The Role of Shared Governance in Institutional Hard Decisions: Enabler or Antagonist? ASHE Annual Meeting Paper.

Autor/in	Eckel, Peter D.
Titel	The Role of Shared Governance in Institutional Hard Decisions: Enabler or Antagonist? ASHE Annual Meeting Paper.
Quelle	(1999), (30 Seiten) PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Monografie
Schlagwörter	Administrative Organization; Case Studies; College Environment; College Faculty; College Governing Councils; Decision Making; Faculty College Relationship; Governance; Higher Education; Participative Decision Making; Policy Formation; Program Evaluation; Program Termination; Trustees; Universities + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Case study; Fallstudie; Case Study; Hochschulumwelt; Fakultät; Hochschulrat; Decision-making; Entscheidungsfindung; Education; Educational policy; Financing; Steuerung; Bildung; Erziehung; Bildungspolitik; Finanzierung; Hochschulbildung; Hochschulsystem; Hochschulwesen; Politische Betätigung; Programme evaluation; Programmevaluation; Treuhandanstalt; University; Universität
Abstract	This study explores the ability of shared governance systems to make institutional hard decisions, focusing particularly on discontinuance of academic programs. A case study method examined shared governance processes at four research institutions to identify themes and patterns across the institutional decision-making process. Between 11 and 16 individuals at each institution were interviewed using structured, open-ended questions; additionally, meeting minutes, institutional reports, other relevant documents, and newspaper accounts were reviewed. Data was analyzed within and across the four cases. The study found that: (1) in all cases, central administrators initiated and led the process; (2) while faculty at all four institutions were involved in the process, both through and outside formal governance structures, at each institution one group actively participated in determining which programs to close while the other tried to dissuade decision makers from closing specific units; and (3) in three of the four institutions, trustees played only a peripheral role approving the decision of the institution. The findings point to legitimacy of the process as the centerpiece of shared governance; despite variations in the degree in which the process was shared, no faculty at any institution complained about lack of involvement nor did administrators complain that faculty were too involved. (Contains 38 references.) (CH)
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC