Download PDF
An Examination of Oral Communication Patterns and Emergent Groupings among Faculty Governance Units
Michael Miller, Ed.D.
Associate Dean
College of Education
San Jose State University
One Washington Square
San Jose, CA 95192-0071
(408) 924-3607
FAX: (408) 924-3713
mmiller5@email.sjsu.edu
Michael Miller is the Associate Dean of the College of Education and an
Associate Professor of Educational Leadership and Higher Education at
San Jose State University. He also serves as the Director of the
National Data Base on Faculty Involvement in Governance.
Abstract
Faculty involvement in governance is based on democracy where power
resides with individuals. By looking at the communication episodes of
two faculty senates over an academic year, groupings of senators
emerged to display various tendencies that are and are not correlated
with the power to influence the voting behaviors of others. These
communication channels were subsequently shared with senate presidents
who reflected on the nature of co-governance and how they envisioned
the roles different faculty members play.
Title: An Examination of Oral Communication Patterns and Emergent Groupings among Faculty Governance Units
Decision making in higher education is successful when it involves
teams who can think critically and creatively about how to solve
problems and build consensus within their communities (Bensimon &
Neumann, 1993). The academic and practitioner-based literature has
supported the notion that when groups are involved in decision-making,
more fruitful outcomes can be produced. In the realm of academic
affairs, however, where faculty are the constituency to involve, there
may be difficulties associated with harnessing the intellect to
actualize these benefits. Evidence of this difficulty is the purported
success of faculty governance units and their willingness to respond
quickly and effectively in a team-fashion to campus-wide decisions
(Birnbaum, 1991).
Faculty participation in institutional management takes on many forms,
perhaps the most visible of which is the faculty governance unit,
typically identified as a faculty or academic senate, council, or
forum. The ability of faculty to successfully maneuver through these
bodies, and for administrators to shepherd or spearhead ideas and
motions through a faculty governance unit is an important skill to be
developed. The American Association for Higher Education, for example,
even provides training on how to successfully serve as a faculty senate
president. At issue no longer is the value of shared authority in
higher education, nor situational decision-making, but how these bodies
behave and how information is shared and processed within them. The
most basic function of the governance unit, that of sharing information
and reaching consensus, must be explored to provide a real
understanding of how institutional decisions are made.
Gilmour (1991) estimated that there are over 1,500 faculty governance
bodies in operation on U. S. college campuses, and baseline research on
these bodies indicates that their primary leaders are tenured
full-professors from the liberal arts (Miller & Pope, 2001).
Although the case may be different in community, junior, and technical
colleges, the most basic precept is that governance among equals
requires that all voices be heard and represented in decision-making.
Referring to even the much-discussed AAUP statement on Academic
Governance (1966; 1971), shared decision-making often occurs in a
setting where there are many shades of gray and exact boundaries are
not known. As Williams, Gore, Broches, and Lostoski (1987) noted, an
active governance body could be quite small or quite large, inactive or
rebellious, all dependent on the issue and the extent to which an issue
addresses core faculty values and beliefs.
To explore and make some preliminary observations on the communication
patterns of faculty in decision-making, that is, getting inside “how”
decisions are made, the current study involved teams of individuals
watching and scoring the deliberations of two different, yet ultimately
similar, faculty governance bodies over an academic year. At stake in
these observations is the understanding of how faculty from different
academic disciplines communicate with each other to identify solutions
to complex problems and make recommendations about how an institution
should respond. An additional insight provided concerns the type of
faculty members involved in decision-making; their common
characteristics, views or perceptions about institutional policy or
direction, and how a representative democracy works to make decisions
for the welfare of an institution.
Findings from the study are important not only for their inherently
heuristic value, but also because they provide a rich description of
how decision making on campus occurs, and begins a constructive view of
the social context of the college campus in terms of decision-making.
Subsequently, this notion of a social context is based on the
theoretical constructs of Erik H. Erikson where developments in somatic
processes are affected and impacted by ego processes, e.g., the dual
constructs of conscience and morality. As a result, group dynamics are
a compilation of individual histories and the corresponding set of
experiences of individual members.
Faculty Co-Governance and Decision-Making
Faculty involvement in governance is structurally based on a theory of
work that prescribes worker involvement as a key to productivity,
satisfaction, retention, and product quality (Miles, 1965; Birnbaum,
1992). Operationalizing this on the college campus with academic
personnel is problematic for a variety of reasons, the most obvious
being the lack of consensus on the definition of involved terms.
Subsequent problems related to involving faculty in governance
activities include issues such as the speed of governance, consensus
building, trust or authenticity or decision-making, turfdom, and the
appropriate use of data to frame answers and solutions to complex
problems (McConnell & Mortimer, 1971). This listing of issues can
be perceived as problematic, as the assumption of tight and loose
coupling for faculty decision-making (Miller, McCormack, Maddox, &
Seagren, 1996) has not been uniformly accepted as a premise of shared
governance. Even the most traditional approach to shared governance,
where faculty stake claim on the curriculum, has been challenged and at
least partially relegated to a faculty privilege rather than a right
(Miles, 1997; Minnesota v. Knight, 1984).
Campus leaders almost universally make use of shared governance,
operationalizing the idea through some form of faculty governance unit
(FGU). The authenticity of using FGUs as either an administrative
management strategy on campus or out of the tradition of collegiality
has not been fully debated or explored, but its very nature implies a
relationship of checks and balances, similar to that in democratic
forms of government. The other widely held conceptualization of
separate powers contends that bodies such as an FGU serve as a
watch-dog body or a base of situational power to protect the
institution’s welfare. This latter conceptualization has been
reinforced by the identification of value-reaction as a motivation for
involvement (Williams, Gore, Broches, & Lostoski, 1987).
Regardless of the political nature of FGUs, they exist on the majority
of all campuses, and serve a very real function of representing faculty
interests. The existence of FGUs allows collective faculty voices to be
heard and for institutional policy to be framed by the academic content
of the institution (Gilmour, 1991; Birnbaum, 1992). Of increased
importance, then, is the understanding of how bodies process
information, build coalitions, and find a common ground to support or
challenge institutional issues and decisions.
The foundation of shared governance is not an entirely management-drive
strategy; however, as various self-perceived visions of a republican
form of college government, it can have an impact on faculty governance
(Trow, 1990). These self-perceptions differ widely, from a vantage that
vests a Jeffersonian ‘power of the people’ or Lockean doctrine of power
derived from the people, to Erikson’s view of ego processes driving
behavior and involvement (somatic to social). Somewhat related is the
view fostered by John Adams that personal “passions” and desire for
social distinction drive human behavior in regards to democratic
ideals, and that these passions will always foster competition,
determination, and drive (Ellis, 2001).
Research on faculty involvement in governance is generally divided
between findings that senates are effective tools for campus operations
and policy, and those that find governance units as barriers to
expeditious campus work (Evans, 1999). The disparity of these findings
provides a foundation for accepting that senates and governance units
are not necessarily tightly coupled with decision-making, and that they
can indeed serve a variety of different purposes. One such
interpretation of a faculty governance unit is the notion of a “ladder
of involvement.” A progressive ladder concept holds that faculty
involvement serves different functions based on the type of decision
being made, and the type, respect, and manner of those making the
decision (Miller, McCormack, Maddox, & Seagren, 1996). Separated
into three distinct categories of power distribution, the first level
or set of ‘ladder rungs’ comprises therapeutic involvement and
manipulation on the part of administrators, thus being labeled
“Non-Participation.” The second group of restricted power relationships
includes administration informing, consulting, and placating faculty,
in a sense granting “token” involvement. The third group, including
faculty partnerships, delegated power, and control over
decision-making, results in degrees of faculty empowerment (see Figure
1).
These competing interpretations and visions of what academic and
faculty senates and councils are and are supposed to do create a
context of frustration on many campuses (Rosovsky, 1990). Despite the
‘muddying of the waters,’ faculty governance bodies deal with a wide
spectrum of often controversial issues and make meaningful, if
non-binding, recommendations. They also provide an important community
for scholars on campus to exchange critical ideas and form
interdisciplinary relationships; indeed providing the very forum
necessary for the university to maintain its unique culture. A look
inside these councils provides both illumination about how decisions
are made, and an important self-image of the collegium at the beginning
of a new century.
Research Procedures
To gain an understanding of the communicative behaviors of the faculty
senate participants, observational research techniques were used. These
techniques included the rating of each communication episode on a
10-point scoring sheet, which was completed by two teams of observers.
Permission to complete the observations was obtained from two faculty
senates, and the rating-teams observed nine faculty senate meetings at
a research university in the 1998-1999 academic year and eight academic
senate meetings at private comprehensive university in the 1999-2000
academic year. The observation team was seated in an inconspicuous
location in relation to the faculty body and made every effort not to
interact with the senators.
The institutions were selected partially due to their willingness to
participate and allow outside reviewers access to every meeting, and
partially due to institutional mission. The research university had a
decidedly graduate focus, and faculty taught a combination of
undergraduate and graduate courses through the dissertation. The
comprehensive university faculty focused efforts on teaching at the
undergraduate level, with some partial attention to graduate education
through a master’s degree. These faculty self-identities are offered in
the hope of establishing baseline communication among faculty groupings.
The research university faculty senate studied was comprised of 62
representatives from ten academic colleges. In addition to these
representatives who were full-time, tenure-track faculty, there were
representatives from the Provost’s office and the student government
body. The private comprehensive university academic senate was
comprised of 13 senators total, including eight from the academic
colleges (two from each academic school or college) and five at-large
appointments, including three university-wide seats and two
appointments from the provost.
The faculty senate meetings at each institution were listed as open to
the public, although few individuals without a vested interest in the
senate decision making or a particular topic attended. Since the
purpose for conducting the study was to identify communication channels
within the two faculty senates, the 10-point scoring sheet was used to
code all oral communication encounters by each faculty senator.
The first phase of data collection included the creation of a
10-question scoring sheet (Table 1). These questions related to the
communication episode by individual faculty senators. Each verbal
communication was scored by a team of raters, with a possible strength
of each episode totaling 10. These items were created with the
assumption that if an oral statement was made independent of a request,
and that if the statement either produced or continued a conversation,
then the statement had a greater group impact and was subsequently more
“powerful.”
A total of nine faculty senate meetings was observed at the research
university, lasting from 39 minutes to two and one-half hours. The
five-member rating team attended all of the meetings. At the end of
each meeting, the rating team met with the principal investigator to
review the ratings. Any inconsistencies of ratings were discussed at
length until agreement on the ratings for each item was reached. At the
private comprehensive university, eight academic senate meetings were
observed, which lasted from one hour to four hours, with similar
follow-up discussions with the principal investigator following each
meeting to reach consensus on communication episode ratings.
Data were sorted by individual faculty senators, although later
analysis did provide for some clustering of senator comments. A
template of the room was provided to the principal investigator, who
cross-referenced seating locations with individual names. Although seat
assignments were not mandatory, there was a consistency in seating
habits.
For initial analysis, only individuals who had made a minimum of 30
oral statements for each average 120-minute period were included. The
mean scores for these groups of individuals were collapsed, and overall
directional power ratings for each group were computed. These “power
ratings” were then correlated using the Pearson Product Moment
Correlation with voting patterns on passing legislation, motions,
resolutions, bills, and proclamations.
As a cautionary note, it must be noted that although each meeting was
filled with situationally meaningful dialogue, each body took
relatively few votes. Voting behavior was viewed to be at least
partially an example of individual’s ability to influence others to
cast a vote in a like manner. The research university FGU conducted 12
votes during the course of the academic year, and the comprehensive
university FGU conducted nine votes during the year.
For validation the channels of communication and sources of
communication were initially shared with the two faculty senate
presidents. These individuals were given an opportunity to verbally and
in writing respond and reflect on these communication channels. Their
feedback was subsequently collapsed into categories and provided an
enriched framework of the findings.
Data Results
Faculty generally did not arrive at their respective meetings well in
advance of the posted start-time, and, typically, more individuals
arrived during roll call than before. This was somewhat more pronounced
at the research university, which was considerably larger than the
comprehensive university, suggesting that campus size might have
something to do with meeting start-times.
At the research university attendance fluctuated, but generally most
faculty senators attended the majority of the meetings. Each meeting
began with a roll call, followed by an approval of the distributed and
posted (on an Internet site) minutes. Meetings typically began with
finishing “old business” from the previous month’s meeting. The Senate
President monitored all discussion, called on senators to speak, and
accepted responsibility for the progress of the meeting. As a possible
result of this leadership for the meeting, the president communicated
heavily with the senate secretary.
Oral communication episodes were divided into categories based on their
frequency by senator. The result was the clustering of episodes into
primary (high) and secondary (lower) categories, using the criteria of
at least 30 or more episodes per 120 minutes (on average). In the
research university faculty senate, three primary channels were
observed: two from the same source (two senators) and one from a single
source that took on an adversarial role to the former two senators. The
communication “power ratings” of the two senators were mean scores of
7.28 in the direction of the senate president and 7.02 in the direction
of the “adversary.” The second primary channel, that of the
“adversary,” had a mean rating of 6.79, and was directed back toward
the two senators. In comparison, eight secondary channels of
communication were observed. Two of the channels were from the two
senators who were the source of the primary channels, but were directed
toward the senate secretary (mean 7.11), and toward a group of senators
seated near the “adversary” (mean 5.2). Secondary channels were also
identified between the senate president and the senate secretary (means
8.34 and 8.56, respectively), reflecting a conversational, business
oriented communication about the progress and business of the meeting.
Four other secondary channels were observed between subgroups seated in
the rear of the senate. These also had high mean ratings, and included
9.2 and 9.03 mean ratings in the rear left of the senate meeting, with
the later from the source of the “adversary.” The other secondary
channel was in the rear right of the senate meeting, with 9.4 and 8.88
mean power ratings between a group of two and three senators,
respectively (see Figure 3).
As shown in Figure 4, at the comprehensive university faculty senate a
similar phenomenon was observed, where two senators provided three of
the five primary communication channels, one of which was in the
direction of the faculty senate president (mean 7.10), and the other
two senators who took on adversarial-like roles on the opposite side of
the senate meeting (mean 8.5 and 6.00). The other two primary channels
identified were from two senators seated furthest from the other two
senators who provided the three channels, and they similarly directed a
line of communication at the senate president (mean 7.80), and in the
direction toward the other two frequent speaking senators (mean 8.0).
Observed in this body were six secondary communication channels, again
within subgroups of individuals seated furthest away from the senate
president (means of 8.0 and 7.15, and 6.80 and 8.0), indicating
conversations among these subgroups about the topics addressed in the
meeting. There was also a with-in group, two-way communication
secondary channel between the vocal senators and a group of two other
senators seated several seats away. These communications were
relatively conversational, often questioning or asking for further
clarification on the part of the vocal senators (means of 8.0 from the
vocal senators, and 6.30 from the nearby senators).
Both primary and secondary communication channels were correlated with
voting behaviors toward legislation, motions, resolutions, bills, and
other proclamations. At the research university, 12 votes were taken
over the course of the year (excluding meeting minutes approval and
motions to dismiss the meeting). These votes were on topics such as
approval of a facility construction plan, a commendation to an
outstanding science faculty member, support of a student initiative for
a fee increase, and a resolution calling for a revision to the
definition of a faculty teaching load. Using the Pearson
r,
power ratings were correlated with positive voting, and the two highest
correlations were identified in the secondary channels between the
senate president and senate secretary (
r=.89 and
r=.90,
shown in Figure 3). The primary channel from the vocal senators toward
the president also correlated very strongly, with an
r=.68.
Strong correlations were also identified in the secondary channels
between the groups of senators seated in the rear of the room, ranging
from an
r=.69 to an
r=.84.
These strong positive correlations indicate that senators, and the
president and secretary, are indeed talking to each other, paying
attention to what the other parties are communicating, and framing
answers and statements in response. The other two secondary channels,
those that were one-way, originating from the vocal team of two
senators, had a correlation of
r=.70 with the secretary and
r=.21
with the senators seated near their “adversary.” The other primary
channels, those between the vocal senators and their adversary had the
lowest correlation with positive voting behavior, with indices of
r=.10 and
r=.33.
In the comprehensive university, and as shown in Figure 4, voting
issues mirrored those in the research university, as voting included a
question about workload reporting, several commendations for commitment
to the university, and two issues of named endowments were recommended
through senate votes. Of the three primary channels originating from
the two vocal senators, the strongest correlation to voting behavior
was directed at the senate president (
r=.85),
with other strong, positive correlations for the channels directed at a
senators near the other source of primary channel origination (
r=.61 and
r=.59).
So, unlike in the research university senate, the vocal senators talked
to individuals near an “adversary,” but not frequently to those
individuals. The individuals who were also vocal in the meetings did
talk directly to the primary vocal senators (
r=.40) and to the senate president (
r=.46).
Similar to the research university senate, the subgroups of individuals
had strong positive correlations with voting behavior. For the subgroup
that included the second vocal team of two senators, the sending
channel had an
r=.80, and they received a channel at
r=.89. The senators seated near them had correlations of
r=.62 and
r=.70. The other two secondary channels included the vocal group of senators, who had a sending
r=.54 and a receiving channel of
r=.70.
This could be interpreted as the vocal senators received meaningful
feedback from within this subgroup to the extent that their voting was
influenced.
Figures 3 and 4 were shown to their respective faculty senate
presidents who both initially displayed some surprise with the
dominance of various senate groups. When asked to comment on how they
would classify these groupings, they identified the following terms and
descriptions of faculty senators. The comments from each of the
presidents were transcribed and immediately shared with them. They
reviewed the comments, comparing their statements with the categories
that were derived from their listings and comments.
Watch-Dog/Rear Guard:
These faculty senators see themselves as the appendage to the larger
faculty, charged with protecting the institution with their own
sacrifice. “They’re a watchdog to campus administration,” remarked one
of the senate presidents. They operate as a loosely defined or
organized collection of faculty who would willingly give up their
comfort for the welfare of the campus and the faculty at large.
Politician: These
leaders see themselves as the future leaders of the campus and
administration. Deriving their perceived power from the ability to
organize and amass the influence of the collective faculty, these
leaders find fulfillment in the process of negotiating between
administrators and the faculty senate. These leaders are primarily
concerned with power relationships.
Puppet: These senators
find their own hope, aspirations, and enjoyment of the process of the
faculty senate from gaining the approval of campus administration.
These senators are reactionary in nature, and often see diplomacy as
their trademark characteristic in brokering decisions between the
faculty.
Rebel: Also seen as
the “vigilante,” these concerned senators find some enjoyment in the
open challenging of administrations, trustees, and even faculty groups
that appear compliant to administrative interests. These senators
typically see themselves as the true defenders of faculty interests,
and concentrate their efforts on taking pre-emptive actions and
challenging administrative actions.
Tactician: Seen as the
faculty senate ‘mechanic,’ these senators play out their roles as those
most concerned about the process rather than the content of decisions.
Primarily focusing agenda, they often see their role as one of
surviving an elected term.
Idealist: These
senators get tremendous personal fulfillment from the action of being
involved and the actual participation in governance activities. These
faculty members are more likely to be discriminating in selecting
issues to challenge and support, have excellent participation records,
and feel an obligation to make sure that the institution is being
served. They see service as “their turn,” and comply.
Conclusions and Discussions
On one level, the vocal nature of a relative few gave the impression of
almost an aristocracy arising within the faculty senate body. The
relative few, through their active participation, appeared to control
the work of the entire body. On closer examination, though, these
senate leaders yielded a smaller influence in actual decision-making,
and exerted perhaps a lesser degree of influence than they might have
imagined. Indeed, their constant vocal nature may have provided even a
disincentive for participation or the creation of a reactionary ‘voting
block.’ With so few formal votes taken, however, this would be
difficult to accurately argue over a long-term period of time.
There is a real need to identify the proximate power bases of these
faculty senates and the subsequent realistic determination of where
power bases for decision-making lie within the institution. Based only
on the channels of communication, the senates appeared to be elitist or
reputational; that is, one group in this community of scholars is
responsible for decision-making, and this group indeed gives the
perception of having a realistic power base. When considering the
correlations with positive voting, however, more of a pluralistic or
decisional definition arises, as several groups can be identified that
make political decisions. This notion of pluralism historically
embraces a John Adams notion of republican motivation, as responses to
the heart or true passions ignite the flexing of political power. Some
combination of these two domains is probably at work, suggesting a
combinationalist synthesis of defining power where there may indeed be
one elite entity (the senate) with two distinct parts.
So did the teams think creatively and critically about new and
different strategies for problem solving? The channels certainly
suggest that there are multiple dialogues occurring at the same time,
and that consensus and teams of individuals are naturally arising. The
high correlation of voting behavior indicates that there is an exchange
of substance happening, which, perhaps, provides initial evidence that
a forum and an opportunity for authentic communication does exist. This
forum is accepted with caution, however, as the verbal dominance of
conversations by a relative few certainly does provide a possible
disincentive for others to be involved, and perhaps share at the
body-wide level.
Unlike the Jeffersonian or Lockean doctrines undergirding democracy and
republican governments, though, not all participants are created equal.
To what extent the distribution of power and “wealth” exist, is largely
an area for expanded study and discussion. This also provides some
foreshadowing to the notion of patriotism and the John Adams argument,
as reinforced by the Don Williams team of researchers, of passion as
the driving motivation for involvement and ambition.
The faculty senate presidents identified labels for different senate
groups, and these labels represent perhaps a combination of stereotypes
and representations of what those with daily exposure see as the
dominant trends or characteristics of faculty senators. The terms they
used to identify these senate participants were largely interactive,
indicating that they did see and notice interaction (and political
behavior) among senators. The senate presidents seemed to be indicating
that the forum of collegiality also has a dark side, where ambitious
faculty members vie with each other for political ground. Perhaps the
notion that Trow (1990) advanced about faculty senates not being an
incubator for academic leadership is reflective of a time past. Has the
current senate become divided between those with strong institutional
patriotism and those with personal agendas for self-advancement? The
terminology used by the senate presidents suggests that this may be the
case, a concept perhaps reinforced by the high power ratings and
correlations of the subgroup communications. At the very least, these
findings do provide an impetus for continued exploration along this
line of inquiry about the roles of ambition and patriotism in faculty
involvement in governance.
The notion of a collective faculty voice articulated by a senate is not
reflected in these findings, and perhaps should not be based on the
concept of democratic decision-making. What does arise, though, is a
vision of a group with fluid membership that can build coalitions and
attempt to take power as it determines is necessary. As academic
leaders attempt to utilize these faculty governance units for
collaborative decision-making, it is subsequently imperative that they
recognize the loosely structured body and the power of faculty to
unite. For faculty, it is important to fully understand that separate
actions and beliefs may be appropriate for floor debates, but even
these differences must be foregone to advance the unit. Somewhere
between these two uses of a faculty senate lies current practice.
References
American Association of University Professors. (1966).
1996 statement on governance of colleges and universities. Washington: Author.
American Association of University Professors. (1971). Report of the survey subcommittee on committee T.
AAUP Bulletin, 10(2), 68-124.
Bensimon, E. M., & Neumann, A. (1993).
Redesigning collegiate leadership. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.
Birnbaum, R. (1991). The latent organizational functions of the
academic senate: Why senates do not work but will not go away. In R.
Birnbaum (Ed.),
Faculty in Governance: The role of senates and joint committees in
academic decision making. New Directions for Higher Education Report
No. 75 (pp. 1-25). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Birnbaum, R. (1992).
How academic leadership works. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ellis, J. J. (2001).
Passionate sage the character and legacy of John Adams.
NY: W. W. Norton.
Evans, J. (1999). Benefits and barriers of shared governance in higher education. In M. Miller (Ed.),
Responsive Academic Decision Making: Involving Faculty in Governance (pp. 29-54). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.
Gilmour, J. E. (1991). Participative governance bodies in higher education: Report of a national study. In R. Birnbaum (Ed.),
Faculty in Governance: The Role of Senates and Joint Committees in
Academic Decision Making. New Directions for Higher Education Report 75
(pp. 27-40).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McConnell, T. R., & Mortimer, K. P. (1971). The faculty in
university governance. Berkeley, CA: Center for Research and
Development in Higher Education, University of California, Berkeley.
Miles, R. E. (1965). Human relations or human resources?
Harvard Business Review, 43(4), 148-155.
Miles, A. S. (1997).
College law (2nd ed.). Tuscaloosa, AL: Sevgo.
Miller, M. T., & Pope, M. L. (2001). A national profile of the
status of faculty governance units and their leaders. Paper presented
at the 24th annual meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association, Hilton Head Island, SC.
Miller, M. T., McCormack, T. F., Maddox, J., & Seagren, A. T.
(1996). Faculty participation in governance at small and large
universities: Implications for practice.
Planning and Changing, 27(3/4), 180-190.
Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U. S. 271 (1984)
Rosovsky, H. (1990). The university: an owner’s manual. New York: W. W. Norton.
Trow, M. (1990). The academic senate as a school for university leadership.
Liberal Education, 76(1), 23-27.
Williams, D., Gore, W., Broches, C., & Lostoski, C. (1987). One faculty’s perceptions of its governance role.
Journal of Higher Education, 58(6), 629-655.
NOTE: This document is available as a PDF complete with tables.
