The Homogenizing Effect of Academic Governance: A Case Study in the Creation of a Field-Sensitive Doctoral Concentration in Higher Education. ASHE Annual Meeting Paper.

Autor/inn/en	Estler, Suzanne E.; Harris, Walter J.
Titel	The Homogenizing Effect of Academic Governance: A Case Study in the Creation of a Field-Sensitive Doctoral Concentration in Higher Education. ASHE Annual Meeting Paper.
Quelle	(1998), (25 Seiten) PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Monographie
Schlagwörter	Case Studies; College Administration; College Faculty; Curriculum Design; Curriculum Development; Decision Making; Doctoral Degrees; Doctoral Programs; Educational Innovation; Governance; Higher Education; Leadership; Postsecondary Education as a Field of Study; Schools of Education; State Universities + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Case study; Fallstudie; Case Study; College administrators; Hochschulverwaltung; Fakultät; Lehrplangestaltung; Curriculum; Development; Curriculumentwicklung; Lehrplan; Entwicklung; Decision-making; Entscheidungsfindung; Doctoral degree; Doktorgrad; Doktorandenprogramm; Instructional innovation; Bildungsinnovation; Education; Educational policy; Financing; Steuerung; Bildung; Erziehung; Bildungspolitik; Finanzierung; Hochschulbildung; Hochschulsystem; Hochschulwesen; Führung; Führungsposition; Erziehungswissenschaftliche Fakultät; Staatliche Universität
Abstract	This paper presents a case study of the initiation of a doctoral concentration in higher educational leadership at the University of Maine. The case study documents the perceptions of curricular needs defined by practitioners in the state, the resulting efforts to develop a field-sensitive curriculum, and the impact of the academic decision-making process on the appearance of innovation as the proposal progressed. It was found that there was a greater convergence in expectations for the focus of the program among external constituents, including employers and potential students, than among College of Education and Human Development faculty. It is concluded that the appearance of programmatic innovation may be compromised to academic form and tradition in the course of academic decision making, while innovation may nevertheless flourish under the autonomy of the faculty member in an individual case. Three appendixes contain integrated and consolidated responses from focus groups, a list of commitments for higher educational leadership faculty, and requirements for the doctor of education concentration in higher educational leadership. (Contains 10 references.) (MDM)
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC