It focuses attention on the issues at the heart of the academic enterprise, that generally the governing body such as the BOT does not (and should not) become involved with. There is a clear distinction between this and the responsibility for determining educational character and mission, which lives with the BOT.
Board of Trustees is typically seen as having ownership of financial or administrative issues. They’re typically seen as big picture thinkers who focus on keeping the institution true to it’s mission.BOT is seen as disconnected from curriculum evolution and not fit to make decisions because of the lack of expertise.Senate is seen as experts in both academics and curriculum. Typical duties may include changes in academic policy, establishment of councils for faculties, schools, or institutes, determination and regulation for graduation, and internal issues in connection with awards for academic and faculty achievement,
Hard to manage partly due to the fact that there’s no real definition or breakdown of duties.Influences of effectiveness include – relationships between the various leadership groups, cycles of planning and policy making process (new policies, vs revision), life cycle of governance (old vs new committees), political climate, and composition of the governing committee
One of the major issues in academic governance is the tension that exists between the faculty and members of the BOT. Power struggle for more authority and control in the institution. Faculty feel like they are the experts, and the BOT may feel like they need to have a hand in academic affairs in order to effectively steer the institution.One of the readings, the author, who was a member of the faculty senate, talked about the issue of land sale at her institution. When she brought up the matter, she was told that that is put of the purview of the faculty senate and should be left to the BOT. After reflection, she questioned whether or not the matter truly had nothing to do academic matters. Future academic expansion?
2. Definition<br />Research on Academic Governance<br />No single or generally accepted definition<br />Closest: responsibility for the key academic issues such as determining the curriculum, course approval, and ensuring standards<br />No breakdown of specific duties or groups involved <br />Differ across types of institution and its history<br />Generally agreed upon that authority over everything to do with academics is decided by the relationships between the BOT and Senate<br />
3. Composition<br />In the United States, there are two major “voices”<br />The Board of Trustees (BOT) & Administration (President, Vice President, Deans)<br />Faculty (Senate)<br />Academic Governance<br />“Owned” by both the BOT and the Senate<br />Typically, BOT defers major decision making in academic realm to the senate <br />
4. Influences on Governance<br />Meeting constituents needs and expectations<br />Students, parents, community members, legislators, creditors, donors, alumni, staff, and faculty<br />Meeting institutional goals<br />
5. Effective Governance<br />Academic governance is a “hard to manage and describe” university system (Bradshaw & Fedette, 2008)<br />Effective academic governance occurs when groups do not get sidetracked into operational details that may be better left to other groups or subgroups<br />Multiple influences of effectives<br />
6. Complications in Governance<br />Autonomy & Academic Freedom vs. Institutional Interest<br />Typically, academic decision making is deferred to faculty<br />Faculty are criticized for being slow<br />Multiple committees impede processes<br />Blurred lines of responsibility / Overlap<br />What parts of the university would you assign to the BOT and what part would you assign to the Senate?<br />
7. Other Structures in Governance<br />Concept of a Unicameral governing structure<br />One governing board that encompasses all facets of decision making<br />Claude (1972) argues that this method doesn’t pretend to solve problems by avoiding them<br />Partnership Approach<br />Separate responsibilities but close partnerships<br />Joint committees & task forces<br />
8. References<br />Bradshaw, P., & Fredette, C. (2008). Academic governance of universiites: Reflections of a senate chair on moving from theory to practice and back. Journal of Management Inquiry. 18(2).<br />Leadership Foundation. Academic governance. Retrieved from http://www.lfhe.ac.uk/governance/aboutgovernance/. Retrieved on October 18, 2010.<br />Morrill, R. (2003). The overlapping worlds of academic governance. Trusteeship, 1(11).<br />Mortimer, K.P., & Sathre, C. (2007). The art and politics of academic governance. Lanham, MD: Rowman & LIttlefield Publishers.<br />Waitzer, E. J., & Enrione, A. (2005). Paradigm flaw in the boardroom: Governance versus management. International Journal of Disclosure and Governace, 2(4), 348-357.<br />