Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background:

Shared governance is currently under attack by state agencies that seek to limit the power of institutional governing bodies. In addition, the effectiveness has been called into question by practitioners and researchers alike, which creates an additional stress on the prevailing governing structure of higher education.

Purpose, Objective, and Focus of Study:

Given the challenging context that higher education currently exists in with decreasing financing and desire for more legislative oversight, effective shared governance is critical. In this study, we discuss the importance of shared governance and focus on the critical nature of relationships in the efficacy of shared governance.

Research Design:

Guided by the shared governance theoretical model, we conducted an embedded qualitative case study on faculty senate presidents’ experiences working with administrators and faculty on issues of shared governance at public four-year regional comprehensive universities. We analyze responses from 13 faculty senate presidents to provide insights on the relationship between administration and faculty senate leaders to better understand how this relationship is perceived, and how it can be improved.

Conclusions:

We find that faculty senate presidents see challenges in what it means to “have a seat at the table,” and identify important insights for how to strengthen relationships between shared governance leaders and administrators.

Keywords

shared governance leadership faculty senate faculty and administrator relationships case study

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ahmed

S. K.

(2024). The pillars of trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health, 2, 100051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glmedi.2024.100051

Altbach

P. G.

Reisberg

Rumbley

L. E.

(2019). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. Brill.

Ambrose

C. M.

Nietzel

M. T.

(2023). Colleges on the brink: The case for financial exigency. Rowman & Littlefield.

American Association of University Professors (AAUP). (n.d.). Shared governance. https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/AAUP_shared_governance.pdf

American Association of University Professors (AAUP). (1966). Statement on government of colleges and universities. https://www.aaup.org/report/statement-government-colleges-and-universities.

American Association of University Professors (AAUP). (2021). AAUP shared governance assessment tool. https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/AAUP_Shared_Governance_Assessment_Tool.pdf

Association of Governing Boards (AGB). (2017). Shared governance. https://agb.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2017_statement_sharedgovernance.pdf

Bastedo

M. N.

(2006). Activist trustees in the public university: Reconceptualizing the public interest. In Eckel

P. D.

(Ed.), The shifting frontiers of academic decision making (pp. 127–141). ACE/Praeger.

Bejou

(2016). Shared governance: The key to higher education equilibrium. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 15(1–2), 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332667.2015.1091630

10.

Birnbaum

(1989a). The cybernetic institution: Toward an integration of governance theories. Higher Education, 18(2), 239–253.

11.

Birnbaum

(1989b). The latent organizational functions of the academic senate: Why senates do not work but will not go away. The Journal of Higher Education, 60(4), 423–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1989.11775050

12.

Birnbaum

(1991). The latent organizational functions of the academic senate: Why senates do not work but will not go away. New Directions for Higher Education, 75, 7–25.

13.

Birnbaum

(2004). The end of shared governance: Looking ahead or looking back. New Directions for Higher Education, 127, 5–22.

14.

Bowen

W. G.

Tobin

E. M.

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

15.

Bray

N. J.

(2008). Proscriptive norms for academic deans: Comparing faculty expectations across institutional and disciplinary boundaries. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(6), 692–721. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.0.0026

16.

Brown

H. F.

(2017). Exploring perceptions of faculty governance from an organizational culture lens. Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor, 29, 3–16. https://doi.org/10.14288/workplace.v0i29.186233

17.

Camillus

J. C.

(2008). Strategy as a wicked problem. Harvard Business Review, 86(5), 98–101.

18.

Camillus

J. C.

(2016). The wicked challenge of the business environment. International Journal of Business Environment, 8(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBE.2016.074792

19.

Campbell

Bray

(2017). Two sides of the same coin? Analysis of faculty and administrators’ perspectives on governance, community. College Journal of Research and Practice, 42(12), 893–907. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2017.1374220

20.

Castiello-Gutiérrez

McNaughtan

Schiffecker

S. M.

García

H. A.

(2023). Leading for what, leading for who? An international comparative analysis of university presidents’ leadership amid COVID-19. Journal of Research on the College President, 7(1), 4.

21.

The Chronicle of Higher Education. (n.d.). The dismantling of DEI. https://www.chronicle.com/package/the-assault-on-dei

22.

Clark

B. R.

(1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross national perspective. University of California Press.

23.

Clark

B. R.

(Ed.). (1987). The academic profession: National, disciplinary, and institutional settings. University of California Press.

24.

Crellin

M. A.

(2010). The future of shared governance. New Directions for Higher Education, 151, 71–81.

25.

Croom

N.N.

(2017). Promotion beyond tenure: Unpacking racism and sexism in the experiences of Black womyn professors. The Review of Higher Education, 40(4), 557–583. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2017.0022

26.

DeBoy

(2015). Shared governance at Lincoln University: An elusive quarry. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 8(4), 235–240. https://doi.org/10.19030/cier.v8i4.9431

27.

DeCew

J. W.

(2003). Unionization in the academy: Visions and realities. Rowman & Littlefield.

28.

Degn

(2018). Academic sensemaking and behavioural responses—exploring how academics perceive and respond to identity threats in times of turmoil. Studies in Higher Education, 43(2), 305–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1168796

29.

Drescher

M. A.

Korsgaard

M. A.

Wiepe

I. M.

Picot

Wigand

R. T.

(2014). The dynamics of shared leadership: Building trust and enhancing performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 771–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036474

30.

Eckel

P. D.

(2000). The role of shared governance in institutional hard decisions: Enabler or antagonist? The Review of Higher Education, 24(1), 15–39. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2000.0022

31.

Eckel

P. D.

Kezar

(2006). The challenges facing academic decision making: Contemporary issues and steadfast structures. In Eckel

P. D.

(Ed.), The shifting frontiers of academic decision making: Responding to new priorities, following new pathways (pp. 1–14). Praeger.

32.

Favero

M. D.

Bray

N. J.

(2005). The faculty–administrator relationship: Partners in prospective governance? Scholar-Practitioner Quarterly, 3(1), 53–72.

33.

Favero

M. D.

Bray

N. J.

(2010). Herding cats and big fogs: Tensions in the faculty–administrator relationship. In Smart

J. C.

(Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 25, pp. 477–541). Springer.

34.

Finkelstein

M. J.

Cummings

W. K.

(2011). The United States of America: Perspectives on faculty governance, 1992–2007. In Locke

Cummings

Fisher

(Eds.), Changing governance and management in higher education (pp. 199–222). Springer.

35.

Finkelstein

M. J.

Conley

V. M.

Schuster

J. H.

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

36.

Fleming

J. C.

(2010). Faculty expectations for college presidents. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(3), 251–283. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.0.0091

37.

Freeman

Douglas

Goodenough

(2020). Toward best practices for promotion to full professor guidelines at research universities. eJournal of Education Policy, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.37803/ejepF2004

38.

Furstenberg

Khan

(2022). Organizing faculty through budget activism: Preemptive cost-cutting as a call to action. Fall 2022: Revolutionizing higher education budget and finance. AAUP. https://www.aaup.org/article/organizing-faculty-through-budget-activism

39.

Gerber

L. G.

(2014). The rise and decline of faculty governance: Professionalization and the modern American university. JHU Press.

40.

Gluck

S. B.

Patai

(2016). Women’s words: The feminist practice of oral history. Routledge.

41.

Grawe

N. D.

(2018). Demographics and the demand for higher education. JHU Press.

42.

Griffin

K. A.

Bennett

J. C.

Harris

(2013). Marginalizing merit?: Gender differences in Black faculty D/discourses on tenure, advancement, and professional success. The Review of Higher Education, 36(4), 489–512. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2013.0040

43.

Hartley

(2010). Reconcilable differences: Conflict and collegiality in a unionized community college environment, Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 34(4), 318–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920701382427

44.

Heaney

(2010). Democracy, shared governance, and the university. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2010(128), 69–79.

45.

Holcombe

E. M.

Kezar

A. J.

Elrod

S. L.

Ramaley

J. A.

(Eds.). (2023). Shared leadership in higher education: A framework and models for responding to a changing world. Taylor & Francis.

46.

Honu

Y. A.

(2018). Shared governance: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 22(2), 1–8.

47.

Jones

W. A.

(2010). Faculty involvement in institutional governance: A literature review. Journal of the Professoriate, 6(1), 117–135.

48.

Kaplan

(2016). How academic ships actually navigate. In Ehrenberg

R. G.

(Ed.), Governing academia: Who is in charge at the modern university? (pp. 165–208). Cornell University Press.

49.

Kater

S. T.

(2017). Community college faculty conceptualizations of shared governance: Shared understandings of a sociopolitical reality. Community College Review, 45(3), 234–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552117700490

50.

Kater

Levin

J. S.

(2004). Shared governance in the community college. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 29(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920390276849

51.

Kezar

A. J.

(2018). A new vision for the professoriate. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 50(3–4), 84–87.

52.

Kezar

Dizon

J. P. M.

(2021). Symbiosis and tensions: Shared governance and unions. In Julius

(Ed.), Collective bargaining in higher education (pp. 30–48). Routledge.

53.

Kezar

A. J.

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), 371–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2004.11772264

54.

Kezar

A. J.

Gehrke

(2014). Faculty grassroots leadership as philanthropy. Faculty and the Public Good, 215–230.

55.

Kezar

A. J.

Holcombe

E. M.

(2017). Shared leadership in higher education. American Council on Education.

56.

Kezar

A. J.

Holcombe

E. M.

Maxey

(2016). Rethinking faculty models/roles: An emerging consensus about future directions for the professoriate. TIAA Institute.

57.

Kezar

Maxey

(2013). The changing academic workforce. Trusteeship, 21(3), 15–21.

58.

Kezar

A. J.

Sam

(2014). Governance as a catalyst for policy change: Creating a contingent faculty friendly academy. Educational Policy, 28(3), 425–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904812465112

59.

Langland

(2011). Shared governance in an age of change. Pedagogy, 11(3), 554–557.

60.

Lawrence

Ott

(2013). Faculty perceptions of organizational politics. The Review of Higher Education, 36(2), 145–178. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2013.0011

61.

Leslie

D. W.

(2004). Governance or “governing?” Metropolitan Universities, 15(1), 17–37.

62.

Litsey

McNaughtan

(2022). Academic municipalities: Understanding university governance as urban politics. In Segupta

Blessinger

Naazami

(Eds.), Governance and management in higher education (Vol. 43, pp. 89–103). Emerald.

63.

Manning

(2017). In vivo coding. The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods, 24(1–2), 18.

64.

McClure

K. R.

(2018). Institutions of opportunity: Using presidents’ narratives to re-tell the story of public regional universities. Journal for the Study of Postsecondary and Tertiary Education, 3, 117–134.

65.

McClure

McNaughtan

J. L.

(2021). Proximity to power: The challenges and strategies of interviewing elites in higher education research. The Qualitative Report, 26(3), 874–992. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2021.4615

66.

McCormick

(2023). Emotions high as WVU board of governors approves cuts to programs, positions. WVPB. https://wvpublic.org/emotions-high-as-wvu-board-of-governors-approves-cuts-to-programs-positions/

67.

McKinniss

(n.d.). No-confidence vote database. https://www.seanmckinniss.org/no-confidence-vote-database/

68.

McNaughtan

Eicke

Thacker

Freeman

(2022). Trust or self-determination: Understanding the role of tenured faculty empowerment and job satisfaction. The Journal of Higher Education, 93(1), 137–161.

69.

McNaughtan

Enright

E. A.

Harris

N. F.

(2024, July 3). “A seat at the table”: A conceptual model to frame shared governance from the perspectives of faculty senate presidents. Higher Education Policy, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-024-00370-3

70.

McNaughtan

Garcia

Schiffecker

Castiello-Gutierrez

(2024). “Architects of change or its victim”: University presidents’ perspectives on the role of competing values during the COVID-19 crisis. The Journal of Higher Education, 95(2), 200–226.

71.

McNaughtan

Louis

García

H. A.

McNaughtan

E. D.

(2019). An institutional North Star: The role of values in presidential communication and decision-making. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 41(2), 153–171.

72.

Miller

M. T.

Smith

E. A.

Nadler

D. P.

(2016). Debate and discourse: The role of the faculty senate on the modern American campus. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 16(3), 22.

73.

Minor

J. T.

(2004). Understanding faculty senates: Moving from mystery to models. The Review of Higher Education, 27(3), 343–363.

74.

Mortimer

K. P.

Sathre

C. O. B.

(2007). The art and politics of academic governance: Relations among boards, presidents, and faculty. Rowman & Littlefield.

75.

Nadler

D. P.

Miller

M. T.

Hamza

E. A.

Gearhart

G. D.

(2019). Faculty senates and college presidents: Perspectives on collaborations. Journal of Research on the College President, 3(1), 8.

76.

Orphan

C. M.

(2018). Public purpose under pressure: Examining the effects of neoliberal public policy on the missions of regional comprehensive universities. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 22(2), 59–101.

77.

Orphan

C. M.

Broom

(2021). Life at the “people’s universities”: Organizational identification and commitment among regional comprehensive university faculty members in the USA. Higher Education, 82, 181–201.

78.

Orphan

C. M.

Miller

G. N.

(2020). The company regional comprehensive universities desire to keep: Choosing institutional membership associations. The Journal of Higher Education, 91(2), 300–325.

79.

Patton

M. Q.

(2001). Evaluation, knowledge management, best practices, and high quality lessons learned. The American Journal of Evaluation, 22(3), 329–336.

80.

Patton

M. Q.

(2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage.

81.

Quinn

(2024). University of Kentucky president proposes to strip faculty body’s power. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/shared-governance/2024/03/28/kentucky-president-proposes-strip-faculty-bodys

82.

Rall

R. M.

Morgan

D. L.

Commodore

(2019). Invisible injustice: Higher education boards and issues of diversity, equity, and inclusivity. In Jeffries

(Ed.), Diversity, equity, and inclusivity in contemporary higher education (pp. 261–277). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-5724-1.ch016

83.

Rall

R. M.

Morgan

D. L.

Commodore

(2022). Bounded boards: A commentary on the limitations of knowledge and scope of research on boards of higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 47(3), 389–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-021-09582-6

84.

Ramaley

J. A.

Holcombe

E. M.

Kezar

A. J.

Elrod

S. L.

(2023). A changing academy and a changing world: Why shared leadership is important. In Holcombe

E. M.

Kezar

A. J.

Elrod

S. L.

Ramaley

J. A.

(Eds.), Shared leadership in higher education: A framework and models for responding to a changing world (pp. 13–26). Taylor & Francis.

85.

Rittel

H. W.

Webber

M. M.

(1972). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. IURD Working Paper Series. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/01v4t1c9

86.

Rittel

H. W.

Webber

M. M.

(1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730

87.

Scott

R. A.

(2020). Leadership threats to shared governance in higher education. AAUP Journal of Academic Freedom, 11, 1–17. https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/Robert-Scott.pdf

88.

Sheffer

J. A.

Hanasona

L. K.

Kanwischer

Koolage

W. J.

Landry-Meyer

Noyes

E. I.

Schnepp

(2022, Winter). Pieces of the puzzle. The importance of shared governance. Liberal Education. https://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/articles/pieces-of-the-puzzle

89.

Slaughter

Rhoades

(2005). Markets in higher education. In Altbach

P. G.

Berdahl

R. O.

Gumport

(Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century (pp. 487–516). Johns Hopkins University Press.

90.

Spitalniak

(2024, April). Texas lieutenant governor calls for increased oversight of tenure policies, faculty senates. Higher Ed Drive. https://www.highereddive.com/news/texas-lieutenant-governor-increased-oversight-tenure-policies-faculty-senates/713112/

91.

Smith

C. V.

(2009). The decline of shared governance in higher education. KCKCC e-Journal. 3(2), 1–17.

92.

Tierney

W. G.

(2008). The impact of culture on organizational decision making: Theory and practice in higher education. Stylus.

93.

Tierney

W. G.

Minor

J. T.

(2003). Challenges for governance: A national report. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED482060.pdf

94.

Vican

Friedman

Andreasen

(2020). Metrics, money, and managerialism: Faculty experiences of competing logics in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 91(1), 139–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2019.1615332

95.

Warshaw

J. B.

Ciarimboli

E. B.

(2020). Structural or cultural pathways to innovative change? Faculty and shared governance in the liberal arts college. Teachers College Record, 122(8), 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146812012200814

96.

Zahneis

(2023, September 29). Why higher ed is seeing a spate of high-profile no-confidence votes. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/why-higher-ed-is-seeing-a-spate-of-high-profile-no-confidence-votes

97.

Zahneis

(2024, February 26). The rise of the faculty budget activists. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-rise-of-the-faculty-budget-activists

98.

Zumeta

Breneman

D. W.

Callan

P. M.

Finney

J. E.

(2021). Financing American higher education in the era of globalization. Harvard Education Press.

Shared Governance in Wicked Times: Perceptions of Faculty Senate Presidents on Faculty and Administrator Relationships

Abstract

Background:

Purpose, Objective, and Focus of Study:

Research Design:

Conclusions:

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References