Shared Governance in the Community College: The Faculty Voice

• In Event: Honoring the (Often) Invisible: Community College Faculty in an Era of Reform

Abstract

Historically, research on shared governance has focused on structural and functional models, what Birnbaum has labeled “hard governance” (Birnbaum, 2004; Gerber, 2014; Levin, Kater, & Wagoner, 2011; Tierney, 2004). More recently, scholars have expanded studies to include the sociocultural aspects of “soft governance” to encompass individual and cultural issues of relationships, trust, and leadership as critical to effective governance (Birnbaum, 2004; Gayle, Twearie, & White Jr., 2003; Kezar, 2004; Tierney & Lechuga, 2004). And the discourse continues amid a sociopolitical environment that projects a decline and perhaps revisioning of the concept of shared governance (Gerber, 2014). The purpose of this qualitative study is to better understand how faculty perceive of shared governance.

The theoretical frameworks framing this research include neoliberalism as a summative theory driving the community college mission (Levin, 2001); social capital as integral to trust and cooperation ̶ “it is the process of shared governance…that helps to build the dense network of connections that create social capital” (Birnbaum, 2004, p. 15); and social identity theory (Ashford & Mael, 1989; Levin, 2013) which helps us consider how faculty are, (or are not) socialized into faculty governance roles.

This qualitative, multi-case study followed an interpretive and inductive approach in gathering faculty leaders’ perceptions of shared governance (Creswell, 2003; Saldaña, 2013; Strauss & Corbin, 1990; Yin, 2009). The inductive approach allows me to build on interpretive data to broader themes and potentially new models or theories. Sources of the data for this study were interviews with residential and adjunct faculty leaders – senate presidents and adjunct faculty presidents from eight different community colleges in four states. Shared governance is often a difficult topic, so institutions were purposefully sampled based on a matrix which included union versus non-union; size; geographic regions; and accessibility. Current and former faculty leaders participated in in-depth, one-on-one interviews lasting from one to two hours which were taped and transcribed.

To date preliminary findings suggest, as Kezar (2004) has posited, that “relationships are critical to effective governance” (p. 43) and that “leadership, relationships, and trust” (p. 37) are the primary conditions that may facilitate effective governance. The faculty interviewed, for the most part, do not talk about the work of the senate, or of operational plans and initiatives requiring faculty votes--what Birnbaum (2004) has labeled “hard governance.” They do, consistently, speak of issues of mutual respect and authoritative deference, of two-way communication, and of trust. One faculty noted “there has been a fallout of engagement due to corporatization” while another suggests “We don’t want a ‘Go Fish!’ type of relationship with administration...We need to know that people will play fair.” Preliminary findings suggest faculty lack the political capital which would support their effective participation in governance beyond typical classroom and curricular authority. “Administrators and faculty must mutually acknowledge that the conflict model has been played out, making essential a new partnership as a prelude to a strategic, shared vision” (Boris, 2013, p. 4).

Author

• Sue T. Kater, Maricopa Community Colleges