This study examines the institutional visibility of the university governing body amongst staff, as an unexplored factor influencing the effectiveness of the body in performing stewardship and strategic responsibilities on behalf of the university. A constructionist view of governance is taken in order to examine the enactment of governing body institutional visibility within the spaces of the university, from the formal projection of its legal and constitutional duties, to communication of the decisions made at governing body meetings, through to governors’ informal encounters and engagement with staff. An institutional visibility spectrum was developed based on governing body ‘apparency’, ‘transparency’ and ‘engagement’, prior to interviewing secretaries and clerks as key actors in the governance system. It was found that governor visibility through engagement and interaction with a range of staff outside the ‘boardroom’ was perceived as a contributor to governing body effectiveness, including governors’ knowledge-building and ability to contribute to strategic initiatives in the host university.
AugéM (1995) Non-Places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity. London and New York: Verso.
2.
BairdJ (2006) Beyond professionalisation: enhancing the governing culture for Australian university boards. Tertiary Education and Management12(4): 297–309.
3.
BanksJA (1998) The lives and values of researchers: implications for educating citizens in a multicultural society. Educational Research27(7): 4–17.
4.
BarghCScottPSmithD (1996). Governing Universities. Changing the Culture?Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.
5.
BeitinBK (2012) Interview and sampling: How many and whom. In: GubriumJFHolsteinJAMarvastABMcKinneyKD (eds) The Sage Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
6.
BennettB (2002) The new style board of governors - Are they working? Higher Education Quarterly56(3): 287–302.
7.
BerleAMeansGC (1932) The Modern Corporation and Private Property (2nd Edition). New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
8.
BevirM (2012) Governance: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9.
BrighentiAM (2010) Visibility in Social Theory and Social Research. Basingstokeand New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
10.
BurgessRG (1984) Autobiographical accounts and research experience. In: BurgessRG (ed.) The Research Process in Educational Settings: Ten Case Studies. Lewes: The Falmer Press.
11.
CarrECJWorthA (2001) The use of telephone interviews for research. Journal of Research in Nursing6(1): 511–524.
12.
ChaitRPHollandTPTaylorBE (1996) Improving the Performance of Governing Boards. American Council on Education. Westport, CT: Oryx Press.
13.
CrottyM (1998) The Foundations of Social Research. Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. London: Sage.
14.
CreswellJ (2007) Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. 2nd ed. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
CVCP (Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals) (1985) Report of The Steering Committee for Efficiency Studies in Universities.
17.
DanzigerK (1997) Naming The Mind: How Psychology Found Its Language. London: Sage.
18.
DawkinsA (2011) Boundary-crossing and governance ‘space’: Negotiation of the professional identity of secretariat staff in higher education (HE). Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education3(1): 47–60.
19.
DeemRBrehonyKHeathS (1995) Active Citizenship and the Governing of Schools. Buckingham and Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
20.
DenzinNKLincolnYS (2005) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Enquiry. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi and Singapore: Sage.
21.
FarringtonDPalfreymanD (2006) The Law of Higher Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22.
FawcettP (2013) How are we Governed? Decentred Theory and the Core Executive. Political Studies Association Conference, University of Cardiff, Cardiff, 25–27 March 2014. Available at: http://www.psa.ac.uk/sites/default/files/684_358.pdf (accessed 8 January 2017).
23.
FinklesteinSMooneyAC (2003) Not the usual suspects: How to use board process to make boards better. Academic of Management Executive17(2): 101–103.
24.
GiddensA (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
25.
GilliesM (2011) University Governance. Questions for a New Era. Oxford: Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI).
26.
GittlemanS (2004) An Entrepreneurial University: The Transformation of Tufts 1976-2002. Lebanon, NH: University Press of New England.
27.
HenkelM (1997) Teaching quality assessments: Public accountability and academic autonomy in higher education. Evaluation3(1): 9–23.
28.
HenninkMHutterIBaileyA (2011) Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
HillR (2000) A study of the views of full-time further education lecturers regarding their college corporations and agencies of the further education sector. Journal of Further and Higher Education24(1): 67–75.
31.
Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) (2014). Memorandum of Assurance and Accountability between HEFCE and Institutions. Available at: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/reg/MAA/ (accessed 8 January 2017).
32.
HolsteinJAGubriumJF (2011) The constructionist analytics of interpretive practice. In: DenzinNKLincolnYS (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
HuseM (2005) Accountability and creating accountability: a framework for exploring behavioural perspectives of corporate governance. British Journal of Management16: 65–79.
34.
JarrattA (1985) Report of the Steering Committee in University Efficiency. London: CVCP.
35.
JarzabkowskiP (2005) Strategy as Practice: An Activity Based Approach. London: Sage.
36.
KakabadseAKakabadseN (72014) The Company Secretary: Building Trust Through Governance. ICSA and Henley Business School, University of Reading. Available at: http://wwww.geniusmethods.com (accessed 8 January 2017).
37.
KezarAEckelPD (2004) Meeting today’s governance challenges: a synthesis of the literature and examination of a future agenda for scholarship. The Journal of Higher Education75(4): 371–399.
38.
KezarA (2006) Rethinking public higher education boards performance: results of a national study of governing boards in the united states. The Journal of Higher Education77(6): 968–1008.
39.
KoganMHanneyS (2000) Reforming Higher Education. Higher Education Policy Series 50. London and Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
40.
KingR (2009) Governing Universities Globally: Organizations, Regulation and Rankings. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
41.
KingNHorrocksC (2010) Interviews in Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Le BlancRSchwartzM (2007) The black box of board process: gaining access to a difficult subject. Corporate Governance: An International Review15: 843–851.
44.
LlewellynD (2007) The Role and Influence of the Secretary In Relation to Governing Bodies in Higher Education. Available at: http://opus.bath.ac.uk/22037 (accessed 8 January 2017).
45.
LlewellynD (2009) The role and influence of the Secretary in UK Higher Education Governing Bodies. Final Summary Report. Leadership Foundation for Higher Education. Available at: https:/www.lfhe.ac.uk/researchhub (accessed 8 January 2017).
46.
LockAStrongT (2010) Social Constructionism: Sources and Stirrings in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47.
McNayI (2002) Governance and decision-making in smaller colleges. Higher Education Quarterly56(3): 303–315.
48.
McNayI (1999) Evaluation of the Work of the Governing Body. London: University of Greenwich.
49.
McNultyTRobertsJStilesP (2005) Undertaking governance reform and research: further reflections on the Higgs review. British Journal of Management16(Special Issue): 99–107.
50.
McNultyT (2013) Process matters: understanding board behaviour and effectiveness. In: WrightMSiegalDSKeaseyKFilatotchevI (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 163–176.
51.
MarginsonS (1997) Steering from a distance: power relations in Australian higher education. Higher Education34(1): 63–80.
MassyW (2010) Managerial and political strategies for managing accountability. In: StensakerBHarveyL (eds) Accountability in Higher Education: Global Perspectives on Trust and Power. London, New York: Routledge.
54.
MorganJ (2012) Governance track for man who helped privatise the UK’s railways. Times Higher Education245.
55.
NeaveGVught vanF (1991) Prometheus Bound: The Changing Relationship between Government and Higher Education in Western Europe (ed.). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
56.
NovickG (2008) Is there a bias against telephone interviews in qualitative research?Research in Nursing and Health31(4): 391–398.
57.
OpdenakkerR (2006) Advantages and disadvantages of four interview techniques in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Research7(4): Article 11.
58.
PettigrewAMcNultyT (1995) Power and influence in and around the boardroom. Human Relations48(5): 845–873.
59.
PyeA (2002) Corporate directing: governing, strategizing and leading in action. Corporate Governance: An International Review10(3): 153–162.
60.
RansonS (2003) Public accountability in the age of neo-liberal governance. Journal of Education Policy18(5): 459–480.
61.
RytmeisterCR (2009) Governing university strategy: perceptions and practice of governance and management roles. Tertiary Education and Management15(2): 137–156.
62.
SaldañaJ (2013) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oals, CA: Sage.
63.
SchofieldA (2006) Getting to Grips with Being a Governor. Making Sense of Governance in Higher Education. A Programme for Members of Governing Bodies in Universities and Colleges. London: SCOP Ltd.
The National Committee of Enquiry into Higher Education (NCIHE) Dearing, R (1997) Higher Education in the Learning Society. Available at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe (accessed 8 January 2017).
71.
ThomasSPPollioHR (2002) Listening to Patients. A Phenomenological Approach to Nursing Research and Practice. New York: Springer.
72.
TrickerB (2009) Corporate Governance. Principles, Policies and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
73.
TrowlerPSaundersMBamberV (eds) (2012) Tribes and Territories in the 21st-Century: Rethinking the Significance of Disciplines in Higher Education. London: Routledge.
