Data can be a powerful tool for transformation in higher education, but only if institutions stop treating it as a compliance tool and start using it to drive strategic decision making. Many colleges still fall into the trap of seeing data as punitive, limiting its potential to fuel innovation and collaboration. In this interview, Yolanda Watson Spiva discusses the importance of reframing data use and why democratizing access to data is essential for meaningful student success initiatives.
The EvoLLLution (Evo): How should institutional leaders reframe their approach to data if their goal is transformational change in student outcomes?
Yolanda Watson Spiva (YWS): One of the first things institutional leaders need to do is ensure data is central to the conversation, not something peripheral or an afterthought. We often talk about putting students at the center, but we don’t begin with the data that actually tells us where to start or how to best allocate our resources. Data should be foundational, not supplemental.
Another critical shift is how we frame data. Too often, it’s discussed in a punitive context. You’re either hitting the mark or you’re not, and if you’re not there’s fear of consequences. That kind of binary thinking discourages openness and learning. Instead, we should approach data with curiosity rather than judgment. Collect it? Yes. Disaggregate it? Absolutely, but evaluate it in a way that allows for nuance. It’s not just good or bad, pass or fail. It’s a spectrum. Understanding the full context of what data tells us allows us to respond in more meaningful and effective ways.
Finally, we need to democratize access to data. Data is often held by a select few usually at the top, which limits its usefulness across the institution. Everyone working on behalf of students should have access to the insights that can help guide their efforts. When data is accessible and shared, it becomes a powerful tool for collaboration, innovation and ultimately transformation in student outcomes.
Evo: What mindset shifts are most essential for colleges and universities to fully leverage the power of their student success metrics?
YWS: Data is powerful, but it shouldn’t be used as a tool for power. Those who control the data usually control the narrative, using it to drive compliance rather than transformation. That’s not the goal. Data should be seen as valuable for raising and answering questions, but that’s not the whole story. Context matters. We need to ask ourselves under what circumstances we achieved these outcomes. Who were the students? What resources did we have or lack?
Understanding how we reached certain outcomes helps refine goals and inform future strategies, but we also have to give ourselves grace. If the goal is 50%, hitting 48% is not failure. It’s progress. Still, accountability matters. If things could have been done better, that needs to be named and addressed.
Another mindset shift is letting go of the need to boil the ocean. Trying to do everything at once often leads to doing nothing well. Instead, set three to five targeted, high-leverage goals for a term or academic year. Focus drives progress.
Finally, we must recognize the difference between leading and lagging indicators. Not all metrics yield immediate feedback. Some outcomes take time and patience to surface. Change takes time, as does meaningful data.
Evo: What does a data-informed institution look like at its best, from culture to leadership to operation?
YWS: In a truly data-informed institution, data is embedded in every part of the culture, from leadership to daily operations. Everyone, from the president to advisors and faculty, understands data’s role and uses it as a natural part of their work. It’s expected and ever-present. Data isn’t an isolated function. It’s ubiquitous.
Access matters, too. A strong data culture includes democratized access with centralized repositories that allow the right people to access the right data. Of course, some information like salary data might be restricted, but the overall goal is to empower people to use data to inform their work.
I also lean into the RACI model: Who’s Responsible, Accountable, Consulted and Informed? That structure helps ensure clarity around data handling and usage. It’s not just about storage. It’s about distribution. Data shouldn’t sit in a silo waiting to be pulled. It needs to be shared regularly—weekly, per term or at whatever cadence supports timely decision making.
And finally, in a healthy data culture, data is the beginning of the conversation, not the end. It should spark inquiry, debate and reflection. It’s a tool to help us ask better questions and evolve our practices. It must be fluid, iterative and widely engaged with—something people pull apart, interrogate and build upon to drive ongoing student success.
Evo: What are the risks of institutions continuing to treat data as a reporting function rather than using it as a strategic asset?
YWS: When data is treated solely as a reporting function, it creates fear. People begin to see it like a bad grade—something to hide. If reporting poor outcomes leads to blame or punishment, folks will hesitate to engage with data honestly. It becomes transactional: data in, feedback out, and there’s a penalty if it’s negative. That mindset discourages transparency and growth.
It can also lead to disengagement. If data are just submitted to meet a deadline and disappears into a system with no follow-up, it gets ignored. People assume no one’s really reviewing it. As the saying goes, you have to inspect what you expect. Without visible, meaningful use of the data—like integrating it into staff meetings or strategy sessions—it loses its value.
Ultimately, one of the biggest risks is missed opportunity. When people don’t know how data will be used or bring past negative experiences to the table, they shut down. But when they use it thoughtfully, data becomes a storytelling tool. It can illuminate where we are, where we’re headed and how we can improve. It’s not about punishment. It’s about creating a new, better narrative.
Evo: How can higher ed reconcile that tension between accountability and the ability to innovate when it comes to student success data?
YWS: I don’t see accountability and innovation as being in conflict. They can and should coexist. In fact, accountability often drives innovation. When data shows we’re falling short, it pushes us to rethink our approach and try something new. That’s a powerful motivator for change.
At the same time, data can reveal when innovation isn’t landing. Maybe we introduced evening or Saturday classes, but students aren’t enrolling. That’s feedback. Whether it’s qualitative or quantitative, it tells us that this particular innovation isn’t meeting the need.
Ultimately, accountability helps us stay grounded, while innovation helps us move forward. Data keeps us honest and nimble, helping us decide when to pivot, iterate or double down. If we want true transformation in student outcomes, we must embrace both and use data to guide the balance between the two.
Evo: Is there anything you’d like to add?
YWS: I just want to mention the importance of pairing data with proven best practices. Sometimes data is used to justify flashy or whimsical ideas, but it won’t drive meaningful change if it’s not grounded in what’s been shown to work. When we combine strong data with evidence-based strategies, institutions can truly be transformational in advancing student success.
You Might Also Like
