Search

This essay draws on the author's experiences in the Faculty Senate at Pennsylvania State University and cochairing a committee on COVID-19 and shared governance for the American Association of University Professors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The International Commission on the Development of Education set up by UNESCO in 1971 was chaired by Edgar Faure. The conceptualisation of a new social contract in his work between the 1960s and 1970s had a strong influence on the final report prepared by this commission. Published in 1972, Learning to be: The world of education today and tomorrow is commonly known as the Faure report. Although not explicitly mentioned in the report, the idea of a new social contract provided a political framework for re-establishing the particular relationship between education and society, based on a strong belief in an educational democracy which considered citizens as real agents of change. Fifty years after the publication of the Faure report, another report commissioned by UNESCO, on the Futures of Education, has taken up the idea of the social contract, conceiving it as a means to transform education to harness greater cooperation towards more sustainable futures. However, while the understanding of the social contract elaborated by Faure translated into a clear vision of the emancipatory function of education for the fulfilment of individuals within democratic societies, the political discussion on the relationship among the institutions that should govern the new social contract for education presented in the Futures of Education report appears less explicit. This article discusses the extent to which the principles underpinning the new social contract for education, especially the notion of education as a common good, provide the political framing of a new social contract for education. It examines the relevance of the political discussion of the relationship between education and society elaborated in the Faure report fifty years ago with regard to the formulation of a new social contract for education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reports on a study in which the legitimisation of shared governance in the Chinese higher education sector was investigated. Norman Fairclough's three‐level discourse analysis was used for analysing documents and interviews. The research materials consist of thirteen Chinese university statutes and qualitative semi‐structured interviews with 22 university administrators, faculty members, students and social representatives. The research focused on how university statute texts articulate shared governance, and how shared governance is practically implemented. Study findings demonstrate that Chinese university statute discourses officially legitimise shared governance in various manifestations, by replacing the term management with the term governance in statute texts, explicitly using democracy‐related phrases, especially establishing a joint meeting mechanism at both institutional and departmental levels, and by using the wording multiple‐stakeholder participation in university affairs. In practice, shared governance is a recognised ideal of governance structures to embrace among all different stakeholders. Chinese universities have, more than ever before, taken up shared governance practices. Yet, the degree of participation, or sharing, in policy implementation in general, remains to be further improved compared with the ideal state stipulated in discourses. Findings identify tokenism as a feature of policy implementation. Insufficient administrative professionalism is identified as a catalyst for such tokenism—a reason for why shared governance efforts remain incomplete thus far. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the Long Range Development Plan and Campus Master Plan initiative of the University of California, Berkeley, to update planning documents. The institution practices shared governance and effective community participation, which was critical to the success of the planning effort for Berkeley. It mentions the project background, including governance structure, engagement goals, and strategies for campus planning.

Existing research notes that Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) are bastions of Black culture where Black students often feel supported (e.g., Harris in The Urban Review, 44(3), 332–357, 2012). What is less well-known are the specific practices campus stakeholders enact to create culturally-affirming environments. This study addresses this gap in the literature by examining pedagogy and educational practices employed by HBCU administrators and faculty members that build upon the lived experiences of Black communities to help to promote Black students' success. In doing so, we seek to better understand the strategies these individuals utilize to center Blackness via culturally-informed practices and culturally engaging environments that affirm Black students' racial identities. Our findings highlight the following ways that HBCU administrators and faculty members embrace Black cultural affirmation: their emphasis on culturally relevant knowledge and culturally-informed pedagogy that centers Black experiences; and their commitment to Black cultural validation via connecting with Black communities and Black students' backgrounds. This research extends current scholarship on educational practices and environments with a focus on Black students' racial identity. The authors provide implications for culturally-affirming pedagogy and campus climates that can benefit institutions seeking to create inclusive educational spaces where students from various backgrounds do not have to feel divorced from key aspects of their cultural heritage. Recommendations for practice, research and policy are also discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Universities were forced to move instruction online and send residential students home due to the pandemic, resulting in financial shortfalls. Governing boards, administrators, and governments made decisions including eliminating faculty and staff, and programs yet these decisions were rarely inclusive of university stakeholders or innovative. This study's purpose is to examine and compare viewpoints of stakeholders in relation to addressing the financial impact of the pandemic in hopes of capturing innovative and effective pathways for universities. Because the purpose involved describing and comparing these viewpoints, the researcher selected a unique mixed method, Q methodology [Q] for this study. In Q, participants sort statements related to the topic into a grid such that their Q-sort provides a snapshot of their subjectivity. Participants' sorts are grouped empirically into factors, each representing unique viewpoints. Three distinct viewpoints emerged: 1) Focus on teaching mission and students, 2) University as a business, and 3) University as community. Views 1 and 3 were dominated by university faculty while View 2 was dominated by non-faculty including administrators and staff. Q's determination of distinguishing statements within each view provides the ability to compare these views' uniqueness. The three views and consensus among the views represent rejection of decisions to lay off faculty or close programs, among others, in order to balance university finances. The importance of tenured faculty in relationship to shared governance and academic freedom is especially stressed by two of the viewpoints. Implications for higher education policy, innovation, democratic problem-solving, and governance are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The academic ideal of shared governance requires significant participation of faculty in the decision-making and service aspects of a university. This is especially true at the department level, where a relatively small number of faculty must work together and contribute to the mission. As a result, one of the more challenging roles for department chairs is dealing with disruptive faculty. This article is designed to provide some insight on this challenge within the frame of managing difficult conversations. The authors begin with a presentation of motives and biases from the perspective of both the chair and the faculty. Efforts to build diversity and inclusion are then used to illustrate the process of managing faculty and building consensus. Finally, aspects of negotiation that might be applied to these relationships are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Shared governance is a decentralized structural model that gives individuals the right to make decisions and a position analogous to managers. The shared governance is different based on context in every organization. This study identified the characteristics of shared governance in Iranian nursing schools. Materials and Methods: In this qualitative research, 11 participants were selected using purposive sampling method. Deep semi-structured interviews were conducted, and the data were analyzed using conventional content analysis. Lincoln and Guba's criteria were used to verify the accuracy and trustworthiness of the data. Results: Through data analysis, the theme of "several souls in one body" was achieved in addition to the seven categories of "climates based on common interests," "conscious participatory decision-making," "mutual accountability," "multiplicity of ideas," "decentralized structure," "interrelationship," and "sublime organization." Conclusions: According to the findings, the characteristics of shared governance in the social culture of Iran are like several souls in one body, emphasizing all aspects of participation and morality in the organization. Managers and administrators in higher education and nursing faculties need to pay attention to all aspects of shared governance, including spirituality in managing the covered institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Leadership of public universities has come under fire—from scandals, from funding, from students, from every direction. Top‐down leadership of institutions of higher education has been described as a “disease.” Shared governance—a mechanism of faculty representation in the leadership and decision‐making processes—a seeming alternative, has been described as “a recipe for paralysis.” In this article, the authors proffer shared leadership as a potential elixir for leading public institutions of higher learning, unleashing creative potential, focusing on pressing strategic imperatives, and enabling sustainable systems that leverage true talent to maximum effect. It is time to move beyond the moribund myth of top‐down heroic leadership and beyond the bureaucratic, political quagmire of the current state of affairs in shared governance. Is shared leadership the answer? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this article is to explore the effects of the Institutional Forum, a governance innovation legislated in South Africa in 1997, as a mechanism that would contribute toward the democratisation of university governance. Forums were established to confront the legacy of structured disadvantage and to reorient the educational experience towards greater horizontal accountability. The article provides commentary on the Forum's impact vis-àvis participative ethos and deliberative democracy against the backdrop of the South African government's post-apartheid commitments. Findings reveal challenges in the Forum's make-up and implementation that are linked to its degree of influence. Ultimately, the conclusions convey perspectives on role ambiguity and conflictual power dynamics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information related to academic freedom and employment in higher education in the U.S., highlighting the concept of shared governance" at the public community colleges in the country. It discusses the unique challenges facing public community colleges and the appropriately shared responsibility and cooperative action among the components of the academic institution

Higher education is in a period of dramatic transformation as a result of changes in the U.S.A. and disruptive technologies. Institutions must swiftly respond to those changes, but if decisions are not made collaboratively, then institutions risk losing one of their greatest assets: faculty members’ insight and expertise. Tenure, academic freedom, and shared governance have promoted faculty voice and benefited universities for decades. Specifically, tenure and shared governance help universities draw on the ideas, interests, and expertise of faculty to meet institutional goals and face external challenges. It is in institutions’ best interests to formally protect and informally promote faculty voice by formally protecting tenure and shared governance. This should reduce turnover, increase productivity, and help institutions respond to broader changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Shared governance is a structural model for framing professional practice within an organizational format. After 25 years of research and development, basic principles that undergird the appropriate and sustaining structures of shared governance have become well established. Understanding, translating, and applying these principles will help those implementing nursing shared governance to build a strong professional structure, which can serve as a framework for constructing and expressing professional practices, processes, and relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Non-tenure track faculty members (NTTF) constitute what has been referred to by scholars as the new faculty majority. The growing numbers of NTTF have led to debates about the role they should play in shared governance. Currently, however, an overall lack of empirical knowledge exists regarding the status of their involvement in institutional governance. Using data from highest research activity doctoral universities, this study investigated current standards related to NTTF eligibility for election to institution-wide faculty senates. We also explored what these faculty governance standards and criteria reveal about the status and position of NTTF within the professoriate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study seeks to deepen understanding of faculty leaders’ perceptions of the concept of shared governance. Moving beyond descriptive considerations of faculty perceptions of efficacy of good or bad governance and the discourse focused on declining faculty involvement and conflict paradigms, I consider governance a co-constructed sociopolitical phenomenon in a neoliberal environment. Method: Qualitative analysis of interviews with 27 faculty from nine community colleges in five states was deconstructed to uncover common themes and understandings. Results: Themes of the importance of the faculty voice, trust and transparency, apathy and disengagement emerged. The findings support recent research which suggests that social and cultural aspects of soft governance are key variables in how faculty conceptualize shared governance. Contributions: The study addresses a gap in the literature in understanding how faculty conceptualize shared governance, and supports findings of recent research that suggest the importance of communication and trust in governance. In addition, the study suggests the need for further research in understanding how faculty are socialized into governance roles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the relationship between shared governance and one school district's (in)ability to advance educational equity. Specifically, we consider the district's policies, discourse, and practice around equity within the context of site-based management and shared decision making. We suggest that if equity is indeed a major district responsibility, then it seems inconsistent to leave equity at the mercy of shared governance and occasional externally-imposed mandates because most individual school leaders and educators are not currently taking up this agenda or implementing changes that would result in equitable education. Thus, our work suggests that progress toward educational equity may best be achieved through top-down, directive leadership in districts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Collective bargaining has combined with norms of academic freedom, shared governance, and administrative imperatives to provide favorable and secure conditions of employment for full-time, non-tenure- track faculty at the University of Delaware from the early 1990s to the present. This essay analyzes relations among union activists; full-time, non-tenure- track faculty; faculty senate leaders; and administrators in developing policies and procedures that define the working conditions of non-tenure-track faculty, and it describes key events that resulted in these policies. The interplay of union powers, academic freedom principles, professional norms in the faculty senate, and actions by administrators combined to establish policies that provide significant academic freedom protections and employment security for full-time, non-tenure track faculty members. The policies resulted from faculty members exercising academic freedom and contributed to the expansion of academic freedom, especially for full-time, non-tenure track faculty members. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The promulgation by the US Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights of new and sometimes confusing Title IX guidance directing college and university efforts to combat sex discrimination in the form of sexual harassment, combined with institutional policy making in the absence of shared governance, has produced campus outcomes that threaten the academic freedom of faculty in teaching, scholarship, and extramural utterances. In cooperation with faculty, better policy can be crafted that will provide necessary protections for due process and tenure, which in turn will help restore a more robust level of academic freedom on campuses where it has been threatened. A model process and model policy demonstrate how to achieve these goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I hear the frustration and the desire for change at Oberlin contained in the document which echoes national themes and concerns about racism and justice. Oberlin College and Conservatory are deeply committed to addressing these concerns, and to ensuring an inclusive and equitable educational experience for our students. We have already taken important steps on many fronts. But we are not where we want to be. So we must commit ourselves to deep study of how systemic barriers persist at Oberlin despite all the substantial efforts being made by our faculty, staff, students, trustees, alumni, parents, and fellow citizens of our town, and to act based on what we learn. I invite everyone to join us in this work. Some of the challenges outlined in the document resonate with me and many members of our community, including our trustees. However, some of the solutions it proposes are deeply troubling. I will not respond directly to any document that explicitly rejects the notion of collaborative engagement. Many of its demands contravene principles of shared governance. And it contains personal attacks on a number of faculty and staff members who are dedicated and valued members of this community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Shared governance in higher education is a critical component of academic management. The use of faculty senates is the primary mechanism for engaging faculty, yet these bodies have been increasingly viewed as ineffective. Through an analysis of ten purposefully selected universities, faculty senate meeting minutes were analyzed to identify the trends that senates address. Using one academic year as a case study, these senates were identified to be addressing significant campus issues under the themes of academic affairs management, student life and student affairs issues, campus planning, human resources concerns, and faculty personnel matters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Higher Education is frequently said to be in a time of disruption, and narratives of how that disruption will play out have become a cottage industry. This essay critically reviews four such narratives – two journalistic works, one corporatist, techno-capitalist vision of the unbundling of Higher Education in America, and one critical, scholarly defense of the university as a center of critical thinking. The essay reflects on what the latter text can tell us about how this coming disruption can be collectively managed by education professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most private higher educational institutions were founded upon Harvard's shared governance model, in which faculty plays a significant role in decision making in the areas of academic policy and personnel. In 1980, due to this shared governance approach, the Supreme Court determined under NLRB v. Yeshiva, that faculty at private institutions were management and not eligible to bargain collectively under the National Labor Relations Act. However, over time private institutions have been under increasing economic and political pressure to make operational changes that have led to a deterioration of shared governance structures at some institutions, significantly lessening the role of faculty in decision-making for the institution. While changes to shared governance can have both positive and negative consequences for faculty and administrators, this trend has inadvertently opened many colleges to unionization efforts among faculty. This paper will provide an overview of the history of shared governance and its underlying legal precedence; the benefits and drawbacks of shared governance; and a comparative analysis of resources expended in shared governance versus unionization efforts. Finally, we provide a comprehensive model that may aid faculty and administration in reenergizing shared governance structures for the long-term benefit of the institution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article focuses on transnational intermediary organizations in higher education and research. We conceive of intermediaries as organizations that are actively involved in transnational university governance without having formal access to or control over policy or governmental funding. Such intermediary organizations have in previous research been shown to play central roles in the development and circulation of new themes and ideas for how to manage universities and measure university performance. Intermediaries link different types of actors and act as translators of global themes. In this respect, they are decisive in policy formulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on collegial or shared governance and also discusses role of communication faculty in its management. Various topics discussed includes accreditation of general education, decision making process of governmental committees, its benefits, challenges faced and author's personal experience of working in such government.

An essay is presented on transparency in the conduct of U.S. education in the age of neoliberalism. Topics discussed include increased expectation of public transparency in the administration and governance of higher education in terms of mode of publicity and accountability; transparency of administration to faculty; and transparency in shared-governance of higher education.

The article discusses the lessons learned from the State University of New York at Albany (UA) related to administration, program deactivation and shared governance. Topics include the enforcement of the strategic plan that responds to a set of college's principles, the reduction in the required general education credits, and the structure of shared governance that empower UA's faculty members.