Structural or Cultural Pathways to Innovative Change? Faculty and Shared Governance in the Liberal Arts College

Abstract

Background

Popular commentary portrays private liberal arts colleges (LACs) as ensnared within a “death spiral” due to unprecedented enrollment and financial challenges. But, in contrast to ominous predictions, recent evidence suggests strong levels of innovative activity and resilience in the sector, as reflected in the creation and adoption of methods, approaches, and configurations new to these campuses. In periods of rapid change and transition, LAC stakeholders are likely to seek research on how different change-centered strategies enhance or constrain the faculty role and the relationship between shared governance and innovation.

Purpose

This study focuses on how faculty engage with administrative leaders and professional staff in academic innovation and decision making in LACs. It applies competing theoretical perspectives—the structural-bureaucratic and cultural lenses of analysis—to determine which one best captures the changes taking place on these campuses and to assay broader outcomes associated with using one approach over another.

Participants

The 43 research participants in this study encompassed faculty members (49%), senior-level administrators (21%), trustees (7%), and professional staff (23%).

Research Design

This study employed an embedded case study design that was replicated across three LACs, whose innovative activity was on par with national averages in the sector.

Data Collection and Analysis

Site visits were conducted at each LAC, during which individual interviews were conducted, documentary materials were collected, and field notes were recorded. The analysis included an application of process, values, and pattern coding to examine the relative fit of the structural-bureaucratic and cultural accounts.

Findings/Results

The results indicated that the faculty role largely concentrated on contributing content and operationalizing details of academic innovation. Although emerging forms of shared governance were carefully designed, they had tenuous connections to the overall innovative capacity of faculty and their campuses.

Conclusions/Recommendations

The value of the cultural lens of analysis lies in its ability to account for the ways in which interactions and communication among faculty and stakeholders enhances or constrains academic innovation. A cultural perspective also illuminates three broader patterns from the cases to explain (1) the increasing fragmentation between administrators and faculty and within the professoriate, (2) the compartmentalization of academic work vis-à-vis the “unbundling” of faculty roles, and (3) the failure of purely structural recourses to produce innovative change. Because innovation in LACs matters for strategic differentiation and for the contributions of private higher education to the postsecondary system, broader implications for research and policy are discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Astin

(1999). How the liberal arts college affects students. Daedalus, 128 1, 77—100.

Austin

(2011). The socialization of future faculty in a changing context: Traditions, challenges, and possibilities. In Hermanowicz

(Ed.), The American academic profession: Transformation in contemporary higher education (pp. 145—167). Johns Hopkins University Press.

Baker

V. L.

, & Baldwin

R. G.

(2015). A case study of liberal arts colleges in the 21st century: Understanding organizational change and evolution in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 40 3, 247—261.

Baker

V. L.

Baldwin

R. G.

, & Makker

(2012). Where are they now? Revisiting Breneman's study of liberal arts colleges. Liberal Education, 98 3, 48—53.

Baker

V. L.

Lunsford

L. G.

, & Pifer

M. J.

(2017). Developing faculty in liberal arts colleges: Aligning individual needs and organizational goals. Rutgers University Press.

Bastedo

M. N.

(Ed.). (2012). The organization of higher education: Managing colleges for a new era. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Birnbaum

(1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. Jossey-Bass.

Birnbaum

(1989). The latent organizational functions of the academic senate: Why senates do not work but will not go away. Journal of Higher Education, 60 4, 423—443.

Birnbaum

(2004). The end of shared governance: Looking ahead or looking back. In Tierney

W. G.

, & Lechuga

V. M.

(Eds.), Restructuring shared governance in higher education: New directions for higher education (No. 127, pp. 5—22). Jossey-Bass.

10.

Bowen

W. G.

, & Tobin

E. M.

(2015). Locus of authority: The evolution of faculty roles in the governance of higher education. Princeton University Press.

11.

Breneman

D. W.

(1990). Are we losing our liberal arts colleges? American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 43 2, 3—6.

12.

Breneman

D. W.

(1994). Liberal arts colleges: Thriving, surviving, or endangered? Brookings Institution Press.

13.

Brewer

D. J.

, & Tierney

W. G.

(2011). Barriers to innovation in U.S. higher education. In Wildavsky

Kelly

A. P.

, & Carey

(Eds.), Reinventing higher education: The promise of innovation (pp. 11—40). Harvard University Press.

14.

Chaffee

E. E.

(1984). Successful strategic management in small private colleges. Journal of Higher Education, 55 2, 212—241.

15.

Clark

B. R.

(1972). The organizational saga in higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17 2, 178—184.

16.

Clark

B. R.

(1987). The academic life: Small worlds, different worlds. Princeton University Press.

17.

Clark

(2015, March 4). Some small private colleges are facing a “death spiral.” Money. http://time.com/money/3731250/sweet-briar-private-college-death-spiral/

18.

Corbin

, & Strauss

(2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). SAGE.

19.

Docking

J. R.

, & Curton

C. C.

(2015). Crisis in higher education: A plan to save small liberal arts colleges in America. Michigan State University Press.

20.

Elmore

(1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66 1, 1—27.

21.

Finkelstein

M. J.

Conley

V. M.

, & Schuster

J. H.

(2016). The faculty factor: Reassessing the American academy in a turbulent era. Johns Hopkins University Press.

22.

Gappa

J. M.

Austin

A. E.

, & Trice

A. G.

(2007). Rethinking faculty work: Higher education's strategic imperative. Wiley.

23.

Ginder

S. A.

Kelly-Reid

J. E.

, & Mann

F. B.

(2019). Enrollment and employees in postsecondary institutions, fall 2017; and financial statistics and academic libraries, fiscal year 2017. U.S. Department of Education.

24.

Gonzales

L. D.

, & Terosky

A. L.

(2016). From the faculty perspective: Defining, earning, and maintain legitimacy across academia. Teachers College Record, 118 7, 1—28.

25.

Hartocollis

(2016, April 29). At small colleges, harsh lessons about cash flow. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/30/us/small-colleges-losing-market-share-struggle-to-keep-doors-open.html

26.

Hearn

J. C.

, & Warshaw

J. B.

(2015). Mission-driven innovation: An empirical study of adaptation and change among independent colleges. Council of Independent Colleges.

27.

Hearn

J. C.

Warshaw

J. B.

, & Ciarimboli

E. B.

(2016). Strategic change and innovation in independent colleges: Nine mission-driven campuses. Council of Independent Colleges.

28.

Hermanowicz

J. C.

(2005). Classifying universities and their departments: A social world perspective. Journal of Higher Education, 76 1, 26—55.

29.

Keller

(2014). Transforming a college: The story of a little-known college's strategic climb to national distinction. Johns Hopkins University Press.

30.

Kezar

(2005). Consequences of radical change in governance: A grounded theory approach. Journal of Higher Education, 76 6, 634—668.

31.

Kezar

, & Eckel

P. D.

(2004). Meeting today's governance challenges: A synthesis of the literature and examination of a future agenda for scholarship. Journal of Higher Education, 75 4, 371—399.

32.

Kim

(2017, April 20). The liberal arts college as a sandbox for the intellectually curious. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/technology-and-learning/liberal-arts-college-sandbox-intellectually-curious

33.

McPherson

M. S.

, & Schapiro

M. O.

(1999). The future economic challenges for the liberal arts colleges. Daedalus, 128 1, 47—75.

34.

Merriam

S. B.

(2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

35.

Morphew

C. C.

(2009). Conceptualizing change in the institutional diversity of U.S. colleges and universities. Journal of Higher Education, 80 3, 243—269.

36.

Morphew

C. C.

, & Braxton

J. M.

(Eds.). (2017). The challenge of independent colleges: Moving research into practice. Johns Hopkins University Press.

37.

Morphew

C. C.

Ward

, & Wolf-Wendel

(2016). Changes in faculty composition at independent colleges. Council of Independent Colleges.

38.

Neumann

(2009). Professing to learn: Creating tenured lives and careers in the American research university. Johns Hopkins University Press.

39.

O'Meara

, & Bloomgarden

(2011). The pursuit of prestige: The experience of institutional striving from a faculty perspective. Journal of the Professoriate, 4 1, 39—73.

40.

Pfnister

A. O.

(1984). The role of the liberal arts college: A historical overview of the debates. Journal of Higher Education, 55 2, 145—170.

41.

Pifer

M. J.

Baker

V. L.

, & Lunsford

L. G.

(2019). Culture, colleagues, and leadership: The academic department as a location of faculty experiences in liberal arts colleges. Review of Higher Education, 42 2, 537—564.

42.

Rosenberg

(2014, July 29). Shared or divided governance? Inside Higher Ed. http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2014/07/29/essay-new-approach-shared-governance-higher-education

43.

Saldaña

(2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). SAGE.

44.

Simsek

, & Louis

K. S.

(1994). Organizational change as paradigm shift: Analysis of the change process in a large, public university. Journal of Higher Education, 65 6, 670—695.

45.

Tierney

W. G.

(Ed.). (2004). Competing conceptions of academic governance: Negotiating the perfect storm. Johns Hopkins University Press.

46.

Toma

D. J.

(2010). Building organizational capacity: Strategic management in higher education. Johns Hopkins University Press.

47.

Warshaw

J. B.

Toutkoushian

R. K.

, & Choi

(2017). Does the reputation of a faculty member's graduate programme and institution matter for labour market outcomes? Journal of Education and Work, 30 8, 793—812.

48.

Yin

R. K.

(2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). SAGE.

49.

Zumeta

(1996). Meeting the demand for higher education without breaking the bank: A framework for the design of state higher education policies for an era of increasing demand. Journal of Higher Education, 67 4, 367—425.