A CASE STUDY OF FACULTY PERCEPTIONS ABOUT

THE CORPORATIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH

SHARED GOVERNANCE

Freddie E. Wills Jr., M.A.

A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Faculty of

Saint Louis University in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

2017




ProQuest Number: 10276034




All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.






ProQuest 10276034

Published by ProQuest LLC (2017 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.


All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.


ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
Committee in Charge of Candidacy:

Associate Professor Danielle J. Davis,

Committee Chair and Advisor

President Emeritus Thomas F. Patton

Professor Douglas Rush

i
 © Copyright by
Freddie E. Wills, Jr., M.A.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

2017

ii
 DEDICATION

“I dedicate this work to Renecisa A. Wills, a great leader, mentor, and friend.

Most important, to me, she is an awesome mother. Mom, I love you.”

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

As a kid, I was given a set of tools (faith, education, leadership, integrity, and grit)

to develop the person that I am today and beyond. The use of those tools has aided me

with building my character, cultivating my intellect, and creating my identity. For those

set of tools, I thank my parents. Throughout this process – The Growth of Freddie –

many people played important roles that helped me achieve my goals. With this

acknowledgment, I thank them all (family, friends, teachers, and mentors) for doing their

part to help me become a doctor of philosophy.

At the early age of 2, my mom started me off in school at St. Paul Missionary

Baptist Church in East St. Louis, IL. Ever since, education has been a part of my life. I

could never write enough words to express my sincere thanks to my mother for all that

she has done and continue to do for me. She has been a staunch supporter of my work

and for that I thank her. In addition, I thank my dad for being a part of my life during the

critical years of my youth.

I started this doctoral journey in 2011. As I progressed to completion, I watched

my family mature along with me. At the start, my kids (Christian and Morgan) were in

middle and elementary school. Now that I am at completion, Morgan is a high school

freshman and Christian, a high school senior, is completing his own educational

journey. Just a day after I graduate from Saint Louis University to complete my doctoral

studies, Christian will graduate from high school. I am truly proud of my kids. I thank

them for the support and motivation they provided to help me finish this journey. I thank

my wife, Joi, for cheering me on during my late nights of writing and for listening to me

iv
moan and groan when I hit the writing block wall. Her support means a lot to me. I am

glad to have her here, with me, to complete this journey.

My family is important to me. I thank them all – grandparents, aunts, uncles,

nephews, nieces, and cousins - for their prayers and support that kept me motivated to

finish the process. I thank my doctoral study buddies Dr. Vicki Moran, Dr. Chris

Selbeski, and Dr. Greg Williams for helping me progress through classes and written

comps. I thank my dissertation writing group Dr. Mike F. Jones II, Gia Henry, and

Michaela Thomas for the weekly phone meeting that kept us all motivated and on track.

I thank my mentors who helped me progress to the end Jack Kirkland, Dr. Kimberly

Kilgore, Dr. Edward F. Lawlor, Dr. John Matlock, Dr. Thomas F. Patton (who served on

my dissertation committee) Dr. Art Perry, and many others.

To my dissertation committee, Dr. Danielle J. Davis (chair), Dr. Douglas Rush,

Dr. Thomas F. Patton and my readers Dr. John James and Dr. Karen Myers, I thank

you all for your guidance and leadership.

To conclude, I want to thank my late Grandfather, George C. Fuller. He helped

me grow grit, he helped me develop integrity, and he taught me how to work hard. He

was one of the best teachers I have ever had in life. For that, I honor his life’s work with

this Ph.D.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... viii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
Rationale ...................................................................................................................... 3
Purpose Statement ...................................................................................................... 6
Research Design ......................................................................................................... 6
Research Questions .................................................................................................... 6
Research Question 1: What are faculty perceptions of the shared governance
decision-making process? ........................................................................................ 6
Research Question 2: How has shifts toward a corporate model for higher
education impacted or threatened shared governance? ........................................... 6
Research Question 3: How should colleges and universities work to balance roles
(between faculty and administration in the decision-making process) and sustain a
culture of shared governance? ................................................................................. 7
Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................ 7
Limitations of Study...................................................................................................... 8
Summary...................................................................................................................... 9

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................... 12

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 12
About Shared Governance......................................................................................... 16
Corporatization and Shared Governance ................................................................... 25
Sustaining Shared Governance ................................................................................. 32
Non-Academic Leaders ............................................................................................. 34
Corporate Functions and Operations ......................................................................... 37
The Corporatization Movement .................................................................................. 39
Accountability and Value ............................................................................................ 43
Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 46

Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................ 47

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 47
Purpose of Study ....................................................................................................... 48
Research Design ....................................................................................................... 49
Research Limitations ................................................................................................. 50
Quality and Rigor ....................................................................................................... 51
Research Questions .................................................................................................. 52
Site Description .......................................................................................................... 52
Instrumentation .......................................................................................................... 55
Data Collection........................................................................................................... 55
Coding Analysis ......................................................................................................... 56
Data Analysis: Triangulation ...................................................................................... 57
Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 61

vi
Chapter 4: RESEARCH FINDINGS............................................................................... 63
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 63
Faculty Structure and the Faculty Manual .................................................................. 65
Findings ..................................................................................................................... 69
Institution A Case Findings ..................................................................................... 69
Institution B Case Findings. .................................................................................... 74
Institution C Case Findings. .................................................................................... 79
Emerging Themes...................................................................................................... 85
Faculty Prefer Faculty ................................................................................................ 86
Concerns About the Proliferation of Nonacademic Administrators............................. 91
A Faculty Governed Curriculum ................................................................................. 96
Summary.................................................................................................................. 100

Chapter 5: CONCLUSION........................................................................................... 101

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 101
Summary of Findings ............................................................................................... 102
Implications for Practice ........................................................................................... 110
Recommendations for Research.............................................................................. 111
Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 112

Appendix A: 1940 STATEMENT ON ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND TENURE, WITH

1970 INTERPERITIVE COMMENTS .......................................................................... 114

Appendix B: STATEMENT ON GOVERNANCE OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

.................................................................................................................................... 118

Appendix C: HAMILTON’S TABLES ........................................................................... 131

Appendix D: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ...................................................................... 134

Appendix E: GOVERNANCE ...................................................................................... 136

REFERENCE .............................................................................................................. 137

VITA AUCTORIS ......................................................................................................... 147

vii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table C1: Hamilton’s Table 1

Table C2: Hamilton’s Table 2
Table E1: Governance

viii
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Introduction

Institutions of higher education - Colleges and Universities, which began with the

University of Bologna in 1088, are some of the oldest and most historic institutions in

the world today. Harvard University, which was established in 1636, is America’s first

institution of higher education (Rudolph & Thelin, 1990). Remaining loyal to its founding

principles and original mission of “promulgating” research independent of any other

power, institutions of higher education have demonstrated remarkable endurance

(Thorp & Goldstein, 2013). Colleges and universities have evolved into a large

American industry that is complex and ever changing. “There is no single measure of

the industry’s size,” however, just less than a decade ago in 2007, “it enrolled some 19

million students and employs 3.4 million people, 3 percent of the entire U.S. service-

sector labor force” (Weisbrod, Ballou, & Ash, 2008, p. 9). In addition, at that time, “a

small number of schools were very well known, but the industry included 4,314 degree-

granting institutions” (2008, p. 9).

Taking a look at the shifting landscape of higher education, which may be

transitioning toward a corporate model, this study explored faculty perceptions about the

relationship of shared governance and the corporatization of higher education. Shared

governance, which has no true universal definition is a decision-making concept

practiced by colleges and universities. One perspective of shared governance, among

others provided in this research, is that, “Shared governance is a set of guidelines about

the various roles and authority of the board, faculty, and administration in such things as

academic decisions, budget decisions, selection of the president, and other operational

1
decisions” (Bahls, 2015, para. 1). Just as shared governance, corporatization of higher

education is a concept with no universal definition. It can be characterized by trends

such as “the rise of consumerism, a growing push for accountability and declining public

support for education,” which many have referred as “the ‘corporatization’ of higher

education” (Clay, 2008, para 3). Corporatization is also looked to as the process in

which “nonprofit colleges and universities are adopting corporate models, cutting costs

and seeking profit-making opportunities” (Clay, 2008, para. 3).

Institutions of higher education, in recent years, seem to be behaving more like

corporate companies. In an article published in The Chronicle of Higher education -The

Making of Corporate U: How We Got Here, Marvin Lazerson, professor of public policy

at Central European University in Budapest, relates the shift in higher education to the

American dream. He states that:

In the half-century after World War II, Americans built their dream on three pillars:
a new house, new car, and higher education. Over time, higher education came
to dominate the dream, for it was a statement about the future, opportunities, and
one's children. As it became the only route to an increasing number of
professions and the primary path to economic success, it generated greater and
greater expectations, enrollments, and money. It became one of America's most
successful industries. (2010, para. 1)

The introduction of corporate functions and operations at colleges and universities, may

impact the role and responsibility of faculty in shared governance. Additionally,

increases in the number of professional higher education administrators could also pose

a threat to shared governance. There was a time, which may still be relevant at some

institutions, where faculty were considered to be the university. Henry Rosovsky, author

of The University: An Owner’s Manual, suggested that:

Faculty members often assert that they are the university. Teaching and
research, acknowledged to be the key mission of higher learning, are in their

2
 hands. Without professors, it is hard to conceive of a university. Academic
administrators have been known to behave as if the university belonged to them.
In the United States, there are large numbers of chairmen, deans, provosts,
chancellors, vice presidents, presidents, and others in control of private fiefdoms.
(Rosovsky, 1990, p. 13)

Rosovky’s suggestions, may present a debatable topic about leadership in higher

education—who is in charge? To further extend the idea of the faculty being the

university, the author looks back to a writing by a western-professor about authority and

accountability not applying to academic organizations, because in his mind, “the faculty

was the only possible source of leadership, initiative, and originality” (Bornheimer,

Burns, and Dumke, 1973, p.147). Ideological differences between faculty and

administration, in addition to corporatization trends, may weaken faculty influence in

shared governance processes. The primary focus of this study is to gain an

understanding of faculty perceptions about how corporatization has impacted shared

governance.

Rationale

As colleges and universities have grown, both in number and size, since the

1600s, the complex functions and operations of these institutions now seem to be

impacting its decision-making process. Shared governance, a decision-making concept,

“that a great many colleges and universities have embraced and continue to give lip

service to” (Pierce, 2014, p. 6), is being threatened by corporatization. As also noted by

Pierce, corporatization is one of the many pressures facing higher education today.

The growing concern, on part of faculty members at institutions of all sizes and
types, that a “corporate” approach to decision making has replaced a more
collaborative approach and has led many faculty members vigorously to defend
prerogatives because they believe these prerogatives protect them from
capricious decisions on the part of administrators and, in some cases, trustees.
(Pierce, 2014, p. 6)

3
This has been a trend for quite some time. Jastrow was noted in the early 1900s as

saying that, “No single thing has done more harm in higher education in America during

the past quarter century than the steady aggrandizement of the presidential office and

the modeling of university administration upon the methods and ideals of the factory and

the department store” (McKeen Cattell, 1913, pg. 322).

American colleges and universities are faced with big and complex challenges,

including the rising cost of tuition; accountability and accreditation; dwindling state and

federal aid; and student learning outcomes. Some researchers, such as Bennet and

Wilezol noted that, “Many colleges and universities today have serious academic,

institutional, and other performance problems, and they are quickly approaching a crisis

point” (2013 p. xi). In addition, institutions are concerned about sexual abuse, alcohol

abuse, cost efficiency, technology demands, and, the billion-dollar enterprise of

intercollegiate athletics. Higher education leaders see these issues as challenges to the

higher education industry. Hunter Rawlings, president of the American Association of

Universities, in a talk, noted that the five forces currently challenging the foundation of

public higher education in America are: “1.) strain on state budgets due to Medicaid, 2.)

system-flagship conflict, 3.) ideological differences, 4.) institutional complexity, and 5.)

intercollegiate athletics” (Thorp & Goldstein, 2013, p. xiii). Although Rawlings only spoke

of challenges being faced at public institutions of higher education, the study being

proposed will have a primary focus around private institutions.

These issues and others, have potentially strained the viability of some colleges

and universities. In Governance Reconsidered, author Susan Resneck Pierce suggest

that:

4
 Today, many colleges and universities find themselves with structural deficits that
have an impact on their ability to thrive and in some instances even to survive.
Although there have always been institutions that at various points in their history
have suffered from constrained resources, what is different today, according to
Moody’s, is that most of the sector is in financial jeopardy. (2014, p. 25)

Under such complexities, institutions of higher education are tasked with making difficult

decisions to remain financially viable and competitive in the higher education industry.

Some industry leaders have questioned the ability of shared governance for managing

the complexities of higher education. As noted in a recent book, Locus of Authority: The

Evolution of Faculty Roles in the Governance of Higher Education, authors William G.

Bowen and Eugene M. Tobin discussed frustrations of shared governance, stating that:

Almost every contemporary issue facing higher education—from broadening

student access, to achieving better learning outcomes (especially higher
completion rates and reduced time-to-degree), to increase productivity and
lowering cost—is impeded and frustrated by a hundred-year-old system of
governance practices that desperately needs modification. Perhaps most
worrisome is the uncertainty one senses about higher education’s resolve to
reform from within. (2014, p.1)

Whether the time has come to reform the shared governance process is not the

focus of this study. However, the changing landscape of higher education, as it relates

to corporatization and shared governance is an area of focus for this study. As

institutions of higher education continue to increase the number of professional

administrators and introduce corporate-like strategies, there could be an erosion of

shared governance. This erosion, could result in faculty having less involvement in

decision-making processes at colleges and universities. Concerns about the erosion of

shared governance may not be a high priority for some administrators and faculty.

However, corporatization could potentially threaten the academic enterprise if faculty

influence in decision-making is weakened.

5
Purpose Statement

This study explored faculty perceptions about the relationship of shared

governance and corporatization to better understand its impact on faculty role and

responsibility in the decision-making process.

Research Design

To study faculty perceptions about the corporatization of higher education and its

impact on shared governance, this study employed a multi-case study approach.

Closely studying three private Midwestern colleges and universities – a research

university, a religious-designated university, and a professional college – this study

focused on the perceptions of faculty to gain the desired understanding.

Research Questions

The first question of this study sought to add to existing research about faculty

roles and responsibility in shared governance.

Research Question 1: What are faculty perceptions of the shared governance

decision-making process?

The second question looked to add to the body of evidence related to how

corporatization has effected shared governance.

Research Question 2: How has shifts toward a corporate model for higher education

impacted or threatened shared governance?

The third question sought to add to the body of evidence that recommend ways to

reform and sustain shared governance.

6
Research Question 3: How should colleges and universities work to balance roles

(between faculty and administration in the decision-making process) and sustain a

culture of shared governance?

Conceptual Framework

Focused around the founding principles of higher education, college and

university administration, and corporatization trends, the key concepts of this study are

shared governance and corporatization. Shared governance is the process used by

colleges and universities to make decisions. Perhaps a most perplexing concept,

shared governance is designed to bring balance between the role of the faculty and

administrators in decision-making processes. However, some believe that this balance,

in some respects, is rarely achieved. “There is agreement among professors, as well as

board members and university presidents, that college and university governance rarely

lives up to its own ideals of balanced collegiality” (Burgan, 2006, p. 101). Carry Nelson,

who authored the book No University is an Island: Saving Academic Freedom, suggest

that:

Shared governance cannot install full democracy in a university. It is a negotiated

strategy for sharing and adjudicating power and its application and effects.
Shared governance exists when boards of trustees agree to cede authority over
areas—such as curriculum development and faculty hiring—where the faculty
have greater expertise. It has nothing to do with democracy. (2010, p. 37)

Faculty should have authority in decisions related to academics and administrators

should have authority in decisions related to day-to-day operations.

Corporatization has challenged the concept of shared governance to think

differently about how decisions are made. Shared governance is viewed as a slow

process that has been likened to a slow clock by some, such as Weisbuch who said,

7
“academic decision making seems like a stalled clock” (2013, para. 2). “Many

administrators have a dangerous habit of regarding the faculty as an irritating

obstruction to discussions of commercial ventures. The entrepreneurial university, it is

said, must be able to move quickly. It cannot wait for windy faculty debates to run their

course lest valuable opportunities be lost in the fast-moving corporate world in which we

live” (Bok quoted in Birnbaum, 2004, p. 7). Corporatization is evidenced by the

proliferation of higher education administrators and the establishment of corporate like

functions, such as top-down administration, at colleges and universities. An in-depth

review of these two concepts, shared governance and corporatization, at each

institution informed this multiple-case study.

Limitations of Study

As the corporatization of higher education continue to occur across the country,

the ability to explore its impact on shared governance at all colleges and universities is

not feasible. This study designed around three Midwestern institutions will provide a

small sampling of faculty perceptions about the relationship of shared governance and

corporatization. While the study has a diverse group of institutions and faculty

perspectives, there could still remain gaps in the organizational experience of some

respondents. An example of this would be a respondent who has only been employed

by one college or university. That person may have a limited view about corporatization

and shared governance trends.

The biases of faculty respondents and the absence of staff respondents may limit

the study from having a balanced perspective about how corporatization may impact

shared governance. Benjamin Ginsberg, refers to professional administrators as an

8
‘army’. He goes on to suggest that, “it is the army of staffers that makes the

administration ‘relatively autonomous’ in the language of political science, and

marginalizes the faculty” (2011, p. 25). Lastly, information gathered from respondents,

in part, must be recalled from their lived experiences. Recalled information by faculty

may not be accurate due to a lapse in time and occurrence of particular events. This

study may provide a better understanding about faculty perceptions about the

corporatization of higher education and its relationship with shared governance.

However, the findings do not encompass a full understanding of all faculty perceptions.

Summary

All organizations, over time, may experience changes in structure, culture,

functions and operations. Change can be slow and difficult in higher education.

Speaking about change and decision making in higher education, Ms. Napolitano,

president of the University of California System, stated that there is an “overemphasis

on process that is out of sync with the pressing challenges of the moment” (Stripling,

2015, para. 7). To combat this overemphasis, Ms. Napolitano states that, "One of the

things I have tried to do is inject a sense of urgency” (Stripling, 2015, para. 8). As higher

education may be shifting toward a corporate model; the industry may also experience a

decision-making crisis. People will want to know, who is in charge and who does what.

In the higher education industry, the faculty, for many years, has been

responsible for making decisions about curriculum, research, faculty hiring, and many

other areas. As the authors of The Faculty in Higher Education noted, “In most of the

better institutions, the appointment and recruitment of new faculty are left to the

department. The faculty also has much to say in most colleges and universities about

9
curriculum and program. Requirements for degrees are proposed by the faculties;

courses are set up and administered by faculty” (Bornheimer, et al., pg. 151, 1973).

Faculty involvement in decisions making was solidified, in part, by the Statement on

Faculty Governance. “Not only did the Joint Statement confirm the faculty’s ‘primary

responsibility’ for educational matters such as faculty status and programs of instruction

and research, but it also articulated the importance of faculty involvement in educational

policy more generally, including setting institutional objectives, planning, budgeting, and

selecting administrators” (Birnbaum, 2004, p. 6). However, over time, the role of the

faculty in shared governance has experienced a shift, which could be related to

changes in the academic profession. Gerber reports that,

While full-time appointments off the tenure track were extremely rare in the
Golden Age of academia (in 1969 constituting only 3 percent of all full-time
appointments in universities), by the end of the first decade of the twenty-first
century, among all degree-granting institutions, 39 percent of all full-time faculty
members were in tenure-ineligible positions. When the increased use of graduate
assistants for classroom instruction is also taken into consideration, more than
three-quarters of all instructional staff members in 2011 had appointments off the
tenure track and hence fewer protections of their academic freedom and, in most
cases, less of a long-term identification with the institution at which they taught.
This dramatic change in nature of the academic profession would have major
consequences for faculty involvement in governance. (Gerber, 2015, p. 119)

Additionally, the make-up of the organization may have shifted toward a

corporate model where decisions are being driven by professional staff, not faculty. This

corporate model is not the norm for higher education and its evolution may have

strained the concept of shared governance. A look at an excerpt of Bowen and Tobin’s

work in Locus of Authority provides some perspective about the shifting model of higher

education:

Traditionally, much of the academia has been organized vertically, with the
department as the key, largely self-contained, unit. Going forward, we suspect

10
 that a much more horizontal structure is going to be required, because decisions
of many kinds are going to transcend departmental structures. We have in mind
decisions about the deployment of technology, about new approaches to
teaching at least some kinds of content, and about the reallocation of teaching
resources. “Horizontal thinking” will require both effective leadership from senior
officers and a much less compartmentalized and, perhaps, a more “networked”
way of approaching issues; an essential element is the willingness of key faculty
to think broadly about institutional needs, without expecting to control outcomes.
(2014, p.184)

Bowen and Tobin’s ideas for organizing institutions may cause interesting discovery

about the future organizational structure of colleges and universities. Additionally,

Bowen and Tobin’s thoughts may provoke heavy debate about faculty roles in shared

governance processes. As this study unfolds, perspectives such as Bowen and Tobin’s

are important. Exploring trends of corporatization and changes in the role of the faculty

in shared governance are key to this study. There are varying opinions around this

topic. This study looks to gain an understanding of faculty perspectives about what

impact corporatization has had on shared governance.

The next chapter presents a review of current and past literature around

corporatization, shared governance, and higher education leadership. Additionally, the

chapter should provide information about current trends in corporatization and shared

governance at colleges and universities.

11
 Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

The higher education industry is experiencing challenging times. The

complexities of its industry have in some ways effected shared governance and

questioned faculty roles, responsibility, and authority for making decisions. Neil

Hamilton, author of Academic Ethics: Problems and Materials on Professional Conduct

and Shared Governance, addressed questions about faculty governance related to:

mission and strategic planning; change in mission/toward national and international

recognition in identified fields; personnel decisions; search processes and performance

assessment of the president and dean; and finances (2002). Through the use of case

scenarios, Hamilton presented several problems that apply to principles of professional

conduct and shared governance, which focused around all areas mentioned above.

Hamilton, just like most faculty, argued that “Agencies for faculty participation in the

government of the college or university should be established at each level where

faculty responsibility is present. An agency should exist for the presentation of the views

of the whole faculty” (Hamilton, 2002, p. 220). In other words, faculty should be involved

in the decision-making process at colleges and universities. Two of the problems that

relate to this study from Hamilton’s work are the following case scenarios about a

change in the mission, vision, and curriculum. Those problems are:

• Problem 44 - Change in mission/vision toward national and international

recognition in identified fields; creation of a new department

• Problem 47 – Declining enrollments and restructuring and retrenchment; mission

change and restructuring.

12
 Colleges and universities have evolved to be like big businesses. “In a growing

number of towns and cities throughout the United States, colleges have replaced

manufacturers and other private businesses as the top company. In Rochester, New

York, the University of Rochester is the largest employer, with 20,000 workers in a city

that gave birth to several business icons: Kodak, Xerox, and Bausch & Lomb” (Selingo,

2013, p. 4). Institutions of higher education are challenged by the rising cost of its

product, advances in technology, and questions about the value of the degree it

confers. “While long ago universities were treated by our society-- and its various

government bodies – as well intentioned and being stewards of truth, justice, and the

American way, today we find that the university must contend with the same pressures,

standards, and demands for accountability that any other public corporation faces”

(Duderstadt, 2004, p. 141). Contending with these pressures, as noted by Bowen and

Tobin, requires adaptation on the part of colleges and universities. To remain viable

colleges and universities are pressed to adapt its way of thinking. “Almost every

contemporary issue facing higher education—from broadening student access, to

achieving better learning outcomes (especially higher completion rates and reduced

time-to-degree), to increasing productivity and lowering cost-is impeded and frustrated

by a hundred-year-old system of governance practices that desperately needs

modification” (2014, p. 1).

Some believe that “If universities and colleges are to successfully adapt to these

unavoidable societal trends, they must develop, communicate and implement clear and

concise strategies” (Collis, 2004, p. 33). One simple, yet hard to achieve,

recommendation for reforming shared governance is trust. After conducting several

13
case studies to gain knowledge about how leadership, relationships, and trust effect

shred governance, Adrianna Kezar, concluded that, “A governance system can operate

with imperfect structures and processes, but if leadership is missing and relationships

and trust damaged, the governance system will likely fail for lack of direction,

motivation, meaning, integrity, a sense of common purpose, ways to integrate multiple

perspectives, open communication, people willing to listen and legitimacy” (Kezar, 2004,

p. 45).

As these challenges and others raise questions about faculty roles, responsibility,

and authority in the governance of colleges and universities, the higher education

industry is coping with criticism about the long-standing concept of shared governance.

Loud criticism about the amount of time it takes to make decisions at colleges and

universities is a blow to shared governance. As stated by Birnbaum, “Current criticisms

about academic governance focus attention on changes in the external environment

and claim that because of faculty obstructionism, contemporary governance systems

cannot respond appropriately” (2004, p. 6). The efficiency of shared governance and its

ability to navigate challenges facing higher education today, has led some faculty to

explore ideas about reforming the concept (Bowen & Tobin, 2014). Birnbaum suggest

that calls of revising shared governance hinge on two questionable assumptions: “first,

that today’s colleges and universities have not been responsive enough, and second,

that speed in making decisions is an asset in academic institutions” (Birnbaum, 2004,

pg. 7).

Faculty involvement in the decision-making process continue to be an important

aspect of how colleges and university work. As the higher education industry continues

14
to press forward in the twenty-first century, collaborative efforts in decision making

among faculty and administrators is important for advancing the mission of colleges and

universities. Speaking about the importance of collaboration, Ferren and Stanton

suggest that,

Until one is in the central administration and viewing the institution as a whole, it
is hard to have perspective on how important cross-divisional collaboration is to
ensure that the parts of the system work together to accomplish the academic
vision. It is even more difficult to appreciate the challenge of focusing the
individual self-interest of faculty, staff, and administration from all divisions into a
coherent, collective institutional effort. (Ferren & Stanton, 2004, p. 2)

Some experts believe that when faculty, administrators, and boards fail to

collaborate, institutions are at threat of experiencing a crisis. The failure to collaborate

could lead to unhealthy paralysis that delay decisions and potentially throw an institution

into crisis (Pierce, 2014). Creating an ethic of collaboration within a university requires a

rethinking of traditional structures and an openness to include more stakeholders in the

decision-making process (Kezar & Lester, 2009). Change may be necessary for the

higher education industry. However, change in this industry could be slow, as

suggested by Jeffery J. Selingo, editor-at-large for the Chronicle of Higher Education

and the author of College (UN) Bound: The Future of Higher Education and What It

Means for Students.

Change comes very slow to higher education. Many institutions in the United
States were established more than two centuries ago, with a handful dating back
to the days before the American Revolution. Tradition is important at these
colleges. A confluence of events—flagging state support for public colleges, huge
federal budget deficits, and falling household income – now makes it necessary
to consider new approaches. (2013, p. x)

In addition, while higher education has witnessed rapid changes in technology services,

funding, and innovations in curriculum and research, the industry also faces pressure

15
from students and parents about its affordability. Larry G. Gerber speaks a bit about

these issues in his latest book, The Rise and Decline of Faulty Governance. Gerber

suggested that:

In the first years of the twenty first century, the country’s entire system of higher
education was faced with an ongoing crisis of confidence, which was expressed
in declining pubic support and increasing criticism of the cost of a college
education. As a consequence, critics more forcefully called for new approaches
to institutional governance and a more economical use of personnel- which often
entailed the de-professionalization of the professoriate- in order to put America’s
colleges and universities on a sounder “business basis”. (2015, p. 121)

A growing culture of non-tenure track faculty, a shrinking proportion of tenured

faculty, and a proliferation of administrators, present concerns and a need for knowing

who does what and who is in charge. This could be a perplexing issue that poses a

threat to shared governance. Strong leadership from faculty and administration will

require collaboration to prevent such issues from threatening the academic enterprise.

Gerber attributes the weakening of shared governance to several trends including: the

growing deference to market forces, de-professionalization of large sectors of faculty,

and mounting pressures from governing boards and legislatures about the use of

externally imposed metrics that assess performance (Gerber, 2015). These challenging

issues could test the industry’s ability for operating and functioning under the shared

governance model.

About Shared Governance

The evolution of American colleges and universities from small simple institutions

to complex organizations, not only exchanged the old-time professor with the

academician, it also changed the identity of its leadership. Colleges and universities

were compelled to seek a new kind of executive officer, new financing procedures, and

16
new areas of administration. Growth fed upon growth, and to avoid the problems that

growth presented, institutions began to function more like organizations (Rudolph &

Thelin, 1990). Since that time, which Rudolph speaks about, the corporatization of

colleges and universities has occurred. The higher education industry, practices a

complex decision-making model—Shared Governance. This governance model, some

may argue, is rarely understood or practiced in accordance to its fundamental purpose

of balance and inclusion in the decision-making process. As research experts urge that

collaboration among boards, faculty, and administration is important for advancing

shared governance, there is also a need for more shared understanding about how

governance works in higher education. This is touched on later in the chapter. In

addition, defining shared governance is important as well. The concept itself is rather

vague and there are competing ideologies about its meaning. Bowen and Tobin found

the concept of shared governance to be so vague that they considered dropping the

term from their writings. They also cited the lack of agreement on what the term actually

meant and the tendency to use the term in various “sloganeering” efforts as reasons for

dropping the term. However, it was decided that the term should be used for its useful

connotations (2014). Shared governance, for years, has been the foundation of higher

education administration. It affords faculty the opportunity to be involved in setting

priorities and shaping the future outlook of colleges and universities.

Shared governance is unique to colleges and universities. The concept that best

reflect the way in which institutions of higher education differ from other organizations is

governance. There is no single and generally accepted definition of governance; it has

been discussed in terms of structure, legal relationship, authority, rights and

17
responsibilities, and decision-making processes (Birnbaum, 1988). Reflecting on

conversations with college administrators, Gary Olson, provost and vice president for

academic affairs at Idaho State University, provided insights about the definition of

shared governance:

The phrase shared governance is so hackneyed that it is becoming what some

linguists call an "empty" or "floating" signifier, a term so devoid of determinate
meaning that it takes on whatever significance a particular speaker gives it at the
moment. Once a term arrives at that point, it is essentially useless.

Shared governance is not a simple matter of committee consensus, or the

faculty's engaging administrators to take on the dirty work, or any number of
other common misconceptions. Shared governance is much more complex; it is
a delicate balance between faculty and staff participation in planning and
decision-making processes, on the one hand, and administrative accountability
on the other. (Olson, 2009, para. 4-5)

An historical look at the origins of shared governance dates back to the 1915

Declaration of Principles (produced by the American Association of University

Professors [AAUP]), which provided faculty a participatory role in the prosecutorial and

judicial process of the university. However, the Declaration did not address the role of in

decisions that directly impacted the discovery and dissemination of knowledge missions

of the university. Shared governance was “defined, in 1966, more fully than had been

done in the past” (Pierce, 2014, p. 1) through the development of a joint statement:

Statement on Governance of Colleges and Universities— produced by the American

Association of University Professors, the American Council on Education (ACE), and

the Association of Governing Boards of Universities (AGB). The statement, which can

be viewed in Appendix A (reprinted with permission), was adopted by each organization

in 1966. ACE took action first in October of 1966, followed by the AAUP adoption during

the same month (October 1966), and lastly by the AGB, which recognized the statement

18
in November of 1966. The Statement conceded final institutional authority to governing

boards. In addition, AAUP urged boards and administrators to share the authority with

voting faculty in matters related to research and teaching missions (Hamilton, 2002).

The AAUP took further steps at its Fifty-Third Annual Meeting when the statement was

endorsed by the organization in April of 1967 (AAUP, 2011). As noted by the AAUP

(2006), the statement, which is not a blueprint for governance, is intended to foster

constructive joint thought and action, both within the institutional structure and in

protection of its integrity against improper intrusion. In other words, the statement was

an attempt to help all institutional members: faculty, board members, administrators,

students, and staff, play fair in the sandbox. Since the development of the 1966

statement, colleges and universities have undergone changes in shared governance.

Perhaps, it can be argued, that the statement should be revised. Some may argue that

the statement has no purpose; some may argue that the statement should be the

foundation for governance practice. Unfortunately, some may have no knowledge of the

statement or an understanding for how shared governance should work.

An important aspect of business is the ability to make decisions that strengthen

and secure the future of an organization. There are several factors that influence

decision-making such as hierarchy, politics, policy, and governance structures, which

are most relevant to this study. Sound decision-making processes, which vary from

industry to industry, are arguably fundamental to the success and sustainability of an

organization. Organizations may strive to have a democratic process, which “is a

practice that allows democracy to exist. Democracy is based on the idea that everyone

should have equal rights and be allowed to participate in making important decisions”

19
(democratic process, 2016), www.reference.com/government-politics/democratic-

process-a3bc3f6079d35ba2). Understanding shared governance is quite difficult and

there are some areas - allocation of responsibility - where its meaning is ambiguous.

Two tables constructed by Hamilton (See Appendix C, Table C1, C2) provide insights

into the role and responsibility of the players: faculty, administrators, and boards, in the

shared governance process. Hamilton’s explanation of one of his tables is:

Table [C]1 outlines the allocation of responsibility. “Consultation” in this tradition

includes (1) delegation to a reasonably representative faculty body, (2) full
information necessary for a decision, (3) reasonable time for consideration, (4)
reasonable opportunity to confer periodically with the administration and the
board, (5) reasonable opportunity for oral or written presentation of faculty
recommendations, and (6) a reasoned decision that is timely given the scope of
the decision at hand. (2002, p. 52)

As stated earlier, there was a degree of ambiguity that shared governance

presented as it relates to authority. One such area is the statement’s reference to a

“compelling reason” that allowed boards to overturn decisions made by the faculty. The

AAUP’s Committee T on College and University Government considered compelling

reason as being something larger than disagreement with faculty decisions and that it

should outweigh persuasive contrary reasons (Hamilton, 2002). One of the tables in

Hamilton’s book Academic Ethics, shows how the AAUP’s Committee A on Academic

Freedom and Tenure expanded faculty authority to financial exigency as it relates to the

termination of programs and the discontinuation of a program or department of

instruction when no financial exigency is declared (Hamilton, 2002). In understanding

shared governance, one must realize that it is not a one size fits all concept. Institutions

vary and the process of decision making is not universal. This reveals an importance for

understanding institution type. Birnbaum, in his article, The End of Shared Governance,

20
Looking Back or Looking Ahead, suggests that in order to understand governance, it is

important to differentiate between two types of institutions: academic and market, and,

two separate aspects of governance: hard and soft – and then, to posit a relationship

between the two: institutional type and governance emphasis. Market institutions

consider education as a mean rather than an end by offering products based on

consumer demand. Academic institutions consider education as an end rather than a

mean. Institutions that define authority relationships: structures, regulations, system of

sanctions, recommend organizational processes and encourage compliance. These are

considered to be hard governing institutions. On the other hand, those that rely on

social connections and interactions to help develop and sustain individual and group

norms are considered to practice soft governance (Birnbaum, 2004).

Today, colleges and universities have complex operations. They are more

businesslike in their management style and this worries some faculty groups. The

corporate like culture is perceived to have an effect on faculty roles, responsibility, and

authority in shared governance. One problem in shared governance is attributed to a

perceived erosion of faculty involvement in the process. Decisions that once fell under

the purview of the faculty, such as efforts to implement new degree programs, tenure,

and amongst others the hiring of presidents are being dominated by administrator

influence. Ginsberg suggests that:

there are few schools whose faculty members have a voice in business or
investment decisions. Hardly any faculties are consulted about the renovation or
construction of buildings and other aspects of school’s physical plant. Virtually
everywhere, student issues, including the size of the student body, tuition,
financial aid, and admissions policies are controlled by administrators. (2011, p.
4)

21
In addition, increases in the hiring of faculty to non-tenure track positions are perceived

to weaken faculty influence in shared governance.

Non-tenure track faculty do not share the full rights and responsibilities of tenure

track faculty. In some cases, faculty members themselves prevent contingent faculty

from full-fledged membership in groups (academic senates and other governing bodies)

that represent the interest of the faculty (Blumenstyk, 2015). Some believe that the

push toward efficiency initiated the augmentation of faculty membership to include less

tenured faculty and more adjunct faculty members (Morphew, 1999). The increase of

adjunct faculty in American colleges and universities has risen dramatically in the past

decade. In fact, while the number of full-time faculty in degree granting institutions

increased by 42 percent from fall 1991 to fall 2011, the comparison to part-time faculty

is astonishing. During the same time period, fall 1991 to fall 2011, part-time faculty in

degree-granting institutions increased 162 percent. As a result of this fast increase,

part-time faculty increased from 35 percent to 50 percent during this period (National

Center for Education Statistics, 2014). Some believe that the overreliance on part-time

faculty could damage the academy and affect shared governance. In listing ways that

this could happen, Carry Nelson, author of No University Is an Island, suggests the

following: It destroys shared governance, by excessive reliance on teachers who have

little or no role in governance – who may even be barred from it – and who risk losing

their jobs if they resist administrative fit or criticize administration plans or proposals.

(Nelson, 2010, p. 85).

As the industry of higher education has morphed into a big business, some fear

that the power and influence of the faculty has weakened. Additionally, there are those

22
who believe that corporatization threatens the academic enterprise and contributes to

the erosion of shared governance. Some perceive that the growing number of

administrators on campuses is evidence of corporatization effects on shared

governance. Benjamin Ginsberg suggest that an increase of administrators and staff

employed at colleges and universities could conceivably have a role in the erosion of

shared governance.

Administrators and staffers actually outnumber full-time faculty members at

America’s colleges and universities. In 2005, colleges and universities employed
more than 675,000 full-time faculty members. This number may seem large but,
in the same year, America’s colleges and universities employed more than
190,000 individuals classified by the federal government as “executive,
administrative, and managerial employees” (2011, p. 24).

The weakening of shared governance is hard to quantify, but in a poll conducted in May

2013 by Gallup and the online publication Inside Higher Ed, nearly one of five college

presidents agreed that shared governance was “no longer respected by their governing

boards as it was in the past” (Inside Higher Ed, 2013). Other researchers have

expressed that the waning of faculty power is less prevalent at major research

universities, where faculty secured research grants could be a good sources of revenue.

Erosion may happen more so at the majority of institutions where the largest revenue

source is typically derived from state funds and tuition, which results in professors

having less financial clout (Blumenstyk, 2015). At any rate, there seem to be a “them

versus us” relationship between faculty and administrators. There is a divide between

the two groups that make collaboration difficult. Robert Weisbuch described the process

of decision making (as it relates to faculty and administrators collaborating) a stalled

clock. He writes that:

23
 driving out of the Lincoln Tunnel on the impressively ugly Route 3 into New
Jersey, I passed the garish clock atop the famed Tick Tock Diner and thought
about shared governance…In that moment on the road because academic
decision making seems like a stalled clock. And while professors and
administrators are not yet at the point of adopting murder as a means of settling
their disputes, we’ve become adept at figurative torture. We are often so
frustrated by each other that we squander the energy crucially required to defend
the liberal arts by fighting amongst ourselves. (Weisbuch, 2015, para. 1-2)

Administrative staffers typically do not report to faculty. In addition, the lack of

interaction, in some cases, could cause friction due to unfamiliarity. This army of

professional staffers is the bulwark of administrative power in the contemporary

university. Before they employed an army of staffers, administrators were forced to rely

on the cooperation of the faculty to carry out task ranging from admissions to decisions

to build new academic facilities. An administration that lost the confidence of the faculty

might find itself unable to function. Today, its army of staffers makes the administration

“relatively autonomous” in the language of political science, and marginalizes the faculty

(Ginsberg, 2011). More around the increases in nonacademic professionals is

presented later in this literature review.

Faculty involvement in decision making is granted through shared governance.

However, the dominance of corporatization: where emphasis is focused on the bottom

line, efficiency, consumer opinion, and prestigious rankings, among other product-driven

priorities; has raised questions about the role, responsibility, and authority of the faculty

and the future of shared governance. Faculty ponder the worth of their influence in the

management of the academic enterprise, and administrators look for ways to lead

without using shared governance. A common ground has to be established at some

point. As noted by Bowen and Tobin, “A proper alignment between roles and

responsibilities is essential in every setting. We recognize that there is often a difference

24
between corporate America and academia in the ability to move quickly-and this

difference has to be narrowed, but surely not in the direction of even more cumbersome

and compartmentalized decision-making in the academy” (2014, p. 185). As higher

education continues to trend toward a corporate-like structure, decision-making process

at colleges and universities should be balanced by faculty and administrators who

understand the need for collaboration. Without balance, greater influence may tilt to the

group with the larger army. Either way, the relationship between shared governance

and corporatization is an interesting one that will continue to evolve. The following

section highlights research that provide insights into the relationship of corporatization

of higher education and shared governance.

Corporatization and Shared Governance

The corporatization of higher education arguably has served a severe blow to the

future of shared governance. One scholar, Terry Eagleton, a distinguished visiting

professor of English literature at the University of Lancaster noted that:

As professors are transformed into managers, so students are converted into

consumers. Universities fall over one another in an undignified scramble to
secure their fees. Once such customers are safely within the gates, there is
pressure on their professors not to fail them, and thus risk losing their fees. The
general idea is that if the student fails, it is the professor’s fault, rather like a
hospital in which every death is laid at the door of the medical staff. One result of
this hot pursuit of the student purse is the growth of courses tailored to whatever
is currently in fashion among 20-year-olds. (Eagleton, 2015, para. #).

Is this because the bottom line has become more important to administration and

securing funding for research has become the top priority for faculty, or could it be

because administration is top heavy? There are many questions to ask and many

opinions to debate. One opinion that maybe universal is that American colleges and

universities have become heavily populated with nonacademic administrators.

25
 Benjamin Ginsberg (2011), considered the expert authority on the topic of the

rising number of college and university administrators, authored a book, The Fall of the

Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why It Matters. Readers

should quickly understand the purpose of Ginsberg’s book, which is—as noted in the

introduction—to slow if not halt the spread of administrative blight. In speaking about the

state of higher education, Ginsberg shared this thought, “Today, institutions of higher

education are mainly controlled by administrators and staffers who make the rules and

set more and more of the priorities of academic life” (2011, p. 1). An interesting thought

indeed. After describing the focus of this study to a chancellor of a research university,

the chancellor responded with a statement that questioned the ability of higher

education to sustain and protect the integrity of the academic enterprise. This brief

conversation guided a portion of this study, which took an in-depth look at faculty and

academic administrators perceptions about the relationship of shared governance and

corporatization. Some researchers believe that while faculty governance continues to be

effective, it is increasingly difficult to achieve true faculty participation in broader

university matters such as finance, capital facilities, and external relations (Duderstadt,

2004). Faculty themselves, as some researchers would suggest, question whether

collegial processes are designed to make difficult decisions such as cutting programs or

eliminating positions. A limited advisory role, however, is not satisfactory to many

faculty, although they would concede that there is a difference between academic and

administrative decisions that might appropriately lead to a distinction between being

involved and being consulted (Ferren & Stanton, 2004).

26
 Another curiosity that presented itself during that conversation with the

chancellor, was the likening of the fall of the faculty to the fall of the clergyman

president. At one point in history, colleges and universities were led predominantly by

clergyman who were, the president, the faculty, and at times the person doing work, like

tending to the physical plant. As institutions began to grow and the complexities of its

work began to expand, the clergy man as president slowly began to fade.

The clergyman president went into discard because he lacked skill in the ways of
the world, because his commitment to the classical curriculum stood in the way
of the more practical and popular emphasis which commended itself to the
trustees, and because the world in which colleges and universities now moved
was secular, less subject to religious influences. One by one, the colleges broke
with tradition and elected their first non-clergyman to the presidency: Dennison in
1889, Illinois College in 1892, Yale in 1899, Princeton in 1902, Marietta in 1913,
Bowdoin in 1918, Wabash in 1926. (Rudolph & Thelin, 1990, p. 419)

Faculty, like the clergyman experience, may be out of touch with the corporate world,

which is suited for: efficiency, investment and sustainability strategies, long-range

strategic plans, and organizational change. Or, it could be that faculty have released

themselves of the rudimentary, mundane and time-consuming work of thinking in the

weeds (administration), in favor of academic innovations that sustain core values and

advance the academic enterprise. Those advances may include improvement in

delivery approaches for classroom learning, on line degree methods, and cross-

disciplinary and inter-disciplinary research.

Strengthening the academic enterprise could be one area where faculty and

administration agree about the importance of a sound academic infrastructure. One way

in which colleges and universities achieve a sound academic enterprise is through

recruiting a talented and diverse crop of faculty. Universities that hope to move up in the

graduate-program rankings target top professors and offer them high salaries and other

27
perks (Shea, 2014). Colleges and universities have gone great measures to secure the

best and brightest researchers to join its faculty. Researchers perceive that some

faculty recruitment practices may have an effect on shared governance. Research by

Gerda Lerner with the University of Wisconsin-Madison suggests that corporatization

has caused sweeping changes that slowly erode tenure and impact the governance

structure. Lerner argues that a star-like hiring system has been created by colleges and

universities that has contributed to the attrition in tenure-leading positions, particularly in

liberal arts fields of study, such as History (Lerner, 2008). The “star system” hiring

process has, in recent years, become a trend for universities and colleges. The star

system hiring - arguably a process developed under pressures to rise to the top

rankings of the US and News World Report – has become widely practiced in higher

education, specifically at research universities and private institutions. The recruitment

and courting of star faculty is described as being similar to the free-agent system

practiced by major professional sports leagues.

Steve Conn wrote about this phenomenon in a 2010 Chronicle Review article,

“The Steinbrenner Effect.” Conn compared faculty free agency to the major-league

baseball free-agency system that George Steinbrenner, former owner of the New York

Yankees, mastered by offering huge contracts to the game’s best players in exchange

of their services as a New York Yankee. In this article, Conn writes that:

There may be no single figure like George Steinbrenner in higher education, but
without a doubt over the last generation faculty free agency has come to campus.
And while faculty members have railed, quite justly—though without much
success—against the ways in which institutions of higher education have
refashioned themselves, corporation like, into University Inc., we have largely
been silent about the Steinbrenner Effect on colleges and universities. In fact, the
dirty little secret, I suspect, is that we have largely embraced it as enthusiastically

28
 as major leaguers embraced free agency when it came to baseball in 1975.
(2010, para. 3)

The star-like free agent system, in some instances, has been embraced by faculty. Who

could fault them for welcoming such luxurious contracts similar to those handed out to

professional administrators? This embrace by faculty, in Conn’s opinion, is not good. He

believes that it attributes to the corporatization of higher education (2010). Faculty

recruitment has evolved and institutions are willing to provide nice incentives to secure

and hire talented faculty. For instance, Christopher Shea who writes for The Chronicle

suggest that:

The star system is "in hyper drive," says Adrianna Kezar, a decade ago, her
university began a $100-million program to bolster departments in the arts and
sciences, hiring established scholars from better-ranking departments. One
beneficiary was Scott Soames, a philosopher. Hired from Princeton in 2004 and
chair since 2007, he and the department have been on a hiring spree that has
brought it from 46th in the country to 11th, according to the much-watched
rankings system created by Brian Leiter of the University of Chicago. Leiter says
he’s heard the housing subsidies for USC philosophers hit $500,000 in some
cases, although Soames says that is an exaggeration. But housing subsidies are
essential in recruiting, Soames says, given LA’s high cost of living (Shea, 2014,
para. 5).

Just as the recruitment practice of star hiring systems is perceived as a threat to

faculty role in governance, the lack of faculty involvement or interest in governance

concerns some faculty. Some attribute this to the de-professionalization of the faculty.

The nature of the professoriate has changed dramatically, in that currently only
25 percent at US colleges and universities are tenured or on the tenure-track,
with the result that 75 percent of college and university faculty today are
contingent faculty, hired on a contract basis, with no role in governance. More
than 80 percent of them are part-time. As a result, the vast majority of faculty
typically play no role whatsoever in governance. (Pierce, 2014, p 4)

The increasing use of part-time and non-tenure-track faculty has undermined the

practices of shared governance in several ways as earlier noted by Blumenstyk (2015).

29
In addition to contributing to the dwindling number of tenured faculty, the corporatization

of higher education has lessened the influence of faculty in decision- making processes.

Having less tenured faculty serve on academic committees and other institutional

leadership committees, may decrease faculty’s ability to have equal balance in

decisions about academic policies.

In talking about the workload of faculty, Ferren and Stanton highlights an

example that could occur when full time faculty are not involved, they state that:

A nonacademic administrator may question the legitimacy of a two day a week

teaching schedule without considering whether, in fact, the uninterrupted blocks
of time for research, course development, or preparing grant proposals make the
faculty member more efficient and productive in these other areas of
responsibility. The business officer may welcome the flexibility and cost
effectiveness of temporary and part-time faculty without taking into account the
impact this lack of stability has on institutional effectiveness, full-time faculty
productivity, and continuity in service to students. (2004, p. 231)

This could be problematic when such policies or decisions are formed to guide the

direction and priorities of an institution. This loss of faculty influence has moved some

faculty, like Ginsberg (2011), to take interest in slowing the corporatization of higher

education. The question of what should be done to slow corporatization has yet to result

in an answer that decreases the pace of corporatization. With the corporatization of

higher education continuing to permeate campuses of most American colleges and

universities, the phenomenon of this process is becoming more noticeable by faculty

who oppose corporate-like systems. These are faculty who serve on the front line of the

fight to end or diminish the advancement of corporatization.

As a first-year senior administrator at a private research institution, the author of

this study experienced baptism by fire, witnessing and participating, first hand, in star

30
system hiring practices. The Promotion and Tenure committee, at the School where the

author was employed, set out to hire the best researchers in its field of study.

The author can recall conversations with the dean of the School about an exchange

with the Promotion & Tenure committee. The committee presented a prospective faculty

recruit as being the “number one” researcher in their field of study. At the

recommendation of the committee, the dean pursued the professor, an African-

American male, who was a faculty member at a competing school. After much wooing

and recruitment, the school secured the faculty, a full professor, who received a

distinguished chair position at the university. A highly-coveted position, distinguished

chairs are bestowed upon the top faculty in a field of study. The Chairs are typically

established with funds in excess of a million dollars. An example would be the

University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, which publishes the following

information about Distinguished Chairs on its web site:

A Distinguished Chair position is a high honor often bestowed to deans and

division directors of special merit. This is a prestigious honor that serves as a
great incentive when attracting high caliber educators and researchers for
leadership positions at the university. As of January 1, 2015, a $2 million gift is
required to establish a Distinguished Chair endowment. (University of Texas
Health Science Center in Houston, n. d.).

At the author’s amazement, the faculty recruitment process is very similar to the

process practiced by big time college sports teams. Faculty prospects are vetted and

courted at a similar magnitude as talented high school athletes are pursued. It all leads

to higher rankings whether it’s the US News & World Report, The Associated Press

Coaches Poll or, the newly reconstructed computerized Bowl Championship Series

rankings. They are all popularity contests that drive rankings.

31
Sustaining Shared Governance

The appropriate group to lead the charge against corporatization is the faculty

itself, suggests James Andrews (2006). Findings from Andrews’ research reveal that:

Faculty, especially those who are tenured or on the tenure track, are regarded as
‘officers’ of their institutions in the same sense that the lawyers who have passed
the bar exam are regarded as officers of the court. Faculty, therefore, are
entrusted with the significant institutional responsibilities in shared governance
and are expected to play the primary role in the decisions concerning instruction,
research, and faculty status. (Andrews, 2006, p. 17)

While halting the threat to the academic enterprise is a suggested role for the faculty,

collaboration with administrators and others is encouraged. Neil W. Hamilton (2002),

author of the book Academic Ethics: Problems and Materials on Professional Conduct

and Shared Governance, suggest that faculty should, with the assistance from other

groups, lead the continuing-education effort, offering ideas about how such an effort

might be organized and implemented. Leadership should come from the faculty (2006).

Faculty seem to be the likely candidate to lead this effort, however research

suggest that all university leaders should be charged with leading the reform of the

governance system. There is a difference of ideas about faculty leadership in some

circles of higher education. In the article, Future of Shared Governance, Mathew Creelin

(2010) suggest that trustees and administration may view shared governance in an

opposite manner. They may choose to view faculty as important contributors to the

conversation, but believe that administrative decisions should be the purview of the

administration. Bowen and Tobin researched a similar topic in their book and suggest

that there must be a proper alignment of roles and responsibilities between faculty and

administration. Colleges and universities are accustomed to operating at a slow pace

conducive to shared governance. Corporations operate much faster and are less

32
friendly to processes that involve collaborative decision making. There needs to be an

ability to make prompt decisions and change the course of a decision swiftly if the

chosen direction turns out to be inadequate (Bowen & Tobin, 2014).

Other ideas that called for change in higher education governance include

Keller’s 1983 idea to develop joint big decision committees to make more strategic

decisions and Benjamin and Caroll’s 1998 recommendation to redesign and restructure

campus governance to be more responsive and less bureaucratic (as cited in Gayle,

Tewarie, & White, 2003). There has been a considerable amount of debate about who

has the power and influence on college and university campuses. One power struggle

to note happened at the City Universities of New York (CUNY) in the 1960s. “From 1965

to 1967, debates over admissions – and the related politics for tuition (which was still

free at senior colleges) and state funding – divided the board and pitted the board chair

against the university chancellor” (Bowen & Tobin, 2014, p. 89). This debate and power

struggle, which lasted nearly a decade and caused other issues marked the “turbulent

sixties” for CUNY and led to faculty unionization and the overhauling of CUNY’s

decentralized structure and changes in leadership (2014).

The corporatization model is one that is arguably driven by politics and the

bottom line. The future of shared governance could be threatened without the

development of strategies that ensure balance of roles and responsibilities in decision-

making processes. This imbalance of power could be challenging to shared governance

and could cause turmoil on campuses. Evidence of this could be seen in recent search

processes that have yielded presidents and chancellors who have not risen from the

ranks of academia. Such cases could be seen at Purdue University, Florida State

33
University, the University of Iowa, Mount Union and others. The corporatization shift

has, at some institutions, ushered in non-academic leaders as presidents and

chancellors, roles which have traditionally been held by academics. This has resulted in

faculty outrage in its university or college choice of leader. Evidence of this is shown in

the following section.

Non-Academic Leaders

As higher education’s challenges including fiscal management, a need for private

funding, pressure of potential federal oversight, and others have become more complex,

some governing boards have opted to hire politicians and Fortune 500 executives to

lead institutions. Florida State, Purdue University, The College of Charleston, University

of Iowa, and a host of others have – in recent years – hired nonacademic executives to

lead its institutions. Those leadership decisions have garnered opposition from faculty

and students who oppose the hiring of non-traditional leaders, which is becoming a

trend for higher education.

After Florida State’s announcement that they hired a powerful state lawmaker in

Florida, as president, faculty and students alike were disgruntled by the hire, which led

students to chant "FSU is not for sale!" The students widely believed that the decision of

the board was influenced by conservative business interest. John F. Thrasher, had

served in government for the state of Florida for many years. Some outraged Florida

State University (FSU) faculty felt that the hiring process lacked the spirit of shared

governance. Jeff Chanton, a professor of oceanography, warned the board before its

vote that selecting Mr. Thrasher would be seen as "incredibly dismissive of the faculty"

(Schmidt, 2014). Thrasher was awarded the position after an 11-2 vote by the board of

34
trustees, which left three college administrators in the cold as runner-ups for the

university’s presidency.

With the hire of former political figures as presidents and chancellors, some may

argue perhaps that these leaders’ familiarity with government and legislation makes

them attractive to governing boards. In recent years, college presidencies—especially

those at public institutions—have become regular landing places for former politicians. It

is not hard to see why. Governing boards are wanting to improve their institutions’

relationships with state and federal governments, not to mention their appropriations,

hiring elected officials with experience in those areas has become an attractive practice

for colleges and universities (Kelderman, September, 2014). After Frank T. Borgan, a

former lieutenant governor of Florida, was hired as president for Florida Atlantic

University, Sheila McDevitt stated the following, "Frank Brogan has something that is

very important, knowledge of the system and knowledge of the players in the state”

(Kelderman, 2014, September, para. # 11). Knowledge of the state political system may

definitely be a benefit; however, faculty are concerned with the lack of knowledge for the

academic enterprise that these leaders may possess. The hiring of politicians and other

corporate like CEO’s as presidents may be seen as a threat to the sustainability of

shared governance.

As nonacademic leaders are becoming more attractive to search firms and

governing boards, one has to wonder how these hires will influence the future of higher

education and shared governance. It did not take long for leader Mitch Daniels to be

recognized as a force that was changing the landscape Purdue University. Headlines

about Daniels are the following:

35
 Mitch Daniels Reinvents the American University…Mitch Daniels Battles the
Campus Bureaucracy…Mitch Daniels, Now University President, Spurs
Rethinking on Value of a Degree…The New York Times hasn’t just written about
Mr. Daniels; it has advertised him as a key speaker next month at its "Schools for
Tomorrow" forum. (Kelderman, 2014, August, para. 2)

Daniels took Purdue by storm, introducing and implementing nonconventional

approaches to the campus, including initiatives such as the three-year degree, tuition

freezes, innovation competitions, Purdue’s very own Amazon site, and other

approaches that are considered far from traditional. His leadership has been comforting

for some and skeptical for others, however most faculty are happy that he is being a

champion of Purdue and telling its story. As noted by a faculty member, in a Chronicle

of Higher Education article written by Kelderman (2014, August), Ms. Hart, chair of the

University Senate, commented that many of the initiatives to improve sponsored

research and commercialization predate Mr. Daniels’s term as president, but she is

happy that he is pointing out those successes to the public. "His job is cheerleader in

chief," (2014, August, para. 29) she warns that a continued tuition freeze, static state

appropriations, and stagnant faculty salaries could give some academics a reason to

leave for a more supportive environment.

Although the work of Daniels is catching the attention of many as being the way

of the future, there still seems to be some skepticism about these business approaches

that are mainly focused on efficiency and accountability -- two fundamental concepts of

corporatization.

It should be noted that the shift to the non-academic president has not

permeated higher education as fast as corporate like models have. The career path to

the presidency has not changed significantly, in the past two decades, since 1986. Chief

36
Academic Officers continue to be the likely chosen candidate of a search committee.

However, the share of college presidents whose prior job was outside of academia has

risen between 2006 and 2013 from 13 to 20 percent (King & Gomez, 2013). A continued

watch on this trend will be interesting, as many college and university presidents are

nearing retirement age and new leaders are preparing to step in. If this trend of hiring

leaders outside of academia continues to emerge, some leaders may find themselves

surrounded by familiar functions and operations since colleges and universities are

more like corporations.

Corporate Functions and Operations

Another focus of corporatization that has threatened shared governance is the

roll out of Shared Services processes aimed to improve efficiency in higher education.

Shared Services refer to a process used to streamline administrative processes and

reduce redundancies (Education Advisory Board, 2016). An example would be an IT

help desk being collapsed into one department that will support an entire organization.

Previously multiple schools, units, or other entities of a college or university had its own

IT help desk that only serviced its respective area. Basically, this created a situation

where multiple employees perform the same duty. Shared Services aim to cut the fat

and operate the service at a lower cost. Several institutions – Harvard, Yale, Clearmont,

John Hopkins, and others (University of California, 2016, paragraph 1) - have

introduced this process, which presumably will cut cost and administrative fat through

the process of centralization. Some may look at Shared Services as the equivalent to

corporate downsizing.

37
 Another area where colleges and universities, for some time, have looked to

corporate functions is in budgeting. For example, the University of Oregon employs a

decentralized budget process known as Responsibility Center Management, or RCM. In

this system, Oregon and other institutions have charged academic deans with the

responsibility of overseeing fiscal budgets. In recent years, as institutions have

struggled with financial pressures amid declining sources of revenue, many more

administrators have pushed RCM to "unleash the deans," as the budget model’s

advocates like to put it: to give deans and the professors under them a financial

incentive to cut costs, find new sources of revenue, and think more strategically about

where the college is headed (Carlson, 2015). The RCM approach has been introduced

at several institutions. This approach, since 2000, has spread across the higher

education industry. Iowa State, Ohio, Rutgers, and Texas Tech Universities have

adopted it; so have the Universities of Florida, New Hampshire, and Virginia.

Northeastern and Syracuse Universities are among private institutions to have made the

move (2015). Some people are in favor of RCM, while others view it as a tool used by

presidents and provosts to pass down budgeting responsibilities to deans during tough

fiscal challenges. Given RCM’s focus on enterprise amid economic decline, it is a

budget model that seem fit for corporatization. RCM may just be another management

fad that found its way to higher education.

In higher education, fads have been described as management innovations

borrowed from other settings, applied without full consideration of their limitations,

presented either as complex or deceptively simple, relying on jargon, and emphasizing

rational decision making (from Allen & Chafee in Birnbaum, 2000).

38
 At a time of lean budgets and difficult decisions, people think of RCM as a way to
make clear why they get money when they get money’, says David Attis, senior
director of academic research at the Education Advisory Board...It has become a
popular topic of discussion among institutions, he says, something of a ‘religion’
in higher education, attracting converts. (Carlson, 2015, para. 9)

RCM, could be another form of corporate like functions and operations adopted by

institutions of higher education. Having academic leaders oversee this function could be

a good form of shared governance, however decisions made under this process could

lead to strained relationships between deans and faculty.

Shared governance has always been viewed as a complex process and its

coupling with corporatization may be one of higher education’s most challenging issues

of the twenty-first Century. Understanding how corporatization is challenging or even

eroding the concept of shared governance guides this research to gain a better

understanding of the relationship between the two. As faculty experience concerns

about the erosion of shared governance, the corporatization model is, arguably, a major

part of their concerns. Nonetheless, at least for now, the corporatization movement may

be around for years to come.

The Corporatization Movement

Research chronicling the evolution of the corporatization model reveal several

circumstances that led to the corporatization of higher education. James Andrews

looked to the downturn of the economy during the mid-2000s, as a contributor to higher

education’s reliance on corporate models for sustainability. Additionally, Andrews

studied the public perception of American colleges and universities to find answers

about the value of a college degree. Andrews (2006) suggest that:

Different circumstances led institutions to increase their reliance on corporate

practices over the last several decades. A prolonged downturn in the U.S.

39
 economy decreased public and private support for higher education, forcing
institutions to look elsewhere for funding, and negative public perception did not
help. Many people in the larger society came to feel, for example, that colleges
and universities no longer serve the public interest but instead cater to the private
interest of the favored few who are accepted for admission. Such thinking led to
a sense that these favored individuals, not the public, should pay a greater
portion of college costs through tuition. (Andrews, 2006, p. 17)

As the public perception of American colleges and universities began to take a

nose dive, it can be argued that public scrutiny of faculty and tenure processes began to

erode the future of shared governance. This may have led to heightened levels of

employee, policy, and procedural oversight and specifically a tightening of accreditation

efforts. These efforts are being led by accreditation agencies such as the Higher

Learning Commission and others that hold institutions accountable to meet specific

standards of operation. As defined by the U.S. Department of Education, the role of

accrediting agencies is to:

ensure that education provided by institutions of higher education meets

acceptable levels of quality. Accrediting agencies, which are private educational
associations of regional or national scope, develop evaluation criteria and
conduct peer evaluations to assess whether or not those criteria are met. (United
States Department of Education, n.d., para. 4)

The increased scrutiny of faculty and the tenure process, in many respects, has some

bearing on the proliferation of administrators, the dwindling numbers of tenured faculty

roles, and the increasing reliability on contingent faculty at most institutions.

Joan W. Scott, during AAUP’s first annual Neil Rappaport Memorial Lecture,

suggested several ideas about the erosion of faculty governance that are linked to

corporatization. Scott considers current practices of hiring presidential leaders from

outside of academia as a trend that is threatening the role of faculty in the decision-

making process. Additionally, Scott suggested that institutions of higher education have

40
become more appeasing to students and paying parents by putting a greater emphasis

on satisfaction, which is making institutions resemble structures of commodities rather

than educational institutions. Scott’s thoughts about satisfying students suggest that

institutions of higher education have made the student life experience more important

than educational learning provided through the curriculum (Scott, 2001).

One old rule of thumb for the business world, particularly businesses that rely on

the consumer, is that the customer is always right. In recent years, a great debate in

higher education has focused on the student being a customer versus a person seeking

knowledge that higher education offers. Some may argue that students and parents

alike have adopted this term “customer” and have used it to hold colleges and

universities accountable. As rankings and accountability have become judgment tools

used to determine what college an individual will attend, some faculty and staff are

wondering if institutions of higher education have truly become commodities. Dartmouth

professor Russell J. Rickford, once asked the question “Are We Commodities?” which

was the title of an article he had published in The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Rickford (2010) noted that:

The idea of the classroom experience as a kind of market exchange has helped
drain our lives and intellectual labor of a robust sense of social purpose and
responsibility. The consumer model encourages students to approach the
enterprise of learning as clients that will enable us to maximize personal wealth.
We even use the language of the market. Students say, “I’m shopping for
classes.” Colleges and universities increasingly promote themselves as brands,
and pupils understand entitlement and privilege as part of the product they
purchase at enrollment. We faculty members are complicit – our silence or
scholarly detachment mind daily assaults on workers, immigrants, and the poor
tacitly assures our students that private accumulation is the ultimate purpose of
higher learning. (Rickford, 2010, para. 8).

41
 Rickford’s idea of colleges and universities promoting themselves as brands is

shared by others. Trends around this topic has expanded to include the competitive

nature that has developed amongst institutions as they race to attract the best and

brightest students. An example is the Flagship Match implemented by the University of

Maine. “The Flagship Match Program is a competitive scholarship program that

guarantees academically qualified, first-year students from several states will pay the

same tuition and fee rate as their home state’s flagship institution” (University of Maine,

2016, para. 1). Additionally, as the corporatization of colleges and universities continue

to evolve, some believe that the consumer model has promoted the use of corporate -

like strategies in the higher education industry. Mark Burstein (2015), President of

Lawrence University, spoke of the unintended consequences of using business-like

practices to run a university as he linked the student experience to academic

leadership.

As colleges and universities compete more vigorously than ever to attract

applicants from a smaller population of high-school seniors and strive to provide
a deeper, more compelling education, many of us in academic leadership have
looked to business practices and concepts to manage our institutions. We have
created marketing plans, sought advice from management consultants, and
developed metrics and strategic plans.

Techniques borrowed from the business community can significantly improve an

institution and what it provides. Focused on administrative functions like housing
and dining, technology infrastructure, health services, and facilities management,
those strategies can enhance the services we offer students while reducing
operating costs. Ideally, the resulting improvements allow institutions to reach a
crucial goal: greater affordability for more students and families. Business tools
also provide important insights into many issues that face the academy, such as
how to academically support students through graduation and improve their lives
on the campus.

However, when management philosophy and operational concepts are extended

across the academy, do they truly improve the learning we offer our students?
Do they enhance our ability to prepare students for successful, meaningful lives

42
 in this rapidly changing world? Might they even compromise what makes a
college or university distinctive? Could they threaten a pluralistic learning
community, where all members have a chance to thrive? Those questions have
arisen from my own experience of over 20 years in higher education. (Burstein,
2015, para. 1-3)

Although Burstein acknowledged the importance of using business-like tools to lead

colleges and universities, as noted, he questions the role of such tools in the academic

enterprise and the impact it has on student learning. As the student experience

continues to be considered amongst the top priorities for colleges and universities,

higher education administration and academic leadership, must maintain a balance

between student learning and the student experience. Both are high on the priority list

for consumers and policy makers as institutions continue to make a pitch for the worth

of a college education. As the higher education industry is morphing into a commodity,

institutions will have to defend its cost and become more subject to questions from the

consumer about its value. The millennial generation now entering college and

universities have spurred this issue further than others before.

Accountability and Value

Accountability of higher education is a relative theme in the literature review. As a

Peer Reviewer for the North Central Higher Learning Commission, the author has had

first-hand experiences of the importance of accreditation and its role in the

corporatization of colleges and universities. However, the system of accountability

evolving, as reported in the literature, is closely related to federal government

involvement in what is being referred to by some as the “accountability movement.”

The growing interest of government officials, consumers, taxpayers, and

advocates for decreasing the cost of college are demanding colleges and universities to

43
show measurable evidence of how tuition and public funds are used for the good of the

public. Goldie Blumenstyk, in American Higher Education in Crisis, notes that:

A key piece of the accountability movement is known as ‘the completion agenda,’

a broad-based push by student advocates, policy makers, and education focused
associations and foundations to improve colleges’ graduation rates and also
collect more and better data about how students are progressing toward their
degree. In some cases, the demands for accountability lead to pressure on
institutions to explain things like their cost per graduate, the workload of faculty
members, and professors’ research output. (2014, p.109)

With government involvement slowly creeping into leadership ranks of higher

education, the influence of the faculty and the erosion of shared governance may be in

danger of totally collapsing under the corporatization model. Such examples have been

seen recently in the state of Wisconsin and South Carolina, where policymakers began

to target, in some respect, the academic freedom of faculty. Questions about faculty

work-loads and lessening faculty influence in decision-making has dominated this

conversation in Wisconsin. Lawmakers in Wisconsin, in an attempt to make the

University of Wisconsin more competitive, suggested a university-wide system overhaul

that would result in a top-down approach. Governor Scot Walker has proposed that the

university be led by public authority. This proposed legislation in essence would strip

faculty out of much of the decision-making process and potentially make shared

governance obsolete. The proposed changes, which some see as an attack on

academic freedom, came from the Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee, which is

working to finalize the state budget (Kelderman, 2015). Additionally, according to

Kelderman’s reporting, while the outlines of shared governance would remain in state

statute, lawmakers voted to insert language that would make all faculty, student, and

staff advice "subordinate to" the authority of the campus and system leaders. Faculty at

44
the University of Wisconsin were said to be up in arms about the legislation and are

preparing for an appeal. Faculty fear that this legislation would shift the decision-making

influence totally under the power of the system president and the Board of Regents,

which in turn could erode the university’s shared governance process. This legislation

could bring an end to a 1970 enshrined state law that protects faculty members’ jobs at

the University of Wisconsin. The hiring and firing of a faculty member, as noted in this

study, has traditionally been a role and responsibility held by the faculty. Legislation

such as this one in Wisconsin is just an example of how faculty roles for decision

making are being diminished or threatened.

The University of Wisconsin situation is an example of why shared governance

proponents are asking, “Who is in charge?” As the landscape of higher education

continues to shift, it can be argued that a changing of the guard is taking place, which

has the potential to erode shared governance at a large group of colleges and

universities. The shared governance process may exclude faculty, administration, and

boards from working together to advance an institution. The corporatization of higher

education has brought many players to the decision-making table, including

policymakers, corporations, foundations, parents, wealthy alumni and friends of higher

education. The future of higher education decision- making may be headed for a major

overhaul. The opinion of the faculty - in whatever process that will reveal itself as the

norm for higher education - could potentially be less significant to administrators and

board members. Longstanding college traditions such as shared governance, tenure,

and potentially academic freedom may be at jeopardy. As this research continues to

evolve, the shifting landscape of shared governance will be intriguing.

45
Conclusion

As the focus of this research is about faculty perceptions about the

corporatization of higher education and its relationship with shared governance, this

research aimed to seek an understanding about the sustainability of shared

governance. Will it continue to be relevant? Does it have a place in the corporatization

era? No matter the results, questions tug at the hearts of those who are truly committed

to the shared governance process. Shared governance, which has been ingrained in

the fabric of higher education, has been at the center of many debates. Perhaps shared

governance will continue to live at institutions that manage to corral a group of

bolstering egos in one sandbox without drawing a boundary line for play. The body of

literature around this topic is plentiful as are answers that lack universal agreement

about faculty roles and responsibilities in shared governance. This research will be

reviewed and potentially advanced by others. The topic may shift from time to time, but

there may not be a definitive answer that will mark the end of shared governance.

46
 Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY

Introduction

Higher education, overtime, has undergone changes in its organization that may

have impacted decision-making processes at colleges and universities. This study,

which explored the relationship of shared governance and corporatization, aimed to find

an understanding of faculty perceptions about the impact that corporatization has had

on shared governance. After working in the industry for nearly 14 years, the author’s

career led him to enroll into the doctoral program for higher education administration at

Saint Louis University (SLU). It is there, SLU, that he developed an in-depth interest for

understanding organizational structures of colleges and universities and their concept

for decision-making, shared governance. Through the author's time in higher education,

he has observed a perceived organizational shift toward a corporate model, an increase

in the number of professional administrators (who seem to influence priorities and

directions of institutions), and perceived shifts in the role and responsibilities of the

faculty in governance matters. These observations moved the author to learn more

about the phenomenon of shared governance and corporatization from a relational point

of view. More specifically, the author was interested in understanding what perceptions

faculty had about the relationship and how corporatization may be impacting faculty role

and responsibility in the shared governance decision making process.

Literature suggests that the shift to a corporate model in higher education has

been, for several decades, on-going. Colleges and universities in the 1970s and early

1980s tried to borrow from government and business what seemed to be the most up-

to-date methods to increase their “efficiency” in time of budgetary constraints (Gerber,

47
2015). Additionally, emerging trends in faculty tenure may have connections to

corporatization. The changing landscape of tenure, that could be caused by attrition

accompanied by other various trends including: increases in the proportions of adjunct

faculty, outsourcing certain civil services (food, custodial, and maintenance) and

campus bookstore operations, the escalating cost of tuition and housing, and lowering

of federal and state financial aid are all perceived to have profound effects on higher

education (Lerner, 2008).

The dominance of professional administrators and their perceived level of

influence in the decision-making process is another shift that impact faculty influence in

shared governance. This perceived shift has raised speculation about the relevancy of

shared governance in higher education. Some research suggest that the current

governance structure of colleges and universities has limitations, which are most

notable when stakeholders have competing ideologies about the direction and priorities

of an institution. Additionally, literature notes that while there continues to be landscape

changes in academic issues, the structures of institutions have remained static, which

calls into question the relevancy of shared governance and its ability to be sustained

during modern times (Crellin, 2010). This topic, among others, is set to be explored in

this study to gain an understanding of faculty perceptions of shared governance and

corporatization.

Purpose of Study

Merriam explains that the overall purposes of qualitative research is to achieve

an understanding of how people make sense out of their lives, delineate the purpose

(rather than the outcome or product) of meaning-making, and describe how people

48
interpret what they experience (Merriam, 2009 pg. 14). This qualitative study set out to

find an understanding for faculty perceptions about the corporatization of higher

education and its relationship with shared governance. The literature for this research

revealed various faculty perceptions about corporatization and how it impacts shared

governance in areas including, academic freedom, tenure, and faculty influence in

decision-making.

Research Design

Through the use of a qualitative study that employed a multi-case study

methodology, this research focused, primarily around three Midwestern colleges and

universities – identified in this research as Institutions A, B, and C. The institutions, all

private, include a research university, a religious-affiliated university, and a health

professions college. Creswell defines case study research as “a qualitative approach in

which the investigator explores real-life, contemporary bounded system (a case) or

multiple bounded systems (cases) over time, through detailed, in-depth data collection

involving multiple sources of information (e.g., observations, interviews, audiovisual

material, and documents and reports), and reports a case description and case themes”

(2013, p. 97). Merriam (2009) describes multi-case study as “a study that involves

collecting and analyzing data from several cases and can be distinguished from the

single case study that may have subunits or subcases embedded within (such as

students within a school)” (Merriam, 2009, p. 49). Robert Stake (2006), an authority on

the research of multi-case study research suggest that multi-case study should start

with the quintain. A quintain is the object or phenomenon or condition to be studied. It is

considered to be a target, but not a bull’s eye. Stake also adds that in multi-case

49
studies, the target is the collection. Stake’s ideology about multi-case study is being

used as a primary guide for this research. The quintain is the relationship between

shared governance and corporatization.

Research Limitations

As the corporatization of higher education presumably is an industry trend

occurring at many college and universities, this study was limited to the review of three

Midwestern institutions. This limited information gathering to a small group of faculty

who will be asked to share their perceptions. This study was also limited by the

longstanding tenure some respondents may have at one institution, which could narrow

their respective knowledge about shared governance and corporatization. However, a

long-standing tenure does afford such respondents, possibly the ability to discuss, at

length, how shared governance has shifted overtime at their institution.

A perceived lack of clear understanding about shared governance operations

and the balance between academic and business leadership limited some respondents’

views about the role of the faculty in decision-making processes. Colleges and

universities are perceived as businesses, by some, and to others as organizations that

transfer knowledge for the public good. This competing ideology led to limited

perceptions about balancing the leadership roles of faculty and administrators in some

areas.

Additionally, respondent biases coupled with the author’s own philosophical

biases about the culture of higher education administration, challenged the research to

remain neutral.

50
Quality and Rigor

An important outcome of research is to achieve validity and reliability for the

study being conducted. In addition, research that is trustworthy is important to validity

and reliability. The quality and rigor of a study should result in validity and reliability

which can be achieved through trustworthy investigation. To achieve validity, reliability,

and trustworthiness in this study, the investigator employed qualitative strategies

primarily focused around triangulation, which is discussed in various of the remaining

sections of this chapter. Triangulation is “probably the most well-known strategy to

shore up the internal validity of a study” (Merriam, 2009, pg. 215). The majority of the

data collected through this study will be the result of in-person interviews. Information

from the interviews will be compared and crossed checked against other data that will

be gathered during observations and the review of relevant documents related to the

study. Through the use of these methods, the investigator looks to increase the

credibility of the study.

In addition, all interview respondents were afforded the opportunity to provide

feedback about the findings produced from this study. This strategy prevented the

respondents from being misrepresented and created validity of the coding of their

interview answers. Using this method created an audit trail, which helped ensure

consistency and dependability (Merriam, 2009).

The credibility of the respondents and the research are also particularly important

to the quality and rigor of the study. Respondents targeted for this study were faculty

members that have earned tenure or who are on the tenure track at their respective

institutions. Additionally, the author has either studied or worked as an administrator at

51
each case study site being researched. His knowledge of the organizational structures

and his familiarity with decision making process at each institution should further the

credibility of the study. The quality and rigor of this study, as stated earlier is supported

primarily by triangulation. Employing strategies, such as the use of multiple data

sources and member checking helped achieve the understanding the author was

seeking and to make sense of the research findings. Additional support for quality and

rigor was provided in the data analysis section of this chapter.

Research Questions

Using a multi-case study methodology, this study worked to reveal and provide

insights for the following research questions:

• What perceptions do faculty hold about the relationship between shared

governance and the corporatization of higher education?

• What are faculty perceptions about the erosion of shared governance and

how corporatization has impacted the governance model?

• What are faculty perceptions about corporatization trends that have occurred

at their respective institutions?

• What is the role and responsibility of faculty in balancing and sustaining

shared governance practices?

Site Description

“Multi-Case Studies provide detailed descriptions of each case as well as

themes within the case, which are known as within-case analysis, along with thematic

analysis across the cases, which are called cross-case analysis, and also includes

assertions of the meaning of the case” (Creswell, 2013, p. 101). The three institutions

52
(A, B, and C) studied for this research are all private colleges and universities located in

the Midwest region of America. The institutions themselves are considered as a part of

this study’s quintain.

Institution A is a mid-sized research university consisting of approximately 12,600

students. It has a total of 3,645 faculty members serving in its seven academic divisions

as well as its university college and other disciplines. Institution A defines its Board of

Trustees as being made up of men and women from the corporate, professional,

educational, governmental, and volunteers from its community, nationwide and abroad.

The Institution employs a Chancellor who serves as the chief executive officer and

oversees the total operations budget of the institution. In addition, Institution A employs

a Provost who serves as the chief academic officer who oversees teaching, learning,

scholarship and research across the institution. Faculty governance at Institution A is

structured through a Faculty Senate & Senate Council. Its faculty senate, which consist

of voting members from all schools of the university is governed by the senate council –

a fifteen-member elected faculty governing body.

Similar to institution A, Institution B has an enrollment of approximately 12,914

students attending the religious-affiliated university. It has a total of 3,277 faculty serving

in its 12 academic divisions and other degree granting centers. Institution B defines its

Board of Trustees as being made up of people comprising business, civic, and religious

leaders, which many are alum of the university. The Board of Trustees elects the

president and is responsible for oversight and governance of the university. Institution B

employs a President who serves as its chief executive officer who is responsible for

advancing the universities mission for education, health care and service. Institution B

53
also employs a Provost who serves as the chief academic officer responsible for

ensuring the excellence of teaching, scholarship, and research at the university. Faculty

governance at Institution B is structured through a Faculty Senate which is elected by

the Faculty to represent it in all matters.

Institution C, which is significantly smaller than A and B, is a health professions

college with an enrollment of approximately 1,400 students. A total of 124 faculty serves

in its two academic divisions. Institution C defines its Board of Trustees as being made

up of no more than 20 members (which none are members of its Faculty) at any given

time. The Board of Trustees are responsible for the finances of the College, which

includes the approval of its annual budget. In addition, the Board is responsible for

implementing policies including updates to the employee handbook, and the hiring and

supporting of the College President. Institution C employs a President who serves as

the chief executive officer and provides oversight to the Presidents staff, which includes

the deans and vice presidents. Faculty governance at Institution C is structured through

a relatively new Faculty Senate.

Each institution (A, B, and C) has its own unique faculty governance structure

that will afford opportunities for triangulation and cross-case analysis which will be

discussed later in the chapter.

Using various forms of social constructivism, which is noted by Creswell as

“when individuals seek an understanding of the world in which they live and work”

(2013, p. 24). The author’s purpose for this research was to gain an understanding of

faculty perceptions about the relationship between shared governance and

54
corporatization. Additionally, as stated earlier, the author used selected experiences of

his own as a tool to aid research methods of this work.

Instrumentation

Purposeful conversations held with faculty colleagues, which the author is

acquainted with, were used as fundamental guidelines for developing interview

questions to collect data for the study. These conversations were similar to pilot

interviews and afforded the author an opportunity to listen for similarities and to get

feedback from faculty colleagues who were knowledgeable about shared governance

and corporatization. These conversations were helpful to determining the framework of

the interview. In addition, the conversations ensured that the author was clearly

conveying the purpose of the research and what information was being sought after.

The author also subscribed to various listservs such as the Chronicle of Higher

Education and Insider Higher Ed to receive daily emails that frequently listed articles

about leadership, governance, and administration in higher education. These nuggets of

information were relevant for capturing current themes and trends occurring in higher

education that helped inform the interview questions for the study.

Using in-person conversations was also helpful with determining the time allotted

for each interview and shaped other guidelines including types of questions asked,

structure, which was a mixture of a semi-structured and unstructured format.

Data Collection

The qualitative methods of this study included one-on-one interviews, review of

institutional documents, and observations of administrative functions and operations. To

select interviewee’s, the author used maximum variation sampling and convenience

55
cases. Maximum variation sampling, a form of purposeful sampling, produced informed

interviewees that may have different ideologies about shared governance and

corporatization. The author conducted informal one - on - one conversations with faculty

respondents to describe the purpose of the research and seek an agreement for an

interview. Additionally, the informal conversations informed the author about the

ideologies of each potential interviewee, which advanced the research. The research

employed the use of convenience cases, which Creswell describes as “sites or

individuals from which the researcher can access and easily collect data” (2013, p.

157). The author chose 5 interviewees per institution for a total of 15 interviews.

A series of interview questions, 10 – 15 in number, ranging from open ended,

probing, and closed ended questions was presented to each interviewee (Appendix D).

All interviews were unstructured; however, each session did not eclipse 60-minutes.

The interviews, all in person, were held at various locations (offices, restaurants,

classrooms, etc.) that permitted uninterrupted voice recording. During each interview,

the author sought constructed meanings of experiences that revealed the interviewee’s

perception about the relationship between corporatization and shared governance. The

author set the framework of the conversation by explaining the purpose of the research,

informing the interviewee about the number of questions and type and allotted time (60

minutes) for the interview. The interviewees were asked to review and provide feedback

about their interview summary.

Coding Analysis

All interviews were recorded via a digital voice recorder. Additionally, the author

took hand written notes to capture critical points and to code for meaning during the

56
interview. The voice recording of each interview was reviewed, along with the hand-

written notes, for the purpose of writing the findings summary.

Through researching each case study’s institutional website, the author accessed

and reviewed faculty handbooks to identify how the institutions:

1. Define shared governance,

2. Explain its governance structure, and

3. List policies and procedures that convey the role and responsibility of the

faculty for decision-making.

Each respective faculty handbook was downloaded to a flash drive and printed for

review. A cross-case analysis of the handbooks was performed to identify similarities

and differences that existed between the three handbooks. Information found during the

cross-case analysis was used to create a faculty handbook summary. Information from

the faculty handbooks was also used to help shape some questions asked during the

faculty interviews.

Data Analysis: Triangulation

Stake suggest that, “Each important finding needs to have at least three (often

more) confirmations and assurance that key meanings are not being overlooked. Each

important interpretation needs assurance that it is supported by the data gathered and

not easily misinterpreted by readers of the report” (Stake, 2006, p. 33). Triangulation,

the process used to provide validity to findings (Creswell,2013, p. 251), will be

employed to provide quality and rigor to the study. To provide a complete view of

perceptions gathered from interviewees, triangulation was used throughout the data

collection process (fieldwork) and during the writing of this study’s findings and

57
conclusion chapters. The information gathered from interviews was checked for

alignment with information in the literature reviewed, as well as new findings that

surfaced during the data collection and analysis procedures. The author engaged in

informal conversations with individuals knowledgeable about shared governance and

corporatization to gain their perspectives about data analyzed from interviews and

reviews of the faculty handbooks. Additionally, member checking was used to determine

accuracy of the findings and interpretations of the interviews. Member checking, as

suggested by Lincoln and Guba to be the “most critical technique for establishing

credibility” (in Creswell, 2013, p. 252). Each interviewee had the opportunity to review

the findings chapter and provide feedback about the accuracy of what they presented

during their respective interview. Employing this validation strategy, which is a type of

triangulation bolsterd the quality, rigor, and trustworthiness of this dissertation.

The author’s recollections of his personal experiences (in affiliations with each of

the case-study institutions) as a professional higher education administrator, adjunct

faculty, or student was used to describe perceived trends of corporatization and shifts in

shared governance. In some respects, the research role of the observer should be

viewed as a complete participant where the researcher is a member of the group being

studied. While in other circumstances, the researcher could be viewed as a participant

reviewer, where the observer activities are known to the group being studied (Merriam,

2009). Conducting a series of interviews, primarily with senior faculty, and senior

academic administrators at each institution revealed a diverse set of perceptions.

Additionally, this dissertation has deep roots in philosophical experiences.

Intentionally targeting respondents from the faculty ranks: senior faculty, distinguished

58
chairs, and professors, and the rungs of academic administrators: provost, deans,

department chairs, and presidents; this study resulted in ideological differences,

recommendations for sustaining shared governance and, a new understanding about

faculty perceptions of the relationship of corporatization and shared governance. The

study explored faculty perceptions about the role and responsibility of the faculty in the

decision-making process. In addition, the study explored what impact corporatization

has potentially had on the academic enterprise as it relates to shared governance. The

research also looked to discover perspectives about balancing the role and

responsibility of faculty and administration in shared governance. A review of faculty

handbooks, for all three cases, added a deeper understanding of faculty role and

responsibility in decision-making at each institution.

The data collection process for this study was conducted through various

qualitative techniques, including voice-recorded interviews, written field notes gathered

from observations, notes related to recollections of the author’s work experiences, and

published drafts of each site’s faculty handbook. The author created a Governance

table (See Appendix E.), including four categories - 1.) Shared Governance Defined; 2.)

Faculty Governing Structure; 3.) Governing Membership; and 4.) Quorum Requirements

- to provide an overview and comparison of each sites handbook. Section three

(Similarities) list ways that each institution is similar in the sub categories, while Section

four (Differences) will describe how they differ. This coding analysis provided the author

with an understanding of each case site’s faculty handbook. In addition, this analysis

helped the author determine similarities and differences amongst the three case sites.

59
 The longstanding joint statements: 1940 Statement of Academic Freedom and

Tenure; and the Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities (Appendix A,

1970; Appendix B,1978), which were produced by American Association of University

Professors (AAUP) and the American Association of Colleges (AAC) informed and

provided meaningful insights for this study. Two committees (A and T) established by

AAUP were charged with managing concerns about academic freedom and tenure and

responding to concerns about institutional governance. After nearly 80 years of

managing and responding to these concerns, one of committees developed the

statement On the Relationship of Faculty governance and Academic Freedom that was

later approved by the committee for Academic Freedom and Tenure. The statement

was subsequently adopted by the Association’s Counsel (AAUP, 2011). This document

supported the framework for interview questions and will provide understanding of a

universal definition of shared governance. Full copies of these statements are located in

appendix A (reprinted with permission).

The three Midwestern colleges and universities – Institutions A, B, and C, - that

this research focused on, presents natural settings that allow data collection in the field

where participants may have experienced corporatization and shared governance

practices. Speaking directly to individuals employed or formerly employed by these

institutions provided insights about shared governance and corporatization trends at

these institutions. Additionally, conducting this research using emergent design

strategies allowed for flexibility and shifts in the research focus. This emergent design

process was not tightly prescribed, which allowed the focus of the research to shift after

field interviews and observations were underway (Creswell, 2013). The data collection

60
process for this research produced multiple perceptions about the corporatization of

higher education and its impact on shared governance. Providing a holistic account of

the multiple perceptions gathered from the participants helped to emerge a larger

picture than the original intent of this work.

The exploration of faculty and academic administrator’s perceptions at each

institution was important for developing themes that informed findings and shaped the

conclusion of the study. After collecting the data for this research, the gathered

information was reviewed to report case descriptions and cross-case analysis of the

case study. The findings of this study focused primarily around: the emerging themes;

similarities and differences; and comparisons of faculty perceptions of the relationship of

corporatization and shared governance. Additionally, as stated earlier, the analysis

followed a holistic approach that looked to provide an understanding about opportunities

for balancing faculty and administrators’ roles in shared governance processes. This

information informed the suggested recommendations for sustaining shared governance

during the corporatization era.

Conclusion

This multiple- case qualitative study, focused around three Midwestern colleges

and universities, explored faculty perceptions about the corporatization of higher and its

relationship with shared governance. Through conducting interviews, observations, and

documentation review, this study provides insights about how faculty perceive their role

and responsibility in shared governance. In addition, the study produced faculty

perceptions about the influence they possess in decision making. Results of the study

61
revealed some fundamental suggestions from faculty about ways to maintain and

sustain the shared governance model.

The philosophical ideas and beliefs that have been formed throughout the

respondents’ careers as faculty will also inform this research topic. Their ideas and

beliefs are significant to fostering an understanding of perceptions about the relationship

between corporatization and shared governance. The final report of the findings

present an overview about emerging themes, trends, and perceptual meanings about

the relationship between corporatization and shared governance. After reviewing the

study, the reader should have a better understanding of faculty perceptions about the

corporatization of higher education and its relationship with shared governance.

62
 Chapter 4: RESEARCH FINDINGS

Introduction

This study explored faculty perceptions about the relationship of the

corporatization of higher education and shared governance, using distinct opinions from

faculty. The robust body of evidence about how colleges and universities are employing

corporate processes (strategic planning, organizational and cultural change,

development initiatives and others) continue to grow. The publication of Kotler and

Murphy’s 1981 article, “Strategic Planning for Higher Education”, and Keller’s 1983

book, Academic Strategy, are said to have formerly introduced strategic planning to

higher education (cited in Birnbaum, 2000, p. 67). Cope reports that writings about

strategic planning dominated both scholarly literature and literature oriented towards

practitioners by the 1980s (Cope, 1987, pg. 2). “In many areas of governance

(including, for example, strategic planning), the 1966 Statement on Government calls for

“joint effort” among faculty, administrators and trustees” (Bowen & Tobin, 2014).

In addition, research about grand challenges and demands (accountability,

product value, student debt, funding, etc.) that colleges and universities face in the 21 st

Century is also growing. “The pervasiveness of student debt has seeped so far into the

culture that in one episode of the Simpsons, after busting open the cash register of the

hapless bartender Moe, the bandit declares ‘Good-bye student loan payments!’”

(Bennet & Wilezol, 2013, p. 5). During a time of looming budgets, dwindling enrollment,

and increased productivity oversight, colleges and universities continue to experience

rising cost while becoming more competitive. Weisbrod, Ballou, and Asch suggest that:

Competition in all industries usually leads to lower prices, but not always. If
schools respond to competition through differentiating themselves rather than

63
 through cutting costs on a standard type of collegiate education, it is likely that
the differentiation will take the form of higher quality in some dimensions, which
may involve enticements that have little to do with the core mission of higher
education – for example, more luxurious dormitories or better recreation facilities.
Whatever the form, however, product differentiation is likely to add cost, whereas
the greater monopoly power resulting from the special quality permits the
increased tuition necessary to cover the cost and perhaps provide additional
resources. (2008, p.49)

With varying levels of focus on the challenges and demands in higher education, this

study was designed to provide insight into faculty perceptions about the corporatization

of higher education and its relationship with shared governance.

Using qualitative methods, this study also attempted to develop an understanding

of how faculty perceived shared governance, faculty role and responsibility in

governance, changes in governance, and corporatization trends in higher education.

This study had a specific focus on the relationship between corporatization and shared

governance at three Midwestern colleges and universities – Institution A, Institution B,

and Institution C. Through in-person interviews, recorded on a digital audio recorder,

faculty’s perceptions about the corporatization of higher education and its relationship

with shared governance were captured for the study. The interview questions sought to

answer how faculty perceived the current environment of corporatization and shared

governance in the higher education industry. In addition, interview respondents were

also asked to provide their own perceptions about the relationship between

corporatization and shared governance at their respective institution – A, B, or C. The

open and non-restricted nature of the interviews allowed organic descriptions and

opinions to emerge.

The sections to follow will, first, report an overview about the structure of the

faculty governing body at each institution and list information from each places faculty

64
manual. This section shall provide similarities and differences of governance structures

and voting procedures. One of the following sections reports an overview of findings

found while analyzing the data collected for the study. Listed here will be descriptors,

analogies, and philosophical experiences shared by faculty respondents. Included in

this section, will also be findings for faculty perceptions about the relationship between

corporatization and shared governance at each respondent’s respective institution – A,

B, or C.

Following the overview of the study’s findings is a set of emerging themes that

developed during the interviews. Data in this section will provide insight into common

themes about the perceptions that emerged during interviews. These themes represent

faculty perceptions about the corporatization of higher education and its relationship

with shared governance. This chapter will conclude with a summary of the findings of

the study. Readers should have some understanding about how faculty at each

institution perceive the corporatization of higher education and its relationship with

shared governance.

Faculty Structure and the Faculty Manual

The fact that colleges and universities differ in size, organizational structure, and

type (public; private; liberal arts; research; professional, etc.), there is no one size fits all

model for how they operate. The only commonality may be that, in general, all colleges

and universities involve faculty leadership at various levels in the academic enterprise.

Nelson suggest that:

Although governance practices inevitably vary from campus to campus and with
different types of institutions, there is a clear need for generally accepted norms.
Too often shard governance now amounts to an opportunity for faculty to express
their views, and then, as Greg Scholtz puts it, “once people have talked things

65
 over, those in charge make the final decision.” But the AAUP’s 1966 statement
“does not conceive of the college or university in starkly hierarchical terms -as a
power pyramid.” Rather, Scholtz goes on to say, “it portrays the well-run
institution as one in which board and president delegate decision-making power
to the faculty.” Indeed, the AAUP’s 1994 “On the Relationship of Faculty
Governance to Academic Freedom,” building on the AAUP’s original 1915
Declaration on academic freedom, makes it clear that faculty have fundamental
autonomy in their areas of expertise. (2010, p. 36)

To understand shared governance at colleges and universities the researcher examined

the governance structure at each of the sites studied. At each institution, the faculty was

governed by a faculty senate. Speaking about faculty senates, Burgan suggest that:

The concept of a faculty senate, designed to bring faculty from all schools on the
campus together to deliberate on common matters, has been integral to the
traditional notion of shared governance in American higher education. When
senates work, they are sources of unity rather than dissonance. In most cases,
this faculty body can have representation from sectors other than the faculty;
indeed, in some cases the president of the institution actually presides. On many
campuses, the faculty body is also supported by the provision of office space, a
telephone line, and secretarial help. Its elected leader usually obtains some
release from other duties to serve. A faculty senate can hardly survive without
some administrative support, but the faculty senate component is intended to be
clear and predominant. Ideally, the faculty senate as a centralized forum for
faculty debate entails a transcendence of unit and disciplinary lines, because it
deals with larger issues of professional concern. (2006, p. 116)

At each institution, in this study, the faculty senate was a group of faculty members

elected by their faculty peers to represent it in governance. Each institution had varying

descriptions about its membership which were obtained from faculty handbooks and

Faculty Senate websites. Those descriptions are as follows:

• Institution A—The Faculty Senate consisted of all voting members of the Schools

at the University;

• Institution B—The Faculty Senate consisted of members elected by the full-time

members of the faculty of the Colleges and Schools (excluding the Graduate

66
 School), and of the University Libraries, according to a system of proportional

representation; and

• Institution C—The Faculty Senate consisted of eight members of the Faculty

including two members elected from each academic department. Also, when

possible, senate members should rank at the associate professor level or higher.

Institutions A and C had a set number (15 and 8) of faculty who served on the

senate. Institution B did not list a specific number for its faculty senate membership.

In addition to different membership descriptions, each institution had varying procedures

with regards to the quorum for voting as follows:

• Institution A— A quorum was not required for the senate to vote on a decision;

• Institution B— A quorum consisting of a majority of the number of senators

holding office at the beginning of the academic year;

• Institution C— A faculty member majority with voting privileges was considered

the quorum required to vote.

Another focus of the study was to understand how shared governance was

defined at each institution. Through exploring the faculty manual at each of the

participating institutions, the following definitions for shared governance were revealed.

• Institution A - Procedures for arriving at professional, personnel, and academic

decisions effecting faculty members shall assure fair consideration of the

substance of the decision. Procedures of each decision-making body of the

university that are consistent with this policy statement need not be uniform.

Maximal departmental autonomy and wide intellectual and procedural latitude are

67
 too important to be unnecessarily restricted. What is required of such procedures

is that they be basically fair.

• Institution B - Shared governance means that important areas of action will involve,

at one time or another, the initiating capacity and decision-making participation of

each of the institutional components.

• Institution C - No evidence of a published definition of shared governance is in its

faculty manual. However, Institution C currently has a faculty committee working

towards the development of its definition of shared governance.

A detailed chart (Table E1) about the faculty governance structures at each institution

is provided in Appendix E.

“A great many colleges and universities have embraced and continued at least to

give lip service to the notion of shared governance in its broadest outlines” (Pierce,

2014, p. 6). The lip service that Pierce spoke about is somewhat evident at each

institution studied and will be shown in the information provided in this chapter.

The descriptions of the data collected will now shift to the narratives provided

through the interviews conducted for this study. The analysis of those narratives set the

framework for all of the findings of this study. Using a convenience sample the

investigator sought to interview at least 5 faculty at each institution. Respondents

resulted in a minimum of 5 and no more than ten faculty interviews at each site. An

overview of the research findings proceeded by a set of emerging themes, make up the

next two sections.

68
Findings

This first section of the finding presents information gathered from faculty

interviews that report faculty’s perceptions about shared governance and

corporatization as it relates to their respective institutions. Faculty’s perceptions were

derived from the following questions, which were asked to each faculty.

• Define the shared governance culture at this institution.

• What are your thoughts about the role and responsibility of the faculty in

decision making process at this institution?

• In what ways, if any, has shared governance changed during your time at

the institution?

• How does corporatization like processes threaten shared governance at

this institution?

• What should this institution do to sustain and protect the integrity of the

academic enterprise and resist a complete corporate model?

• What final thoughts do you have about the relationship between

corporatization and shared governance and how it effects the role and

responsibility of faculty in decision making processes?

Institution A Case Findings

Beginning with Institution A, which was described previously as a mid-sized

research university consisting of approximately 12,600 students and a total of 3,645

faculty members serving in its seven academic divisions as well as its university college

and other disciplines. The faculty interviewed at Institution A ranged from Assistant

69
Professors to Distinguished Professors, which also included the chair of its Faculty

Council.

The idea of one faculty member at Institution A was that faculty there have been

“reluctant governors” in terms of academic affairs. This faculty member added that this

was not a negative comment. Rather it was more related to the productivity of research

produced by the faculty at the institution. The reluctance to govern, this faculty member

felt, was led by faculty commitment to producing a quality and rigorous research product

and that faculty were happy to let the administration lead the institution. In another

sense, this faculty member, who has 30 plus years at the institution, felt that over time,

Institution A had become much more pronounced in academic leadership from its

central administration. An example of this is a communication coming from the

administration that expresses this to the faculty, “The institution is emphasizing a

particular area of work or a particular theme of research, which is being emphasized by

the Board of Trustees.” The faculty member explained that those emphases have heavy

influence, which end up spilling down into the institution’s schools and units through

deans and directors who move the agenda. With that mentioned, this faculty member

felt that during his time, central administration involvement in academic affairs had

become stronger.

Another longstanding faculty member of Institution A perceived that the institution

had grown more layers of bureaucracy in its administration. The faculty member pointed

to the growth of research centers as a cause of this growth. The faculty member also

added that “Even within this growth, there is a perception that the institution had moved

toward a better shared governance culture where faculty were more involved in decision

70
making and had influence over faculty hiring.” There were also other responses that

connected the growth of centers to the increased need for contingent faculty. Speaking

about research pressures, a faculty member at Institution A shared that it seems that

the incentive for getting grant funding for research is to be excused from teaching. But,

“if you are a faculty member, is the reason for writing grants to get out of teaching?”

questioned the faculty member, who went on to add, “teaching is what we are here for,

at least that is what we say.” This faculty member, who also has experience at public

institutions, was amazed at the level of contingent faculty being used at Institution A

compared to what her experience was at the public institution. The faculty member

simply stated that, “this wouldn’t wash at the state institutions because having the

faculty in the classroom is important. Students pay more money to be here; the amount

of adjunct faculty in the classroom here just amazes me.”

There were other responses that expressed concern for the increased number of

contingent faculty or adjuncts teaching at Institution A. As institutions push to climb up

the rankings ladder and stay among its top rungs, there is emphasis placed on having a

star-studded faculty. The prestige of the faculty move rankings and excite students’

desire to attend a certain institution. With that prestige also comes rigorous research,

which at times, as noted earlier, is a reason that faculty are not in the classroom

teaching. The concerns of the faculty led one respondent from Institution A to simply

say that this was “bogus” and somewhat a bait and switch by the university.

Administrators can be “ideologically unsound,” when looking to build the star-studded

faculty group stated one faculty member. An example of being ideologically unsound,

stated the faculty member, would be what happens here.

71
 The administration directing its thrust, perhaps in a way that allows the bringing
of faculty on board to help support the institution by their being pursuers of
grants, which would relieve faculty from the effort of teaching because there
would be adjunct people coming in to do the job. I think this is, in a sense, bogus.
It is possible for the university to have a tremendous reputation on the basis of
grant procurement, but when the students show up for class, they never see that
professor. Students should understand that school rankings and the quality of
what is communicated, in terms of classroom teaching, does not always
compute. This is not how universities should be.

The only way to change this, suggested one faulty at Institution A was to “change

the incentives.” Institution A, over years according to one faculty member, has grown in

the size of its lecturers, which the faculty member attributed to the “cheap” labor cost

commanded for adjuncts. “Adjuncts require less resources than a tenured or tenure-

track faculty would.” This faculty member explained that,

The perception is that we, research institutions, set-up this system (like the one
for junior faculty) where the emphasis is on securing grants. Our students have
this perception, believing that grants are what’s important. However, it is pretty
much not true. The important part is research. Those faculty may think their
priority is to generate articles to attain grants, but the research is most important.
For me, I only respond to the incentives that are set up for me and if I bring in a
million-dollar grant, then they’re (chancellor and dean) happy.

To have more star faculty in the classroom, “the institution has to change the

incentives.” This Institution A faculty member felt that it was for those reasons that the

university has seen a proliferation in staff and adjunct faculty.

Faculty should understand how money impacts the day-to-day operations of the

institution, noted one Institution A faculty member. “The faculty have to understand

finances and learn a balance for higher education’s business, research, and teaching. I

am not certain that many faculty have a care for being involved with governance at this

depth, but as a faculty member, you must understand the higher education mission and

its money.” Weisbrod, Ballou, and Asch shared the following:

72
 Private industry’s support of university research raises the question of what
businesses expect to receive in return for their investments. After all, although
federal research funding may be motivated by a desire to solve social problems
and improve livelihoods, industry funding is presumably based on a profit
calculation. What happens when a company funds a project that yields result that
could harm the company’s bottom-line? How might a business restrict the faculty
member’s right to publish research conducted with the firm’s cash? Such
questions point clearly to the tension between the university’s missions of
engaging in critical inquiry and broadly disseminating the findings, on the one
hand and an attractive source of revenue (wealthy corporations), on the other.
(2008 p. 151)

The perceived threat that corporatization may pose to intellectual freedom is a

concern of some faculty. Referring to neoliberal shifts in reference to financial profits

and financial decisions, one faculty member at Institution A shared this observation

saying that, “Using the logic of markets to frame everything we do is what I see

happening at the university” As to why this happens, the faculty member was not sure,

however she shared this, “perhaps it has something to do with Margaret Thatcher and

Ronald Regan.” This faculty member went on to question the transparency of its

institution, saying,

Where is the money coming from? Where is it going? Who is leading us? How
are decisions made? I believe that transparency in those areas would be a good
first order of issues to explore. We are invested in industries like, energy,
incarceration, fire arms, etc. Our students have brought this to our attention and
students and faculty should know what’s happening.

The contingent faculty discussion led to a variation of responses from faculty at

Institution A. After a long pause, before discussing how adjunct faculty and their

relationship or lack thereof with shared governance, an Institution A faculty member

commented, “I recently saw something that suggested that about two-thirds of all

college or university faculty are adjunct. Because they don’t have the idea of tenure and

academic freedom, I believe that this undermines faculty governance and is probably

73
detrimental.” Referring to the level of adjunct faculty at Institution A this faculty member

suggested that, “Even though the institution has more adjuncts, the one positive thing

about this is that adjuncts at Institution A are experts and leaders in their fields. They

bring that to the classroom and its good. On the other hand, they are not here daily, you

don’t see them in the hallways, so you don’t get to know them and students do not

engage with them much outside the classroom. That’s a negative.” The faculty member

went on to state that, “So not only does this undermine governance, it undermines

collegiality. Ultimately, it is just a mixed bag of positives and negatives.”

Faculty at Institution A responded in great detail focusing on research as it

relates to perceptions about faculty’s role and responsibility, funding, and issues about

increases in adjunct faculty. The study now shifts to Institution B where faculty spoke

unequivocally about the growth of its administration, leadership, practices of top down

administration, and a current leadership transition that looks to be promising for shared

governance.

Institution B Case Findings.

Institution B has an enrollment of approximately 12,914 students attending the

religious-affiliated university. It has a total of 3,277 faculty serving in its 12 academic

divisions and other degree granting centers. Most faculty at Institution B expressed

optimism and enthusiasm about the direction its shared governance culture is taking.

There are some, however, who do not expect much change, they actually see more of

the same, which was a top down approach led by its previous administration. Faculty

interviewed at Institution B ranged from Assistant Professors to Full Professors that

included the chair of its faculty senate as well as other members of the senate. Talking

74
about the current culture of shared governance, one faculty member at Institution B

shared this, “I believe that we now have a governance culture that is becoming more

open than it was in the past.” This particular faculty member felt that the current

administration listens to ideas and concerns of the faculty, which was viewed as a

positive. This faculty member also expressed a perception that described the institution

as moving toward a positive relationship between faculty and administration, which

would serve to benefit the future of the university.

Now, in its first academic year with a new president, who succeeded a long-

standing president whose last few months in office played out negatively in local and

national media, some Institution B faculty members expressed evidence of change. “I

have seen a complete 360 degree turn in shared governance here. Before, there was

relatively no transparency, now it is more transparent, which is good. Communication

has improved, even though there still is a closed-door side where we may not know all

the details. But is it better? Yes!” Defining the current shared governance culture at the

university, an Institution B faculty member simply stated that, “Things are improving.”

This faculty member attributed improvements to having new leadership, stating that,

“The culture of understanding for shared governance has blossomed. We now have an

administration that is willing to enter into shared governance and stay true to the

intention of it even if there are differences of opinion. The previous administration was

more dictatorial and did not believe in shared governance despite the fact that there

was a faculty senate on campus.” This faculty member added that the current

administration is open to the sharing of information and discussion that lead to decisions

75
being made. Under the old administration, this faculty member felt that the sharing of

information would never happen since things were always top down.

Having autonomy and freedom in their work is important to most faculty. There

are faculty who feel that the autonomy of their work has improved. Expressing their

perceptions about autonomy and freedom, an Institution B faculty member explained,

“We do get a lot of autonomy, we are able to take on a project and roll with it. It does

seem like we have a larger voice. Whenever there are complaints, they are heard at

faculty senate meetings and people feel comfortable speaking out in public without fear

of being penalized.” Being involved in leadership and shared governance was

expressed by this faculty member as important. She stated that, “You must be willing to

help make things better by being be engaged, informed, and have solutions to things

that need to be changed. And ultimately, you must be willing to be involved in the

process of change.” The need for faculty involvement in governance is important, but

shared governance involvement is sometimes not the focus of faculty. Shared

governance takes time, which means that it may cut into time for research or teaching.

Some faculty may shy away from being involved for this purpose alone. The lack of

involvement in governance could be an issue for any institution. “With the current

challenges that we have, shared governance will take some time and faculty are always

concerned about their time,” noted one Institution B faculty member. This faculty

member, stated that, “We have seen some change here, but we need to continue to be

involved and stay engaged with governance to further improve.”

Transparency in governance continued to be the issue for some faculty at

Institution B, who have skepticism of its governance future. “They (administration) say

76
that transparency is important and I think they are trying. However, instead of

transparency, I see them hiring consultants to do everything and I see this as a way of

getting around shared governance.” This Institution B faculty member went on to say

that, “The consultants provide reports and other open communication documents, which

then are used to justify decision making. In the end, the administration makes a decision

and justify it by saying that it was the recommendation of the consultants, who are the

experts.” While optimism was heard, a few faculty members continue to show

skepticism about change at Institution B. Suggested by one Institution B faculty

member, “Historically, the faculty senate at Institution B has not had much power.” This

faculty member was optimistic that there would be change, however the pressures of

the top down administration approach continues to be evident and according to this

faculty member, “little change has been seen.” The perception from this faculty member

was, “We’re just told that a decision had been made or they order us to do this or that

and for the most part there is no transparency” There was also concerns of bullying

expressed by one Institution B faculty member who felt that bullying was an issue within

schools and departments. “This bullying is not just in upper government, it is in the

schools and departments too. An example would be when School administration directs

you to go one way buy a senior faculty says to go in the other direction. And, in this

case, those senior leaders are, at times, not administrators.” While optimism was

showed for its current president, there was also disappointment shared from one

Institution B faculty who felt that the president hired a provost whose job was to “do the

bad stuff.”

77
 Like Institution A, faculty at Institution B also provided details about contingent

faculty and research. However, unlike Institution A, much of Institution B’s (although it

has a research arm) faculty spoke of issues and concerns about how Institution B

operates business and teaching. Most concerning was the shift away from tenured and

tenured track faculty positions at the institution. One Institution B faculty member

provided the following analogy. “In general, it is easier for administrators to believe that,

the fewer tenured faculty we have, the fewer people that could speak out and the fewer

problems that we have. Going to a model that is more corporate could result in such

culture.” Sighting academic freedom and how a corporate model threatens shared

governance, this faculty went on to suggest that, “One reason universities are special is,

the free thought of idea where you can speak your mind. This is why universities are set

up the way they are. A corporate model does not lend itself to the practice of sharing of

ideas openly.”

This faculty member believes that if the tenure structure stayed untouched and

the business side operated in a corporate model, then Institution B would have a good

balance in shared governance. Such concerns also led to comments about teaching

and money.

Even though, the university is down in enrollment, at our school, we are bursting
at the seams. Anytime you are down in students, you are down in money. So,
when you have more students than you could possibly take and you are asked to
take more during a hiring freeze, there is a problem. To make money we need
more faculty hired as adjuncts. Even under these pressures, we are asked to
tighten our adjunct budget. You can’t have it both ways (Institution B faculty
member).

This is one way in which the corporate model may clash with the curriculum.

78
 Faculty also felt a sense of demoralization being showed towards them due to

the top down approach. Responding about top-down administration, on Institution B

faculty shared this, “They (administration) want to see my widgets!” According to this

faculty member, no one feels good about their job and nobody is feeling respected or

valued. “Once you start counting my work, it makes me feel like the administration does

not trust me or trust that I am doing my work. This forces you to spend chunks of time

documenting to prove that you work. This takes away from me being able to do my job

and advance the mission of teaching and service.” Other faculty members shared a

similar perception. This is a problem, suggested an Institution B faculty member, “If you

have never taught in higher education and you are hired to manage the money and

have not seen the challenges of students (financial, disability issues, and so forth) in the

classroom, that is a problem. You would have no concept of the faculty experience. If

you have never been in the trenches you just don’t know.”

Shifting from Institution B to Institution C, the conversation began to focus more

solely on a culture of top down administration. The following content shares the

perceptions of faculty members at Institution C, including its current chair of its newly

minted Faculty Senate.

Institution C Case Findings.

Institution C is a health professions college with an enrollment of approximately

1,400 students, which is significantly smaller than A and B. A total of 124 faculty serve

in its two academic divisions. Expressed by one Institution C faculty member,

This institution (C), at one time, had a caring culture. It was like a family in a
sense. If you had a problem, people would look out for you. That was good and
bad. Now, if something like that happens you have someone, like HR (Human
Resources), who may say that federal rules don’t allow certain things to happen.

79
 So, when you have to follow the rules and can’t do things because the rules say
so, then you start having this corporate like model. This is what has happened
here.

This faculty member also felt that this type of culture extended to the classroom and

academic decisions. When asked to expound on this the faculty member provided this

example, “In the past, when students would get in academic trouble, we did whatever

we could to help the student and retain them. This was good and bad as well. On one

hand, we helped a student, but on the other hand, students who didn’t have support

would eventually leave the college because the rules no longer allowed us to help them

stay enrolled.”

The conversation with this Institution C faculty member also extended to federal

rules in employment. Speaking about the demographic make-up of its administration,

the faculty member stated,

At one point, we went from all males in administration to having two female
deans. I am not sure that this is a corporatization thing, but it definitely involves
thinking about Title IX and equal opportunity (things that we ought to be thinking
about anyhow) and other things that make you follow federal rules. This has
changed the institution.

Speaking about the changing culture of the institution’s deans, an Institution C

faculty member noted that,

The deans used to be immensely powerful and played whatever role they wanted
to play in hiring. But in coursework, this was not the case. We waited until a
person would retire before we changed courses. Today, we may change
because accreditation says we have to change. So, now I believe that we have
decisions being made that are on accreditation and federal rules, or some other
logic that had no faculty input.

The growth of the administration, over a short period of time also concerns faculty

members at Institution C. According to researchers, like Ginsberg, this could be a

80
problem. Speaking about reasons that a proliferation of administrators is bad,

Gingsberg suggested that,

Other reasons to be concerned about the growing power of administrators and

managers within the university are essentially managerial. The university’s
organizational and institutional interests are not well served by the expanded role
of its management cadre. Indeed, the growing power of management and the
decline of the faculty’s role in governance has exposed the university to such
classic bureaucratic pathologies as shrinking, squandering, and stealing. (2011,
p. 66)

The power of the administration was referred to in nearly all conversations held

at Institution C. Speaking on the top down administration culture, one Institution C

faculty member noted that, “I don’t think that we have had shared governance here. In

the past 6 years, we have had so much change: new buildings, lots of new hires, and a

new curriculum. Much of this change has been brought on by the president, who is a

micro-manager.” In many ways, according to this faculty member, the president at

Institution C has caused problems that could have been avoided. “Through this type of

leadership, we have had to work differently. An example would be if the faculty wanted

to move a project, we would have to wait until we had the approval of the president. We

have little freedom or autonomy here. What we want is to be left alone so that we could

teach and do our jobs.” Other faculty members at Institution C felt the same about the

lack of faculty involvement in governance. Responding to the question about the shared

governance culture, an Institution C faculty member explained that, “The faculty should

have significant input in the direction, academically, that the School is going. We have a

faculty governing body here, which we have had for a number of years. However, I don’t

feel that the faculty has had much input in the academic direction of the institution.”

81
 Faulty members at Institution C are also concerned about the financial stability of

the institution. During the last fiscal year, faculty at Institution C were not provided

raises, according to one Institution C faculty member who attributes the problem to the

growth of the institutions physical plant. Institution C, in the past year, has finished the

construction of a new academic building and began developments to demolish a

building and replace it with another academic building. Some faculty members do not

think this was necessary. One Institution C faculty member suggested that, “If we had

not enrolled more students and hired more administrators we wouldn’t need the new

buildings. These decisions were made by the administration. Perhaps there was a small

amount of faculty input, but it didn’t happen as a whole.” Enrollment and the direction of

the curriculum also concern faculty members at Institution C. In suggesting that the

faculty should have more input, one Institution C faculty member stated, “We had

enrollment issues and we accepted students who probably should not have been

accepted, but we needed to keep enrollment up. We added another year to the

curriculum and I think we were told that this was happening. A lot of the faculty

members did not agree with that, it wasn’t necessary. But this was an administration

decision.”

Concerns about the growth of the administration were shared by some faculty

members at Institution C. Talking about the proliferation of administrators, an Institution

C faculty member stated, “I am not sure why this is happening, and I think it is

unfortunate. We have more and more administrators, which is where our money is

going. Every time I look around there is a new Vice President (VP) of this and a new VP

of that. This all is happening during a time were we as a faculty didn’t receive a pay

82
increase due to budget issues.” This faculty member went on to say that, “The more

administrators that we have, the more that we are not involved in decision making and

we are told what to do. I feel that the emphasis here has come off of the academics and

has moved to only business.” Another Institution C faculty member shared that, “We

have so many VP’s now that I don’t even know their titles, let alone their names. Our

structure has become extremely wide. I am just not sure why it is necessary. The one

thing that was nice about the former administration is that the president would say, “Is

this nice or is this necessary.” In today’s environment, we spend money because things

look nice.”

Further responses from faculty members at Institution C expressed a shift of

power, which seem to be totally in the hands of the president and the board of trustees.

Noted by one Institution C faculty, “In the past, we didn’t have disputes about policy and

procedures. Now there seems to be this idea of checks and balance. The Board and

president are interested and concerned about things like the policy over intellectual

property or how we make adjunct appointments. Shifts like this are seen here.” Another

example would be the curriculum, according to this faculty member who went on to

state that, “Honestly we would not have changed the curriculum if it were not for the

influence from upper administration. Faculty where not in favor of this.”

Even though most faculty rhetoric seems to be a frustration with the relationship

of corporatization and shared governance at Institution C, there was some that showed

more optimism about its culture. Suggested by an Institution C faculty member, “The

president is very serious about shared governance and there is genuine earnest in

83
making it happen here.” However, this faculty member also provided this cautionary

tale:

One of the pieces of research I did, prior to this interview, showed me this, you
scratch a cynic, you find an idealist who has been burnt. This idealist, bought into
the whole system. The idealist put all of its effort into working up shared
governance at its institution, only to discover that it was all surface and token.
There was no real authority, no real power, and no real sharing. Then the idealist
realizes that a chunk of their time was wasted trying to create a system that didn’t
work. That could happen here. But, I think that the president is serious about
doing this for the right reasons and for the right ways to keep the institution
healthy.

Faculty members also spoke about upsides of this topic—the relationship

between corporatization and shared governance. Calling it a “complex relationship” one

Institution C faculty member stated that, “It would be nice for curriculum to be totally

isolated from everything else. But, the current economic realities are such that we

realize that resources are now undermanaged. So, someone has to make decisions

about how those resources are effectively used and the effective model for that is a

business one.” This faculty member felt that the push towards this business model at

Institution C is a result of scarce resources. Using enrollment services as an example,

this faculty member provided this, “Many of the top schools in our industry are making

decisions about admissions that generally have not made before. Dipping deeper into

the pool to take less qualified students because of a shrinking enrollment is something

that faculty feel shouldn’t happen. The business model would potentially argue different.

I don’t think that’s bad.” In another sense, the faculty felt that the lack of attention to the

business model led Institution C to make some decisions that didn’t read the

environment as well as it should have. “We built a huge new physical plant, with the

anticipation that we would be growing enrollment, when in fact, enrollment was

84
shrinking. If we were effective in the business model, this would not have happened.

The strategic planning of corporatization would not have let this happen.”

Conversation about the change in curriculum at Institution C dominated many

responses from its faculty. It was evident that faculty were not in favor of changing its

curriculum. In addition, they perceived that little faculty input was involved in any

decision made by the administration. Institution C is an organization that is in transition

and just like the talk at Institutions A and B, the conversation at Institution C resulted in

various responses that are arguable about the relationship of shared governance and

corporatization.

Emerging Themes

As America shifted from its traditional election norm (electing a politician to lead

and govern the most powerful country in the world) to electing a Washington outsider,

Donald Trump, as its President and Commander in Chief, some Americans expressed

fears of uncertainty while others were eager for change. Similar to the shifting, electoral

process in America, the hiring of non-academics as presidents and chancellors at

colleges and universities is a shift from the traditional norm of higher education, which is

to have academicians serve in leadership. Emerging from responses to interview

questions for this study, was evidence of a faculty preference to have one of their own,

an academician, to lead at their institution.

Another emerging theme evidenced in the responses was a concern about the

proliferation of nonacademic administrators and the ambiguity of their role and

responsibility at the institution. One faculty member at Institution B, stated that, “You

see all of these administrators driving their BMWs, sitting in big offices, and making top

85
dollars and no one knows what they do.” As perceived by the faculty respondents, the

increase in nonacademic administrators is evident at each case study institution. While

this study limits statistical data about administrative growth, qualitative findings about

faculty concerns of this increase was unequivocal during the study. The third and last

emerging theme that permeated interview responses was the desire for faculty to

sustain its governance role and responsibility for overseeing the curriculum and making

decisions related to academics at their institution. One faculty member at Institution A

stated that “if administrators start medaling with the curriculum then there would be

trouble.”

This section will now provide detailed findings about the three emerging themes:

▪ Faculty prefer faculty;

▪ Concerns about the proliferation of nonacademic administrators and the

ambiguity of their role and responsibility; and,

▪ Faculty desire to maintain oversight and authority for all matters of the

curriculum – A Faculty governed curriculum.

Faculty Prefer Faculty

As interviews unfolded at each institution, an overwhelming commonality

emerged for a faculty preference for one of their own to serve as president or chancellor

at their institution. Most sighted the unique nature of curriculum, freedoms of faculty,

and the importance of understanding the faculty experience as reasons for preferring an

academician as its leader. Additionally, they felt that a person “who has walked in their

shoes” (as noted by an Institution B faculty) would best understand their role and

responsibility for sustaining quality and rigor in research and teaching, and for achieving

86
the institution’s mission. Dr. Susan Reseneck Pierce, a celebrated past president of the

University of Puget Sound and author of Governance Reconsidered noted that:

Although there are certainly many examples of presidents who have come up
through the faculty ranks and who have not been successful in their presidential
role, in my experience, presidents who have been faculty members have one
important advantage over those who come from outside the academic
community or who come to their presidency from a vice presidency in a
nonacademic area, such as finance, advancement, enrollment, or student affairs.
Specifically, people who have themselves been faculty members generally tend
to be pretty tolerant of faculty dissension. (2014, p. 20)

Pierce’s comments, along with comments from pre-interviews and information gathered

from each institution’s faculty handbooks, helped shape a couple of questions asked to

faculty during the data collection for this study. The next few paragraphs will discuss

findings of faculty responses to those questions, which are listed below.

• Please share your thoughts about non – academics serving as college

and university presidents.

• Who is better equipped to lead an institution of higher education, the

traditional academic leader or the non-traditional business leader? And

Why? See Appendix C for the full list of Interview Questions.

In responding to the interview question about who is better equipped to lead a

college or university, most faculty members answered by discussing their preference for

an academician versus choosing who was better equipped. One tenured faculty

member at Institution B provided this analogy:

A nonacademic leader may simply say, I don’t understand. What do you do all
day? Where are your widgets, what’s your count? Why are you here ten hours
one day and three the next? Your students are not all earning A’s, that’s not a
good product. It is whatever way they want to quantify things that are, maybe,
unquantifiable. Nonacademic administrators have no capability to have the
amount of communication and flexibility of thought to see how one thing translate

87
 from one side of the line to the other and what does not translate. So, they make
totally crazy decisions.

A similar response was given by another faculty member (Institution B) who spoke

about their reason for wanting someone who has walked in their shoes.

On the medical side, it is very tricky when you have someone who has never
done your job or doesn’t know your job to tell you how to do your job. I could only
imagine how difficulty it would be to bring in someone at a leadership role who
has ever been in your shoes, telling you how to walk in your shoes. As a faculty
member, it would be very easy to assume you aren’t being heard, you aren’t
being understood, and it would also be easy to assume that your interest is not
what they - nonacademic administrators - are putting up front.

The faculty member went on to say:

If your concern is I have all these students and not enough time to respond to
emails or need a Teaching Assistant to run lab and your administrator tells you
that it’s not in the budget, that’s not what you are worried about. In order to find
another solution, you have to understand what that problem is. I think that is the
biggest issue, whoever is in charge, should understand the faculty experience.

Some were also concerned that a corporate type leader would not understand

higher education. A faculty member at Institution C explained that, “I have a lawyer

friend who informed me that the common phrase used in the law industry when

something sounded pie in the sky was, ‘oh that’s just academic.’ To have someone like

that as a leader would be bad,” explained the faculty member. “I think that someone

who came up through the faculty ranks would be more familiar with the academic

environment and would be able to take their experiences and put their stamp on an

institution.” Another faculty member from Institution C simply felt that, non-academic

administrators just don’t get academia stating that, “A person from a corporate world

would totally take us away from the academic aspects and even reduce academic

viewpoints. Someone from the business world has no idea of what is involved in

academics. I clearly think that a person that leads an academic institution should be an

88
academician.” This faculty member shared that she would be very concerned to work

for a president or chancellor that was not an academician. “Faculty are the ones that are

down in the ditches doing the work. Administrators are looking at the facts and the

figures and not down where the faculty are. A leader should be aware of issues that

faculty face and understand their situation. How could you lead a group of people and

not know what they are going through?”

Even a faculty member (at Institution C) with the mind of an economist prefers a

faculty leader over a corporate-like Chief Executive Officer (CEO) stating that,

I could see why some would want to do that (hire a corporate type leader) but I
think it’s not a good idea. There are some quirks about running an academic
institution that you just don’t learn by running Yahoo or something. I have seen
big clashes when corporate America comes into academia. I think it works much
better when a person comes up through the academic ranks, which creates a
challenge for higher education. We need to generate leaders within academia.

Faculty often feel that the nonacademic leader focus is generally on the bottom-line,

which is about the money and not on the mission of higher education. Rosovsky warns

of two major difficulties related to the bottom-line approach, suggesting that:

A great classroom performer may not be a top-notch researcher, and that would
have to be considered. Far more significant, the opportunity and capacity to
attract large student audiences is subject-specific. To follow bottom-line
reasoning would mean that those subjects attracting vast number of pupils are,
somehow, more important and valuable. (1990, p. 232)

Rosvosky goes on to state that: “Any experienced academic leader- president, dean,

chairman – will know that this line of reasoning is meaningless parody and can only

have destructive consequences (p. 233).

It should also be noted that faculty felt it important for its leader to understand the

need for precise, transparent, and efficient decision making for managing the complex

business matters of higher education – enrollment, finance, advancement, student

89
affairs, Information Technology (IT), etc. One faculty member (Institution B) stated that,

“As a surgeon, I want things stream-lined and bullet-pointed. Not verbose, not

paragraphs, not, let’s think about it and talk again, or make another meeting to make

another opinion. That’s not how my mind works. I want something clear and to the

point.” A faculty member from Institution B who prefers a leader that came up from the

academic ranks, however, expressed that “The person must be hugely qualified to run a

corporation because institutions are like corporations. There are so many weird things

about academia that I think it would be hard for them (nonacademic administrator) to

learn the institution.”

Responses to the questions certainly excited faculty to share their deference

toward the nonacademic leader. One of the more direct responses came from a faculty

member at Institution A who stated that,

I would take a fairly negative view of a non-academic being the leader of a

college or university. I think that somebody who is the dean, provost, president or
chancellor should have an academic background so that they understand the
institution and how it works. They need to also understand academic freedom,
teaching and research. I would not be in favor of a non-academic leader.

During the course of the data collection process, it became quite clear that

faculty wanted to be led by an academician. “It’s simple,” stated one faculty member at

Institution A, “the person that comes up through faculty ranks understands the faculty

experience.” This perception flowed throughout the interview process and continued as

the conversation shifted toward the proliferation of non-academic administrators serving

in leadership roles – managers, directors, and vice presidents.

As the proliferation of non-academic administrators increase, so does faculty

awareness and skepticism of the trend. Faculty’ need for the increase and the creation

90
of new administrative roles was quite perplexing to most faculty. The next section of this

study will discuss findings for faculty perceptions about the proliferation of non-

academic administrators in higher education.

Concerns About the Proliferation of Nonacademic Administrators

The proliferation of non-academic administrators at colleges and universities

throughout the country stir up faculty concerns about teaching and research, allocation

of finances, organizational structures, academic freedom, and the future of tenure track

faculty positions. The cause of this increase in non-academic administrators could be

attributed to several things, including accreditation, the complexity of business in higher

education, a competitive environment, the need to provide a good student experience.

The trend is a concern for faculty. Gingsberg suggests that,

From the faculty’s perspective, teaching and research are the main purpose of
the university. The institution exists to promote these ends. From the perspective
of many administrators, however, teaching and research are merely instrumental
endeavors. They are undertaken in order to draw customers (aka students) and
research funds to the university. Hence, to administrators, the content of the
curriculum makes little difference so long as the school’s offerings are attractive
to fee-paying customers. And as to research, the main administrative goal is to
maximize the flow of overhead and licensing dollars into the school’s coffers,
even if the process ultimately hampers rather than enhance academic research
endeavors. (2011, pp. 197-198)

The need to protect the academic enterprise from such business-like processes

and administrators who do not understand the importance of teaching and research was

echoed throughout the data collection process. The next few paragraphs will discuss

respondent’s perceptions of the proliferation of nonacademic administrators as it relates

to the questions listed below.

• How has increases in nonacademic administrators (staffers) effected

faculty influence in decision making?

91
 • In your opinion, what has led institutions of higher education to shift

towards a corporate model?

• What are your thoughts about higher education shifting towards a

corporate model?

These questions generated various responses that, mostly, led back to the proliferation

of non-academic administrators. This is “bloated bureaucracy”, noted a faculty member

from Institution A, who conveyed that, “most corporations are trying to get leaner, but

academia is just bloating. If there is a problem, add more staff and add more

administrators. This is not going to fix an issue.” The sentiment of some is that the

proliferation of administration has not improved higher education, it has only added

layers of middle people whose hires have resulted in less support for faculty. Speaking

about how higher education has changed and grown in the pure number of

administrators, the same faculty member who referred to higher education as being a

“bloated bureaucracy” provided this description about their first role in higher education.

When I started out, psychology had about four hundred undergrad students, we
had four PhD programs and two masters’ programs. There were about 120
masters’ students with about eighty PhD students. To manage this, we had a
chair, a vice chair and two secretaries. We ran efficiently. People answered my
phone calls, typed my syllabus, and sent out all of my letters of recommendation.
Now, I do this all on my own. What has happened is that, so many middle people
have to be paid, that faculty has lost the support systems we once had.

This response is evidence of the change that higher education has experienced in

faculty support structures. The reality (fiscal responsibility) of the business of higher

education, in some ways, has led to more non-academic administrators to be hired at

colleges and universities. Some faculty believe that higher education has not adapted to

the realities of the business of higher education. A faculty member at Institution C felt

92
that due to the fiscal challenges faced by institutions, “someone from the outside was

needed to come in and shake the tree.” This faculty member felt that corporate minded

people were needed to manage the fiscal distress, which is a concern for many colleges

and universities. However, this faculty member also believed that “the corporate like

people brought with them an anti-academic or academic elites perception that is against

tenure.” This Institution C faculty member also noted that “The perception is that faculty

have a no worries attitude; and with their tenure, they have a job for life. So, they drink

their coffee and become increasingly less productive throughout the rest of their career.”

In addition, the faculty member went on to say, “When this is the perception and you

have enough academics out there who play that game, reality is then given to the

stereotype. However, overlooked are the majority of folks who have worked to acquire

tenure and who continue to work hard to produce significant work in their field of study.”

This faculty member also stressed that “the value of the faculty is misunderstood by

administrators whose efforts are quantifiable and visible in reports. The effort of the

faculty is not visible in reports.” As a result, this faculty member believed that

administrators and board members alike, have difficulties accepting and respecting the

tenure process.

The sustainability of an institution must always be in mind, so you should be

mindful of the bottom line, noted one faculty member from Institution B. This faculty

member perceives that the proliferation of administrators has had a tremendous impact

on the role and responsibility of the faculty. An example would be the

professionalization of academic advising, noted a faculty member who said that,

“Having administrators assume the responsibility of academic advising from the faculty

93
is not a positive thing in my view.” The growth in administrators, according to this faculty

member, is administrative bloat driven by external pressures such as regulatory

compliance and accreditation. The faculty member noted that, “A classic example would

be Title IX. Now, most universities have a Title IX coordinator. This is an administrative

position that may or might not have been introduced if it weren’t for external pressures. I

think examples like this tend to move institutions towards the hiring of too many

administrators.” This faculty member wrapped up this response with a word of advice to

administrators by saying, “At any rate, administrators should learn to listen to the voice

of the faculty. If administrators make decisions that faculty don’t think are good ones,

then they won’t get faculty buy-in and nothing will move or get done.” This statement

alone could be looked at as a reason for institutions to strive for balance in its shared

governance structures.

As this study continued to focus on corporatization, perceptions about the

proliferation of administrators revealed more concerns from faculty about external forces

that lead to increased administrative hires. A faculty member from Institution C

expressed concerns about accreditation and its heavy focus on assessments in

teaching and other functions of colleges and universities. This faculty member felt that

assessment was a business paradigm used to measure productivity, which does not

always work well in higher education. Using a quote from Einstein to make an argument

for teaching, the Institution C faculty member stated that, “Einstein said that, ‘Not

everything that counts can be counted and not everything that is counted counts.’” This

faculty member felt that the Einstein statement spoke to the inability to count everything

in teaching, which concerned the faculty member about certain aspects of their

94
teaching. Speaking about accountability, this faculty member shared that, “In the subject

area that I teach – leadership – I am not sure that all important things about leadership

can be assessed. If I only choose to teach things about leadership that can be

assessed, then I am not sure that I will be teaching all of the important aspects of

leadership.” The faculty member went on to explain that this corporate like business

model of assessment is pushing faculty to redesign their courses to satisfy accreditation

needs.

More focus on the external factors led to other responses of concern about the

corporatization shift and the increased hiring of administrators. One faculty member at

Institution A likened the shift and increase to the “microcosm of American society.” The

faculty member noted that, “The administrative tier is growing. Just like the American

society, wealth and income inequality are growing and most of the resources

concentrated at the top. This is what is happening at universities. More people are hired

within the administrative tier who make more money while those with their feet on the

ground doing the work make less money.” The faculty member went on to say,

“Professors are less likely to be tenured or on the tenure track, which forces the need

for more contingent labor force of adjunct faculty who are less likely to have livable

wage jobs or job security. I think this is a real problem as it relates to the quality of

instruction and calls into question what universities are all about. Universities are

constantly in capital campaign mode which puts the focus on buildings. This growth

mentality is, very much, a corporate like mentality.”

95
A Faculty Governed Curriculum

Faculty’s perceptions about the corporatization of higher education and its

relationship with shared governance revealed unanimous verdicts from those

interviewed that expressed a desire for faculty to maintain and sustain oversight of

matters concerning the curriculum. The next section will report findings about faculty’s

role and responsibility for governing the academic enterprise. Responses gathered from

the questions below set the framework of this section.

• How do you define shared governance?

• What are your thoughts about faculty’s and administrator’s role and

responsibility in the shared governance process?

• To what extent has governing boards impacted the role and responsibility

of faculty in shared governance?

• In what ways has the increase in contingent faculty played a role in

lessening faculty influence in shared governance?

A side bar conversation occurred while interviewing a faculty member from

Institution A, which led this researcher to ask for a recommendation to a “good” book

about the history of Black people in America. The faculty member referenced From

Slavery to Freedom, and described the writing by John Hope Franklin as “the best ever

written about the history of Black people in America.” A late night read of this work

brought the researcher to comments from Franklin that paralleled the focus of this

study. Speaking about challenges to abolish slavery and its implications for the impasse

of 1860 and eventually the Civil War, Franklin suggested that, “Without slavery the

question of the extent of federal authority in the territories would have remained

96
academic, and could have been debated openly and peaceably” (1974, p. 212). Noted

here was a thought about an open and peaceful debate similar to academic debate

such as those that happen through shared governance. Birnbaum, in How Colleges

Work, depicted a collegial institution to be one “that places emphasis on thoroughness

and deliberation” (1998, p. 88). In addition, Birnbaum went on to talk about its process

for making decisions stating that “it often takes a long time to reach major decisions,

such as whether the college should divest the stocks it holds in businesses operating in

South Africa. Decisions are ultimately to be made by consensus, and not by fiat, so

everyone must have an opportunity to speak and to consider carefully the views of

colleagues” (p. 88). The reference to debate— open, peaceful, and academic— that

Franklin spoke of, looks to be parallel to the collegial process of shared governance as

it exists at colleges and universities.

To further understand shared governance and to learn about faculty perceptions

for it, the researcher asked all interview respondents to explain how they define shared

governance. As a response, one faculty member from Institution A suggested that

shared governance has several aspects with one being an “illusion.” The faculty

member spoke of shared governance as a process of open meetings where faculty are

encouraged to add agenda items for discussion, which decisions are arrived from

through what appears to be open dialogue. In addition, the faculty member further

characterized the illusion stating that “the process of shared governance has the

appearances of being democratic in nature, however there is always a ‘play’ behind

what is being presented.” The “play,” according to this faculty member, does not lead to

a great sense of surprise in decision making during the vote, which takes place after the

97
open discussion. The faculty member attributed this “play” to those influential faculty

who may have more access to administrators or ones who may be favorited by

administrators who make policy. This faculty member suggested that it is in this illusion

of give and take and advent flow that the faculty govern at institutions.

Other faculty, such as a faculty member from Institution B, spoke about the

structure of shared governance in their response. “Shared governance is not a

hierarchical decision making process quite as much as it is a shared process, even

when ideas come down from the top, the idea still goes down to the worker bees for

discussion and recommendation.” This faculty member expressed that they were not

suggesting that administration would then take on the recommendation of the faculty,

but it allows faculty input to be shared before the decision is made. The Institution B

faculty member also saw it as a process where administration was transparent about

decisions providing information for outcomes of the made decision. Ideally, for one

faculty member at Institution B, shared governance was a process structured under a

“first amongst equals” ideology. Some faculty members simply stated that shared

governance is the process of the administration working with the faculty to make

decisions that affect the university as a whole. This perception was from a faculty

member at Institution C who suggested that, “shared governance is where the

administration, in conjunction with faculty representation and opinions, would help direct

the path of where the institution is going and ultimately set institutional priorities and

goals.”

Faculty’s perceptions about their role and responsibility in shared governance

showed a variation of responses that, at their core, resonated the importance of faculty

98
having authority over the curriculum. Being informed, involved, and honest is the most

important responsibility of the faculty, suggested a faculty member at Institution B. In

addition, a faculty member at Institution C explained that “Faculty role in shared

governance is to be an engaged member of the academic community at their

institution.” Other faculty members spoke to the responsibility of preparing students to

be productive members of society. An example would be the response of a faculty

member at Institution C, that stated, “The administration has a responsibility to keep it

all running and to free up faculty so they could do their job.” This faculty member went

on to say that the administration is the support mechanism for faculty who go nose-to-

nose with students. The faculty member noted that,

This is only the case if we accept that the institution exists for the students and its
primary purpose is to provide an environment and a whole set of educational
experiences that help move students from where they are to an end point of
maturity and savvy to go into the workforce or further their education. If that’s the
project of the institution and we do that for students, then the end result is that we
send people out to make the world a better place.

A distinguished professor from Institution A suggested that the governance of

academic affairs at a university is simply the responsibility of the faculty. In addition, this

faculty member noted that a university should always be led by people who have

careers grounded in academic life. Most faculty members also responded that the

faculty are the experts of the curriculum and that the authority of the curriculum should

reside with faculty experts for all matters. In speaking about faculty’s authority over the

curriculum, another distinguished faculty member at Institution A suggest that, “The

faculty should make decisions to hire and promote faculty through the tenure process

and should be heavily involved in matters of the curriculum. However, this faculty

member suggested that the dean of a specific school should set the direction of the

99
curriculum. There were others who explained that faculty are the producers of the

product of higher education in the classroom, both in research and teaching. Some

faculty members looked at their role as being front-end roles in shared governance,

even in top-down approaches, sighting their relationship with students as the reason for

the need of authority. At any rate, the faculty members’ responses about their roles and

responsibility in shared governance was that they are to have control over teaching,

research, and what occurs in their classroom.

Summary

The purpose of this study was not aimed to vilify the corporatization of higher

education. In fact, nor was the purpose to take a stand for shared governance. As

stated throughout and shared constantly with each faculty respondent, the study was

about faculty’s perceptions about the corporatization of higher education and its

relationship with shared governance. Overall faculty responses varied from one to the

other, however there was consistent expressions of frustration, cynicism, optimism, and

understanding. For the most part, faculty members at all three institutions shared

variations of perceptions that viewed the relationship as: one-sided and dominated by

corporatization, top-down administration, policy and procedure, strategic planning,

shared services, assessment, and opinion by consultation. There were also variations of

perceptions that viewed the relationship as one that is important to their respective

institution. The next chapter will conclude the study with information about what was

learned and how future information will extend this body of work.

100
 Chapter 5: CONCLUSION

Introduction

This study originated to assist the researcher with understanding the inner

workings of colleges and universities as it relates to how those institutions operate.

Serving as an administrator in higher education, the researcher had knowledge about

the nature in which colleges and universities were organized: Academic Affairs,

Business Affairs, and Student Affairs, and in addition, that knowledge included an

understanding of the players: faculty, administration, board of trustees, staff, and

students at those institutions. Upon developing a greater sense about the organizational

structure and make-up of colleges and universities, the researcher wanted a deeper

understanding about the role of all the players in this organization as it relates to how

they work together to get things done. Taking aim at understanding the structural

relationship between academic affairs and business affairs, led to a need to understand

how the players— faculty and administrators, work together to advance the mission and

vision of colleges and universities. Ultimately, what needed to be known was how do

they make decisions? The answer to this, in the belief of this researcher, was imbedded

in understanding the process of shared governance at colleges and universities. In

addition, to learn how colleges and universities make decisions the author sought to

gain an understanding about how the business of higher education (which has taken on

a more corporate like approach) related to academic administration.

Academia is complex and its integration with the business of higher education

furthers its complexities. The complex relationship between academia and the business

of higher education guided this study toward gaining an understanding about how one

101
set of key players, faculty, perceived the operations of colleges and universities. More

specifically, this study set out to learn what were faculty’s perceptions about the

corporatization of higher education and its relationship with shared governance. Looking

at variations of organizational structure, organizational make-up, and corporatization,

through a qualitative approach, this study explored three Midwestern colleges and

universities to gain an understanding—about how faculty perceived the relationship

between the corporatization of higher education and shared governance. In addition, the

study looked to learn how faculty at each institution—the three Midwestern colleges and

universities, perceived the relationship between corporatization and shared governance

at their respective institutions. In asserting that the research questions for this study

were answered, the information that follows provides a summary about the unique lens

of faculty interviewed for the study.

Summary of Findings

Using faculty from three Midwestern colleges and universities this study looked to

gain some understanding of faculty’s perceptions about the corporatization of higher

education and its relationship with shared governance. To find this understanding, this

study set out to gather information that would inform three research questions about the

corporatization of higher education and shared governance, which are:

• Research Question 1: What are faculty perceptions of the shared governance

decision-making process?

• Research Question 2: How has shifts toward a corporate model for higher

education impacted or threatened shared governance?

102
 • Research Question 3: How should colleges and universities work to balance

roles (between faculty and administration in the decision-making process) and

sustain a culture of shared governance?

Faculty respondents to the study were interviewed through in-person conversations

conducted by the researcher. Each faculty member was asked to respond to a set of

questions explaining their perceptions about corporate like procedures being employed

at colleges and universities and their role and responsibility in shared governance at

their respective institutions.

Responding to probes about their perceptions for the shared governance

decision-making process at colleges and universities, faculty members showed a strong

preference to faculty being in charge of matters of the curriculum. In addition, faculty felt

that their input should be consulted for all institutional decision-making processes.

Backed by the long-standing 1915 Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and

Academic Tenure - which “creates the notion that boards, the president, and faculty

share in the governance of colleges and universities with ‘equal responsibilities’ except

in scientific and educational matters, where the faculty has primary responsibility

(Pierce, 2014, p. 10), faculty’s perceptions about their role and responsibility is

confirmed. Even though the faculty members did not provide a definitive or conclusive

answer about their level of involvement in shared governance. All certainly enunciated

that the faculty voice was important as it relates to achieving the mission and vision of

their respective college or university. Bowen and Tobin report that, “There is abundant

evidence that ambiguity concerning the optimal degree of faculty involvement can lead

to controversy” (2014, p. 147). They went on to say that one source of frustration about

103
faculty involvement in all decisions is “the difficulty of knowing when enough

consultation is enough” (p.147).

While faculty at all three colleges and universities expressed a strong preference

for having oversight of the curriculum, the faculty also expressed skepticism about their

input being heard and used during decision-making processes. In addition, faculty

respondents showed frustration about being stuck in a top down administration system

where they were just told what to do. This skepticism and frustration was particularly

loud at Institutions B and C, while at Institution A the frustration was more about the lack

of faculty involvement in governance. An example from Institution C is reports from the

faculty who were frustrated about not being involved in the decision to change its

curriculum. Faculty felt that the decision was one purely made by administration. Faculty

members at Institution C thought the decision was communicated down to faculty from

the top. Additionally, faculty felt that the Board of Trustees were influenced to approve

the decision even though faculty input was not considered. This sentiment of skepticism

and frustration is shared by others in academia throughout the higher education

industry. Sharing a thought about governing practices, Nelson referenced Greg Scholtz

in her comments stating that, “Too often shared governance now amounts to an

opportunity for faculty to express their views, and then, as Greg Scholtz puts it, “once

people have talked things over, those in charge make the final decision” (in Nelson,

2010, p. 36).

Faculty members at each of the institutions agreed that they should be involved

in academic decisions and should make all decisions involving the curriculum at their

college or university. This thought is considered universal in higher education, and it

104
stands on the premises that the faculty are the experts. “Faculty members know the

proper definition of subjects and standards, and are more likely to have a sense of

intellectual frontiers. They are also more inclined to resist fads that happen regularly to

capture the young and the general public” (Rosovsky, 1990, p. 270).

One trend that had all faculty respondents buzzing is the proliferation of non-

academic administrators and how their existence alters faculty role in shared

governance decision making processes. One concern was that the introduction of more

administrators added buffers between senior administration (President, Provost, Deans)

and the faculty. These buffers lessen faculty engagement with administration and

impact faculty influence in decision making. Ultimately, the faculty felt that the buffers

interfered with their ability to simply do their job. Ginsberg provided an example of what

happened at one institution when it hired a provost to oversee its international program.

In speaking about how policy and procedures created by the provost convoluted faculty

work in the exchange program at this institution, Ginsberg writes that, “What was once

done easily and simply at the departmental level now required elaborate forms and

procedures and the approval of administrators and staffers who knew next to nothing

about the institutions with which the faculty thought it might be useful to develop

exchange programs” (Ginsberg, 2011, p. 36). Faculty members at Institution C spoke to

this bureaucracy when talking about their ability to provide certain academic assistance

to struggling students had changed. The faculty members explained that the creation of

certain policy and procedures by administrators made assisting students difficult.

Faculty viewed the bureaucracy of higher education as a corporate trend that

impacts and threaten shared governance. Other examples of impacts and threats to

105
higher education related to corporatization are changes in the faculty landscape

including the increase of contingent faculty and less tenure track faculty positions.

These trends also extend to areas related to assessment and accreditation, and

administrative pressure to emphasize specific directions for research which then

threatens academic freedom. Faculty’s comments about these issues and others

informed an understanding for the second research question - How has shifts toward a

corporate model for higher education impacted or threatened shared governance?

Lerner, who conducted a study about the corporatization of higher education

suggest that:

It is tenured professors who take most responsibility for committee work and
participation in the governance of the institutions. The fewer of them there are,
the less power and influence they can exert. We might also consider that the
main reason for tenure is to allow for academic freedom and for freedom of
expression within the faculty. The fewer the tenured professors and the larger the
contingent labor pool, the less impact faculty can have on administration policies.
Contingent faculty working part-time under substandard working conditions and
hired semester by semester cannot make their impact felt on the governance of
the institution. (2008, p. 220)

The perception of many faculty interviewed for this study was that the increasing

numbers of contingent faculty and the decreasing numbers of tenure track positions

threatened: faculty influence in governance; the faculty voice in academic freedom; and,

lessens faculty roles for leadership at colleges and universities. In addition, just as

Lerner discussed, faculty expressed a concern for the second-class citizen treatment

they perceived as being experienced by contingent faculty. An example of second-class

treatment in higher education was when Morehouse University decided not to provide

commencement tickets to contingent faculty for its 2013 ceremony that featured

President Obama as the speaker. After some up-roar by the contingent faculty, the

106
University decided to provide one ticket to each contingent faculty, however they were

not allowed to sit with tenured and tenure-track faculty during the ceremony (Pierce,

2014). Most faculty had the perception that corporatization was one of the causes for

the increase in contingent faculty. An example referenced several times by faculty

during interviews was faculty perks, such as teaching buyouts, for faculty who had been

awarded research grants. Faculty at Institution A felt strongly that this perk contributed

to the increase the use of contingent faculty. Employing contingent faculty does have its

advantages, which may cause administrators to look at the issue as a business matter.

It is cheap labor.

While hiring, contingent faculty does lower cost, faculty were concerned that the

continued increase of this practice could impact quality and rigor in the classroom.

Faculty also raised a concern about a perceived false advertisement practice by

colleges and universities. One faculty member warned of a bait and switch by its

institution. The faculty member asserted that the institution did not deliver the product

that it advertised. Colleges and universities, in the race for rankings, look to assemble

the best researchers to join its faculty. Attracting good faculty are important for rankings.

“The rankings game among colleges is pervasive and is not played just with prospective

students. Universities believe that ranking high on this list helps attract star faculty and

even more research dollars” (Selingo, 2013, p. 13). Perspective students and parents

are attracted to the quality of faculty that a college or university possess. However,

there does exist the chance that the best researchers will never interact with students in

the classroom. Fringe benefits, like teaching buyouts in exchange for research grants

limits in class time for those faculty. As a result, contingent faculty are used to teach

107
their class. “The growing reliance on contingent faculty, while financially advantageous

to hiring institutions, has undermined and will increasingly undermine the practice of

shared governance” (Pierce, 2014, p. 47). In some respects, the faculty themselves

contribute to the increase in contingent faculty at colleges and universities. A 2012

article by Nicolaus Mills states that:

In the 1970s, 67 percent of faculty were tenured or on a tenure track. Today that
figure is down to 30 percent, and for those who run higher education such a low
number is ideal. Whether they are adjuncts or teaching assistants (TAs), those
without the claim to permanent jobs cost less and are easy to get rid of in a
period of contraction. Unionization efforts by teaching assistants in graduate
programs at public universities throughout the country have rectified some of the
worst abuses in what is in essence an academic temp system. But the TA union
successes have not changed the fact that, at our largest universities, an
academic underclass is at work: the faculty having the greatest amount of
contact with individual students are those on the lowest rung of the academic
ladder. (Mills, 2012, p. 8).

As the corporatization of higher education continues, there are beliefs that the

increase in contingent faculty is one of the most dramatic signs of corporatization. Fink

noted that,

Even as students have faced sky rocketing tuition increases, faculty have seen
their institutions increasingly 'privatized' - or expected to generate substantial
revenue streams - in ways that have transformed the internal hierarchies and
decision making processes of the research universities. The gradual erosion of
full-time tenured hires in favor of contingent faculty is likely the most dramatic
and alarming sign of the change. (2008, p. 230)

Tensions in enrollment also concerned faculty, specifically those at Institution C.

In the midst of enrollment challenges, faculty members at Institution C perceived that its

admissions office had enrolled less academically sound students to keep butts in seats.

“Nonprofit colleges and universities receive far less of their total revenue from

governmental sources and much more from tuition” (Weisbrod, et al., 2008, p. 31). So,

butts in seats does matter. Both of these business trends, butts in seats and cheap

108
labor cost of teaching, are threats to the academic enterprise as perceived by faculty.

Although there were a few faculty who understood the business need to have a full

classroom and inexpensive labor, they still had great concern about maintaining quality

and rigor for teaching and learning in the academic enterprise.

Change is hard for any organization, by definition, “change requires creating a

new system, which in turn always demands leadership. Phase one in a renewal process

typically goes nowhere until enough real leaders are promoted or hired into senior-level

jobs” (Kotter, 1998, p. 4). This may ring true for colleges and universities. Although

there has been a proliferation of administrators hired at institutions of higher education,

many times the faculty do not know who these people are, what they do, or what their

purpose is at the institution. A growing body of research around shared governance

advocates for systemic changes and even new ways for governing colleges and

universities. Some of the research calls for a more business-like approach to

governance. An example would be the Association of Governing Boards 1996 report

titled Reviewing the Academic Presidency: Stronger Leadership for Tougher Times,

which has been perceived by some to be an attack on the collegial decision-making

process of shared governance (Bowen & Tobin, 2015). At any rate, change is tough and

it is no different in the higher education community. While faculty had a difficult time

providing insights into how colleges and universities should work to balance roles

between faculty and administration, in the decision-making process, and sustain a

culture of shared governance, two responses that were common were the need for

collaboration and the need for strong leadership from faculty and administration. The

traditional formula for governance in academia comes from the outline of broad,

109
administrative, and faculty duties that forms the basis of the American Association of

University Professors’ 1966 statement “Colleges and University Government.” This

outline blurs the divide between “owners,” “managers,” and “employees” in higher

education because it establishes governance roles for all three” (Burgan, 2006, p. 103).

Even though the 1966 statement set some vague meaning for role and

responsibility, much ambiguity still remains about each of the players’ role and

responsibility in shared governance. As mentioned before, there is no cookie-cutter

design for making shared governance work where all will be pleased. The players,

specifically faculty and administration, must have an understanding of how to work with

one another, must be able to listen to one another, and must be able to compromise

when necessary. Ultimately, the players need to simply know what their roles are at

their respective institutions. Since all institutions are different, faculty role and

responsibility will be different and the decision-making process will vary for one

institution to another. No matter the institution, the decision-making process should be

collaborative and transparent. Faculty want to know the what, when, where, and how

about decisions being made at their institutions and they want to be fully involved in the

decision-making process. Faculty want administrators to understand their needs and

their unique perspective. Ultimately, they want to be heard.

Implications for Practice

This study aimed to provide some basic knowledge to assist others, specifically

rising leaders in academia and those in the business of higher education about the

importance of shared governance decision-making. The author hopes that higher

education administrators will gain some knowledge about how to better lead under the

110
auspices of shared governance. The author also desires that faculty would gain an

openness for understanding the business side of higher education and how it impacts

the world of academia. All too often the two groups, faculty and administrators, do not

understand the role and responsibility they share in governance because of a lack of

engagement. As a first-time senior administrator in a School at a major research

university, the author was held-to-the-fire by faculty and others to get things done.

However, the culture for getting things done in this environment was to let the faculty

lead and do whatever it took to make projects successful even under major stressors

including: funding, lack of faculty expert knowledge for the project, and lack of

understanding about how faculty should work in collaboration with administrators. This

work should add to the professional knowledge of higher education administrators for

the purpose of growing their understanding about the importance of building alliances

with faculty. Without faculty support or buy-in, administrators will have a difficult time

moving the agenda of colleges and universities forward.

Recommendations for Research

This research provided multiple ideas and thoughts which may lead to others

expanding on this body of work. Four areas that this research has added to are:

• The need to bridge the gap between faculty and administrators about their role

and responsibility in shared governance;

• The implications that corporatization has on academic quality and rigor of the

academic enterprise;

• How non-academic administrators should understand shared governance and its

role in leadership at colleges and universities; and,

111
 • How administrators (chancellors, presidents, provost, and deans) perceive the

relationship between the corporatization of higher education and shared

governance.

Conclusion

Starting with the purpose to gain an understanding for faculty perceptions about

the corporatization of higher education and its relationship with shared governance, the

researcher had a desire to better understand shared governance from the perspective

of faculty. The researcher also wanted to understand how faculty perceived that the

corporatization of higher education impacts shared governance and their role and

responsibility in decision-making. Taking a qualitative look through the lens of faculty

was a valuable experience. In addition, gaining an understanding about how faculty

perceived their role and responsibility in the leadership was equally valuable.

Faculty definitely felt that their voice in leadership should be heard and respected

in all kinds of matters, especially those that had implications on academics. There was a

tremendous amount of concern regarding trends such as top-down administration, the

proliferation of non-academic administrators and contingent faculty, and the new

phenomenon of hiring college and university presidents/chancellors who did not come

up through the traditional ranks of faculty. While faculty seemed to understand the

business need for more corporate like policies and procedures, the faculty cautioned

that too much of this could interfere with academic freedom and impact the numbered of

tenured faculty. In addition, there was concern that a large dose of corporatization

would block faculty from being involved in decision-making. Faculty should be

concerned about all of this.

112
 As the higher education industry continues to become more competitive, colleges

and universities are doing whatever it takes to remain viable and competitive in its

market. Remaining competitive is important to colleges and universities and

administrators who often are leading the charge to keep institutions near the top of the

rankings list. Chasing rankings, lowering cost, improving efficiencies, maintaining

enrollment, securing research dollars, and offering a top-notch student experience is of

upmost importance for colleges and universities. In the midst of this chase, colleges and

universities have to be careful not to down grade the quality of academics being

delivered by its faculty.

This study provided more knowledge than expected and has ignited a desire for

the researcher to explore other areas related to this topic. Learning to understand the

world of academia could be frustrating for many. However, gaining an understanding for

how the business of higher education and academia relate to one another could be an

advantage to those who look to become leaders (Presidents, Provost, Deans, and Vice

Presidents) at colleges and universities.

113
 Appendix A: 1940 STATEMENT ON ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND TENURE, WITH

1970 INTERPERITIVE COMMENTS

In 1915 the Committee on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure of the American
Association of University Professors formulated a statement of principles on academic
freedom and academic tenure known as the 1915 Declaration of Principles, which was
officially endorsed by the Association at its Second Annual Meeting held in Washington,
D.C., December 31, 1915, and January 1, 1916.

In 1925 the American Council on Education called a conference of representatives of a

number of its constituent members, among them the American Association of University
Professors, for the purpose of formulating a shorter statement of principles on academic
freedom and tenure. The statement formulated at this conference, known as the
1925Conference Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure, was endorsed by the
Association of American Colleges (now the Association of American Colleges and
Universities) in 1925 and by the American Association of University Professors in 1926.

In 1940, following a series of joint conferences begun in 1934, representatives of the

American Association of University Professors and of the Association of American
Colleges (now the Association of American Colleges and Universities) agreed upon a
restatement of principles set forth in the 1925 Conference Statement on Academic
Freedom and Tenure. This restatement is known to the profession as the 1940
Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure.

Following extensive discussions on the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic

Freedom and Tenure with leading educational associations and with individual faculty
members and administrators, a joint committee of the AAUP and the Association of
American Colleges met during 1969 to reevaluate this key policy statement. On the
basis of the comments received, and the discussions that ensued, the joint committee
felt the preferable approach was to formulate interpretations of the 1940Statement from
the experience gained in implementing and applying it for over thirty years and of
adapting it to current needs.

The committee submitted to the two associations for their consideration Interpretive
Comments that are included below as footnotes to the 1940 Statement.1 These
interpretations were adopted by the Council of the American Association of University
Professors in April 1970 and endorsed by the Fifty- Sixth Annual Meeting as Association
Policy.

114
The purpose of this statement is to promote public understanding and support of
academic freedom, tenure and agreement upon procedures to ensure them in colleges
and universities. Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good
and not to further the interest of either the individual teacher or the institution as a
whole.2 The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free
exposition.

Academic freedom is essential to these purposes and applies to both teaching and
research. Freedom in research is fundamental to the advancement of truth. Academic
freedom in its teaching aspect is fundamental for the protection of the rights of the
teacher in teaching and of the student to freedom in learning. It carries with it duties
correlative with rights.3

Tenure is a means to certain ends; specifically: (1) freedom of teaching and research
and of extramural activities, and (2) a sufficient degree of economic security to make the
profession attractive to men and women of ability. Freedom and economic security,
hence, tenure, are indispensable to the success of an institution in fulfilling its
obligations to its students and to society.

Academic Freedom

• Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the
results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties; but
research for pecuniary return should be based upon an understanding with the
authorities of the institution.
• Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but
they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter
which has no relation to their subject.4 Limitations of academic freedom because
of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at
the time of the appointment.5
• College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession,
and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens,
they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special
position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and
educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their
profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times
be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the

115
 opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not
speaking for the institution.6

Academic Tenure

After the expiration of a probationary period, teachers or investigators should have

permanent or continuous tenure, and their service should be terminated only for
adequate cause, except in the case of retirement for age, or under extraordinary
circumstances because of financial exigencies.

In the interpretation of this principle it is understood that the following represents

acceptable academic practice:

1. The precise terms and conditions of every appointment should be stated in

writing and be in the possession of both institution and teacher before the
appointment is consummated.
2. Beginning with appointment to the rank of full-time instructor or a higher
rank,7 the probationary period should not exceed seven years, including within
this period full-time service in all institutions of higher education; but subject to
the proviso that when, after a term of probationary service of more than three
years in one or more institutions, a teacher is called to another institution, it may
be agreed in writing that the new appointment is for a probationary period of not
more than four years, even though thereby the person’s total probationary period
in the academic profession is extended beyond the normal maximum of seven
years.8 Notice should be given at least one year prior to the expiration of the
probationary period if the teacher is not to be continued in service after the
expiration of that period.9
3. During the probationary period a teacher should have the academic freedom that
all other members of the faculty have.10
4. Termination for cause of a continuous appointment, or the dismissal for cause of
a teacher previous to the expiration of a term appointment, should, if possible, be
considered by both a faculty committee and the governing board of the
institution. In all cases where the facts are in dispute, the accused teacher should
be informed before the hearing in writing of the charges and should have the
opportunity to be heard in his or her own defense by all bodies that pass
judgment upon the case. The teacher should be permitted to be accompanied by
an advisor of his or her own choosing who may act as counsel. There should be
a full stenographic record of the hearing available to the parties concerned. In the
hearing of charges of incompetence, the testimony should include that of

116
 teachers and other scholars, either from the teacher’s own or from other
institutions. Teachers on continuous appointment who are dismissed for reasons
not involving moral turpitude should receive their salaries for at least a year from
the date of notification of dismissal whether or not they are continued in their
duties at the institution.11
5. Termination of a continuous appointment because of financial exigency should
be demonstrably bona fide.

117
Appendix B: STATEMENT ON GOVERNANCE OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

The statement that follows is directed to governing board members, administrators,

faculty members, students, and other persons in the belief that the colleges and
universities of the United States have reached a stage calling for appropriately shared
responsibility and cooperative action among the components of the academic institution.
The statement is intended to foster constructive joint thought and action, both within the
institutional structure and in protection of its integrity against improper intrusions.

It is not intended that the statement serve as a blueprint for governance on a specific
campus or as a manual for the regulation of controversy among the components of an
academic institution, although it is to be hoped that the principles asserted will lead to
the correction of existing weaknesses and assist in the establishment of sound
structures and procedures. The statement does not attempt to cover relations with those
outside agencies that increasingly are controlling the resources and influencing the
patterns of education in our institutions of higher learning: for example, the United
States government, state legislatures, state commissions, interstate associations or
compacts, and other interinstitutional arrangements. However, it is hoped that the
statement will be helpful to these agencies in their consideration of educational matters.

Students are referred to in this statement as an institutional component coordinate in

importance with trustees, administrators, and faculty. There is, however, no main
section on students. The omission has two causes: (1) the changes now occurring in
the status of American students have plainly outdistanced the analysis by the
educational community, and an attempt to define the situation without thorough study
might prove unfair to student interests, and (2) students do not in fact at present have a
significant voice in the government of colleges and universities; it would be unseemly to
obscure, by superficial equality of length of statement, what may be a serious lag
entitled to separate and full confrontation.

The concern for student status felt by the organizations issuing this statement is
embodied in a note, “On Student Status,” intended to stimulate the educational
community to turn its attention to an important need.

This statement was jointly formulated by the American Association of University

Professors, the American Council on Education (ACE), and the Association of
Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB). In October 1966, the board of
directors of the ACE took action by which its council “recognizes the statement as a
significant step forward in the clarification of the respective roles of governing boards,
faculties, and administrations, “and “commends it to the institutions which are members

118
of the Council.” The Council of the AAUP adopted the statement in October 1966, and
the Fifty-third Annual Meeting endorsed it in April 1967. In November 1966, the
executive committee of the AGB took action by which that organization also “recognizes
the statement as a significant step forward in the clarification of the respective roles of
governing boards, faculties, and administrations,” and “commends it to the governing
boards which are members of the Association.” (In April 1990, the Council of the AAUP
adopted several changes in language in order to remove gender-specific references
from the original text.)

1. Introduction

This statement is a call to mutual understanding regarding the government of colleges

and universities. Understanding, based on community of interest and producing joint
effort, is essential for at least three reasons. First, the academic institution, public or
private, often has become less autonomous; buildings, research, and student tuition are
supported by funds over which the college or university exercises a diminishing control.
Legislative and executive governmental authorities, at all levels, play a part in the
making of important decisions in academic policy. If these voices and forces are to be
successfully heard and integrated, the academic institution must be in a position to meet
them with its own generally unified view. Second, regard for the welfare of the institution
remains important despite the mobility and interchange of scholars. Third, a college or
university in which all the components are aware of their interdependence, of the
usefulness of communication among themselves, and of the force of joint action will
enjoy increased capacity to solve educational problems.

2. The Academic Institution: Joint Effort

a. Preliminary Considerations

The variety and complexity of the tasks performed by institutions of higher education
produce an inescapable interdependence among governing board, administration,
faculty, students, and others. The relationship calls for adequate communication among
these components, and full opportunity for appropriate joint planning and effort.

Joint effort in an academic institution will take a variety of forms appropriate to the kinds
of situations encountered. In some instances, an initial exploration or recommendation
will be made by the president with consideration by the faculty at a later stage; in other
instances, a first and essentially definitive recommendation will be made by the faculty,
subject to the endorsement of the president and the governing board. In still others, a
substantive contribution can be made when student leaders are responsibly involved in
the process. Although the variety of such approaches may be wide, at least two general
conclusions regarding joint effort seem clearly warranted: (1) important areas of action
119
involve at one time or another the initiating capacity and decision-making participation of
all the institutional components, and (2) differences in the weight of each voice, from
one point to the next, should be determined by reference to the responsibility of each
component for the particular matter at hand, as developed hereinafter.

b. Determination of General Educational Policy

The general educational policy, i.e., the objectives of an institution and the nature,
range, and pace of its efforts, is shaped by the institutional charter or by law, by tradition
and historical development, by the present needs of the community of the institution,
and by the professional aspirations and standards of those directly involved in its work.
Every board will wish to go beyond its formal trustee obligation to conserve the
accomplishment of the past and to engage seriously with the future; every faculty will
seek to conduct an operation worthy of scholarly standards of learning; every
administrative officer will strive to meet his or her charge and to attain the goals of the
institution. The interests of all are coordinate and related, and unilateral effort can lead
to confusion or conflict. Essential to a solution is a reasonably explicit statement on
general educational policy. Operating responsibility and authority, and procedures for
continuing review, should be clearly defined in official regulations.

When an educational goal has been established, it becomes the responsibility primarily
of the faculty to determine the appropriate curriculum and procedures of student
instruction.

Special considerations may require particular accommodations: (1) a publicly

supported institution may be regulated by statutory provisions, and (2) a church-
controlled institution may be limited by its charter or bylaws. When such external
requirements influence course content and the manner of instruction or research, they
impair the educational effectiveness of the institution.

Such matters as major changes in the size or composition of the student body and the
relative emphasis to be given to the various elements of the educational and research
program should involve participation of governing board, administration, and faculty
prior to final decision.

c. Internal Operations of the Institution

The framing and execution of long-range plans, one of the most important aspects of
institutional responsibility, should be a central and continuing concern in the academic
community.

120
Effective planning demands that the broadest possible exchange of information and
opinion should be the rule for communication among the components of a college or
university. The channels of communication should be established and maintained by
joint endeavor. Distinction should be observed between the institutional system of
communication and the system of responsibility for the making of decisions.

A second area calling for joint effort in internal operation is that of decisions regarding
existing or prospective physical resources. The board, president, and faculty should all
seek agreement on basic decisions regarding buildings and other facilities to be used in
the educational work of the institution.

A third area is budgeting. The allocation of resources among competing demands is

central in the formal responsibility of the governing board, in the administrative authority
of the president, and in the educational function of the faculty. Each component should
therefore have a voice in the determination of short- and long-range priorities, and each
should receive appropriate analyses of past budgetary experience, reports on current
budgets and expenditures, and short- and long-range budgetary projections. The
function of each component in budgetary matters should be understood by all; the
allocation of authority will determine the flow of information and the scope of
participation in decisions.

Joint effort of a most critical kind must be taken when an institution chooses a new
president. The selection of a chief administrative officer should follow upon a
cooperative search by the governing board and the faculty, taking into consideration the
opinions of others who are appropriately interested. The president should be equally
qualified to serve both as the executive officer of the governing board and as the chief
academic officer of the institution and the faculty. The president’s dual role requires an
ability to interpret to board and faculty the educational views and concepts of
institutional government of the other. The president should have the confidence of the
board and the faculty.

The selection of academic deans and other chief academic officers should be the
responsibility of the president with the advice of, and in consultation with, the
appropriate faculty.

Determinations of faculty status, normally based on the recommendations of the faculty

groups involved, are discussed in Part 5 of this statement; but it should here be noted
that the building of a strong faculty requires careful joint effort in such actions as staff
selection and promotion and the granting of tenure. Joint action should also govern
dismissals; the applicable principles and procedures in these matters are well
established.1

121
d. External Relations of the Institution

Anyone—a member of the governing board, the president or other member of the
administration, a member of the faculty, or a member of the student body or the
alumni—affects the institution when speaking of it in public. An individual who speaks
unofficially should so indicate. An individual who speaks officially for the institution, the
board, the administration, the faculty, or the student body should be guided by
established policy.

It should be noted that only the board speaks legally for the whole institution, although it
may delegate responsibility to an agent. The right of a board member, an administrative
officer, a faculty member, or a student to speak on general educational questions or
about the administration and operations of the individual’s own institution is a part of
that person’s right as a citizen and should not be abridged by the institution.2 There
exist, of course, legal bounds relating to defamation of character, and there are
questions of propriety.

3. The Academic Institution: The Governing Board

The governing board has a special obligation to ensure that the history of the college or
university shall serve as a prelude and inspiration to the future. The board helps relate
the institution to its chief community: for example, the community college to serve the
educational needs of a defined population area or group, the church-controlled college
to be cognizant of the announced position of its denomination, and the comprehensive
university to discharge the many duties and to accept the appropriate new challenges
which are its concern at the several levels of higher education.

The governing board of an institution of higher education in the United States operates,
with few exceptions, as the final institutional authority. Private institutions are
established by charters; public institutions are established by constitutional or statutory
provisions. In private institutions the board is frequently self-perpetuating; in public
colleges and universities the present membership of a board may be asked to suggest
candidates for appointment. As a whole and individually, when the governing board
confronts the problem of succession, serious attention should be given to obtaining
properly qualified persons. Where public law calls for election of governing board
members, means should be found to ensure the nomination of fully suited persons, and
the electorate should be informed of the relevant criteria for board membership.

Since the membership of the board may embrace both individual and collective
competence of recognized weight, its advice or help may be sought through established
channels by other components of the academic community. The governing board of an
institution of higher education, while maintaining a general overview, entrusts the

122
conduct of administration to the administrative officers—the president and the deans—
and the conduct of teaching and research to the faculty. The board should undertake
appropriate self-limitation.

One of the governing board’s important tasks is to ensure the publication of codified
statements that define the overall policies and procedures of the institution under its
jurisdiction.

The board plays a central role in relating the likely needs of the future to predictable
resources; it has the responsibility for husbanding the endowment; it is responsible for
obtaining needed capital and operating funds; and in the broadest sense of the term it
should pay attention to personnel policy. In order to fulfill these duties, the board should
be aided by, and may insist upon, the development of long-range planning by the
administration and faculty. When ignorance or ill will threatens the institution or any part
of it, the governing board must be available for support. In grave crises it will be
expected to serve as a champion. Although the action to be taken by it will usually be on
behalf of the president, the faculty, or the student body, the board should make clear
that the protection it offers to an individual or a group is, in fact, a fundamental defense
of the vested interests of society in the educational institution.3

4. The Academic Institution: The President

The president, as the chief executive officer of an institution of higher education, is

measured largely by his or her capacity for institutional leadership. The president shares
responsibility for the definition and attainment of goals, for administrative action, and for
operating the communications system that links the components of the academic
community. The president represents the institution to its many publics. The president’s
leadership role is supported by delegated authority from the board and faculty.

As the chief planning officer of an institution, the president has a special obligation to
innovate and initiate. The degree to which a president can envision new horizons for the
institution, and can persuade others to see them and to work toward them, will often
constitute the chief measure of the president’s administration.

The president must at times, with or without support, infuse new life into a department;
relatedly, the president may at times be required, working within the concept of tenure,
to solve problems of obsolescence. The president will necessarily utilize the judgments
of the faculty but may also, in the interest of academic standards, seek outside
evaluations by scholars of acknowledged competence.

It is the duty of the president to see to it that the standards and procedures in
operational use within the college or university conform to the policy established by the

123
governing board and to the standards of sound academic practice. It is also incumbent
on the president to ensure that faculty views, including dissenting views, are presented
to the board in those areas and on those issues where responsibilities are shared.
Similarly, the faculty should be informed of the views of the board and the administration
on like issues.

The president is largely responsible for the maintenance of existing institutional

resources and the creation of new resources; has ultimate managerial responsibility for
a large area of nonacademic activities; is responsible for public understanding; and by
the nature of the office is the chief person who speaks for the institution. In these and
other areas the president’s work is to plan, organize, direct, and represent. The
presidential function should receive the general support of board and faculty.

5. The Academic Institution: The Faculty

The faculty has primary responsibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject
matter and methods of instruction, research, faculty status, and those aspects of
student life that relate to the educational process.4 On these matters, the power of
review or final decision lodged in the governing board or delegated by it to the president
should be exercised adversely only in exceptional circumstances, and for reasons
communicated to the faculty. It is desirable that the faculty should, following such
communication, have opportunity for further consideration and further transmittal of its
views to the president or board. Budgets, personnel limitations, the time element, and
the policies of other groups, bodies, and agencies having jurisdiction over the institution
may set limits to realization of faculty advice.

The faculty sets the requirements for the degrees offered in courses, determines when
the requirements have been met, and authorizes the president and board to grant the
degrees thus achieved.

Faculty status and related matters are primarily a faculty responsibility; this area
includes appointments, reappointments, decisions not to reappoint, promotions, the
granting of tenure, and dismissal. The primary responsibility of the faculty for such
matters is based upon the fact that its judgment is central to general educational policy.
Furthermore, scholars in a particular field or activity have the chief competence for
judging the work of their colleagues; in such competence it is implicit that responsibility
exists for both adverse and favorable judgments. Likewise, there is the more general
competence of experienced faculty personnel committees having a broader charge.
Determinations in these matters should first be by faculty action through established
procedures, reviewed by the chief academic officers with the concurrence of the board.
The governing board and president should, on questions of faculty status, as in other

124
matters where the faculty has primary responsibility, concur with the faculty judgment
except in rare instances and for compelling reasons which should be stated in detail.

The faculty should actively participate in the determination of policies and procedures
governing salary increases.

The chair or head of a department, who serves as the chief representative of the
department within an institution, should be selected either by departmental election or
by appointment following consultation with members of the department and of related
departments; appointments should normally be in conformity with department members’
judgment. The chair or department head should not have tenure in office; tenure as a
faculty member is a matter of separate right. The chair or head should serve for a stated
term but without prejudice to re-election or to re-appointment by procedures that involve
appropriate faculty consultation. Board, administration, and faculty should all bear in
mind that the department chair or head has a special obligation to build a department
strong in scholarship and teaching capacity.

Agencies for faculty participation in the government of the college or university should
be established at each level where faculty responsibility is present. An agency should
exist for the presentation of the views of the whole faculty. The structure and
procedures for faculty participation should be designed, approved, and established by
joint action of the components of the institution. Faculty representatives should be
selected by the faculty according to procedures determined by the faculty.5

The agencies may consist of meetings of all faculty members of a department, school,
college, division, or university system, or may take the form of faculty-elected executive
committees in departments and schools and a faculty-elected senate or council for
larger divisions or the institution as a whole.

The means of communication among the faculty, administration, and governing board
now in use include: (1) circulation of memoranda and reports by board committees, the
administration, and faculty committees; (2) joint ad hoc committees; (3) standing liaison
committees; (4) membership of faculty members on administrative bodies; and (5)
membership of faculty members on governing boards. Whatever the channels of
communication, they should be clearly understood and observed.

On Student Status

When students in American colleges and universities desire to participate responsibly in

the government of the institution they attend, their wish should be recognized as a claim
to opportunity both for educational experience and for involvement in the affairs of their
college or university. Ways should be found to permit significant student participation

125
within the limits of attainable effectiveness. The obstacles to such participation are large
and should not be minimized: inexperience, untested capacity, a transitory status which
means that present action does not carry with it subsequent responsibility, and the
inescapable fact that the other components of the institution are in a position of
judgment over the students. It is important to recognize that student needs are strongly
related to educational experience, both formal and informal.

Students expect, and have a right to expect, that the educational process will be
structured, that they will be stimulated by it to become independent adults, and that they
will have effectively transmitted to them the cultural heritage of the larger society. If
institutional support is to have its fullest possible meaning, it should incorporate the
strength, freshness of view, and idealism of the student body.

The respect of students for their college or university can be enhanced if they are given
at least these opportunities: (1) to be listened to in the classroom without fear of
institutional reprisal for the substance of their views, (2) freedom to discuss questions of
institutional policy and operation, (3) the right to academic due process when charged
with serious violations of institutional regulations, and (4) the same right to hear
speakers of their own choice as is enjoyed by other components of the institution.

A. On the Relationship of Faculty Governance to Academic Freedom

This statement was approved in May 1994 by the Association’s Committee on College
and University Governance (Committee T). In June 1994, it was approved by
Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure and adopted by the Association’s
Council.

Since its founding in 1915, the AAUP has been actively engaged in developing
standards for sound academic practice and in working for their acceptance throughout
the community of higher education. Two aspects of an institution’s academic practice
have been of particular concern to the Association ever since: the rights and freedoms
of individual faculty members and the role of the faculty in institutional governance. The
fundamental principles describing the rights and freedoms that an institution should
accord to its individual faculty members are set forth in the 1940 Statement of Principles
on Academic Freedom and Tenure; those principles have been further developed in
more recent Association statements and reports that bring the principles to bear on
specific issues having to do with faculty status. The fundamental principles describing
the proper role of faculty members in institutional governance are set forth in the
1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities; those principles, too,
have been further developed in more recent Association statements and reports.

126
Although the Association established Committee A in 1915, its initial year, to attend to
issues of academic freedom and tenure, and created Committee T the following year to
address issues of institutional “government,” the AAUP has not spoken explicitly to the
links between its principles in these two basic areas. Thus, the 1940 Statement of
Principles describes faculty members as “officers of an educational institution,” but it is
silent about the governance role they should carry out in light of their being officers of
the institution. The 1966 Statement describes the role in institutional government that
faculty should be accorded, but it does not speak to the bearing of that role on the rights
and freedoms of individual faculty members.1

Historical and contemporary links can be clearly seen, however. This statement will
suggest that a sound system of institutional governance is a necessary condition for the
protection of faculty rights and thereby for the most productive exercise of essential
faculty freedoms. Correspondingly, the protection of the academic freedom of faculty
members in addressing issues of institutional governance is a prerequisite for the
practice of governance unhampered by fear of retribution.2

An institution’s system of governance is the structure according to which authority and

responsibilities are allocated to the various offices and divisions within the institution.
How should that authority be allocated? Conducting the academic enterprise requires
carrying out a complex array of tasks by the various components of the institution. The
1966 Statement singles out three major institutional components—the governing board,
the administration, and the faculty—and describes their respective responsibilities, that
is, the tasks for which each is primarily responsible. Being responsible for carrying out a
task is one thing, however, and having authority over the way in which the task is
carried out is quite another. The Statement on Government connects them in the
following general principle, enunciated at the outset: “differences in the weight of each
voice, from one point to the next, should be determined by reference to the
responsibility of each component for the particular matter at hand. . ..” Thus degrees of
authority should track directness of responsibility.

For example, since the faculty has primary responsibility for the teaching and research
done in the institution, the faculty’s voice on matters having to do with teaching and
research should be given the greatest weight. From that idea flow more specific
principles regarding the faculty’s role, as expressed in the Statement on
Government. Since such decisions as those involving choice of method of instruction,
subject matter to be taught, policies for admitting students, standards of student
competence in a discipline, the maintenance of a suitable environment for learning, and
standards of faculty competence bear directly on the teaching and research conducted
in the institution, the faculty should have primary authority over decisions about such
matters—that is, the administration should “concur with the faculty judgment except in

127
rare instances and for compelling reasons which should be stated in detail.” Other
decisions bear less directly on the teaching and research conducted in the institution;
these include, for instance, decisions about the institution’s long range objectives, its
physical and fiscal resources, the distribution of its funds among its various divisions,
and the selection of its president. But these decisions plainly can have a powerful
impact on the institution’s teaching and research, and the Statement on
Government, therefore, declares that the decision-making process must include the
faculty, and that its voice on these matters must be accorded great respect.

In short, the 1966 Statement derives the weight of the faculty’s voice on an issue—that
is, the degree to which the faculty’s voice should be authoritative on the issue—from the
relative directness with which the issue bears on the faculty’s exercise of its various
institutional responsibilities.

There are at least three reasons why the faculty’s voice should be authoritative across
the entire range of decision-making that bears, whether directly or indirectly, on its
responsibilities. For each of these reasons, it is also essential that faculty members
have the academic freedom to express their professional opinions without fear of
reprisal.

In the first place, this allocation of authority is the most efficient means to the
accomplishment of the institution’s objectives. For example, as the Statement on
Government maintains, “the educational effectiveness of the institution” is the greater
the more firmly the institution is able to protect this allocation of authority against
pressures from outside the institution. Moreover, scholars in a discipline are acquainted
with the discipline from within; their views on what students should learn in it, and on
which faculty members should be appointed and promoted, are therefore more likely to
produce better teaching and research in the discipline than are the views of trustees or
administrators. More generally, experienced faculty committees—whether constituted to
address curricular, personnel, or other matters—must be free to bring to bear on the
issues at hand not merely their disciplinary competencies, but also their firsthand under-
standing of what constitutes good teaching and research generally, and of the climate in
which those endeavors can best be conducted.

The second reason issues from the centrality of teaching and research within the array
of tasks carried out by an academic institution: teaching and research are the very
purpose of an academic institution and the reason why the public values and supports
it. This means that the faculty, who are responsible for carrying out those central tasks,
should be viewed as having a special status within the institution. The Association has
taken this view from its earliest days. Its first statement, the 1915 Declaration of
Principles,3 declares that members of a faculty “are the appointees, but not in any

128
proper sense the employees,” of the trustees; they are partners with the trustees, and,
as the 1915 Declaration states, the office of faculty member should be—indeed, it is in
the public interest that the office of faculty member should be—“one both of dignity and
of independence.” Allocation of authority to the faculty in the areas of its responsibility is
a necessary condition for the faculty’s position that dignity and exercising that
independence.

The third reason is the most important in the present context: allocation of authority to
the faculty in the areas of its responsibility is a necessary condition for the protection of
academic freedom within the institution. The protection of free expression takes many
forms, but the issue emerges most clearly in the case of authority over faculty status.

The academic freedom of faculty members includes the freedom to express their views
(1) on academic matters in the classroom and in the conduct of research, (2) on matters
having to do with their institution and its policies, and (3) on issues of public interest
generally, and to do so even if their views are in conflict with one or another received
wisdom. Association policy documents over the years before and since the adoption of
the 1940Statement of Principles have described the reasons why this freedom should
be accorded and rights to it protected. In the case (1) of academic matters, good
teaching requires developing critical ability in one’s students and an understanding of
the methods for resolving disputes within the discipline; good research requires
permitting the expression of contrary views in order that the evidence for and against a
hypothesis can be weighed responsibly. In the case (2) of institutional matters, grounds
for thinking an institutional policy desirable or undesirable must be heard and assessed
if the community is to have confidence that its policies are appropriate. In the case (3) of
issues of public interest generally, the faculty member must be free to exercise the
rights accorded to all citizens.4

Protecting academic freedom on campus requires ensuring that a particular instance of

faculty speech will be subject to discipline only where that speech violates some central
principle of academic morality, as, for example, where it is found to be fraudulent
(academic freedom does not protect plagiarism and deceit). Protecting academic
freedom also requires ensuring that faculty status turns on a faculty member’s views
only where the holding of those views clearly supports a judgment of competence or
incompetence.

It is in light of these requirements that the allocation to the faculty—through appropriate

governance processes and structures—of authority over faculty status and other basic
academic matters can be seen to be necessary for the protection of academic freedom.
It is the faculty— not trustees or administrators—who have the experience needed for
assessing whether an instance of faculty speech constitutes a breach of a central

129
principle of academic morality, and who have the expertise to form judgments of faculty
competence or incompetence. As AAUP case reports have shown, to the extent that
decisions on such matters are not in the hands of the faculty, there is a potential for,
and at times the actuality of, administrative imposition of penalties on improper grounds.

A good governance system is no guarantee that academic freedom will flourish. A

governance system is merely a structure that allocates authority, and authority needs to
be exercised if even the most appropriate allocation of it is to have its intended effects.
Faculty members must be willing to participate in the decision-making processes over
which a sound governance system gives them authority. As the Association’s Statement
on Professional Ethics says, faculty members must “accept their share of faculty
responsibilities for the governance of their institution.” If they do not, authority will drift
away from them, since someone must exercise it, and if members of the faculty do not,
others will.

The second possible source of concern is subtler. Even with a sound governance
system in place and with a faculty active in self-government and operating under rules
and regulations protective of academic freedom, dysfunctions that undermine academic
freedom may still occur: subtle (or not so subtle) bullying on the part of the faculty itself,
a covertly enforced isolation, a disinclination to respect the views of the offbeat and
cranky among its members. That is to say, given appropriate formal protections, such
incivilities may not issue in clear cut violations of academic freedom, but a faculty
member’s academic freedom may nevertheless be chilled.5

In sum, sound governance practice and the exercise of academic freedom are closely
connected, arguably inextricably linked. While no governance system can serve to
guarantee that academic freedom will always prevail, an inadequate governance
system—one in which the faculty is not accorded primacy in academic matters—
compromises the conditions in which academic freedom is likely to thrive. Similarly,
although academic freedom is not a sufficient condition, it is an essential one for
effective governance. Thus, the earliest principles formulated by the Association, those
of 1915 and 1916, are most likely to thrive when they are understood to reinforce one
another. Under those conditions, institutions of higher education will be best served and
will in turn best serve society at large.

130
 Appendix C: HAMILTON’S TABLES

Table C1: Hamilton’s Table 1

1966 Statement on Governance of Colleges and Universities

Type of Decision Allocation of Responsibility

< Determination of Mission The government board and its administrative

agency have primary responsibility for these
<Strategic Direction and Comprehensive Planning
decisions but the decision should be informed
<Physical and Fiscal resources by consultation from with the voting faculty.

<Budgeting and Distribution of Funds

<Selection and assessment of the president and

deans

<Curriculum The voting faculty should have primary

<Procedures of student instruction
<Standards of faculty competence and ethical
conduct including faculty appointments and
faculty status
authority over such matters – that is the
governing board and administration should
“concur with the faculty judgment except in
rare instances and compelling reasons, which
should be stated in detail.”

<Policies for student admittance

<Standard of student competence

<Maintenance of suitable environment for

learning

131
Table C2: Hamilton’s Table 2
1966 Statement on Governance Plus 1957 Recommended Institutional Regulations on
Academic Freedom and Tenure

Type of Decision Allocation of Responsibility

< Determination of Mission The government board and its

<Strategic Direction and Comprehensive
Planning
<Physical and Fiscal resources
administrative agency have primary
responsibility for these decisions but the
decision should be informed by
consultation from with the voting faculty.

<Budgeting and Distribution of Funds

<Selection and assessment of the president
and deans

<Curriculum The voting faculty should have primary

<Procedures of student instruction
<Standards of faculty competence and
ethical conduct including faculty
appointments and faculty status
<Policies for student admittance
<Standard of student competence
<Maintenance of suitable environment for
learning
<Research
<Classroom (and other) teaching activities
authority over such matters – that is the
governing board and administration
should “concur with the faculty judgment
except in rare instances and compelling
reasons, which should be stated in
detail.”
Individual Professors have authority over
such matters subject to peer review for
competence and ethical conduct, and
ultimate review by the board described
immediately above.

132
 HAMILTON PERMISSION

Freddie Wills <fwills@slu.edu>

to nwhamilton

Dr. Hamilton,

I am writing to ask permission to list a table from your book Academic Ethics in my dissertation.

My name is Freddie Wills. I am a doctoral student in the Higher Education Administration program at Saint
Louis University. I am conducting research about faculty perceptions about the corporatization of higher
education and its relationship with shared governance.

You do an excellent job of explaining the players in shared governance through the tables in your book.

I would love to include this in my work.

Thanks,
Freddie

Hamilton, Neil W. <NWHAMILTON@stthomas.edu> Jan

25

to me

Freddie,

You have permission. Good luck with this project. God knows our profession needs help in
acculturation into the ethics of the profession.

Neil

Neil Hamilton
Thomas and Patricia Holloran Professor of Law
Co-Director of the Holloran Center for Ethical Leadership in the Professions

133
 Appendix D: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

• How do you define shared governance?

• What are your thoughts about faculty and administrator’s role and responsibility

in the shared governance process?

• What are your thoughts about higher education shifting towards a corporate

model?

• In your opinion, what has led institutions of higher education to shift towards a

corporate model?

• Is corporatization bad for higher education? If yes, what are some strategies that

should be employed to slow the corporatization shift? If no, how does

corporatization benefit higher education?

• How has increases in nonacademic administrators (staffers) effected faculty

influence in decision making?

• In what ways has the increase in contingent faculty played a role in lessening

faculty influence in shared governance?

• To what extent has governing boards impacted the role and responsibility of

faculty in shared governance?

• Please share your thoughts about non – academics serving as college and

university presidents.

• Who is better equipped to lead an institution of higher education, the traditional

academic leader or the non-traditional business leader? And Why?

• Define the shared governance culture at this institution.

134
• What are your thoughts about the role and responsibility of the faculty in decision

making process at this institution?

• In what ways, if any, has shared governance changed during your time at the

institution?

• How does corporatization like processes threaten shared governance at this

institution?

• What should this institution do to sustain and protect the integrity of the academic

enterprise and resist a complete corporate model?

• What final thoughts do you have about the relationship between corporatization

and shared governance and how it effects the role and responsibility of faculty in

decision making processes?

135
 Appendix E: GOVERNANCE
Table E1: Governance

PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS

CATEGORY INSTITUTION A INSTITUITION B INSTITUTION C

Shared Governance • Decision-making bodies have • The initiating capacity and • Not available to the public
Defined consistent procedures decision-making participation
• There is maximum can involve participation of
departmental autonomy any institutional component
• Procedures are fair for all
decisions affecting faculty
members
Faculty Governance • Faculty Senate is main • Faculty Senate decisions are • Members should rank at
Structure governing body the voice of the faculty and is associate professor level or
• All members of faculty have a their means of participating in above, where possible
vote University governance • Terms are two years with a
• Additional members can be • Faculty Senate consists of maximum of two consecutive
elected for one-year terms faculty members elected by terms
• Elected members are eligible the full-time faculty of all
for re-election Colleges, Schools, and
Libraries per a system of
proportional representation
Governing Body • Fifteen representatives serve • Full-time faculty, as defined in • Faculty Senate consists of
Membership staggered 3-year terms. the Faculty Manual, may eight members of the faculty
• Nine divisional serve as representatives and includes two members
representatives are elected • Representatives are elected from each academic
by their Schools per the bylaws of the Faculty department
• Five at-large representatives Manual and Faculty Senate
are elected by the entire
Faculty Senate
Quorum Requirement • Not required • Senate majority holding office • A majority of faculty members
at beginning of academic year with voting privileges

136
 REFERENCE

1940 Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure (1970). Retrieved from

https://www.aaup.org/file/1940%20Statement.pdf

American Association of University Professors. (2011). Three statements from policy

documents & reports (10th. ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Andrews, J. G. (2006). How we can resist corporatization. Academe, 92(3), 16-19. doi:

10.2307/40252920

Aronowitz, S. (1998, Mar/Apr). The new corporate university: Higher education

becomes higher training. Dollars & Sense: Real World Economics, 216, 32-35.

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezp.slu.edu/docview/220956016?

accountid=8065

Bahls, S. (2015) What is shared governance? [blog] Retrieved from

http://agb.org/blog/2015/12/22/what-is-shared-governance

Bennet, W. and Wilezol, D. (2013). Is college worth it? A former United States

Secretary of Education and a liberal arts graduate expose the broken promise of

higher education. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and

leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

137
Birnbaum, R. (2000). Management fads in higher education: Where they come from,

what they do, why they fail. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Birnbaum, R. (2004). End of shared governance: Looking ahead or looking back. In W.

Tierney & V. Lechuga (Eds.), Restructuring shared governance in higher

education: New directions for higher education, Number 127, (pp. 5-22). San

Francisco, CA: Josey Bass.

Blumenstyk, G. (2015). American higher education in crisis: What everyone needs to

know. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Bornheimer, D. G., Burns, G. P., & Dumke, G. S. (1973). The Faculty in Higher

Education. Danville, IL: Interstate Printers & Publishers.

Bowen, W. G., & Tobin, E. M. (2014). Locus of authority: The evolution of faculty roles

in the governance of higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Burgan, M. (2006). What ever happened to the faculty? Drift and decision in higher

education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Burstein, M. (March 6, 2015). The unintended consequences of borrowing business

tools to run a university. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 61(25). Retrieved

from http://chronicle.com/article/The-Unintended-Consequences-/190489/

Carlson, S. (February 9, 2015). Colleges 'unleash the deans' with decentralized

budgets. The Chronical of Higher Education, 61(2). Retrieved from

http://chronicle.com.ezp.slu.edu/article/Colleges-Unleash-the-Deans/151711

138
Clay, R. (2008). The corporatization of higher education: The intermingling of business

and academic cultures brings both concerns and potential benefits to

psychology. Monitor, 39(11), 50. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/monitor

/2008/12/higher-ed.aspx

Collis, D. (2004). The paradox of scope: A challenge to the governance of higher

education. In W. Tierney (Ed.), Competing conceptions of academic governance:

negotiating the perfect storm (pp. 33-76). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins

University Press.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap…and others

don’t. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers.

Conn, S. (2010, October 17). The Steinbrenner effect baseball offers a clue to what's

wrong with the corporate university. The Chronicle Review. Retrieved from

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Steinbrenner-Effect/124918

Cope, R. G. (1987). Opportunity from strength: Strategic planning clarified with case

examples. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED296694)

Creelin, M. A. (2010). The future of shared governance. New Directions for Higher

Education, 151, 71-81. doi:10.1002/he.402

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five

approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

139
Democratic process (2016). In Reference.com [website]. Retrieved from

www.reference.com/government-politics/democratic-process-a3bc3f6079d35ba2

Duderstadt, J. (2004) Governing the twenty-first century university: A view from the

bridge. In W. Tierney (Ed.) Competing conceptions of academic governance:

Negotiating the perfect storm (pp. 137-157). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins

University Press.

Education Advisory Board (2016). Implementing shared services: Shared services

structures, transitions, and outcomes: Summary [academic affairs forum].

Retrieved from https://www.eab.com/research-and-insights/academic-affairs-

forum/custom/2013/12/implementing-shared-services

Eagleton, T. (2015, April 6) The slow death of the university. The Chronicle of Higher

Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/The-Slow-Death-of-

the/228991/

Ferren, A., & Stanton, W. (2004). Leadership through collaboration: The role of the chief

academic officer. Westport, CT. Praeger Publishing.

Fink, L. (2008). Corporatization and what we can do about it. The History Teacher, 41,

229-233. Society for History Education.

Franklin, J. (1974). From Slavery to Freedom: A History of Negro Americans, Fourth

Edition. New York, NY. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

140
Gerber, L. (2015). The rise and decline of faculty governance: Professionalization and

the modern American university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Ginsberg, B. (2011). The fall of the faculty: The rise of the all-administrative university

and why it matters. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hamilton, N., W. (2002). Academic ethics: problems and materials on professional

conduct and shared governance. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Kelderman, E. (2014, August 26). Mitch Daniels isn't rebuilding Purdue’s engine, he's

tuning it. The Chronical of Higher Education, 61(1). Retrieved from

http://chronicle.com/article/Mitch-Daniels-Isnt-Rebuilding/148483/

Kelderman, E. (2014, September 25). In the role of college president, many politicians

shed their partnership. The Chronical of Higher Education, 61(5). Retrieved from

http://chronicle.com/article/In-the-Role-of-College/149001/

Kelderman, E. (2015, May 31). Wisconsin law makers take aim at tenure and shared

governance. The Chronical of Higher Education. Retrieved from

http://chronicle.com/article/Wisconsin-Lawmakers-Take-Aim/230545

Kezar, A. (2004). What is more important to effective governance: Relationships, trust,

and leadership, or structures and formal processes. In W. Tierney & V. Lechuga

(Eds.), Restructuring shared governance in higher education: New directions for

higher education, Number 127, (pp. 35-46). San Francisco, CA: Josey Bass.

141
Kezar, A., & Lester, J. (2009). Organizing higher education for collaboration: A guide for

campus leaders. San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass

King, J. E., & Gomez, G. G. (2013). On the pathway to the presidency 2013:

Characteristics of higher education’s senior leadership. Washington, DC:

American Council on Education

Lazerson, M. (2010, October, 17). The making of corporate u: How we got here.

Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/The-

Making-of-Corporate-U/124913

Lerner, G. (2008) Corporatizing higher ed. The History Teacher, 41 (2), 219-227.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40543819

Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mills, N. (2012). The Corporatization of Higher Education. In Dissent, The College Issue

(pp. 6-9). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Morphew, C. M. (1999). Challenges facing shared governance within the college. In J.

Toma, & A. Kezar (Eds.) Reconceptualizing the collegiate ideal. New directions

for higher education (pp.71-80). San Francisco, CA, Jossey Bass.

National Center for Education Statistics (2014). Digest of educational statistics

[website]. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/current_tables.asp

142
Nelson, C. (2009, December 1). The AAUP: A view from the top. Chronicle of Higher

Education, 56(16). Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/The-AAUP-A-View-

From-the-Top/49301

Nelson, C. (2010). No university is an island: Saving academic freedom. New York, NY:

The New York University Press

Nica, E. (2014). The corporate restructuring of the university system. Economics,

Management and Financial Markets, 9(1), 142-147. Retrieved from

http://www.addletonacademicpublishers.com/contents-emfm#catid229

Olson, G. A. (2009, July 23). Exactly what is shared governance, Chronicle of Higher

Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Exactly-What-Is-

Shared/47065/

Pierce, S. R. (2014). Governance reconsidered: How boards, presidents,

administrators, and faculty can help their colleges thrive. San Francisco, CA,

Jossey-Bass.

Rickford, R. J. (2010, October 17). Are we commodities? If so, we are selling ourselves

cheaply. The Chronical of Higher Education. Retrieved from

http://chronicle.com/article/Are-We-Commodities-/124914/

Rosovsky, H. (1990). The university: An owner's manual. New York, NY: Norton.

Rudolph, F., & Thelin, J. (1990). The American college & university: A history (2nd

edition). Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press.

143
Schmidt, P. (2014, Sept. 24). Florida State U. board picks politician as president despite

widespread protest. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from

http://chronicle.com/article/Florida-State-U-Board-Picks/148975/

Scott, J. (2001, October). First annual Neil Rappaport Memorial Lecture: The

Undermining of Faculty Governance and the Restructuring of the University.

Presented at AAUP’s Mission & Shared Governance: Integrating a Shared

Governance conference co-sponsored by ACAD, AAUP and the Howard

University Faculty Senate. Washington, DC

Selingo, J. J. (2013). College (un) bound. New York, NY: New Harvest, Houghton Mifflin

Harcourt.

Shea, C. (2014, April, 14). Academic inequality and the star system. The Chronicle of

Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Academic-

Inequalitythe/145843/

Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press

Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities (1978). Retrieved from

https://www.aaup.org/report/statement-government-colleges-and-universities

Stripling, J. (2015, March 16). 2 former politicians, now college chiefs, lament the pace

of academe. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from

http://chronicle.com/article/2-Former-Politicians-Now/228529/

144
University of Maine (n. d.) University of Maine Flagship Match Program 2017-2018

[website]. Retrieved from https://go.umaine.edu/apply/scholarships/flagship-

match/

Thorp, H., & Goldstein, B. (2010). Engines of innovation: The entrepreneurial university

in the twenty-first century. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina

Press.

University of California-Berkley (n. d.). Shared services in academia. Campus shared

services [website]. Retrieved from http://sharedservices.berkeley.edu/shared-

services-elsewhere/

University of Maine (n. d.) University of Maine Flagship Match Program 2017-2018

[website]. Retrieved from https://go.umaine.edu/apply/scholarships/flagship-

match/

United States Department of Education (n. d.) The database of accredited

postsecondary institutes and programs. Retrieved from

http://ope.ed.gov/accreditation/

University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston (n. d.). Distinguished chair.

Retrieved from https://www.uth.edu/development/endowments/distinguished-

chair.htm

Weisbrod, B. A., Ballou, J. P., & Asch, E. D. (2008). Mission and money: Understanding

the university. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

145
Weisbuch, R. (2015, March 23). Shared governance or snared governance? 4 ways to

speed things along. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from

http://chronicle.com/article/Shared-Governance-or-Snared/228705/

146
 VITA AUCTORIS

Freddie E. Wills, Jr. is a higher education professional knowledgeable about

theories and practices that meet at the intersection of academic and business affairs at

institutions of higher education. In addition, Mr. Wills has a proven track record for

designing and implementing programs that integrate secondary and post-secondary

education. He is skilled at navigating a range of research, private, professional, and

religious educational institutions and organizations.

Mr. Wills has held administration roles at Washington University in St. Louis and

St. Louis College of Pharmacy in areas related to enrollment services, student affairs,

academic affairs and administration. He holds a Masters of Arts in Media

Communication with an emphasis in Public Relations from Webster University in St.

Louis Missouri and a Bachelor of Arts in Communication from Southwest Baptist

University located in Bolívar Missouri.

147