The Impact of External Factors on Academic Governance in Universities

In a number of countries, the main issue regarding internal or academic governance in universities is, at least from the standpoint of faculty and faculty unions, collegial governance. In North America and Western Europe in particular, the degree to which the academic governance of universities is carried out in a collegial fashion, that is, through conferring, collaborating, and gaining consensus is the object of an abundant scholarly literature. The author reviews the external factors that have an impact on the internal, academic governance of universities in both Canada and France, asking if those factors have any altering effect on collegial governance in Canadian and French universities.

A Conceptual Continuous Improvement Framework to Examine the "Problems of Understanding" Applied Research

Objectives: Improving performance to meet strategic priorities, such as teaching balanced with increased applied research activities, has developed into a central, though contentious, discourse for faculty in Ontario colleges. The aim of this article is to analyze and better understand why faculty are not engaged in applied research practices. Method: This article draws from social cognition theory and a social constructivist perspective. The literature review examines the evolution of colleges in Ontario, including the political factors and symbolic artifacts that shape values and organizational practices. This study sought to explore how a conceptual continuous improvement (CI) framework might advance our understanding of the policy shifts between applied research discourses within Ontario colleges in Canada and barriers that faculty face to enact applied research practices. Results: Underpinned by a set of simple principles, including improving through communication, learning through collaboration, and changing through coordination, the conceptual CI processes and systematic method provide opportunities to bridge the different contexts and unveil the varied on-the-ground realities of faculty teaching and research tasks. Conclusions: The findings reveal developmental needs and adaptive institutional challenges related to applied research practice changes have been influenced by political, cultural, and socio-cognition contexts and tasks. Implication for Practice: The inventive conceptual CI framework provides a viable means to analyze the fragmented state of applied research practices across Ontario colleges, which may ignite conversations and inform decision-making as well as suggest approaches to change at other global postsecondary education institutions. The innovative conceptual CI framework analysis tool will be of interest to faculty, institutional leaders, faculty unions, and policymakers.

A Tale of Seven Cases – Faculty Unions in the United States – From Yeshiva To Elon: Is It Time to Review Yeshiva and the Positions of Church-Sponsored Colleges and Universities As Well?

This article is a summary discussion of the main issues faced by faculty at private, often church-sponsored, universities who sought to be represented by a union in collective bargaining with their employers. The discussion begins by tracing the origins of the rule that faculty at private universities are managers and not employees under the aegis of the National Relations Act in the Supreme Court case of Yeshiva University. The summary then follows developments over the years up to the most recent decision of the National Labor Relations Board that sanctioned the efforts of adjunct professors at Elon University to seek union representation. In examining these two book-end cases, the article discusses issues relating to the effect of the religion clauses of the First Amendment in the context of the National Labor Relations Board’s shifting views on the topic. Last, the authors discuss unionization in the context of church-sponsored colleges and universities. Is it now time for the Supreme Court to review its seminal decision in Yeshiva University and for church-sponsored colleges and universities to rethink their positions as well?

A Tale of Seven Cases – Faculty Unions in the United States – From Yeshiva To Elon: Is It Time to Review Yeshiva and the Positions of Church-Sponsored Colleges and Universities As Well?

This article is a summary discussion of the main issues faced by faculty at private, often church-sponsored, universities who sought to be represented by a union in collective bargaining with their employers. The discussion begins by tracing the origins of the rule that faculty at private universities are managers and not employees under the aegis of the National Relations Act in the Supreme Court case of Yeshiva University. The summary then follows developments over the years up to the most recent decision of the National Labor Relations Board that sanctioned the efforts of adjunct professors at Elon University to seek union representation. In examining these two book-end cases, the article discusses issues relating to the effect of the religion clauses of the First Amendment in the context of the National Labor Relations Board’s shifting views on the topic. Last, the authors discuss unionization in the context of church-sponsored colleges and universities. Is it now time for the Supreme Court to review its seminal decision in Yeshiva University and for church-sponsored colleges and universities to rethink their positions as well?

The Evolution of the Community College President in the 21st Century

The college presidency is in a state of disarray in the 21st century. In the past, community college presidents could focus their efforts on academic programs, community relations, and donor engagement. College presidents could be the visionary leaders of their communities by providing educational programs to help students transfer to a university or allow them to enter the workforce. The job has become more of a reactionary role in which they are required to make quick decisions in a crisis. They are now forced to focus on cybersecurity, pandemic outbreaks, faculty unions, local and state governance issues, and little-to-no state funding.

Faculty Associations Confront Accountability Governance in Ontario Universities

Much literature focusing on the academy is concerned with the spread of neo-liberalism into the university sector. We argue that universities in Canada are operating in an era of “accountability governance,” with ideologies, discourses, and practices centred on quality, accountability, and efficiency. We explore the interplay between accountability governance as a regime of power and the work of faculty associations, especially as they strive to preserve faculty members’ professional autonomy and control over their academic work. Using in-depth qualitative interviews with executive members of several Ontario university faculty associations, we explore themes of neo-liberalization and corporatization of the university, shrinking faculty budgets, program reviews, and strategic mandates. While opportunities for action and resistance for faculty unions arise, particularly at the level of senate, more militancy and radicalism are not favoured by many members, as political action is often seen as “unprofessional.”

Faculty Associations Confront Accountability Governance in Ontario Universities

Much literature focusing on the academy is concerned with the spread of neo-liberalism into the university sector. We argue that universities in Canada are operating in an era of “accountability governance,” with ideologies, discourses, and practices centred on quality, accountability, and efficiency. We explore the interplay between accountability governance as a regime of power and the work of faculty associations, especially as they strive to preserve faculty members’ professional autonomy and control over their academic work. Using in-depth qualitative interviews with executive members of several Ontario university faculty associations, we explore themes of neo-liberalization and corporatization of the university, shrinking faculty budgets, program reviews, and strategic mandates. While opportunities for action and resistance for faculty unions arise, particularly at the level of senate, more militancy and radicalism are not favoured by many members, as political action is often seen as “unprofessional.”

Tenure, Faculty Contracts and Bargaining Conflict

Tenure is sometimes charged as giving faculty lifetime job security, with little accountability and sporadic monitoring of performance. Scholars have traditionally defended tenure as necessary for academic freedom. This paper takes a different approach by examining the academic "employment contract relationship," and explaining how tenure can lead to bargaining conflict. Tenure is costly to the university but extremely valued by the faculty member. The opportunity cost of granting tenure to someone is the lost teaching and research output of younger people who cannot be hired in future. Tenure is necessary because without it, incumbents would never recommend hiring people who might be better than they are, for fear of being replaced. Tenure is also efficient because faculty have better information about incumbents than either university administrators or outside consultants. Tenure is therefore necessary to motivate older faculty to hire the best. With staff budget dollars able to be shifted back or forwards across time periods, tenure secures the truthful revelation of who are the good candidates over all periods, and the university is guaranteed that those who are in the best position to judge (namely, faculty rather than administrators) have every incentive to make the best decisions. It follows, then, that the naive suggestion to get rid of tenure so that older, expensive professors can be fired and replaced with younger, cheaper professors would be disastrous in the long run. A simple model is presented explaining why (a) recent cutbacks in government grants, (b) cost pressures on university budgets, (c) limits to tuition increases, and (d) declining interests in attending a less "excellent" university have all resulted in pressure on tenure. Because there is no previously agreed-to mechanism in place to adjust staff, university administrations and faculty unions are not so much bargaining over an acceptable contract outcome as they are contesting the very rules of the bargaining game. Accordingly, unless tenure is reconsidered, universities may increasingly face bargaining conflict. Tenure could be reformed by making the term of tenure limited but related to rank, and establishing a maximum eligibility period during which a faculty may apply for promotion.