Manual for Schools and the Media during a Campus Crisis”
A similar guide was written by the California Schools Boards Association. However, it is not readily available to the public. It claims to discuss the following topics: the importance of a plan for crisis situations, needs of schools, who to include in “crisis communication plans,” what to do in a crisis situation, and the “role of law enforcement.” It is not clear why this manual is not available to the public, but I will try to obtain a copy of it for my research if possible.
C. COLLEGE GOVERNANCE
The fact the so little has been written about campus security implies that much of the decision making happens on a school-by-school basis. A discussion with MIT campus police confirms this, at least for MIT: in general, policy changes at MIT are a result of individual administrators or police officers instead of a formal decision-making procedure. Alternatively, a task force which often includes no crime experts is created to look at campus security and its recommendations are implemented without questioning their usefulness. (This may frequently have unintended consequences. For example, a school administrator might want to increase drug testing on campus and end up on a task force for increasing security after September 11th. Even though the drug testing has nothing to do with terrorism the administrator’s personal wishes may be implemented as a “response to terrorism.”
This begs the question, Is this decentralized and often flawed policy making process (I don't think you've actually shown that it's flawed) used for university administration in general or just in cases of security? If this is only the case for security, why? If it is true in general, what can be said about this random decision making process?
1. “Governance in the 21st Century University: Approaches to Effective Leadership and Strategic Management”
College Governance, according to this report, “refers to the structure and process of authoritative decision making across issues that are significant for external and internal stakeholders within a university” (Gayle et al. 1). This report outlines a practical approach to governance and management. First, it outlines problems which commonly arise in university governance, such as “too many constituencies,” “conflicting agendas” and “differing philosophies, traditions, and differences in perspectives among stakeholder” (Gayle et al). In terms of campus security, this might involve differing views of parents and students with regards to safety or between faculty and administrations.
Then, it outlines governance-related issues which are encountered in various forms and can be resolved through the decision making process it outlines. These include various forms of technology, resource allocation, etc (Gayle et al 3).
Finally, the paper makes suggestions for how a university might prioritize for decision making in order to deal with these conflicts:
In this model, other inputs, processes, outputs, and outcomes are all mediated by stakeholders’ attitudes, values, and expectations. [. . .] Presidents, senior administrators, faculty, trustees, students, and alumni should function as leaders sharing a mostly consensual understanding of the policy environment and working together to implement goals (Gayle 3).
Unfortunately, this is as detailed as this paper gets. Many other reports are similar: they present vague, theoretical statements and do not go into detail about how to apply the information.
2. “Policy Making, Strategic Planning, and Management of Higher Education”
This extremely detailed handbook for educators outlines different methods of university governance. It explains exactly how to make policies and how to manage a school administration. It provides an understanding of how policy changes are thought to be ideally made and provides a useful comparison for how security policy is actually made (which in practice seem to be more random). This guide suggests that for security, for example, a decision might be made in the following manner: A group of administrators in a low-level group would propose a solution to a security risk which one member noted in a written document. Then, a representative of that group would present the document to the higher-level group, and if the document was approved at that level by a vote, it would be sent to the campus police for analysis. Then, if an appointed member of the campus police force determined it would be a good policy, the proposal would be implemented.
I have not been able to find any studies on how policies are actually made in the realm of security policy. I will have to rely on interviews with administrators, police officers, and security guards to determine how policies are made in practice in general. If I find that security policy is not made systematically (such as by the methods outlined in this guide) I will try to determine how policies are made in general at that university for comparison.
C. STUDIES OF SOCIAL MESSAGES ON STUDENTS
1. “Schoolchildren in Wartime”
J. Louise Despert argues that in wartime, the school becomes even more essential for students not only as a place for education but for “moral build[ing]” (Despert 229). Despert implies that it is not specifically wartime but times of national distress in general that lead to this.
The period since the September 11th terrorist attacks would certainly qualify as a time of national distress for most American students. Consequently, Despert’s argument implies that we can place even more importance on students’ perceptions (conscious or otherwise) of increased security on campus. Unfortunately, Despert researched only young children in this paper. However, it seems intuitively that there can be some generalizations made about a human need for stability and reassurance during difficult times. If students look to the university for this moral guidance and are faced with locked doors and messages about fear, they will internalize these even more than usually during this time of need.
“Scholastic Dishonesty Among Undergraduates in Differing Systems of Social Control”
“Scholastic Dishonesty” demonstrates further effects of various forms of “social control” on universities. This paper explains how universities with varying amounts of “social control” measured in numerous ways affects levels of “scholastic dishonesty.” Scholastic dishonesty includes cheating on tests, lying about absences, etc. The data illustrates that “situational characteristics – or properties of collectivities – are more closely associated with [. . .] scholastic dishonesty than personal background characteristics – properties of members” (Bonjean et al 132).
This research further implicates unnecessary or redundant security measures, a prominent type of social control. If social controls increase levels of cheating, not only do they cause unnecessary and disconcerting levels of fear, they are actually counterproductive to the primary purposes of the university (Bonjean et al 136).
1. American National Security and Civil Liberties
Edward Sharkey, Jr. and Kendra Stewart summarize state-by-state structural responses to September 11th (Sharkey 133). These include creation of new organizations to respond to threats and emergencies, electronic surveillance legislation, open record and meeting restrictions, driver’s license requirements, encouraging patriotism, and others. Sharkey and Stewart create tables and charts which emphasize differences and similarities across states to the national threat of terrorism.
In my research, I will compile a similar checklist of common policy changes and outline the differences and similarities across universities. These may include, but are not limited to, requiring card readers for building access, adding emergency phones, increasing electronic surveillance, and requiring students to carry a school ID card at all times.
Sharkey and Stewart analyzed policy handbooks and reports for each state to compare policies. Unfortunately, many schools do not actually create policy for many of the changes on their campuses. The decisions to lock another door at night, for example, are often spontaneous and not made by a centralized governing body. Therefore, Sharkey and Stewart’s methods will work to a lesser extent for my research, and I must rely largely on interviewing for the rest of the information.
2. Theory and Concepts in Qualitative Research
This text about qualitative research methods in the social sciences deals specifically with drawing from case studies of universities to create a framework for looking at the university as a community. Mills gives suggestions and warnings of problems with interviewing teachers, principals, and superintendents. Mills also presents useful information about avoiding bias in interviewing. For example, Mills suggests trying to do as much interviewing as possible through surveys beforehand. This will reduce bias from the mood of the experimenter or leading the interviewee towards answers which are more helpful or in line with the wishes of the experimenter (Mills 95). Thus, I will begin my research by giving surveys to potential interviewees to obtain initial data and try to determine some patterns.
Then, he explains how to use this qualitative information to create a theory: “an analytical and interpretive framework that helps the researcher make sense of ‘what’s going on’ in the social setting being studied” (Mills 103).
To conduct my research, I will rely primarily on qualitative data gathered by interviewing administrators, police officers, security guards, and students as well as looking at policy handbooks created by universities on safety. “Levels of Abstraction” will be useful as a guide for compiling this scattered qualitative data and using it to create a comprehensive theory about how universities have made policy changes to security since September 11th.
3. Comparative Methods in Sociology
This textbook explains in great depth a variety of areas of comparative sociology. Since I will be primarily concerned with comparing responses to terrorism across the nation, I will use the methods outlined in this book. Comparative Methods presents a detailed look at credibility in cross-national survey research which will help me focus on choosing appropriate cases to study. Also, a discussion of lag time in “empirical comparisons of social structure” will shed light on the time it takes for policies to be adapted in response to an event (Vallier 310). In this case, it is vital to consider the fact that many anti-terrorist policies have not yet been fully implemented. For example, many of the changes that occurred on MIT’s campus did not occur until 2003. However, they can still be traced directly to the September 11th attacks. If I were to assume that events had no lag time before their effects took place, I would not be able to connect something that occurred in 2003 with an event in 2001. This text will help me account for this.
This book explains calculations that can be made to determine how to account for lag times after events. Since the disconnect between the theory and practice in the area of campus security seems so great, it will be helpful to have a guide in bridging this gap.
4. “Using Interviews in a Research Project”
This guide explains several very useful aspects of taking interviewing and turning them in to theories. For example, the discussion of face-to-face interviews versus phone interviews versus written interviews convinced me that face-to-face interviews would be necessary for this project because of the likely need for clarification and the length of the interviews (Mathers 3-4). This guide also gives helpful information about confidentiality and anonymity (4). Because of the sensitive nature of security on some campuses post-September 11th, I may encounter administrators who are unwilling to speak unless they are anonymous. It also gives other practical details, such as how to obtain agreement for the study, record details, establishing rapport, etc (5).
Then, “Using Interviews” outlines methods for transferring interviews into qualitative data. It takes the reader through the process of identifying major concepts which arise in the interviews and performing “content analysis” (Mathers 17). This guide suggests very specific, detailed advice for how to analyze interviews.
F. CONCLUSIONS FROM LITERATURE REVIEW
I have reviewed literature on sociology of fear, studies of social controls and crisis situations on students, policy making in universities, campus security, and college governance. I have also looked at methodologies for social science interviews as well as a study which uses methodology similar to what I will be using. There is extensive literature on changes in security policy in society as a whole since September 11th. I will rely on some of that literature for methodology.
I have also found that there is little research on campus security policy. This indicates that many of the policies enacted are unplanned and probably not very well-thought out (-ation odd). This will probably result in a greater variation across universities in security so it will make the comparative study more interesting but perhaps more difficult
II. Research Design
In order to demonstrate the effects of September 11th-related security policy changes for each college or university, I must show the following:
1. Prior to September 11th (perhaps for five years prior), crime levels at that school remained relatively constant or decreased. This, combined with the school's policy statements, ensures that increased security is in fact a response to the September 11th attacks and not due to a direct response to increasing crime on campus.
2. Levels of security prior to September 11th (perhaps for five years prior) should have remained relatively constant, decreased, or increased at a slower rate than after September 11th. This means that increasing levels of security post-September 11th are due to September 11th and not simply part of a larger trend at that university to increase security.
3. The college or university has increased crime-prevention measures since September 2001, professedly in direct response to the September 11th attacks. To do this, I will look for policy statements for each school that has recently increased its security that reference the September 11th attacks, conduct interviews with the community, and survey the campus.
I will begin by randomly choosing about 25 colleges and universities for which criteria 1 and 2 apply. I will categorize the schools to ensure that I have a wide distribution of colleges and universities. For example, these categories will include rural/urban/suburban, size of school, public/private, religious/nonreligious, etc.
Next, I will begin by comparing official statements made by these schools after September 11th where applicable. I will look in official statements for each school for the following:
- an announcement of a new task force on security
- announcements of new specific security measures such as duct tape, card readers which track students, surveillance cameras, etc
- warnings to students about how to protect themselves from a terrorist attack
- changes in reporting of campus security information
- changes in spending per year on security
Then, I will interview college administrators, students, campus police, and faculty and staff to determine what perceptions of security changes are. I will especially focus on talking to those who have been on campus since before September 2001. Before I begin the interview process, I will ask each potential interviewee to complete a survey. The survey will include a checklist of potential security increases, such as locked doors, surveillance cameras, etc. This will help the interviewee recall what kinds of security changes s/he has noticed, help me identify who to interview, and provide some initial findings. Based on the responses to the survey, I will ask the interviewee about his/her perceptions of security changes on campus and security in general. Across the interviews for a school, I will look for common statements which reference security increases, both those on my checklist and others. Here, I will use the methods outlined in “Using Interviews in a Research Project.”
For example, one step in understanding MIT’s security through interviews might go as follows: Student A writes on her survey that she has noticed that card readers have been installed in the entrances to her dormitory. When I receive this response, I contact MIT’s administration to ask how and why the card readers were put in. Administrator X informs me that he is on Committee Q which decided that card readers should be installed after seeing a focus group report which shows that parents feel safer when their children live in dormitories with card readers. Committee Q voted and decided to implement card readers. They were put in the following year.
As I trace the path backwards through the decision-making process that took place, I will both understand how security changes are made and what factors are motivating these changes.
B. Understanding College Governance in Security Policy
As I gather my research, I hope to gain an understanding of how security policy is made on the college campus. There is a wide range of reasons why an administrator or group of administrators might implement a particular policy.
If Despert’s conclusions about students looking to their school for moral guidance during times of national crisis hold for university students, this calls into question the motivations for increasing security on the campus even if it will have no direct impact on preventing terrorism. There are many potential reasons that administrators might increase security post-September 11th, some of which are reasonable and some of which are not. If Despert is correct, perhaps administrators recognize that stockpiling duct tape will not prevent terrorism but feel that it will make students feel more secure. Alternatively, if Foucault is correct the changes are likely motivated by scared administrators trying to assert power over their surroundings. Jonathan Simon might say that increased security is primarily a show for parents who have been influenced by the “tough on crime” movement and are unrealistically fearful. Or perhaps administrators are acting in accordance with what they perceive as a rational response to the terrorist threat. I would hypothesize that the reality is a combination of the above. In any case, through interviews with administrators and campus police officers, I hope to gain some understanding of how these decisions are made and what motivates them.
C. Other Patterns to Look for
In addition to showing that security has increased across the nation for different categories of school, there are other potentially important patterns to consider. For example, there might be a large difference between public and private institutions. (Public university administrators may need to respond more to public officials, which could lead them to increase security more.) Additionally, urban universities have probably increased their security more than rural universities. I will also consider differences between schools with varying percentages of international students. Perhaps schools with more international students are more concerned about security and have raised their security more. Or perhaps they are more sensitive to the needs of international students and so they have increased security less.
D. Potential Problems or Challenges
It will be difficult to obtain consistent data regarding actual security measures on campuses. This is largely due to the fact that actual security measures are often very different from intended security measures. Also, September 11th increased awareness of security measures. For example, security measures that were officially enacted after September 11th were often unofficially observed prior to September 11th. (For example, there may have been an emergency telephone in view from any location on campus prior to a policy change, but the policy change institutionalized it as a rule.) But since it is the attitude towards security and not the actual security that I am studying, the official policies and awareness of security are in fact a large part what I am interested in.
I will also need to be careful that there is no bias in my interviewing. This is difficult and maybe impossible to do entirely, but I will have to use the methods outlined in Mills to determine how to avoid major bias errors.
It will be very difficult to compare security measures across schools. Some security measures are very school-specific (such as buying duct tape at NYU), so I cannot simply rely on my checklist of possible security measures and determine which are used at each school. (This might cause me to leave out some findings if that do not fit into the checklist.)
I have to be very careful to pick which universities to use in order to be able to generalize for all universities across the United States. I will choose about 25 diverse universities by random sample (see above).
To some degree, I am considering the university as a microcosm of American society. This may be somewhat faulty in part because of the potential "in loco parentis" role that universities have which is less true of the state. (This greater legal responsibility by a university administration may lead to a higher rate of security concerns.) However, this probably does not have a very large effect, and universities are not isolated from outside trends. At worst, looking at an exaggerated example will prove useful in highlighting one area of society which is influenced by American perceptions of fear. On the other hand, universities probably have probably been affected less than public offices by September 11th. Regardless, universities are very influential in society, both due to their symbolic importance as learning institutions and the students and research they produce. Even if the study is not generalizable outside of the university it still provides important and useful information.
September 11th has had an extensive sociological effect on communities within the United States, much of which has been largely ignored by US citizens. Many of these changes are subtle and cause only minor specific policy changes. However, it is well-established in sociology that perceptions of security can have surprising and long-lasting effects that ripple through society. At the very least, security policies should be studied and carefully scrutinized over the next several years. President Vest noted in his letter to the MIT community after September 11th, "in all of this, we are keenly aware of the need to achieve an appropriate balance among the needs for physical security, the openness of our environment and academic culture, and the well being of our diverse community. It is absolutely vital to the community that we are conscious of this balance and do not sacrifice openness while reinforcing a cycle of fear.”
It is especially important that Americans are aware of the tendency to become too scared of terrorism and crime and react in an unreasonable manner. Reponses to terrorism and crime should be proportional to the risk and should result from genuine rational concerns, not fear. This includes being able to admit when security is out of the hands of the community and therefore the community must react with inaction. We must study the long term changes that are occurring in society as a response to crime and terrorism carefully and systematically so that we are conscious of these changes.
Bonjean, Charles M., and Reece McGee. "Scholastic Dishonesty Among Undergraduates in Differing Systems of Social Control." Sociology of Education 38.2 (1965): 127-137.
Despert, J. Louise. “School Children in Wartime.” Journal of Educational Sociology 16.4 (1942): 219-230.
Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish. New York: Vintage, 1977.
Gayle, Dennis John, Bhoendradatt Tewarie, and A. Quinton White, Jr. Governance in the 21st Century University: Approaches to Effective Leadership and Strategic Management. Washington: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, 2003.
Mathers, Nigel, Nick Fox, and Amanda Hunn. “Using Interviews in a Research Project.” Trent Focus Group, Co. 1998.
Mills, Geoffrey E. "Levels of Abstraction in a Case Study of Educational Change." Theory and Concepts in Qualitative Research. Ed. . New York: Teachers College Press, 1993. 90-123.
Roiphe, Katie. The Morning After: Sex, Fear, and Feminism on Campus. New York: Little Brown and Co., 1994.
Sharkey, Edward R. "Terrorism, Security, and Civil Liberties." American National Security and Civil Liberties in an Era of Terrorism. Ed. John W. Wells. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. 127-145.
Simon, Jonathan. Governing Through Crime. Miami: University of Miami Press, 2004.
Vallier, Ivan. Comparative Methods in Sociology; Essays on Trends and Applications. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971.