Governance of Higher Education

The governance of tertiary (higher, postsecondary) education refers to the means by which institutions are formally organized and managed. Simply, university governace is the way in which universities are operated. Governing structures for higher education are highly differentiated throughout the world. Noted by Altbach (2005: 16-18) the different models for higher education throughout the world nonetheless do share a common heritage. Coldrake, Stedman, and Little (2003: 5) also discuss the shared traditions and history of higher education worldwide. The concept of governance for postsecondary education generally refers to the internal structure, organization and management of autonomous institutions. Internationally, tertiary education includes private not-for-profit, private for-profit, and public institutions governed by various structures of management. The organization of internal governance is generally composed of a governing board (board of regents, board of directors), the university president (executive head, CEO) with a team of administrative chancellors and staff, faculty senates, academic deans, department chairs, and usually some form of organization for student representation.

As universities have become increasingly interdependent with external forces, governance has evolved to include external organizational relationships with local and federal governments, even business and corporate relationships. Governance in this sense is discussed by Kezar and Eckel (2004: 371-398), whom define it at the macro-level of policy decisionmaking. Kezar and Eckel (2004: 371-398) define governance as a multi-level concept including several different bodies and processes with different decision-making functions. With the complexity of internal structures, the external relationships between institutions and official local and national governments is evidently equally differentiated given the different forms of government in the international system (making the concept of governance for higher education pluralistic in its broadest sense and usage). External governance depends much on the relationship between institutions, government policy, and any other formal or informal organizational obligations. Generally, institutions are recognized as autonomous actors with varying degrees of interdependence with, and legislated commitments to the external governance of local and national government.

Issues in University Governance

Due to the influences of public sector reforms, several authors (Kezar and Eckel 2004; Lapworth 2004; Middlehurst 2004) point out that next to the concept of shared and participative governance a new form of governance has emerged, i.e. the notion of corporate governance (of universities) that has increasingly become a more dominant approach to tertiary governance. According to Lapworth (2004: 299-314), the rise of the notion of corporate governance and the decline of the shared or consensual governance can be seen to be a result of the decline in academic participation, growing tendency towards managerialism and the new environment where the universities are operating.

Administrative building at University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore

The American Association of University Professors was the first organization to formulate an official philosophy on the governance of higher education based on principles of democratic values and participation (which, in this sense, correlates with the Yale Report of 1828, discussed by Brubacher (1982: 5) as the “first attempt at a formally stated philosophy of education” for universities, emphasizing at that time that Enlightenment curriculums following the establishment of democratic constitutional governance should not be replaced with retrogression to religious curriculums). Kezar and Eckel (2004: 371-398) point out how the substance of governance has changed during the last decades with more emphasis being put on high stake issues and more incremental decisions being made in a less collegial mode – the reasons for this stem from the current higher education trends that have devalued the notion of participation and also from the external pressures of more straightforward accountability and demands for quicker decision-making (that sometimes is achieved through bureaucracy).

Dearlove (1997: 56-75) emphasises that, under the conditions of mass higher education, no university can avoid the need for some sort of bureaucratic management and organisation, though this does not mean that the importance of informal discipline and profession based authority (internal governance of universities) can totally be ignored. Lapworth (2004: 299-314) advocates what the author believes is a more flexible model of university governance to benefit both from the positive aspects of corporate and collegial approaches. The issues in university governance discussed by these literatures are given critical analysis by Coldrake, Stedman, and Little (2003) through a comparative study of current trends in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, with poigniant insight into the different models of governance for the management of higher education. Critical of the currents of change toward “corporate governance,” the authors cite reference to literature that similarly call for “re-balancing” of university governance, maintaining that such “a rebalancing would amount to a clarification of shared governance” (Coldrake, Stedman, and Little 2003: 14). Also critical of recent trends, university organizations have set forth policy statements on governance.

Statements on Governance from Educational Organizations

American Association of University Professors (AAUP): Statement on Government

The American Association of University Professors published its first "Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities" in 1920, “emphasizing the importance of faculty involvement in personnel decisions, selection of administrators, preparation of the budget, and determination of educational policies. Refinements to the statement were introduced in subsequent years, culminating in the 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities” (American Association of University Professors 1966). The document does not provide for a “blueprint” to the governance of higher education. Nor was the purpose of the statement to provide principles for relations with industry and government (though it establishes direction on “the correction of existing weaknesses”). Rather, the statement aimed to establish a shared vision for the internal governance of institutions. Student involvement is not addressed in detail. The statement concerns general education policy, internal operations and an overview of the formal roles for governing structures. (Taken directly from Statement on Government, American Association of University Professors). Based on these principles, other influential organizations have followed the in the tradition of the AAUP's leadership.

National Education Association (NEA): Faculty Governance in Higher Education

First published in 1987, the NEA policy statement on faculty governance in higher education is a straightforward statement on the organization’s policy for shared governance in higher education. The policy states that faculty involvement in governance is critical. The organization believes faculty should advise administration in developing curriculum and methods of instruction. Faculty is responsible for establishing degree requirements, takes primary responsibility in tenure appointments and the award of promotion, sabbatical, research support, etc. Through collective bargaining, the statement maintains, “administration and the governing boards of colleges and universities should accept the faculty's recommendations” (National Education Association 1987). The statement also maintains that faculty should be involved in salary decisions, evaluating administrators, and budgeting. The policy concludes asserting:

State and federal government and external agencies should refrain from intervening in the internal governance of institutions of higher education when they are functioning in accordance with state and federal law. Government should recognize that conserving the autonomy of these institutions is essential to protecting academic freedom, the advance of knowledge, and the pursuit of truth (NEA 1987).

The policy statement references the AAUP's "1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities." The basic principles evidently draw from the AAUP statement itself. Though the NEA makes no mention of students anywhere in the policy, the NEA like the AAUP statement does reflect the basic ideas and premise for the “responsibility primarily of the faculty (university) to determine the appropriate curriculum and procedures of student instruction” (AAUP 1966). In this respect, with regards to curriculum, the AAUP also notes considerations should be made for publicly supported institutions. Unlike the NEA, the AAUP elaborates more on the role of governing structures, including the role of the president to ensure “sound academic practices,” as the NEA suggests the right of the faculty to appeal flawed and improper procedures. In summation, where the AAUP discusses the organizational structure in more detail, touching on student involvement and the university president's role in governance, the NEA statement differs by detailing primarily faculty rights and responsibilities.

Higher Education Policy: Statement of Community College Governance

Noting the 1987 publication of "Policy Statement on Higher Education Faculty Governance," the NEA put forward a "Policy Statement on Higher Education Policy for Community College Governance." The NEA elaborates upon policies specifically adopted for community college governance, junior and technical colleges. The statement is based on the same principles of shared governance. The community college statement notes that cooperative decision-making and collective bargaining should be based on “collegial” relationships. Where statements from both the NEA and the AAUP advocate the critical importance of faculty involvement in governance, the community college statement notes that many faculty members do not exercise the right when available and that faculty “at public institutions are not yet permitted to bargain collectively in many states” (National Education Association 2006). The policy then expands upon the need for faculty participation in the governance.

The community college statement also elaborates upon structure and procedure, including the “ad hoc” and standing committees as discussed in the AAUP policy statement. Where the AAUP statement discusses policy on students and their academic rights, the NEA (2006) does conclude on student involvement in governance with their community college statement. The "Policy Statement of Community College Governance" correlates based upon the same underlying principles of the AAUP and NEA statement on faculty governance.

American Federation of Teachers (AFT): Statement on Shared Governance

Recently, the Higher Education Program and Policy Council of the American Federation of Teachers also published a statement on shared governance. The policy statement is in response to the fact that many governing boards have adopted the "mantra of business” (American Federation of Teachers 2006). The organization iterates purpose for governance by which higher education achieves democratic organizational processes between administration and faculty, believing shared governance is under attack with current trends.

Accordingly, the AFT affirms the principles of academic freedom, faculty participation in standards and curriculum, and faculty decisions on academic personnel as the AAUP first established them. The statement maintains that participation in shared governance should be extended, acknowledging that the way in which participation is expanded will vary from institution to institution, “but each group whose work contributes to the academic enterprise should be involved in a manner appropriate to institutional functions and responsibility” (AFT 2006). The policy addresses unions and faculty senates as they contribute to shared governance in institutions as well as the role of accrediting agencies to support standards of governance. In conclusion, the AFT emphasizes the goals, objectives and need for shared governance in higher education.

Additional Perspectives

The Case of South Africa

South Africa faces issues related to the governance of their tertiary system of higher education that correlate with international trends. Hall and Symes (2005) discuss the state of South African higher education in the first decade of the country’s constitutional democracy at a time where the country has faced not only democratic transition but also the end of Apartheid racial segregation. With the South African transition to democracy in 1994, the national government and institutions of postsecondary learning envisioned the cooperative governance of higher education. For a developing country that faced “massive social exclusion” for the better part of a century – only to be challenged in 1970s and 1980s – Hall and Symes (2005: 205-206) note traditional models for governance in higher education, European and North American models of institutional autonomy are not entirely applicable to the South African context. The authors discuss the need for government “steering,” an idea originally envisioned in South Africa with the democratic transition, based upon a cooperative framework as a “conditional autonomy.” The goals and objectives for cooperative governance were thus established with the National Commission on Higher Education (NCHE) in 1994, detailed in its 1996 report.

The South African National Commission on Higher Education was meant to serve as a “buffer mechanism” between the national government and institutions to establish a system by which “autonomous higher education institutions would work in a range of partnerships with government and other stakeholders,” with the involvement of state supervision and consultation (Hall & Symes 2005: 200, 204, 210). Within the initial years of the democratic transition and the end of the Apartheid, Hall and Symes (2005) note that the national government assumed a much stronger regulatory and bureaucratic control of South African postsecondary institutions than what had been originally expected. From the appointments to the National Commission on Higher Education, the 1997 Higher Education Act, and the 2001 National Plan for Higher Education, the national government has taken bureaucratic control of institutions, with direct command over curriculum, funding and regulation with “weak or non-existent traditions of academic freedom in individual institutions” (Hall and Symes 2005: 201-202).

Where the 1997 Higher Education Act and ministerial appointments specifically provided the framework by which the national government could assert control over the governing structures of postsecondary institutions, the “White Paper” and 2001 Education Amendment Act specifically expressed the government’s motivations to take a strong position of power in the governance of higher education in South Africa. Whereby, the “period from the 1997 White Paper to the 2001 National Plan for Higher Education has seen a systematic tightening of state control and the erosion of both the procedural and substantive autonomy of individual institutions” (Hall and Symes, 2005: 210). Furthermore, Hall and Symes (2005: 201-202) note that while the ten universities reserved for white students during the apartheid maintained substantial autonomy, other institutions such as technical schools and “branches of the racially defined government bureaucracy,” continued to be governed by tight government intervention. The authors do not reject the need for government “steering,” and cooperative governance with the national government for the developing country. Nonetheless, where the concept of conditional autonomy remained vague with its vision in 1996, the authors suggest that given the direction that the national government and NCHE have taken, there need be a rethinking of the relationship between institutions and the newly established democratic government.

2001 Kaplan Survey on Higher Education Governance

Sponsored by the AAUP and the American Conference of Academic Deans, the 2001 Survey of Higher Education Governance is a study done by Gabriel Kaplan, a doctoral student at Harvard University interested in replicating a study done by Committee T of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) thirty years ago. Available from the AAUP - (Contact-Info.) - are the general findings and the preliminary results from the survey. The general findings of the report detail the method with summary of the present state of shared governance. The findings include the state of the locus of authority and reforms as well as the analysis of the challenges facing Liberal Arts Colleges with the pressures of the current economic climate (Kaplan 2001). The preliminary results contain the raw data on the landscape of governance in higher education from a population of 1303 4-year institutions in the United States, with data compiled from both administrative structures and the faculty. The survey did not include participation from any population of students.

References & External Links

Altbach, G.P. (2005). "Patterns in Higher Education Development." In P.G. Altbach, R.O. Berdahl, and P.J. Gumport, (Eds.), American Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century: Social, Political, and Economic Challenges, (2nd ed.). Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
Brubacher, J.S. (1982). On the Philosophy of Higher Education." San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
American Association of University Professors. (1966). “Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities.” Retrieved September 26, 2006, [1]http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/issuesed/governance/default.htm
American Federation of Teachers. (2006). "Shared Governance in Colleges and Universities," Retrieved September 27, 2006, [2]http://www.aft.org/higher_ed/news/2002/shared_governance.htm
Coaldrake, P., Stedman, L, and Little, P. (2003). "Issues in Australian University Governance." Brisbane: QUT.
Dearlove, J. 1997. “The academic labour process: from collegiality and professionalism to managerialism and proletarianisation?” Higher Education Review, vol. 30, no. 1: 56-75.
Hall, M & Symes, A. (2005). “South African higher education in the first decade of democracy: from cooperative governance to conditional autonomy.” Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 30, Issue 2, pp. 199-212.
Kaplan, G. (2001). “Preliminary Results from the 2001 Survey on Higher Education Governance.” Sponsored by the American Association of University Professors and The American Conference of Academic Deans.
Kezar, A., Eckel, P. D. 2004. “Meeting Today’s Governance Challenges.” The Journal of Higher Education: vol. 75, no. 4: 371-398.
Lapworth, S. 2004. “Arresting Decline in Shared Governance: Towards a Flexible Model for Academic Participation.” Higher Education Quarterly: vol. 58, no. 4: 299-314.
Middlehurst, R. 2004. “Changing Internal Governance: A Discussion of Leadership Roles and Management Structures in UK Universities.” Higher Education Quarterly: vol. 58, no. 4: 258-279.
National Education Association. (2006). "NEA Policy Statements: Faculty Governance in Higher Education." Retrieved September 26, 2006, [3]http://www2.nea.org/he/policy6.html
National Education Association. (2006). "NEA Policy Statements: Statement on Community College Governance." Retrieved September 26, 2006, [4]http://www2.nea.org/he/policy-cc.html