Redefining the Role of Faculty Members in Higher Education Policy: A Qualitative Study Using Thematic Analysis

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. student of Economics and Finance Management of Higher Education, University of Tehran

2 Professor, Faculty of Chemical Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to redefine the role of faculty members in higher education policy. This qualitative research has been compiled in two steps. First, specialized keywords were searched in international databases using a systematic review method. Second, thematic analysis was performed using Sterberg thematic analysis. Findings of the components of faculty members' role in university governance included: collective decision-making and decision-making (collectivism in decisions, decision-making, transparency and information) and scope of decision-making (university policy-making, university management, university finance, administration and student affairs). . The components considered by university administrators in the participation of faculty members include the eight main components of public governance of the university; Human capital development; Social capital development; University rules and regulations; Incentive mechanisms; Competitive atmosphere; Soft capacities; Hard capacities were subdivided into 16 subcomponents. Components of higher education policy makers also include multilevel governance of higher education (targeted policy-making and efficient management); Rules and regulations (higher education laws and higher education laws).

Keywords


  • 1- اکملی، ماکوان (1387). عوامل اجتماعی موثر بر میزان همکاری اعضای هیئت علمی: مطالعه موردی دانشگاه کردستان. پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد

    2- امیری فرح آبادی، جعفر؛ ابوالقاسمی، محمود و قهرمانی، محمد (1395). آسیب شناسی فرایند سیاست پژوهی در نظام آموزش عالی ایران؛ مطالعه‌ای کیفی. مطالعات میان رشته‌ای در علوم انسانی، 8 (4)

    3- امین مظفر، فاروق؛ امیری میاندواب، شهریار؛ عباس زاده، محمد و علیزاده اقدم، محمدباقر (1394). مطالعه سیاست‌زدگی مدیران نظام آموزش عالی با رویکرد کیفی. دو فصلنامه پژوهش‌های جامعه شناسی معاصر 4 (7)

    4- ایمان، محمدتقی (1389). مبانی پارادایمی روشهای کمی و کیفی تحقیق در علوم انسانی. قم: انتشارات پژوهشگاه حوزه و دانشگاه

    5- بیرن بائوم، رابرت (1382). دانشگاه‌ها چگونه کار می‌کنند: سازمان علمی و رهبری آن از منظر سیبرنتیک. مترجم: حمیدرضا آراسته، ناشر: موسسه پژوهش و برنامه‌ریزی آموزش عالی

    6- چوب بستی، حیدر؛ اکملی، ماکوان (1387). عوامل اجتماعی مؤثر بر میزان همکاری اعضای هیئت علمی (مطالعه موردی دانشگاه کردستان). راهبرد فرهنگ

    7- دهنوی، زهرا؛ آراسته، حمید و جعفری، پریوش (1399). ارائه مدل مطلوب رقابت جهت پیشرفت آموزشی در دانشگاه(مورد مطالعه: دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی). راهبردهای آموزش در علوم پزشکی، 12 (3)

    8- رضایی، حسین؛ اجتهادی، مصطفی؛ قورچیان، نادرقلی و محمدداوودی، امیرحسین (1396). ارزیابی وضعیت حاکمیت خوب دانشگاهی با استقلال سازمانی و قابلیت پاسخگویی. فصلنامه مطالعات مدیریت راهبردی، 38

    9- رودباری، جملیه؛ آقامیرزایی، طاهره؛ بریمانی، خدیجه و سعید آبادی، رضا (1399). بررسی شکاف استقلال دانشگاهی ازدیدگاه خبرگان دانشگاهی (مطالعه موردی دانشگاه علوم پزشکی بابل و صنعتی نوشیروانی). نشریه راهبردهای آموزش در علوم پزشکی، 10 (5)

    10- ریاحی، عارف؛ قانعی راد، محمد امین و احمدی، الهام (1393). در پژوهش با عنوان بررسی موانع بازدارنده همکاری های علمی بین المللی (مطالعه موردی: اعضای هیئت علمی دانشگاه تهران در تالیف مشترک مدارک علمی پایگاه اطلاعاتی. مجله کتابداری و اطلاع رسانی

    11- قاسمی، یارمحمد؛ هاشمی، علی (1398). انجام پژوهش به روش تحلیل تماتیک: راهنمای عملی و گام به گام برای یادگیری و آموزش (مورد مطالعه: مصرف موسیقی دانشجویان کارشناسی ارشد دانشگاه ایلام). فرهنگ ایلام، 20 (64)

    • Akech, L.O. (2014). Response strategies to changes in external environment by sonysugar company limited(Master Thesis). Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org
    • Bahrawy, A. A. (1992). Participation of nursing faculty in university governance. Journal of Nursing Education, 31(3), 107-112.
    • Baldwin, R. G., & Chronister, J. L. (2001). Teaching without tenure. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press
    • Barber, J. P., & Walczak, K. K. (2009). Conscience and critic: Peer debriefing strategies in grounded theory research. In Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
    • Bitsch, V. (2005). Qualitative research: A grounded theory example and evaluation criteria. Journal of Agribusiness, 23(1), 75-91.
    • Black, S (2015) Qualities of effective leadership in higher education. Open Journal of Leadership 4: 54–66.
    • Blackman, D. A., Kennedy, M., Swansson, J., & Richardson, A. (2008). University governance in uncertain times: Refocusing on knowledge creation and innovation. Journal of Institutional Research, 14(1), 1-8.
    • Blumel, A (2016) (De)constructing organizational boundaries of university administrations: changing profiles of administrative leadership at German universities. European Journal of Higher Education 6(2): 89–110
    • Bortman, L. E., & Zane, J. I. (2015). Faculty governance at Pepperdine. Instructor, 13, 52
    • Brown Jr, W. O. (2001). Faculty participation in university governance and the effects on university performance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 44(2), 129-143.
    • Bucklew, N., Houghton, J. D., & Ellison, C. N. (2012). Faculty union and faculty senate co-existence: A review of the impact of academic collective bargaining on traditional academic governance. Labor Studies Journal, 37(4), 373-390.
    • Calma, A., & Davies, M. (2015). Studies in Higher Education 1976–2013: a retrospective using citation network analysis. Studies in higher education, 40(1), 4-21.
    • Campbell, E., & Bray, N. (2018). Two Sides of the Same Coin? Analysis of Faculty and Administrators’ Perspectives on Governance. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 42(12), 893-907.
    • Cross, J. G., & Goldenberg, E. N. (2003). How does university decision making shape the faculty?.
    • Cubas, G., Ravikumar, B., & Ventura, G. (2016). Talent, labor quality, and economic development. Review of Economic Dynamics, 21, 160-181.
    • Del Favero, M., & Bray, N. (2005). The Faculty-Administrator Relationship: Partners in Prospective Governance?. Scholar-Practitioner Quarterly, 3(1), 53-72
    • Dowling-Hetherington, L. (2013). The changing shape of university decision-making processes and the consequences for faculty participation in Ireland. Tertiary Education and Management, 19(3), 219-232
    • Emerine, J. (2015). The role of communication faculty in collegial governance. Kentucky Journal of Communication, 34(1), 53-58.
    • Finkelstein, M., Ju, M., & Cummings, W. K. (2011). The United States of America: Perspectives on Faculty Governance, 1992–2007. In Changing governance and management in higher education (pp. 199-222). Springer, Dordrecht
    • Friedson, W. (2001). Professionalism: The third logic. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
    • Fumasoli, T., Gornitzka, A., & Maassen, P. (2014). University autonomy and organizational change dynamics. ARENA Working Paper 8/2014. Oslo: University of Oslo ARENA Centre for European Studies.
    • Gappa, J., Austin, A., & Trice, A. (2007). Rethinking faculty work: Higher education’s strategic imperative. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
    • Gerber, L. (2001). Inextricably linked: Shared governance and academic freedom. Academe, 87(3), 22-24
    • Gu, J., Feng, S., & Huang, F. (2020). How do Chinese faculty members and administrative staff participate in governance arrangements?. Studies in Higher Education, 45(10), 2082-2091.
    • Halldórsson, Á., & Aastrup, J. (2003). Quality criteria for qualitative inquiries in logistics. European Journal of Operational Research, 144(2), 321-332.
    • Hamilton, N. W., & Gaff, J. (2009). Proactively justifying the academic profession’s social contract. University of St. Thomas Legal Studies Research Paper No. 09-17.
    • Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2012). Do better schools lead to more growth? Cognitive skills, economic outcomes, and causation. Journal of economic growth, 17(4), 267-321.
    • Hirsch, W.Z., and L. E. Weber, eds., Governance in Higher Education: The University in a State of Flux (London: Economica, Ltd, 2001).
    • Hoang, TC (2014) Board Diversity, Earnings Quality and Corporate Social Disclosure: Evidence From Vietnamese Listed Firms. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/47f8/d7e7552e56233a20e95367abc2296a39cce8.pdf (accessed 1 July 2019).
    • Hollinger, D.A. (2001). Faculty governance, the University of California, and the future of academe. Academe, 87(3), 30-33.
    • Huang, C., Yang, C., Wang, S., Wu, W., Su, J., & Liang, C. (2020). Evolution of topics in education research: a systematic review using bibliometric analysis. Educational Review, 72(3), 281-297.
    • Huang, F (2017) Who leads China’s universities? Studies in Higher Education 42(1): 79–96.
    • Johnson, A. L., DuVivier, R. S., & Hambright, W. G. (2017). Shared University Governance: Faculty Perceptions on Involvement and Leadership. Leadership and Research in Education, 4(1), 10-26.
    • Jones, S, Lefore, G, Harvey, M, Ryland, K (2012) Distributed leadership: a collaborative framework for academics, executives and professionals in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 34(1): 67–78
    • Jones, W. A. (2011). Faculty involvement in institutional governance: A literature review. Journal of the Professoriate, 6(1), 118-135
    • Kater, S. T. (2017). Community college faculty conceptualizations of shared governance: Shared understandings of a sociopolitical reality. Community College Review, 45(3), 234-257.
    • Kater, S., & Levin, J. S. (2004). Shared governance in the community college. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 29(1), 1-23.
    • Kezar, A., & Cecile, S. (2014). Governance as a catalyst for policy change: Creating a contingent faculty friendly academy. Educational Policy, 28(3), 425-462.
    • Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (2004). Meeting today's governance challenges: A synthesis of the literature and examination of a future agenda for scholarship. Journal of Higher Education, 74(4), 371-399.
    • Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2010). Beyond contracts: Non-tenure track faculty and campus governance. NEA Almanac, 15, 83-91
    • Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2014). Governance as a catalyst for policy change: Creating a contingent faculty friendly academy. Educational Policy, 28(3), 425-462.
    • Kezar, A., Lester, J., & Anderson, G. (2006). Challenging stereotypes that interfere with effective governance. Thought and Action, 42, 121-134
    • Kohtamäki, V., & Balbachevsky, E. (2018). University autonomy: From past to present. Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives on Higher Education Management and Transformation: An advanced reader for PhD students.
    • Kovač, V., Ledić, J., & Rafajac, B. (2003). Academic staff participation in university governance: Internal responses to external quality demands. Tertiary Education and Management, 9(3), 215-232.
    • Lapworth, S. (2004). Arresting decline in shared governance: Towards a flexible model for academic participation. Higher Education Quarterly, 58(4), 299-314
    • Lougheed, P., & Pidgeon, M. (2016). Exploring Effective Academic Governance at a Canadian University. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 46(3), 90-104.
    • Maitland, C., & Rhoades, G. (2001). Unions and faculty governance. The NEA 2001 Almanac of Higher Education, 27-33.
    • McKnight, C. M., McIntire, D. D., & Stude, D. P. (2007). Faculty governance at evangelical Christian colleges and universities. Christian Higher Education, 6(2), 79-87.
    • Miller, M. T. (2002). Faculty governance units and their leaders: A national profile. The NEA Almanac of higher education, 51-58.
    • Miller, M. T. (2020). The State of Faculty Involvement in Governance in the United States. International Research in Education, 8(2)
    • Miller, M., & Katz, M. (2004). Effective shared governance: Academic governance as a win-win proposition. Washington: The NEA Almanac of Higher Education.
    • Minor, J. T. (2004). Faculty governance at urban institutions: A metropolitan comparison. Metropolitan Universities, 15(1), 110-122.
    • O’Meara, K., Terosky, A., & Neumann, A. (2008). In K. Ward & L. Wolf-Wendel (Eds.), Faculty careers and work lives: A professional growth perspective. San Francisco, CA: ASHE Higher Education Report
    • Oroz, A. A. (2014). Shared Governance and Job Satisfaction among Faculty Members at a Research University (Doctoral dissertation, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology).
    • Pope, M. L. (2004). A conceptual framework of faculty trust and participation in governance. New Directions for Higher Education, 2004(127), 75-84.
    • Pope, M. L., & Miller, M. T. (2000). Community college faculty governance leaders: Results of a national survey. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 24(8), 627-638.
    • Pope, M. L., & Miller, M. T. (2005). Leading from the inside out: Learned respect for academic culture through shared governance. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 29(9-10), 745-757.
    • Porter, S. R. (2013). The causal effect of faculty unions on institutional decision-making. ILR Review, 66(5)
    • Prüfer, J., & Walz, U. (2013). Academic faculty governance and recruitment decisions. Public Choice, 155(3-4), 507-529.
    • Rowlands, J. (2013). The effectiveness of academic boards in university governance. Tertiary Education and Management, 19(4)
    • Rowlands, J. (2015). Present but not counted: the tenuous position of academic board chairs within contemporary university governance. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 18(3), 263-278.
    • Rowlands, J. (2019). The domestic labour of academic governance and the loss of academic voice. Gender and Education, 31(7)
    • Salmi, J. (2019). Academic governance and leadership in Vietnam: Trends and challenges. Journal of International and Comparative Education (JICE), 103-118.
    • Santiago, R., Carvalho, T., & Cardoso, S. (2015). Portuguese academics' perceptions of higher education institutions' governance and management: a generational perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 40(8), 1471-1484.
    • Schoorman, D., & Acker-Hocevar, M. (2010). Viewing faculty governance within a social justice framework: Struggles and possibilities for democratic decision-making in higher education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 43(3), 310-325
    • Schoorman, D., & Acker-Hocevar, M. (2013). Faculty governance in neoliberal educational contexts: Challenges for democratic decision making. Interchange, 43(3), 265-285
    • Schuster, J. H., & Finkelstein, M. J. (2006). American faculty: The restructuring of academic work and careers. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
    • Schuster, J. H., Smith, D. G., Corak, K. A., & Yamada, M. M. (1994). Strategic governance: How to make big decisions better. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education=The Oryx Press.
    • Shah, S., Zai, S. Y., Munshi, P., Asimiran, S., Pihie, Z. A. L., & Ahmad, S. (2014). A study to evaluate the attitude of faculty members of public universities of Pakistan towards shared governance. Res Humanit Soc Sci, 4(1), 16-22.
    • Simplicio, J. (2006). Shared governance: An analysis of power on the modern university campus from the perspective of an administrator. Education, 126(4), 6.
    • Stutzman, E. A. (2017). Recent Trends in Faculty Governance and Its Overall Impact on Work Life, Job Satisfaction and Faculty Retention. Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor, (29).
    • Sullivan, W. (2004). Work and integrity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass
    • Talburt, S. (2005). Ideas of a Uuniversity, Faculty Governance, and Governmentality. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 459-505). Springer, Dordrecht.
    • Teen MY (2019) The Diversity Scorecard: Measuring Board Composition in Asia Pacific. Singapore: The Korn Ferry Institute
    • Tierney, W.G., and J. Minor, Challenges for Governance (Los Angeles: The Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis, 2003) (Available from The Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis, Rossier School of Education, The University of Southern California, WPH 701, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0031).
    • Turkel, G. (2017). Collective bargaining, shared governance, and academic freedom: Creating policies for full-time non-tenure-track faculty at the University of Delaware. AAUP Journal of Academic Freedom, 8, 1-18.
    • Vican, S., Friedman, A., & Andreasen, R. (2020). Metrics, money, and managerialism: Faculty experiences in competing logics in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 91(1), 139-164
    • Waugh Jr, W. L. (2003). Issues in university governance: More “professional” and less academic. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 585(1), 84-96.
    • Woschkowiak A (2018) Board Diversity and Firm Financial Performance: Gender-, Nationality- and age Diversity in European Boardrooms. Available at: https://theses.ubn.ru.nl/bitstream/handle/123456789/ 5871/Woschkowiak%2C_Alina_1.pdf?sequence¼1
    • Yao, Y. (2019). Does higher education expansion enhance productivity?. Journal of Macroeconomics, 59, 169-194.
    • Yonezawa, A. (2014). The academic profession and university governance participation in Japan: Focusing on the role of Kyoju-kai. Educational Studies in Japan, 8, 19-31.
    • Zhu, C., & Zayim-Kurtay, M. (2018). University governance and academic leadership: perceptions of European and Chinese university staff and perceived need for capacity building. European Journal of Higher Education, 8(4), 435-452.