Yea,Nay, and Everything in Between: Disparities within the Academic Ombuds Field

Few colleges and universities have chosen to establish ombuds offices, and the profession itself has remained relatively obscure. Although organizations have established different types of ombuds offices, the International Ombudsman Association (IOA) defines an organizational ombuds office as a neutral, informal, independent, and confidential office that allays and prevents conflict within the organization and brings systemic concerns to the attention of the organization for resolution. Ombuds office professionals work with individuals to inform them of their options and help them express their concerns in challenging conflict situations. But they also work at the systemic level to alert leaders to important institutional trends and patterns that they would be less likely to perceive on their own. In this article, I examine several stark discrepancies within the academic ombuds profession that may contribute to the relative invisibility of the field itself. While organizational ombudspeople who belong to the IOA unite under the IOA's standards of practice in theory, in practice they diverge in several areas, including the nature of their positions, hiring practices, the level of informality in their practice, their degree of isolation or integration within their institutions, how they cultivate relationships on campus, and how essential they consider ombuds offices to be for the effective functioning of the university. They often also fundamentally disagree about such areas as:

• ? the terminology that defines the job — practitioners disagree about the usefulness of the terms “ombuds” and “ombudspeople,” for example;
• ? the role of neutrality and the challenge of maintaining it;
• ? the value of IOA certification;
• ? the most appropriate methods for evaluating the effectiveness of an ombuds office; and
• ? how ombuds make recommendations for institutional improvement.

The ombuds profession in general — and academic ombuds professionals in particular — need not necessarily resolve all practice discrepancies in order to thrive, but I argue that open acknowledgement of existing discrepancies can help the profession more effectively promote itself and present a more consistent image to the world.