Shared Governance in Higher Education Set (Volumes 1, 2 and 3) Shared governance impacts every member of the campus community, including faculty, staff, students, and administrators. Contributors to this volume—presenters at multiple SUNY Voices conferences on Shared Governance—explore how campus members can effectively improve the dialogue about critical issues and become better informed about the subtle, sophisticated strategies needed to move from discussion to action. Readers will gain new insights, enabling them to reexamine their own governance, both their current circumstances and possible futures. Included here are examinations of the key elements and models of shared governance, the role of faculty governance in institutional diversity and inclusion, relationship and rapport-building, and communication in times of change. Also discussed are assessment rubrics, campus and systemwide experiences, and analyses of shared governance in the accreditation process.

Offers valuable insights into the governance process in higher education.

Shared governance has been a hallmark of higher education in the United States since the early twentieth century. Since its inception, faculty, administrators, trustees, and other interested parties have either bemoaned or celebrated the idea. We offer a variety of viewpoints that bring to light various ways to think of shared governance. The intent is to foment dialogue and debate about the shape of shared governance for the future. Our assumption is that many challenges are at academe's doorstep that may require significant changes. If those of us who work in colleges and university are not well organized to deal with those challenges, the solutions that we develop will be love's labors lost. Governance is the means to implementing ideas that either respond to problems or provide new strategies. If academic governance is ineffective, then it needs to be reformed. The shape of those reforms is what the authors of this volume consider. Chapters address the subject of shared governance from several perspectives, including partnerships between the state and higher education; disjointed governance in university centers and insitutes; a cultural perspective on communication and governance; and balancing governance structures with leadership and trust. Contributors also explore a conceptual framework of faculty trust and participation in governance. This is the 127th issue of the Jossey-Bass quarterly report series New Directions for Higher Education.

There was a time when the faculty governed universities. Not anymore. The Rise and Decline of Faculty Governance is the first history of shared governance in American higher education. Drawing on archival materials and extensive published sources, Larry G. Gerber shows how the professionalization of college teachers coincided with the rise of the modern university in the late nineteenth century and was the principal justification for granting teachers power in making educational decisions. In the twentieth century, the efforts of these governing faculties were directly responsible for molding American higher education into the finest academic system in the world. In recent decades, however, the growing complexity of “multiversities” and the application of business strategies to manage these institutions threatened the concept of faculty governance. Faculty shifted from being autonomous professionals to being “employees.” The casualization of the academic labor market, Gerber argues, threatens to erode the quality of universities. As more faculty become contingent employees, rather than tenured career professionals enjoying both job security and intellectual autonomy, universities become factories in the knowledge economy. In addition to tracing the evolution of faculty decision making, this historical narrative provides readers with an important perspective on contemporary debates about the best way to manage America’s colleges and universities. Gerber also reflects on whether American colleges and universities will be able to retain their position of global preeminence in an increasingly market-driven environment, given that the system of governance that helped make their success possible has been fundamentally altered.

This book contains vital information on the historical, philosophical, and legal foundations for shared governance, and it makes the link between fundamentals of law and policy as related to professional practice in student affairs. Practical insights and suggestions for student affairs are offered for practitioners at all levels to ensure success. Chapter 1 offers definitions and common understandings of shared governance, its history in higher education, and relevant theories and models. Chapter 2 presents the common structures with a broad span of interest and authority. Chapter 3 focuses on the ways in which those in higher education can help foster and strengthen shared governance. Chapter 4 shares a brief history of student participation, strategies for greater student involvement, the potential benefits, and concludes with important open questions about students and shared governance in American higher education. Chapter 5 explains sources of law related to student affairs work, areas of law, and law-making processes. Chapter 6 discusses the individual role in shared governance and addresses the tension between the roles of employee and private citizens. Chapter 7 describes the policy and policymaking processes, centering on ways in which the formation of policy and policy itself play out. Chapter 8 draws together themes from throughout the preceding chapters. The goal of this work is for readers to come away from the book with a better understanding of and appreciation for shared governance, law, and policy as well as an enhanced set of skills and strategies for engaging in shared governance as a matter of professional performance. Through fostering knowledge and abilities related to shared governance, the book assists readers in developing and forming their professional identity as well as in achieving learning outcomes aligned with specific professional practice standards in the field.

"Locus of Authority argues that every issue facing today's colleges and universities, from stagnant degree completion rates to worrisome cost increases, is exacerbated by a century-old system of governance that desperately requires change. While prior studies have focused on boards of trustees and presidents, few have looked at the place of faculty within the governance system. Specifically addressing faculty roles in this structure, William G. Bowen and Eugene M. Tobin ask: do higher education institutions have what it takes to reform effectively from within? Bowen and Tobin use case studies of four very different institutions--the University of California, Princeton University, Macalester College, and the City University of New York--to demonstrate that college and university governance has capably adjusted to the necessities of the moment and that governance norms and policies should be assessed in the context of historical events. The authors examine how faculty roles have evolved since colonial days to drive change but also to stand in the way of it. Bowen and Tobin make the case that successful reform depends on the artful consideration of technological, financial, and cultural developments, such as the explosion in online learning. Stressing that they do not want to diminish faculty roles but to facilitate their most useful contributions, Bowen and Tobin explore whether departments remain the best ways through which to organize decision making and if the concepts of academic freedom and shared governance need to be sharpened and redefined. Locus of Authority shows that the consequences of not addressing college and university governance are more than the nation can afford"--

This book examines the concept of the democratization of governance in universities in Kenya with particular emphasis on students involvement in governance processes and decision making. Data were collected from members of the student community utilizing a structured self-administered questionnaire and from purposively selected key informants and focus group discussants drawn from Kenyatta University (representing the public sector) and the United States International University (representing the private sector). The guiding argument for the study was that shared governance, one of the principles of good governance, is critical in enabling the universities to deliver their visions and the missions effectively. The results revealed that while in principle, Kenyan universities have embraced democratic governance in which all stakeholders, including students, have a role to play, in practice they continue to violate the core principles of good governance, particularly shared governance. Specifically, students, who are major stakeholders in university education, are largely excluded from significant structures of governance thereby limiting their influence and participation. Although their representation is mainly provided via student self-governance organs (unions, associations and/or councils), their effectiveness is undermined considerably by the lack of trust and confidence of the student body and the unending manipulation by top university administrators and external political actors. Student active involvement in decision making is mainly confined to lower levels such as the school/faculty and departmental/programme. The authors call for a paradigm shift in the involvement of students in the governance of universities in ways that discourage the current culture of tokenism and political correctness that characterizes public and private universities in Kenya.

Higher education reforms have been on the agenda of Western European countries for 25 years, trying to deal with self governed professional bureaucracies politically weakened by massification when an emerging common understanding enhanced their role as major actors in knowledge based economies. While university systems are deeply embedded in national settings, the ex post rationale of still on-going reforms is surprisingly uniform and “de-nationalized”. They promote (1) the “organizational turn” of universities, to varying extent substituting collegial loosely coupled entities by “integrated, goal-oriented entities deliberately choosing their own actions (and therefore open to differentiation), that can thus be held responsible for what they do” (2) the diversification of stakeholders, supposedly offering solutions to problems as various as the democratisation of universities, the shrinking of State budget resources and the diversification of university missions offering answers to changes in the making and in the use of science. When it comes to accounting for these reforms, two grand narratives of public management share the floor. NPM implies a strengthening of the capacity of the core State to direct public services organizations through management by objectives and results or contractualization, assessment, evaluation and. “Governance” focuses on “network-based” governance systems, where coordinating power and control are collectively shared between the major ‘social actors or partners’ at all levels of the decision-making system. Our results suggest that all higher education systems under study were more or less transformed according to both these narratives. It is therefore needed to understand how they combine or create contradictions. This leads us to test a third neo-weberian model. This model reaffirms the role of the State, of representative democracy, (central, regional and local), of public law (suitably modernized), preserves the idea of a public service with a distinctive status, culture and terms and conditions. It shifts from an internal orientation to bureaucratic rules towards an external orientation in meeting citizens’ needs and wishes by means of standardization of work processes and their products, based on a distinctive public service and a particular legal order survived as the foundations beneath the various packages of modernizing reforms. This book traces the national dynamics of public policies, organizational design and steering tools in seven European higher education and research systems, using these narratives to interpret and test the actual changes and the degree of national specificities and European convergence. This book is not a sum of national chapters like other presumably comparative. It does not intend to tell once again the story of the transformation of the relationships between the state and universities. It tries to use Higher education system to discuss issues on state intervention and steering and more generally the NPM, governance and neo-weberian models in a specific field. Furthermore, this book intends breaking the walls between specialists in higher education and specialist in public management and research policy. This well rooted division of labour is less that ever justified as the university mission in research (fundamental, applied, strategic) is underscored by commentors and reformers themselves. For that reason, we have chosen to observe the consequences of the dynamics of public policies, organizational design and steering tools on two specific issues related to the development of research training and organizing within universities: the transformation of research funding on the one hand and the expansion of graduate studies and doctoral schools on the other.