USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

The involvement of Florida's full-time community college faculty in institutional governance

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The involvement of Florida's full-time community college faculty in institutional governance implications for institutional decision-making
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Campbell, Martha Etheredge
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
faculaty roles
college senate
perceptions of governance
Dissertations, Academic -- Adult Education -- Doctoral -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: This study's purpose was to investigate the level of involvement of Florida's full-time community college faculty in institutional governance, their perceptions of the faculty governance body's role in institutional decision-making, and the characteristics of an ideal governance process. This study also explored the relation between a faculty member's level of involvement in governance activities and his or her perceptions of the desired roles of faculty in institutional governance as well as the relation between a faculty member's level of involvement and his or her gender, race, age, and years of employment. Certain factors that encourage or discourage faculty participation in governance were also studied. Research methods included a 25-item survey (Miller & Vacik, 1998) detailing the purpose of the study and asking questions regarding the faculty member's demographics and level of involvement in governance. The research also included 12 faculty interviews. The interview analysis used established inductive methods. This study has shown that Florida's full-time community college faculty do participate in institutional governance but often do not attend faculty governance body meetings. They are, however, actively involved in service on committees and are likely to attend committee meetings regularly. While Florida's community college faculty can identify the roles faculty governance bodies play in institutional governance, they agree less about the characteristics of an ideal governance process or their perceptions of the roles of their faculty governance bodies. Age does not seem to affect faculty involvement in institutional governance although the race of the faculty member may have some effect. The faculty member's years of experience do not have a major effect on the faculty member's level of involvement. The faculty interviewed desire a faculty voice in decision making and believe that governance structures and processes should enable faculty to make their opinions known to all members of the college community. The influence of the college president and the senate president is critical for shared governance. The senate president should have access to the highest level of decision-making at the college.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ed.D)--University of South Florida, 2003.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Martha Etheredge Campbell.
General Note:
Includes vita.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 166 pages.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001416923
oclc - 52809151
notis - AJJ4775
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0000061
usfldc handle - e14.61
System ID:
SFS0024757:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001416923
003 fts
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 030729s2003 flu sbm s000|0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0000061
035
(OCoLC)52809151
9
AJJ4775
b SE
SFE0000061
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHME
090
LC5215
1 100
Campbell, Martha Etheredge
4 245
The involvement of Florida's full-time community college faculty in institutional governance
h [electronic resource]
implications for institutional decision-making /
by Martha Etheredge Campbell.
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
2003.
502
Thesis (Ed.D)--University of South Florida, 2003.
500
Includes vita.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
Document formatted into pages; contains 166 pages.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Title from PDF of title page.
520
ABSTRACT: This study's purpose was to investigate the level of involvement of Florida's full-time community college faculty in institutional governance, their perceptions of the faculty governance body's role in institutional decision-making, and the characteristics of an ideal governance process. This study also explored the relation between a faculty member's level of involvement in governance activities and his or her perceptions of the desired roles of faculty in institutional governance as well as the relation between a faculty member's level of involvement and his or her gender, race, age, and years of employment. Certain factors that encourage or discourage faculty participation in governance were also studied. Research methods included a 25-item survey (Miller & Vacik, 1998) detailing the purpose of the study and asking questions regarding the faculty member's demographics and level of involvement in governance. The research also included 12 faculty interviews. The interview analysis used established inductive methods. This study has shown that Florida's full-time community college faculty do participate in institutional governance but often do not attend faculty governance body meetings. They are, however, actively involved in service on committees and are likely to attend committee meetings regularly. While Florida's community college faculty can identify the roles faculty governance bodies play in institutional governance, they agree less about the characteristics of an ideal governance process or their perceptions of the roles of their faculty governance bodies. Age does not seem to affect faculty involvement in institutional governance although the race of the faculty member may have some effect. The faculty member's years of experience do not have a major effect on the faculty member's level of involvement. The faculty interviewed desire a faculty voice in decision making and believe that governance structures and processes should enable faculty to make their opinions known to all members of the college community. The influence of the college president and the senate president is critical for shared governance. The senate president should have access to the highest level of decision-making at the college.
590
Adviser: Milles, Michael
653
faculaty roles.
college senate.
perceptions of governance.
0 690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Adult Education
Doctoral.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.61



PAGE 1

The Involvement of Florida’s Full-Time Community College Faculty in Institutional Governance: Implications for Institutional Decision-Making by Martha Etheredge Campbell A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education Department of Adult, Career, and Higher Education College of Education University of South Florida Major Professor: Dr. Michael Mills, Ph.D. Dr. James Eison, Ph.D. Dr. Jeff Kromrey, Ph.D. Dr. Steven Permuth, Ed.D. Date of Approval: July 16, 2003 Keywords: faculty roles, college senate, pe rceptions of governance, faculty participation Copyright 2003, Martha Etheredge Campbell

PAGE 2

Dedication I dedicate this dissertation to my moth er and father, Evelyn and the late George Etheredge, for giving me a love for la nguage; to my husband, Dan, for providing unwavering support; and to my daughters, Jenny and Leah, for teaching me. I also dedicate this work to my friends, who have listened to me unconditionally.

PAGE 3

Acknowledgments I wish to acknowledge the professional as sistance of my committee: Dr. Michael Mills, chair, Dr. Jeff Kromrey, Dr. Jame s Eison, and Dr. Steven Permuth. I am particularly thankful for the patience and guidance of Dr. Mills, the reassurance and support of Dr. Kromrey, and the professionalis m and encouragement of Dr. Permuth and Dr. Eison. I am also indebted to Dr. Michae l Miller of San Jose State University for permission to use the faculty governance surve y. I further acknowledge the assistance of the faculty I interviewed at Santa Fe Comm unity College and Daytona Beach Community College, especially Ward Scott, college senate president of Santa Fe Community College. Finally, I am appreciative for all the commun ity college faculty who took the time to complete the survey and who care about the future of faculty governance in Florida’s community colleges.

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables................................................................................................................. ....iv Abstract....................................................................................................................... .........v I. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................1 Statement of Problem.........................................................................................7 Purpose of Study............................................................................................... 9 Research Questions........................................................................................... 9 Rationale..........................................................................................................10 Limitations/Delimitations................................................................................16 Definitions........................................................................................................16 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.................................................................18 Structural Model..............................................................................................19 Human Resources Model.................................................................................23 Political Model.................................................................................................28 Cultural/Symbolic Model.................................................................................32 Summary..........................................................................................................35 Other Relevant Studies In fluencing This Research.........................................36 III. METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................41 Survey Sample.................................................................................................43 Interview Sample.............................................................................................44 Survey Instrument............................................................................................44 Interview Guide...............................................................................................47 Procedures........................................................................................................47 Data Analysis...................................................................................................50 Findings............................................................................................................55 IV. RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 56 Pilot Study: Survey....................................................................................... 56 Survey Distribution.......................................................................................... 57 Summary of Interview Process........................................................................58 Treatment of Data: Survey..............................................................................59 i

PAGE 5

Data Analysis: Quantitative Design................................................................60 Research Question 1........................................................................................60 Scale of Involvement.......................................................................................70 Research Questions 2 and 3.............................................................................71 Research Question 4........................................................................................75 Research Question 5........................................................................................79 Research Question 6........................................................................................79 Research Questions 7 and 8.............................................................................83 Data Analysis: Qualitative Design..................................................................84 Faculty Governance Structures........................................................................85 Administrati ve Structures Related to Faculty Governance..............................87 Ad ministrative Processes: Committees...........................................................88 Faculty Governance Processes.........................................................................90 Faculty Issues Discussed at Senate..................................................................92 Faculty Governance Outcomes........................................................................93 Faculty and Administ ration Interaction: Implications for Institutional Decision-Making.......................................................................................... 94 Interviewees’ Level of Involvement in Faculty Governance...........................96 Persona l Characteristic Encour aging Involvement..........................................97 Institutional Characteristics Encouraging Involvement...................................98 Personal Characteristics Hindering Involvement.............................................99 Institutional Characteristics Hindering Involvement.....................................100 Role of the College President........................................................................102 Role of the Faculty Senate President.............................................................103 The Senate and the Board of Trustees...........................................................105 Assimilation of New Faculty into Faculty Governance.................................106 Ideal Governance Process..............................................................................106 Statewide Implications...................................................................................107 Summary...................................................................................................... ..108 Emergent Themes..........................................................................................108 Conclusion................................................................................................... ..111 V. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY, PRACTICE, AND RESEARCH.........................................112 Method Summary...........................................................................................113 Summary of Findings.....................................................................................113 Conclusion.....................................................................................................124 Limitations.....................................................................................................126 Implications for Theory.................................................................................127 Implications for Practice................................................................................130 Implications for Research..............................................................................132 ii

PAGE 6

REFERENCES................................................................................................................133 APPENDIX TITLE PAGE..............................................................................................138 APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT....................................................................139 APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW GUIDE/QUESTIONS....................................................145 APPENDIX C: E-MAIL COVER LETTER...................................................................148 APPENDIX D: ONLINE SURVEY...............................................................................151 ABOUT THE AUTHOR.......................................................................................End Page iii

PAGE 7

List of Tables Table 1 Level of Involvement in Institutional Governance...............................................61 Table 2 Attendance of Faculty Governance Body Meetings.............................................63 Table 3 Service on Committees During Past Three Years...............................................64 Table 4 Attendance of Committee Meetings....................................................................66 Table 5 Engagement in Dialogue About Faculty Issues...................................................67 Table 6 Faculty Governance Involvem ent Compared to Five Years Ago........................68 Table 7 Summary of Correlation Co efficients and Probability Values............................69 Table 8 Descriptive Statistics for Survey Questions Sorted by Mean..............................72 Table 9 Descriptive Statistics for Group: Race and Self -Reported Level of Involvement................................................................................................... ..81 Table 10 Summary Table: ANOVA Race and Self-Report Level of Involvement .......81 Table 11 Descriptive Statistics for Gr oup: Race and Scale of Involvement.....................82 Table 12 Summary Table: ANOVA Race and Scale of Involvement.............................82 iv

PAGE 8

The Involvement of Florida’s Full-Time Co mmunity College Faculty in Institutional Governance: Implications for Institutional Decision-Making Martha Etheredge Campbell ABSTRACT This study’s purpose was to i nvestigate the leve l of involvement of Florida’s fulltime community college faculty in institutio nal governance, their perceptions of the faculty governance body’s role in institutional decision-making, and the characteristics of an ideal governance process. This study al so explored the rela tion between a faculty member’s level of involvement in governance act ivities and his or her perceptions of the desired roles of faculty in institutional governance as well as the relation between a faculty member’s level of involvement and hi s or her gender, race, age, and years of employment. Certain factors that encourage or discourage faculty participation in governance were also probed. Research methods included a 25-item su rvey (Miller & Vacik, 1998) detailing the purpose of the study and asking questions rega rding the faculty member’s demographics and level of involvement in govern ance. The survey’s respondents ( N = 560) were fulltime community college faculty in the state of Florida. The research also included 12 faculty interviews. This study has shown that Florida’s fu ll-time community college faculty do participate in institutiona l governance but often do not attend faculty governance v

PAGE 9

body meetings. They are, however, actively involved in service on committees and likely to attend committee meetings regularly. While Florida’s community college faculty can identify the roles faculty governance bodies play in institutional governan ce, they are less in agreement about the characteristics of an ideal governance process or their perceptions of the roles of their faculty governance bodies. Age does not s eem to affect faculty involvement in institutional governance although the race of the faculty member may have some effect. The faculty member’s years of experience do not have a major effect on the faculty member’s level of involvement. The interviewed faculty desire a faculty voice in decision making and believe that governance structures and processes should enab le faculty to make their opinions known to all members of the college community. Th e influence of the college president and the senate president is critical for shared governance. The se nate president should have access to the highest level of deci sion-making at the college. vi

PAGE 10

1 Chapter 1 Introduction Today’s American community college ha s its roots in th e junior college movement at the turn of the twentieth centur y. Many of these early junior colleges were an outgrowth of the high schools. During this time, America was becoming increasingly industrialized, resulting in a demand for gr eater literacy. Since many high schools in America at that time did not extend past th e eleventh grade and since many universities had admissions standards that many could not meet and tuition costs that many could not afford, the public looked to the “junior colleg es” as a source of post-high school training and education. During the early years of the growth of pub lic junior colleges, some scholars such as Koos (1925) tied the juni or college movement to the growth of secondary education with the desired purpose of elev ating the first two years of college work. Other junior college advocates (Eells, 1931) viewed the ju nior college movement in the context of college and university education. Founded in 1922, the American Asso ciation of Junior Colleges defined the junior college as an in stitution “offering two year s of instruction of strictly collegiate grade” (Cohen & Brawer, 1989, p. 3). By the 1940’s, the junior college moveme nt, consisting of both private and public junior colleges, was firmly es tablished. The return of wa r veterans seeking a college education and the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 (“GI Bill of Rights”) brought an influx of students and rapid growth to Am erica’s colleges and universities. Since

PAGE 11

2 America’s universities could not meet the de mands alone, the junior colleges once again adapted to meet the rapidly changing econom ic, social, and political landscape. The transition from junior college to community college began in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s. In 1947, the Truman Commission on Higher Education emphasized junior colleges that served the community by “keeping intellectual curiosity alive in its out-of-school citizens, . stimulating thei r zest for learning, . [and] improving the quality of their lives as indi viduals and citizens. . “ (Gleazer, 1994, p. 18). By 1950, the transition to the community college was complete as represented by the first use of the words community college in the title of a book (Ratfcliff, 1994). During the 1960’s and 1970’s, community colleges, many of them formerly public junior colleges, offered open access to those who had been previously excluded from the “ivy halls.” In prior decades, the returning war veterans had flooded higher education institutions. Now other segments of American society streamed through the community college’s open doors. By prohibi ting racial discrimina tion by educational institutions receiving federal financial assistance, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 encouraged minorities to seek higher edu cation. The Higher Education Act of 1965 provided increased opportunities for financial aid and made a college education possible for many “first-generation” students. Other changes in the economic and social landscape, including a rising divor ce rate, a “glass ceiling,” and increasing demands of employers, brought many “older” men and wome n to the community college’s door. The 1970’s witnessed a rise in the comp rehensive community college, which included at least five key functions: compensa tory education, genera l education, transfer education, career education, and community education (Cohen & Brawer, 1989). As

PAGE 12

3 financial aid became increasingly available to students through Pell Grants and other sources of federal support, many students chos e the community college as an affordable alternative to two years in a university setting. The recessi on in the early 1970’s brought large enrollment increases to commun ity colleges around the nation, and many institutions struggled to meet the increasi ng demands of the public. Community colleges expanded their vocational programs, offering asso ciate in science as well as associate in arts degrees. In order to meet the public’s needs, community colleges in the 1980’s found themselves with an increased reliance on state funding and the accountability demands that often accompany such funding. State legi slatures and state c oordinating boards had new decision-making authority over many areas influencing community colleges including mission definition, tuition costs, and budgeting (Alfred, 1985; Alfred, 1994). The 1990’s were particularly challengi ng because of the fast growth of technology, stretching the budgets of community colleges trying to keep up with instructional and institutiona l technology needs while state funding rose slowly. These challenges have continued into the twenty -first century as many community college leaders find themselves in the political arena, competing with other high-priority public needs for state dollars. The interest in community college faculty’s participation in institutional decisionmaking has paralleled the histor ical growth of the community college. This interest has also reflected the interests of higher education faculty in participatory governance. At the turn of the century, faculty were often considered a “quirky lot who did not take easily to being drilled. . They of ten went marching off in all directions while

PAGE 13

4 their democratically elected sergeant bellowe d helplessly. The prof essor. . would be sovereign and, at the same time, subject” (Haber, 1991, p. 293). One early observer of faculty-administration relations, Veblen (1918) noted the administration’s frequent use of faculty committees “to give the appearance, but not the reality, of participation” (Birnbaum, 1991, p. 7). Veblen called these committees “committees-f or-the-sifting-ofthe-sawdust” (p. 7). An early junior college researcher, Le onard Koos (1925), reported that the primary concerns for junior college facu lty were faculty teaching load, faculty preparation and training, and f aculty salaries. In comparing junior college faculty with university faculty, Koos (1925) noted that public junior college faculty had greater teaching loads than university faculty but that public junior college faculty were more experienced teachers since many junior co llege faculty had previously taught in secondary schools. The salaries of junior co llege faculty compared favorably to many of those college and university instructors teaching under-classmen with the exception of some male university professors with sa laries of approximately $5,000 to $6,000 a year (Koos, 1925). Koos’ comments reflect the st ruggle of junior colleges during their formative years to compete for status w ith four-year colleges and universities. With the emergence of the community college, community college presidents often made decisions in consultation with a small number of administrators and communicated those decisions through an in formal network. During these years, the organizational structures of community college were typically pyramidal with a clear division of roles between th e faculty and the administration. The faculty were

PAGE 14

5 responsible for curricular and academic decisi ons while the administration concentrated on planning and resource allocation (Alfred, 1994). By the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, a time of intense growth for community colleges, interest in faculty participation in institutional decision-making was high: “Calls for faculty, student, staff, and co mmunity participation in decision-making dominated the literature and discussi ons on campuses” (Deegan, 1994, p. 76). The American Association for Higher Education’ s (AAHE) document, Faculty Participation in Academic Governance (1967), is evidence of this disc ussion. The task force that authored this document cited the greate st faculty unrest among public junior and community colleges. Specifically, the task for ce examined the varied roles of faculty, the organizational structures that allow faculty to communicate their concerns regarding institutional governance, and the effectivene ss of these organizational structures. The AAHE task force argued that faculty partic ipation in decision-making can best be accomplished “by sharing authority at an earl y stage of decision-making rather than by relegating faculty to a position in which it must react to the prescriptions of the administration” (AAHE, 1967, pp. 23-24). During these years, community college f aculty and administration alike struggled with answers to central ques tion such as, How are institutional decisions made? Who is responsible for making these decisions? How should faculty participate in institutional decision-making? Who is responsible for th e success or failure of an institution’s decisions? These questions were critical since, during the 1960’ s and 1970’s, a number of community college faculties were engage d in discussion with unions regarding the possible formation of collective barg aining units. Many community college

PAGE 15

6 administrators responded by encouraging the or ganization of faculty se nates with specific areas of decision-making res ponsibilities (Richardson, 1973). Scholarly interest in faculty participa tion in decision-making declined during the late 1970’s and 1980’s. Birnbaum (1991) suggest s: “This dramatic decline in interest was probably less an indication that the questions had been satisfactorily resolved than an indication that other problems had become more pressi ng in the inexorable flow of institutional life” (p. 1). The 1990’s, however, saw a renewed intere st in research related to faculty governance. Complicating this research were the varying definitions of governance. Many definitions of faculty governance in the early 1990’s emphasized primarily decision-making practices. For example, Bi rnbaum (1991) defined faculty governance as a “formal, representative governance struct ure . through which f aculty exercise their role in college. . governance at the institut ional level” (p. 7). By the middle of the decade, definitions of faculty governance focu sed on the political arena. Alfred (1994) defined governance as “the process for loca ting authority, power, and influence for academic decisions among internal and extern al constituencies” (p. 245). By decade’s end, definitions of governance stressed shared governance included th e responsibility of those involved in institutional decision-mak ing. Shared governance was defined as a process involving stakeholders making deci sions within the institutional context and including responsibility of pa rticipants for the decisions made through the governance process (Guffey, Rampp, & Masters, 1999). After a century of growth, community co llege governance appears to be moving from autocracy to participatory governance wi th faculty at the cen ter of the decision-

PAGE 16

7 making processes (Alfred, 1994). This particip ation is critical as the community college moves forward in a rapidly changing environment. Statement of Problem Traditionally, community colleges have been hierarchical organizational structures characterized by “centralized c ontrol, top-down decision making, and rigidly structured hierarchies” (Thaxter & Grah am, 1999, p. 3). Many community college faculty and administrators are former middl e school and secondary school teachers, and community college administrative structures ha ve typically reflected the organization of the local public school system. Generally, co mmunity college faculty have been viewed as less professionalized and less prestigious than university facult y. In a recent study, Townsend and LaPaglia (2000) researched co mmunity college faculty’s perceptions of the attitudes of college and university faculty as related to the community college’s academic program. The researchers found that while community college faculty do not consider themselves to be marginalized, a ma jority of them do believe that college and university faculty consider community college faculty to be “on the margins of higher education” (p. 41). Yet even in the hierarchical organiza tional structures f ound in many community colleges, a faculty governan ce body often plays a role in institutional decision-making— at least as reflected in the college’s or ganizational charts. Gilmour (1991) sent a questionnaire to presidents and govern ance body chairs at 15% of the nation’s community colleges. Of the community colle ges that responded ( 30% response rate), 73% reported a representative governance body as part of the organizational structure.

PAGE 17

8 Organizational development experts su ch as Yukl (1981), Ouchi (1981), and Kanter (1983) have argued that those employees governed by certain decisions should participate in making those decisions. Th is desire for involvement in governance is consistent with employees’ desire for self-direction and career success (Yukl, 1981). Furthermore, when employees engage in decision-making, they are more likely to commit themselves to the decisions that have been made with their involvement (Yukl, 1981) and increase their producti vity (Ouchi, 1981, p. 4). Indeed, Gollattscheck (1985), a community college researcher, asserts that “m aking decisions that determine the present and future of a community college is one of the most important acts engaged in at the college” (p. 95). A failure to involve faculty in the decisions that affect them may lead to a loss of talent and morale (Gollattscheck, 1985). F aculty and administration may form conclaves and communicate “only with people simila r to themselves” (Birnbaum, 1988, p. 7), leading to fragmentation and alienation with in the organization. In a college where faculty and administration do not collabo rate in decision-making, organizational decisions will likely be made at the highest level of authority designed to make the decisions (Gollattscheck, 1985, p. 84)—in effect, promoting the continuation of a hierarchical organizational struct ure within the community college. A problem central to this research is th at the current level of involvement of Florida’s full-time community college faculty in their institution’s governance activities is unknown. Also undetermined is the partic ipation of Florida’ s community college faculty governance bodies in institutional decisi on-making. In fact, the most recent study of Florida’s faculty governance structures wa s published in 1980 (G atlin, 1980). Because

PAGE 18

9 Florida’s community college faculty will likely benefit from increased professional authority and participation in making the decisi ons that affect them, their involvement in the governance activities of th eir institutions is an important and timely subject for scholarly research. Purpose of Study The purpose of this study is to determin e the level of involvement of Florida’s full-time community college faculty in the gove rnance activities of their institutions. In addition, this study will examine the percep tions of Florida’s full-time community college faculty in relation to the role of their institution’s faculty governance body in institutional decision-making and the characteristics of an id eal governance process. This study will further explore the relation between the faculty me mber’s level of involvement in governance activities and his or her perceptions of faculty governance. Other topics for investigation include the relation between a faculty memb er’s level of involvement and his or her gender, race, age, years of employment at the institution, and certain factors within the college’s environment that encourage or discourage faculty participation in governance. Research Questions This study will investigate the following questions: 1. What is the level of involvement of Florida’s full-time community college faculty in inst itutional governance? 2. What are faculty members’ perceptions of the roles that faculty advisory bodies play in institutional governance?

PAGE 19

10 3. How do Florida’s full-time community college faculty envision an ideal governance process? 4. What is the relation between a faculty member’s level of involvement in institutional decision-making and his or her perception of institutional governance? Other questions that will be explored include: 5. What is the direction and strength of the relationship between a faculty member’s level of involvement in in stitutional governance and his or her gender? 6. What is the direction and strength of the relationship between a faculty member’s level of involvement in in stitutional governance and his or her race? 7. What is the direction and strength of the relationship between a faculty member’s level of involvement in in stitutional governance and his or her age? 8. What is the direction and strength of the relationship between a faculty member’s level of involvement in in stitutional governance and his or her years of employment at the institution? 9. What do faculty members perceive to be the factors within an institution that either encourage or discourage faculty participation in governance? Rationale Educational institutions, including co mmunity colleges, are not immune from organizational decay. Like businesses, educat ional institutions face challenges from the

PAGE 20

11 external societal environment. One of th e forces in this rapidly changing external environment is the postsecondary knowledge industry (Peterson & Dill, 1997), “defined as a set of competing organizati ons that utilize similar resources or attract similar clients, and that produce similar products and services” (p. 5). These competitors are both domestic and global (charter schools, pro liferation of online c ourses, boundaryless education, for-profit providers) and are influenced by rapid technological change (Internet in education, application of technol ogy for disabled student s, global electronic classrooms), and pressures for innovation (sta te and national account ability, parental and community concerns). In a hyperturbulen t environment (Harvey & Brown, 2000), the external forces shaping the postsecondary knowledge industry demand responsiveness and adaptability as community colleges gra pple with making the institutional decisions needed to address these challenges. One of the external forces affecting Florida’s community colleges is the recent change in statewide educational governance. Until the 2001 legislative year, Florida’s community colleges were responsible to a st atewide coordinating board called the State Board of Community Colleges. Reflecting the traditional, hierarchical structure of the community college, this board coordinate d a wide variety of community college functions among Florida’s 28 community coll eges. The State Board of Community Colleges reported to the Department of Edu cation and to the Stat e Board of Education, consisting of the governor and the cabinet. The Florida Association of Community Colleges (FACC), also a hierar chical structure with 16 commissions, each representing a specific constituency such as boards of trustees, faculty, career staff, administrative and professional personnel, and community college presidents, worked cl osely with the State

PAGE 21

12 Board of Community College to formulat e and communicate the community colleges’ legislative agenda. Florida’s community colleges are curren tly under a new law creating a Florida K20 education system. The Board of Comm unity Colleges no longer exists. A new position, Chancellor of Community Colleges, ap pointed by the governor, will be part of the state Department of Edu cation coordinated by the Florida Board of Education. The role of the Florida Association of Commun ity Colleges is in transition as are its commissions, such as the Council of Presidents It is unclear what effects these changes in statewide governance will have on instituti onal governance. However, it is clear that all the constituencies within the commun ity college—administrative and professional staff, career staff, faculty, and students—will be affected by the changes at the state level, and so will institutional governance. Another force affecting institutiona l governance is the in creasing number of collective bargaining units in Florida’s commun ity colleges. According to Florida State Statute 447.03, state employees have the right to form or join a labor union and the right to refrain from doing so. Currently, the Un ited Faculty of Florida is the collective bargaining agent for 10 of Florida’s community colleges while the American Association of University Professors is the bargaining agent for the largest Florida community college, Miami-Dade Community College. In 1980, just six community colleges had collective bargaining units (Gat lin, 1980). In a number of Florida community colleges with collective bargaining units, most notab ly, Broward Community College, a faculty senate exists that is separa te from the collective bargaini ng unit. Although such scholars as Dr. James Wattenbarger, founder of Florida’ s community college, have argued that the

PAGE 22

13 demise of faculty senates in community co lleges would be inevitable once collective bargaining units were approve d (Evelyn, 1998), in fact, facu lty senates are flourishing on some community college campuses with coll ective bargaining units. In January, 2001, the Community College Faculty Coalition of Florida (CCFC) was formed with representatives from both faculty senates and faculty unions “to promote academic excellence in the community college system, to ensure the professi onal identity of the community college faculty, and to ensure community college faculty inclusion in a shared and collegial approach to the gove rnance of the community college system” (CCFC, 2001). The founding of the CCFC supp orts Kaplan and Lee’s (1995) assertion that “although faculty senates have either b een abolished or atroph ied at a few colleges and universities, relationships between faculty unions and senates have, for the most part, been cooperative and mutual ly supportive” (p. 193). These transitions in community coll ege statewide governance come at a challenging time with the Florida Retirement System’s Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) resulting in thousands of faculty retirements st atewide beginning in July, 2003. A recent study by Berry, Hammons and Denny (2001) indicated that the mean percentage of faculty 55 or olde r at community colle ges nationwide is approximately 25% (as reported by chief academic officers), and the current expectation is that approximately 30,000 full-time community college faculty members will retire during the next decade. In fact, according to a recent speech by Dr Mark Milliron (2002) of the League of Innovation for Community Colleges, community colleges are expected to hire as many faculty members in the next five years as in the previous 20 years.

PAGE 23

14 A key question for community college faculty and administrators concerned about the looming number of retirement s is the impact on the governance of the institution. Although some senior faculty may suffer from “career malaise” (Alfred, 1985), many of these faculty members have likely been involved in institutional governance, and they will have to be repla ced on the college committees and the faculty governance bodies where they have served. In an attempt to gauge the impact of faculty retirement on faculty partic ipation in institutional d ecision-making, this study will examine the relation between the faculty member’s age and involvement in institutional governance as well as the relati on between the number of years the faculty member has served the institution and his or her involvement in institutional governance. Not only will the expected turnover in f aculty have implications for institutional governance as faculty members experienced in governance leave their institutions, but also for new faculty members entering the institu tion. Institutions will need to assimilate new faculty members into the decision-mak ing processes of the institution, raising several key issues. Accordi ng to a recent study by the National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment (Menges, 1999), new postsecondary faculty have four primary concerns: coping with stress, understanding job exp ectations, allocating their time, and receiving perf ormance evaluation and feedbac k. Given these concerns as new faculty cope with the demands of their first years of teaching, how soon should they become involved in institutional decision-ma king? How will the institution communicate its expectations to the new faculty regardi ng their participation in faculty governance? This study may shed light on these key quest ions by investigating how the number of

PAGE 24

15 years of employment at the institution is rela ted to the faculty member’s involvement in institutional governance. Minority faculty members as well as female faculty members can face particular challenges in the community college environment. The Fact Book of the Florida Community College System (2002) reports that 8.8% of fu ll-time instructional personnel in Florida’s community colleges are black, 7.3% are Hispanic, 2.5% are other minorities, and 51% are female. Of the community colle ge faculty surveyed by the National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment, women faculty members spent nearly twice as much time in service-related activities, including se rvice to the institution, in their first year of teaching. By the thir d year of teaching, female and male faculty members spent approximately the same amount of time in service activities (Menges, 1999). One question may be whether women are more likely to be asked to engage in institutional governance activities, including committee work, from the beginning of their time at the institution. Tierney and Bensimon ( 1996) asserted that minority faculty often believe they are obligated “to show good citi zenship toward the institution by serving its needs for ethnic representation on committees . which is not usually rewarded by the institution . .” (p. 75). This statement ra ises the question whether minority faculty are additionally taxed by their instit utions and whether these faculty as well as others in the institution view such “cultural taxation” (T ierney & Bensimon, 1996) as a distraction from other responsibilities, including teachi ng. Understanding the level of involvement of female faculty members and minority facu lty members in institutional governance may help faculty and administrators who are work ing toward a good institutional fit for these faculty members.

PAGE 25

16 With the rapidly changing landscape community colleges are facing, involving faculty in institutional decision-making is a challenge. When a quick response time is needed, involving more personnel, especially faculty with their teaching demands, can be cumbersome. Yet when faculty are not enga ged in making the decisions that directly affect them, faculty may feel isolated from the administration and may not embrace those decisions. Limitations/Delimitations This study will be delimited by the selection of the target population of full-time instructional community college faculty in th e state of Florida. In many of Florida’s community colleges, particip ation in faculty governance is limited to full-time faculty members. Further limitations will likely incl ude the survey response rate and the reliance upon a respondent to determine his or he r self-reported level of involvement in governance. Definitions Three definitions are central to this research proposal: institutional governance faculty governance and faculty governance body Community college scholars such as Birnbaum (1988), Lee (1991), and Lovas and Fryer (1991) define institutional governance in terms of both the formal and in formal decision-making structures within the institution and the “process used to reach decisions [as well as] the outcome of recommendations from governance groups to higher-level individua ls or groups” (Lee, 1991, p. 42). Based on the work of these scholars, institutional governance, for the purposes of this study, is defined as the inform al and formal processes and structures for

PAGE 26

17 setting policy and solving problems within the institution. Within this study, institutional governance is also referred to as institutional decision-making In many community colleges, the formal and informal governance structures and processes include shared responsibility between administration and faculty for institutional decision-making. Such part icipative governance (Twombly & Amey, 1994) involves faculty and administration collabora ting in making decisions related to the institution’s missions, goals, and obje ctives. In this study, the term faculty governance denotes the processes and struct ures for the inclusion of facu lty in institutional decisionmaking. The formal structure for faculty governance is generally a faculty senate or other forum for the purpose of giving voice to thos e affected by administrative decisions so “they can decide, act, and react in the serv ice of institutional purposes” (Lovas & Fryer, 1991, p. 150). For this study, a faculty governance body is defined as a forum generally composed of elected faculty representative s organized for the purpose of advising the administration regarding polic ies affecting faculty. A faculty governance body is also referred to as a faculty advisory body This faculty governance body or faculty advisory body is not a collective bargaining unit.

PAGE 27

18 Chapter 2 Review of the Literature Community colleges, like all organizations are social constructs. As within all organizations, there is interdependence w ithin the community college among all the participants—faculty, students, boards of trustees, admini stration, career staff, and community. As an educational institution, the community college relies on this interdependence, including the communica tion among the various participants, for solving problems and adapting to change s both without and within the institution. The success or the failure of a community college to adapt to change is often a result of the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of ins titutional decision-making and leadership at all levels of the organization. Typically, decision-making in community colleges has taken place within five spheres of influence: 1. administrative dominance (decisions made unilaterally by the administration); 2. administrative primacy (administrative d ecisions made with input from other constituencies including faculty); 3. shared authority (decision-making pow er shared by administration and faculty); 4. faculty dominance (unilateral faculty decisions); 5. faculty primacy (faculty decisions made with input from other constituencies including administration. (AAHE, 1967)

PAGE 28

19 While this spheres of influence model is helpful in understanding where decisions are made within higher education institutions, other models from the discipline of organizational development can help illuminate how and why an institution makes its decisions. In Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership Bolman and Deal (1997) discuss frames (or models) from which organizational decision-making can be viewed. Each frame—the structural mode l, the human resource model, the political model, and the cultural/symbolic model—offe rs a useful lens for the research of institutional governance. Structural Model The structural model is a framework for understanding an or ganization’s patterns of communication and decisionmaking. Structural models are most often associated with bureaucracies, “the t ype of organization designed to accomplish large-scale administrative tasks by systematically c oordinating the work of many individuals” (Birnbaum, 1988). The structure of the organizat ion is used to set in motion policies and procedures related to the organization’s obj ectives and to determine daily operations necessary to achieve the organizatio n’s goals (Gollatscheck, 1985). Although structures for organizations ha ve existed as long as organizations themselves, recent understandings of the structur al model have their origins in the work of such organizational resear chers as Weber (1947) and Mintzberg (1979). Weber’s work emphasized the division of labor among employees as well as set policies and procedures while Mintzberg’s theories addr essed specific elements of the organization including the technostructure, operating core, and support st aff (Bolman & Deal, 1997). Essential characteristics of the structural model include roles defined by position and

PAGE 29

20 responsibilities, rule s and procedures, and organizati onal charts delineating lines of authority and supervision. The organization’s size and ag e, the turbulence of the environment, the integration of informa tion technology, and the professionalism of the workforce (Bolman & Deal, 1997) influen ce these characteristics. The underlying assumption of the structural model is that quality and performance will increase with formal structures that fit the organi zation and its mission (Bolman & Deal, 1997). Within educational institutions, a common source of authority is administrative authority (those responsible for the coor dination and supervision of organizational activities) (Birnbaum, 1988) Community colleges have often experienced top-down decision-making with “decisions usually made at the top of th e administrative unit assigned authority for making such a decision” (Gollattscheck, 1985, p. 84). However, professional authority (those whose positions stem from knowledge and autonomy) is also central to any educa tional organization. The faculty constitute professional authority (Birnbaum, 1988) and, accordingly, are part of the educational organization’s formal structure. When faculty senates first began to ta ke hold in community colleges in the 1970’s and 1980’s, faculty senates were generally advisory bodies characterized by informal consultation with the administration (F loyd, 1985). Faculty decision-making and administrative decision-making occurred in “s eparate jurisdictions” (Deegan, 1985) with faculty making academic decisions and administration responsible for non-academic decisions. As faculty senates matured within the co mmunity college structure, some senates promoted decision-making authority shared with the administration. This shared

PAGE 30

21 authority represented an attempt to identify st ructural processes so that all participants within the organization had clear roles in making and implementing institutional policies (Floyd, 1985). Viewed from a structural framework, hier archical organizations may experience several benefits. One advant age is the potential for clea r lines of communication, both lateral and vertical, among employees (Bol man & Deal, 1997). These communicate lines can promote the creation of forums for in formation-sharing (Ouchi, 1981), such as faculty senates. Bureaucratic organizations also promise efficiency and quick response time in making decisions since responsibilities for making decisions are aligned with job descriptions. College administrators may ar gue that a structural framework allows the college “to speak with a single voice to ex ternal agencies” (Birnbaum, 1988, p. 17) and free up faculty to focus on curriculu m development and accountability. While hierarchical structures provide control of information, resources, and support, difficulties may occur when conflicts arise within the organization, particularly if information only comes through official communication channels, resources are predetermined without employee input, and support is only provided for official mandates (Kanter, 1983). Employees may not commit themselves to top-down decisions that they were not involved in making (Gollattscheck, 1985), possibly resulting in alienation and segmentation (Ouchi, 1981). Organizations, seen from a structural framework, are complex social entities. A high degree of structure can get in the way of employees ’ productivity, including their participation in inst itutional decision-making (Bolman & Deal, 1997). For example, in a complex educational institution, those faculty interested in governance may lack the

PAGE 31

22 expertise and/or the time to understand how institutional re sources are acquired or how decisions are made (Birnbaum, 1988). As a re sult, faculty may evaluate the effectiveness of faculty governance based on what decisi on was made rather than on the decisionmaking processes used to make it (Gollattscheck, 1985). Effective governance, from a structural fr amework, reflects “. . a belief in rationality and a faith that the right formal arrangements minimize problems and increase quality and performance. . The structural perspective focuses on designing a pattern of roles and relationships that will accomplis h collective goals as well as accommodate individual differences” (Bolman & Deal 1997, pp. 39-40). This pattern includes determining which decisions are to be shar ed, what actions should be taken once the decisions are made, and who is responsible for the outcome of those decisions (Allen, 1991). As faculty governance organizations mature, they will face numerous structural challenges. One challenge is maintaini ng open communications among all levels of the organization. Rationales for decision-maki ng and the information being used to make those decisions should be communicated to those whom the decisions affect (Gollattscheck, 1985). If open communication is not taking place, then the organization must be flexible enough to re vise its structures and pro cesses to remedy the situation (Alfred, 1994). The structure must also be r eady to adapt to changes in circumstances, both internal and external to the organizat ion (Bolman & Deal, 1997). A key structural question for community colleges interested in effective ins titutional governance is, “What percentage of those involved can accurately desc ribe the institutional system of internal

PAGE 32

23 governance, [and] what steps can be take n to increase awaren ess where needed” (Gollattscheck, 1985, p. 89)? As reflected in the literature, the stru ctural model provides a helpful framework for community college researchers since “ma ny of the early community colleges began as heavily bureaucratic instituti ons, and most have retained at least some vestiges of bureaucratic governance” (p. 91). The effectiven ess of a structural model, in relation to institutional governance, will likely be the efficiency of the college’s response to institutional problems and its processes for th e development of rules and procedures to resolve these problems (Birnbaum, 1991, p. 11). The Human Resources Model Not only can institutional governance be vi ewed from a structural framework, but also from a human resources perspective. The human resources model, unlike the structural model, does not emphasize pro cesses for decision-making as much as participation, interaction, and coopera tion among employees. The human resources model views the talents and en ergies of individuals worki ng together to achieve common goals as key to the organization’s success. If a metaphor for the structural model is a factory, then a metaphor for the human resources frame is a family (Bolman & Deal, 1997) or an orchestra (Harvey & Brown, 2001). The origins of the human resources model can be found in the field of organizational development. Influenced by th e post-war industrial success of Japanese business, Ouchi (1981), Kanter (1983), De ming (1986), and others asserted that employees want to perform well and, given the opportunity, will make decisions for the overall good of the organization.

PAGE 33

24 The assumptions of the human resources framework are that: Organizations exist to serve human needs. . .People and organizations need each other: organizations need ideas, energy, a nd talent; people need careers, salaries, and opportunities. . A good fit benefits both: individuals find meaningful and satisfying work, and organizations get the ta lent and energy they need to succeed. (Bolman & Deal, 1997, pp. 102-103) In the human resources model, decisi on-making responsibility is spread through all levels of the institution for the purpose of empowering employees to become proactive in aiding the achievement of institutional goals and objectives (Harvey & Brown, 2001). Because they are empowered, employees ar e more likely to be committed to the organization and responsible for the implement ation of the decisions they make (Harvey & Brown, 2001). More important than any elemen t of the decision itsel f is the quality of employee’s commitment to the decision (Twombly & Amey, 1994). The goal of decision-making from the human resources pers pective is to capitalize on the investment of organizational participants and to maximize their effort s to get things accomplished (Kanter, 1983; Twombly & Amey, 1994). The human resources model offers many adva ntages to those inte rested in shared, or participatory, governance. In a college community, the institution should grant all community members the responsibility for involvement in decision-making and the “freedom to exercise it” (Twombly & Ame y, 1994, p. 272). O’Hara (1990) listed nine institutional variables of importance to the professional development of community college faculty. Three of these variable s—participative management, meaningful involvement in the institution’s mission a nd goals, and open access to development of a

PAGE 34

25 budget—were directly related to the persona l involvement of facu lty in institutional governance. Pope and Miller (2000) reported that a survey of 265 community college faculty members showed positive gains in attitudes toward students, organization of courses, motivation, and interest in teaching wh en faculty actively pa rticipated in college governance. Another advantage of the human resources framework is the chance for faculty and administration to work together to ope n communication channels for the purpose of developing shared values and vision (O uchi, 1981; Birnbaum, 1988). These open communication channels then allow the voices of employees to be heard in decisionmaking processes and knowledge to be sh ared among employees (Ouchi, 1981). When decision-making results from faculty’s par ticipation, any dissente rs will likely be pressured to accept the decisions of the group (Yukl, 1981). Participatory decisionmaking also provides avenues for conflict re solution (Yukl, 1981) and leads to sense of accomplishment and pride among employees (Kanter, 1983). In their survey of community college faculty, Thaxter and Grah am (1999) cited numerous studies arguing for participative management including improved work quality, employee commitment, and decision-making processes. The human resources model presents instit utional challenges as well. One of the primary dilemmas is the lack of involvement by some employees. For example, college administration officials could argue that it is unreasonable to expect the same level of involvement in decision-making from all facu lty and that some decisions cannot wait until all are ready to participate in making them (Kanter, 1983). Furthermore, they assert, while faculty desire involvement in making institutional decision, they generally do not

PAGE 35

26 like administrative and committee work. Administrators may ask how faculty can expect to reach “their goal of participation in decision-making as long as they shun the mechanism though which decisions are made” (Cohen & Brawer, 1989, p. 85). Faculty, on the other hand, may perceive the administration as having no clear goals and may assume that decision-making is based only on administrators’ interests (Alfred, 1985). Furthermore, many faculty will argue that there is no time for participation in institutiona l governance, particularly wh en the outcomes of this involvement are incremental and sometimes ba rely noticeable, and administrators often provide little incentive or reward s for faculty involvement. In a study of factors related to job satisfaction among community college facu lty, Milosheff (1990) found that the more time community college faculty members spent on activities at school such as advising and committee work, the lower the job satisfaction. Unfortunately, faculty members’ unwillingness to be involved in participativ e governance could derail any attempt to promote shared governance (Twombly & Am ey, 1994): “If participation relies on volunteers, it may not be representative; if it does not, it may be coercive” (Kanter, 1983). Both administration and faculty, then can be guilty of segmentalism, “compartmentalizing actions, event, and probl ems, and keeping each piece isolated from the others” (Kanter, 1983). The result of segmentalism is often seeing problems narrowly, independent of connection and problems (Kanter, 1983). Institutional stakeholders may focus only on their agendas to the detriment of the institution’s overall advancement (Allen & Glickman, 1992). For in stance, faculty advisory bodies are often viewed as “watchdog” organizations. Richar dson (1973) cited a specific weakness of

PAGE 36

27 faculty “watchdog” organizations —that is, the lack of partic ipation when matters other than welfare issues were at stake. In fact Richardson argues, “Organizations advisory to the president seem to be most effective when they reach conclusions previously endorsed by the president” (p. 304). Another challenge of the human resources model is that, unlike the structural model, there may be ambiguity about who is responsible for deci sions (Gollattscheck, 1985). Such diffusion may result that the re sponsibility for the success or failure of decisions may be difficult to discern (Yukl, 1981). Birnbaum (1991) warned that faculty participation in decision-making could be: . organized anarchy. . a loosely c oupled system in which individuals and subunits within the organization make essentially autonomous decisions. Institutional outcomes are a result of these only modestly interdependent activities and are often neither planned nor predictabl e. It is difficult to make inferences about cause and effect, to determine how su ccessful one is, or even to be certain in advance whether certain environmental changes or evolving issues will turn out to be important or trivial. (p. 21) Shared governance is probably most de sirable when viewed through a human resources frame—a “. . perspective [which ] regards people’s skills, attitudes, energy, and commitment as vital resources capable of either making or br eaking an enterprise” (Bolman & Deal, 1997, p. 101). Through this frame, the college faculty and administration recognize a need for each other as individuals with the shared values of meaningful work and commitment to student s. The human resources model recognizes

PAGE 37

28 that “the degree to which people are valued in the organization contro ls, to a large extent, the quality of work life for participants in the organi zation” (Lovas & Fryer, 1991, p. 145). The Political Model The political model emphasizes deci sion-making not through structures or employee collegiality but through the exercise of power (Lovas & Frayer, 1991). The metaphor for the political model is an arena, an “organization. . alive and screaming. . [with] a complex web of institutional and group interests” (Bolman & Deal, 1997). The political model is built on authority, constitu encies, coalitions, and conflicts. From a political perspective, “power and influen ce. . [are] the secret of success for both individuals and their organiza tions” (Pfeffer, 1992, p. 345). In a structural model, authority co mes from position (Alfred, 1985) while in a political model, authority represents “onl y one among many forms of power” (Bolman & Deal, 1997, p. 167). Power, “the capacity to mo bilize resources of th e institution for the attainment of specific goals” (Alfred, 1985) can originate from employees who have special expertise, for example, knowledge of advanced technology. Power can also be the result of coercion, the “ability to produce intended change in others, to influence them so that they will be more likely to ac t in accordance with one’s own preferences” (Birnbaum, 1988). Those employees who direct the institution’s deci sion-making agenda certainly have power, as do those who contro l the distribution of rewards and incentives (Bolman & Deal, 1997). Networks and allian ces can build constituencies that wield power. Articulate, charismatic leaders w ithin organizations exude power as well (Bolman & Deal, 1997).

PAGE 38

29 The primary benefit of the political model is organizational renewal and transformation. The organizational energy w ithin a political framework can promote unity, as opposed to fragmentation, among internal constituencies; encourage fluid participation in institu tional decision-making; and genera te responsiveness, rather than vulnerability, to the external milieu (Alf red, 1994). A political perspective values organizations “with fluid and permeable boundaries. . open to meet the unending pressures for change” (Wheatley, 1999). Within educational institutions, governan ce, from a political framework, is the “process for locating authority, power, a nd influence for academic decisions among constituencies internal and external to the college” (Alfred, 1985). The governance process varies depending on whether the colle ge has a union represen ting its faculty. Unions generally have prescribed, focused ro les regarding specific issues such as work conditions, job security, and sa lary/benefits packag es (Alfred, 1985). A union contract details who makes what decisions and th e negotiation process between faculty and administration. In schools w ithout faculty unions, faculty governance bodies often serve as forums “for the articulation of intere sts and as the setting in which decisions on institutional policies and goals are reache d through compromise, negotiations, and the formation of coalitions” (Birnbaum, 1991, p. 11). The political objectives for faculty go vernance include the strengthening of faculty capabilities to make institutional deci sions, the developmen t of opportunities for leadership, and an increase in job satisfac tion (Alfred, 1994). The discussion of varying opinions helps participants in faculty gove rnance understand both the contentiousness and the complexity of some issues (Birnbaum, 1991).

PAGE 39

30 Even faculty with no real decision-making power play an important political role within the structure of the organization. Birnbaum (1991) saw the role of the faculty not only a catalyst for change but also a set of brakes: The existence of a [faculty] senate reduces administrative aspirations for change and increases the caution with which th e administration acts. This not only protects much of value w ithin the organization but also prevents the unwitting disruption of ongoing but latent systems through which the [college] keeps the behavior of organizational participan ts within acceptabl e bounds. (p. 19) Of course, participating in a political framework requires access, and, according to Pope and Miller (2000), acce ss of faculty to institutionallevel decision-making varies greatly from institution to institution. For example, inequalities can develop if access to information is not available to all constituenci es, resulting in lower participation in the political process (Kanter, 1983). Furthermor e, access is not equivalent to decisionmaking. For many community college faculty governance organizations, access means input in the decision-making process but without control over the outcome (Barwick, 1989). The political framework, as applied to faculty governance organizations, has many other potential pitfalls. Richardson (1973 ) believed that the “g rafting” of faculty advisory bodies into an alre ady hierarchical structure had resulted in many cases “in the appearance of involvement [rather] than its substance” (p. 301). Too often, faculty groups replicate the bureaucratic structures already existing within a college (Twombly & Amey, 1994).

PAGE 40

31 Another obstacle is a lack of shared know ledge needed to make decisions (Alfred, 1985), which may result from both administrativ e direction over communication channels and a lack of faculty and administrative l eadership continuity (Lee, 1991). How does a faculty member know what information and resources are needed to influence a decision? How does a faculty member learn to promote an idea throughout the organization? How does a faculty member gauge the opposition to ce rtain ideas and effectively disarm his or her opponents? How does the faculty leader keep his or her constituents informed about the process? How does a faculty leader co mmunicate not just his or her successes but also his or her failures? Faculty leadersh ip requires highly developed social skills including the ability to motivate colleagues to work together toward a shared goal. A lack of such leadership can result in in stitutional power struggles and a loss of trust between faculty and administration (Guffe y, Rampp, & Masters, 1999). If faculty advisory bodies do not take acti on but just set agendas, they can be regarded as part of the bureaucracy rather than as a vehicle for empowerment (Kanter, 1983, p. 255). In a political framework, conflicts in evitably arise. Both faculty and administration can bring interests that are se lf-serving into the governance process. Some participants in governance may want to im press those outside the group rather than working to achieve the group’s goals and objec tives (Kanter, 1983). The result can be polarization between faculty and administrati on. Administration may view faculty “as self-interested, unconcerned with controlling co sts, or unwilling to respond to legitimate requests for accountability” (Birnbaum, 1988) wh ile faculty may view administration as too remote from the “central academic concerns that define the institution” (Birnbaum, 1988). Conflicts may also arise among the f aculty as a result of differences in ages,

PAGE 41

32 disciplines, and tenure status, or between those faculty who favor collective bargaining and those who do not (Alfred, 1985). Given all the obstacles to political succe ss, how, then, can one determine whether faculty participation in decision-making is politically effective? Birnbaum (1991) suggested that political effec tiveness is the degree to wh ich the faculty governance body, representing its constituencies sets clear goals and policie s. Guffey, Rampp, & Masters (1999) asserted that if the goal is shared governance, then political effectiveness means that all stakeholders should be involved in the process of ma king the decisions that affect them and must be responsible for those deci sions. Surely, in a healthy organization, political effectiveness should mean transforma tion of the institution with “active people engaging in influence relations hips based on persuasion, intend ing real changes to happen and insisting that those changes reflect their mutual purposes” (Rost, 1993). The Cultural/Symbolic Model Each organization has a distinctive culture This culture is a reflection of the mission and values of the organization, includ ing both the organizati on’s traditions and its dynamic energies. Schein (1992), a scholar in the field of organi zational development, defined organizational culture as: a pattern of shared basic assumptions that a group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and inte gration [and] that has worked well enough to be considered valid and therefor e to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. (p. 12) An organization’s symbols and rituals also contribute to an or ganization’s culture and communicate the values of the organiza tion to the employees (Ouchi, 1981). The

PAGE 42

33 metaphor for the cultural/symbolic model is a theater, and the participants in the organization are the actors on the stage (Bol man & Deal, 1997). The theater of the organization “entertains, creates meaning, and portrays the organization to itself” (p. 237). Symbols are signs in an or ganization that communicate the organization’s culture to the outside world. An organization’s sy mbols evolve due to the influences of individuals within th e organization as well as change s in the external environment (Tierney, 1991). These symbols bind the common experiences of the organization’s employees. An organizational symbol can be an act or event or even a position on an organizational chart (Tierney, 1991). The symbolic/cultural model has several key assumptions. One is that the meaning of an event within an organizati on is more important than what actually occurred. Another is that th e creation of symbols in an or ganization is a hopeful activity that provides directions to the organization’s pa rticipants. Furthermore, the expression of a process is more significant than what th e process produces (Bolman & Deal, 1997). Organizational symbols can be metaphor ical, physical, communicative, or structural (Tierney, 1991). Each of these types of symbols can be related to faculty advisory bodies. For example, a metaphori cal symbol is a figure of speech. The president of a community college might refer to the institution as a family and the faculty senate as family members. The family meta phor would be one symbol of the institution’s culture. A physical symbol is an artifact. An illustration is a stole worn by faculty senate members at graduation as a symbol of their participation in institutional governance. This physical symbol is de signed to communicate participation in

PAGE 43

34 institutional governance in a tangible form. Communicativ e symbols are verbal or nonverbal activities designed to send a me ssage about a group’s role within the organization (Tierney, 1991). For instance, a president of a community college might ask the president of the faculty senate to sit be side him at a board of trustees meeting to approve the college’s budget. The intended meaning of this action is to convey unity to the college’s governing board. A structural symbol is a process often designed to symbolize inclusion or change (Tierney, 1991). Many community college presidents include faculty representatives on joint bi g decisions committees (Yamada, 1991) to symbolize inclusion in institutional decisi on-making. Faculty advisory bodies are symbolic of the faculty’s i ndividual and collective comm itment to professionalism (Birnbaum, 1991). Cultural symbols are often pr esent in shared rituals w ithin organizations. In a community college, participation in graduation is an illustration of a shared ceremony. Ceremonies are designed to foster social ization within the organization and to communicate the stability of the organization to external constituencies (Bolman & Deal, 1997). Another example of a shared ritual is a faculty governance organization’s use of a standard agenda and rules of order (Birnba um, 1991). These rituals promote a sense of professionalism and integration within the organization (Birnbaum, 1991). The symbolic/cultural model, like the othe r models presented in this chapter, is not without its challenges. On e is the possibility of confused messages sent in shared rituals and ceremonies. A community college may give faculty governance participants a distinctive place to sit at graduation, but such prominence does not mean that the opinions of faculty are valued in institutional decision-ma king. Faculty may be cynical

PAGE 44

35 about the illusion of inclusion, “participa tion just for show, without any impact on substance” (Kanter, 1983, p. 254). Another challe nge is to be certain that the symbols of the organizational culture are consistent with its mission and the shared values of the employees. Faculty participation in institutional decision-making, then, can also be viewed symbolically—as an expression of the college’ s culture, “. . the in terwoven pattern of beliefs, values, practic es, and artifacts that define fo r members who they are and how they are to do things” (Bolman & Deal, 1997, p. 217). At its best, faculty participation in decision-making should “. . symbolize a ge neral faculty commitment to substantive values” (Birnbaum, 1991, p. 12). At its worst, faculty participati on is symbolic only— with no political power. Summary While each of the models—structura l, human resources, political, and cultural/symbolic—illuminates the decision-making processes of organizations, no model is sufficient unto itself. Successful orga nizations balance the autonomy of their employees with structures and processe s, the desires of their employees for empowerment with a search for “a common purpose and language” (Twombly & Amey, 1994). Shared, or participatory, governan ce can meld the human resources and cultural/symbolic models with the structural and political models. Shared governance promotes: clarity when the structures a nd processes for making decisions are known by the college’s constituencies; openness thr ough access to decision-making processes; fairness when the constituencies believe thei r voices are being hear d; and trust through respect for all institutiona l actors (Lovas & Fryer, 1991). The result can be “a

PAGE 45

36 governance model that is participatory in na ture but with clear lines regarding how decisions are made” (Myran & Howdyshell, 1994, p. 599). Shared governance, however, is not ye t a reality in many of the nation’s community colleges. Gilmour (1991) c onducted a national study of participative governance bodies, including those in commun ity colleges. Although the response rate from community colleges was low (30% of in stitutions sampled), the community colleges that did respond indicated that participa tion in faculty governance was insufficiently rewarded, that the governance bodies lacked efficient processes for decision-making, and that more member participation was need ed to strengthen the organization of the governance body. Organizations should focus their atten tion on the governance systems themselves and not just the individual decisions ma de by them. Good institutional governance should not be left to chance (Gollattscheck, 1985). An awareness of institutional governance should include “what it is and wh at it can and should be, what it does and what it can and should do” (Gollattscheck, 1985, p. 87). Other Relevant Studies In fluencing This Research Although many studies have researched faculty governance in higher education institutions, few have examined community coll ege faculty’s participation in the internal decision-making processes of their institutions. As related to Florida’s community colleges, only one dissertation (Gatlin, 1980) has examined internal governance structures and faculty partic ipation in institutional governance. However, for the purposes of his research, the author did not separate faculty and administration into separate groups. Instead, th e participants in the study were randomly selected from a list

PAGE 46

37 of all administrators, teachers, counselors, and librarians in Fl orida’s 28 community colleges. The literature review discussed the role of the trustees, president, and students in governance, yet trustees and students were excluded from the participants in the study. Gatlin (1980) collected data using a survey in strument developed by the researcher. The survey included sections about the respondent’s demographics and his or her institution, the respondent’s perception of the faculty’s role in various activities surrounding faculty concerns, and his or her level of satisfaction with the faculty role. This research study revealed the following findings: 1. Policy in Florida’s community colleges is administered from the top; 2. Respondents “indicated that they ‘d esired’ a ‘consulta tion’ level of participation” (p. 100); 3. The size of the institution was not si gnificantly related to the faculty participation level; 4. Nine of the colleges were satisfied or very satisfied with their decisionmaking roles while 10 were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied; 5. Participants were most dissatisfied with their decision-maki ng in the areas of personnel and faculty welfare 6. Twenty-six of the 28 colleges reporte d faculty advisory bodies for general decision-making. A review of this study (Gatlin, 1980) reveal ed a gap in the literature that this research project proposes to address. Whereas Gatlin’s (1980) research used each Florida community college as the unit of analysis (resu lting in a small sample), this researcher will consider the individual faculty member as the unit of analysis. Furthermore, since

PAGE 47

38 the purpose of the currently propos ed research is to examine the level of involvement of Florida’s community college faculty in govern ance in relation to th eir perceptions of institutional governance, this researcher wi ll survey only full-time community college faculty as opposed to faculty and administrators. Miller & Vacik (1998), two researchers fr om the National Data Base on Faculty Involvement in Governance (NDBFIG), author ed another influentia l study. This study surveyed faculty from three community colleg es in Mississippi, Nebr aska, and Georgia. The 25-item survey was divided into three part s: “perceptions of f aculty involvement in governance; characteristics of an ideal gove rnance process; and ro les of faculty in governance” (p. 1). The central question addres sed in the research was, how do faculty in community colleges “perceive their role in i nvolvement in governance activities” (p. 1)? Asked to self-report their involvement in f aculty governance, 53% of the 110 respondents reported that they were somewhat invol ved in governance wh ile 27% perceived themselves as being not involved an d 20% as being very involved. The authors used analysis of variance ( ANOVA) procedures to evaluate the data. Of the questions related to f aculty’s perceptions of their involvement in governance, the reported mean was highest for the item, “Issues considered by our faculty advisory body are important” ( M = 4.02, SD = 0.82) and lowest for “Faculty members are adequately rewarded for their participation in the governance process” ( M = 2.86, SD = 1.05). Of the questions related to faculty ro les in governance, the reported mean was highest for the item, “Facilitate c ooperation with administration” ( M = 4.22, SD = 0.71) and lowest for “Assist in clarifying roles of ad ministrators so that th ey know they are to administer policy and not impose their own” ( M = 3.75, SD = 1.02).

PAGE 48

39 For the last section, “Perceived Character istics of an Ideal Governance Process,” the highest reported mean was for the item, “The faculty advisory board is utilized as a conduit through which faculty part icipation is solicited” ( M = 3.95, SD = 0.85). The ANOVA procedures did reveal signi ficant differences be tween very involved faculty and not involved faculty and betw een somewhat involved faculty and not involved faculty on the first section of the su rvey (“Perceptions of Faculty Involvement in Governance”). Unfortunately, the author s (Miller and Vacik, 1991) did not state any descriptors or characteristics used to determ ine the faculty members’ self-reported levels of faculty involvement: highly involve d, somewhat involved and not involved. Miller and Vacik (1991) concluded by emphasizing the importance of involved faculty in the process of sh ared governance. Specifically, they argued that “shared governance seems rooted in the belief that faculty can and will ac t responsibly when given charges to perform and decisions to make” (p. 4). In another study (Armstrong, Miller, & Newman, 2001), the authors summarized the findings of NDBFIG-spons ored studies since 1993. Th e following findings are relevant to this study: 1. “Researchers found no legal basis for f aculty involvement in administrative policy or decision-making” (p. 82); 2. “Involvement in governance activities was positively correlated with perceived teaching effectiveness” (p. 83); 3. “Teaching faculty did not differ from their research-oriented colleagues about their responsibility to ac ademic citizenship” (p. 83).

PAGE 49

40 The authors further acknowledged that th e study of faculty governance in community colleges has been limited. This study will add to the literature regarding governance in higher education by investigating the invo lvement of full-time faculty in governance in a rapidly growing community college system. The use of Miller and Vacik’s 1991 survey and the research questions from Chapter 1 of this proposal will explore the level of involvement of Florida’s full-time community college facu lty in institutional governance and their perceptions of the involvement of their facult y advisory bodies in institutional decisionmaking. Due to the changing lands cape of Florida’s educatio nal system, this research study will also examine the relation between the level of involvement of a community college faculty member and race, age, gender, and number of years at the institution. Finally, this study will investigate certain fact ors within an institutio n’s environment that encourage or discourage faculty partic ipation in institutional decision-making.

PAGE 50

41 Chapter 3 Methodology The purposes of this study are: 1) to determine the level of involvement of Florida’s full-time community college faculty in institutional d ecision-making; 2) to examine Florida’s full-time community college faculty’s perceptions of their faculty governance body’s role in institutional governance as well as their pe rception of an ideal process for governance; 3) to explore the re lation between a faculty member’s level of involvement in governance and activities a nd his or her perceptions of faculty governance; 4) to investigate the relati on between a faculty member’s level of involvement and his or her gender, race, age, years of employment at the institution, and 5) to explore faculty members’ perceptions of institutional factors that encourage or discourage faculty partic ipation in governance. I used a survey and personal interviews to investigate each of the following research questions: 1. What is the level of involvement of Florida’s full-time community college faculty in inst itutional governance? 2. What are faculty members’ perceptions of the roles that faculty advisory bodies play in institutional governance? 3. How do Florida’s full-time community college faculty envision an ideal governance process?

PAGE 51

42 4. What is the relation between a faculty member’s level of involvement in institutional decision-making and his or her perception of institutional governance? Other questions that were explored include: 5. What is the direction and strength of the relationship between a faculty member’s level of involvement in in stitutional governance and his or her gender? 6. What is the direction and strength of the relationship between a faculty member’s level of involvement in in stitutional governance and his or her race? 7. What is the direction and strength of the relationship between a faculty member’s level of involvement in in stitutional governance and his or her age? 8. What is the direction and strength of the relationship between a faculty member’s level of involvement in in stitutional governance and his or her years of employment at the institution? 9. What do faculty members perceive to be the factors within an institution that either encourage or discourage faculty participation in governance? Using sound survey methods (Dillma n, 2000; Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996), I conducted a census survey of Florida’s full-ti me community college faculty. The intent of this research was to generalize the findings from the participants in the survey to the population of Florida’s full-time community college faculty.

PAGE 52

43 Following the administration of the surv ey, I conducted standardized, open-ended interviews (Patton, 2002) with 12 faculty dur ing two-day site visi ts to two Florida community colleges. The purpose of these interviews was to explore and interpret the faculty members’ views of 1) their level of involvement in their college’s faculty governance processes; 2) the involvement of their faculty advisory body in institutional decision-making; 3) their desc riptions of an ideal govern ance process; and 4) their perceptions of certain institutional factors that encourage or discourage faculty participation in governance (resea rch questions #1-3 and 9). The purpose of mixing quantitative and quali tative research was to enrich the study’s design by using more than one method of inquiry. The goal of a mixed design is “opportunities for deeper insigh t into the relation ship between inquiry approach and the phenomenon under study” (Patton, 2002, p. 248). Survey Sample The target population for this study was Florida’s full-time community college faculty. According to the Fact Book of the Florida Community College System (2002), Florida’s 28 community colleges employed 4,95 1 full-time instruc tional personnel in Fall, 2001. In December, 2002, I compiled a list of 5,582 email addresses of Florida’s full-time community college faculty from the web sites of the 28 Florida community colleges. After the deletion of email addre sses of community college employees who had been misidentified as faculty and the remova l of undeliverable emails from the faculty email address listing, the follow-up email remind er went to 5,122 faculty, a difference of 460 from the original number of email addre sses. This number is also 3.5% higher than the 4,951 full-time faculty reported in the Fact Book of the Florida Community College

PAGE 53

44 System (2002). However, the Fact Book data are based on Fall 20012002 annual personnel reports. The number of full-time f aculty is constantly changing, and the 2003 Fact Book has not yet been released. Following a pilot study in January, 2003, I then conducted a census survey of Florida’s full-ti me community college faculty in February and March, 2003. The unit of analysis wa s the individual faculty member. Interview Sample For the interviews, I used purposeful sampling to select 12 full-time faculty members, six each from two Florida co mmunity college campuses. I selected “information-rich cases” (Patt on, 2002, p. 46) based on the survey results. Specifically, I interviewed six faculty at each of the tw o colleges with among the highest survey response rate and the highest level of involve ment in faculty govern ance as self-reported by faculty (question III.8 on the survey). These two colleges, Santa Fe Community College in Gainesville, Florida, and Da ytona Beach Community College in Daytona Beach, Florida, also had among the highest means for survey questions #2 and #3. The selected faculty included both male and female interviewees as well as interviewees of different ethnicity. My inte nt was that the interviews on the first campus would inform and enrich the interviews on the second cam pus, drawing a more complete picture of faculty highly involved in the decision-m aking processes of their institutions. Survey Instrument I administered a 25-item survey (see Appendix A) to collect data from a census of full-time community college faculty in Fl orida. The items on this survey embodied three categories: perceptions of faculty involvement in governan ce (16 items), roles of faculty in the governance process (5 items), and perc eived characteristics of an ideal governance

PAGE 54

45 process (4 items). The survey asked faculty to rate their response to each item on a 1 to 5 point scale (1 = strongly disagr ee, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree). Each item also featured a don’t know category. Dr. Miller, curr ently a dean at San Jose State University, gave his permission to adapt the survey for use in this study. The survey also requested demographic information (date of birth, gender, institution, race, and years of service at the institution) to address resear ch questions #5 – 8. Furthermore, the survey featured several questions related to the faculty member’s participation in inst itutional governance. I used the responses to these questions to ascertain the faculty member’s level of involvement in institu tional decision-making Other changes to Miller and Vacik’ s (1998) original survey included new instructions and operatio nal definitions of key constructs such as level of involvement in faculty governance and faculty governance body Furthermore, some questions were reworded for clarity and consis tency of syntax. I added the response DK for don’t know N for neutral was changed to DK for don’t know to address “responde nts’ possible lack of familiarity with a topic” (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996, p. 297). Prior to the administration of the survey, I asked a panel of experts to examine the survey instrument for content validity, “the degr ee to which instructions for and formats of instruments are mutually intelligible to the instrument designer . and to the participants to whom the instrument is applied” (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984, pp. 231-232). This panel consisted of Ward Scott, pr esident of the Community College Faculty Coalition of Florida; Beverly Grundset, chai r of the Faculty Commission of the Florida Association of Community Colle ges; Theresa Geiger, former vice-president of the St. Petersburg College Faculty Senate, and George Greenlee, president of the St. Petersburg

PAGE 55

46 College Faculty Senate. Each of these paneli sts has years of experi ence and a high level of involvement in faculty governance in Florida’s community colleges. I requested the members of the panel to suggest questions that could be added to the survey to determine a faculty membe r’s level of involvement in institutional governance. Specifically, I interviewed each of the panel members regarding what questions he or she would ask a faculty memb er to determine the following: a high level of involvement in institutional governance, a moderate level of involvement in institutional governance, infrequent involvement in institutional govern ance, or a lack of involvement in institutional gove rnance. Furthermore, I aske d the panel to review each of the survey items for clarity and suggest ad ditions or deletions. As a further check of content validity, I requested th at the panel of experts defi ne the operational constructs from Chapter 1: institutional governance, faculty governance, and faculty governance body. To check for internal reliability, I co mputed a coefficient alpha on items 1-16 (questions related to the pe rceptions of faculty involve d in governance; items 17-20 (items related to the role s of faculty in the governan ce process); and items 21-25 (questions related to perceived characte ristics of an ideal governance process) (Miller & Vacik, 1998). I further computed a coeffi cient alpha for all 25 survey items. Miller and Vacik (1998) reporte d that a similar survey had been given six times and had achieved an internal reliability coefficient of .70.

PAGE 56

47 Interview Guide For the faculty interviews, I used an in terview guide with key questions designed to elicit responses from the interviewees (see Appendix B). In addition to the questions on the interview guide, I asked probing and follow-up questions as necessary. Procedures Following the submission of the survey to a panel of experts for content validity, I conducted a pilot study of the survey in Ja nuary, 2003, distributing the survey by email (see Appendix C) to a random sample of 400 full-time community college faculty. During the pilot study, I worked with a comput er consultant, Sean Woodruff, to assure successful data collection. St. Petersburg College granted space on one of its servers as well as access to the college’s SQL database The computer consultant programmed the survey in hypertext markup language, uploaded the su rvey to the college’s server, and wrote a PHP: Hypertext Preprocessor script to send the data directly from the web survey to the Structured Query Language (SQL ) database and then to Microsoft Excel for data analysis. Each response received a code to assist in data analysis and to ensure confidentiality. Based on suggestions by D illman (2000), the consultant and I worked together to design a web-based survey that would be easy to use including restrained use of color, plentiful white sp ace to increase readability, use of radio buttons for survey responses, “click here” messages to reveal drop-down menus, a “don’t know” category for every survey item, and a “thank you” messa ge at the completion of the survey (see Appendix D).

PAGE 57

48 The results from the pilot study both refine d the survey instrument and tested the functionality of the data co llection methods. The data co llection methods for the pilot study were as follows: 1. The faculty in the random sample receiv ed a presurvey email contact sent two or three days prior to the survey itse lf. The presurvey email identified the researcher and the purpose of the study. Dillman (2000) recommended a precontact email prior to the administrati on of a web survey in order “to leave a positive impression of importance so that the recipient will not immediately discard the questionnaire when it arrives” (p. 368). 2. The pilot study participants then received an email cover letter (Appendix C) identifying the study’s purpose, pr esenting the information regarding confidentiality and informed consent as approved by the University of South Florida’s Institutional Research Board, and indicating a response deadline. The cover letter concluded with a hyperlink to the web survey 3. Shortly before the deadline, I sent a nother email to the 400 faculty in the sample, thanking those who had responde d earlier and asking those who had not responded to do so by the stated deadline. Because the survey responses were anonymous, I had to send the reminder ema il to all possible participants. The reminder email also concluded with a hyperlink to the survey since Dillman (2000) suggested that another questionnair e be sent with any reminder message. As soon as the pilot study was completed, I sent a precontact email to all 5,582 email addresses of those identified as Fl orida’s full-time community college faculty. This precontact email was identical to that sent to the participants in the pilot study. As

PAGE 58

49 in the pilot study, I followed the precontact email with a cover letter including the hyperlink to the web survey and a follow-up reminder email. I used multiple contacts because recent research supports that this method is effective to increase the response rate for email surveys (Schaefer & Dillman, 1998). Each time an email was sent, I removed the undeliverable emails from the faculty email address listing. To obtain names of potential interviewees I contacted the two faculty senate presidents at each college, Ward Scott at Sa nta Fe Community College and D.J. Henry at Daytona Beach Community College, and requested a list of possible faculty interviewees to include both male and female faculty, facu lty experienced and inexperienced in faculty governance, and faculty reflecting ethnic diversit y. Ward Scott assist ed in arranging the six faculty interviews at Santa Fe. Faculty interviewees at Da ytona Beach Community College came from a variety of sources includi ng references from faculty senate officers, the Faculty Commission of the Florida Asso ciation of Community Colleges, and the Community College Faculty Coalition of Florida. The final list of interviewees included seven females and five males, including one African-American female, one Hispanic female, one Farsi male, and two physically handicapped faculty from a variety of disciplines. The list also in cluded one faculty member who was minimally involved in faculty governance, some who were new to faculty governance, and two who each had over 30 years experience in faculty governance. I employed the following data collect ion methods for the interview: 1. Each selected faculty member received an email asking him or her to participate in a one-hour, tape-recorded interview on a specific date, at a specific time, and in a designated location.

PAGE 59

50 2. Each interviewee signed an informed consent form approved by the University of South Florida’s Instit utional Research Board. This form delineated the purposes of the study, obt ained the faculty member’s informed consent, and assured the faculty member of confidentiality. 3. I then conducted and tran scribed the interview. 4. I sent a follow-up email thanking the interviewee for participating and his or her cooperation. All interviews were transcribed in their entirety, and I reviewed each transcript for accuracy and completeness. Garbled responses were noted as were unrelated interruptions. To preserve anonymity, initia ls, rather than names, appeared in the transcriptions. The date and time of each transcription were noted. Data Analysis The data analysis consisted of both desc riptive and inferential statistics. To answer research question #1, I constructed a frequency dist ribution table to report the faculty members’ self-reported le vel of involvement. For each of the questions in section III. of the survey, I used a correlation proce dure to determine the strength and direction of the relation between the response to the quest ion and the faculty me mber’s self-reported level of involvement. I also com puted a composite variable called a scale of involvement This variable is the sum of the z-scores obtained for each response to each question in section III. of the survey. To address research questions #2 and #3, I reported the means and standard deviations for each of the 25 survey items (from highest mean to lowest mean). I

PAGE 60

51 compared and contrasted the means of this survey administration to that of Miller and Vacik (1998). To answer question #4, I used corr elational statistical procedures for each of three null hypotheses: 1. There is no significant relationship be tween a faculty member’s level of involvement in faculty governance and his or her perceptions of faculty involvement in inst itutional governance. 2. There is no significant relationship be tween a faculty member’s level of involvement in faculty governance a nd his or her perceptions of the desired roles of faculty in institutional governance. 3. There is no significant relationship be tween a faculty member’s level of involvement in faculty govern ance and his or her perceived characteristics of an ideal governance process. For each of the above hypotheses, I comput ed a coefficient alpha for the related items on the survey. Then I conducted two correlation procedures. For the first procedure, the continuous independent variable was the measurement of the faculty member’s self-reported level of involveme nt in faculty governance. The dependent variable, also continuous, was the measure of the related items on the survey. For the second procedure, the conti nuous independent variable was the measurement of the faculty member’s scale of involvement. The dependent variable remained the same. Then I computed a Pearson product moment correlation coefficient to indicate the strength and direction of the relationsh ip between the independent and dependent variables. The p value rejected or failed to reject the null hypothesis

PAGE 61

52 For research question #4, I conducted an a priori power analysis (Cohen, 1977) to determine the desired number of respondent s based on a power of .80, a medium effect size (0.30), and an alpha level of .05. I chose a medium eff ect size of 0.30 that, according to Cohen (1977), “implies that 9% of the variance of the dependent variable is attributable to the independent variable” (p. 80). A medium effect size is common in behavioral science research (Cohen, 1977). Furthermore, beca use this research question had multiple nulls, I used a Bonferroni adjustme nt (SISA, n.d.) to lower the alpha level to .02. Using Cohen’s power tables (alpha = .01) I estimated that 110 pairs of observations will be needed or 220 total observations, resul ting in a desired number of respondents of 440. The null hypothesis for question #5 is th at there is no signi ficant difference between male faculty members’ levels of involvement in institutional governance and female faculty members’ levels of involveme nt. To answer question #5, I used two-tailed t-tests to examine the differences between the means of two groups, male faculty members and female faculty members, on the self-reported level of involvement. Then I followed with additional t-tests to determine the differences between the means of male faculty members and female faculty members on the scale of involvement variable. The obtained probability statistic ( p value) rejected or failed to reject the null hypothesis. A calculation of Cohen’s d for both procedures de termined the magnitude of the effect size. An a priori power analysis ( ES = 0.50, power = .80, a = .05) of research question #5 revealed a desired number of 64 in each group of observations or 128 total (Cohen, 1977). The desired number of respondent s for this research question is 256.

PAGE 62

53 The null hypothesis for research question #6 is that a faculty member’s level of involvement in institutional governance does not vary according to his or her race. To test this hypothesis, I used two analysis of variance (ANOVA) statis tical procedures and constructed an ANOVA summary table for each procedure. For the first ANOVA procedure, the nominal independent variable was the faculty member’s race while the dependent variable was the measure of the faculty member’s self -reported level of involvement. For the second ANOVA procedure, the nominal independent variable was the measure of the faculty member’s scale of involvement. The dependent variable remained the measure of the faculty membe r’s self-reported level of involvement. For both procedures, an examination of the p value rejected or failed to reject the null. I checked for any violation of a ssumptions—homogeneity of variance, independence of observations, and norma lity. If the ANOVA procedure revealed significant differences among groups, then post hoc procedures such as Tukey multiple comparison tests looked for differences among groups. An a priori analysis for research question #6 ( ES = 0.50, power = .80, alpha = .05, u = 4) resulted in a desired number of 40 in each group or 160 total observations (Cohen, 1977). I estimated a need for 320 respondents for this research question. The null hypothesis for question #7 is that there is no significant difference in the level of involvement of faculty according to age The null for question # 8 is there is no significant difference in the level of involve ment of faculty acco rding to the faculty member’s number of years at the institu tion. I tested both the null hypothesis for question #7 and the null hypothesis for question # 8 using correlation procedures. For the first correlation procedure, I computed a Pearson product moment correlation showing

PAGE 63

54 the strength and direction of the relationship between the faculty member’s self-reported level of involvement and number of years at the institution. For the second procedure, I computed a Pearson product moment correlati on indicating the streng th and direction of the relationship between the f aculty member’s scale of invol vement and his or her years at the institution. For both procedures, a p value rejected or failed to reject the null. For research questions #7 and #8, I conducted an a priori power analysis (Cohen, 1977) based on an effect size of 0.30, desired power of .80, and an alpha level of .05. Using Cohen’s power tables, I concluded that 64 pairs of observations will be needed or 128 observations total. The desired nu mber of survey respondents is 256. Following the statistical analysis of the responses to the survey, I completed a nonrespondent analysis ( n = 20). Nonresponse is a source of survey error. This analysis investigated whether the charac teristics of the faculty who did not respond to the survey were different from those who did respond. After the interviews were transcribed, I used an inductive analysis approach (Guba & Lincoln, 1985) to examine the text of the interviews for emergent themes and interrelationships; to clarify and interpret the meanings, both stated and implied, in the text; and to analyze the implicat ions of the interviews in li ght of this study’s research questions. Specifically, I scanned the da ta “for categories of phenomena and for relationships among such categ ories” (Guba & Lincoln, 1985, p. 335). I then described each category and its subcategories (Kvale 1996) in relation to its key terms and semantic relationships, careful to avoid overlapping of categories (Guba & Lincoln, 1985). Using textual analysis, I reviewed the meaning units for each category “indicating [the] occurrence and non-occurrence of a phenomenon” (Kvale, 1996, p. 192), my goal

PAGE 64

55 being the saturation of key themes within the qualitative data. In addition, I used structured narratives incorporating key quot es from the interviews to clarify and illuminate the qualitative data. Findings Based on an a priori analysis of each research question (Cohen, 1977), I estimated that the desired number of survey respondent s ranged from 256 to 440—a return rate of approximately 5% to 10%. No research de finitively provided da ta regarding response rates to web surveys. However, Vehovar, et al. (2002) stated that the response rate of web surveys solicited through email rarely reached 30%. I used SAS programming to analyze th e survey data and compute critical F values (for ANOVA procedures), criti cal t values (for t tests), correlation coefficients, and p values rejected or failed to reject each null. I then pres ented my quantitative research findings, implications, and recomme ndations for future research. The results of the analysis and interpretati on of the interviews were also reported. These results illuminated the dominant themes of the interviews and the consistencies and inconsistencies of the findings in re ference to the research questions.

PAGE 65

56 Chapter 4 Results In light of this study’s pur poses as stated in the previous chapter, this chapter presents the results of the quant itative and qualitative analysis used to investigate each of the research questions. Specifically, this chapter includes a summary of the data collection process, the research decisions re garding the treatment of the data, and the analysis of data results. Furthermore, th is chapter provides a summary of the interview process and a discussion of the themes that emerged from the transcriptions of the interviews. Pilot Study: Survey In December 2002, I conducted a study to evaluate the survey instrument for content validity. The validation study consiste d of interviews with a panel of experts, whose names are listed in Chapter 3. Each panel member identified activities that he or she believed were related to a high leve l of involvement in faculty governance, a moderate level of involvement, infrequent involvement, or a lack of involvement. When the interviews were completed and the results reviewed, the expert panel had identified the following activities as central to participation in faculty governance: attending faculty governance meetings, part icipating on college-w ide or campus-wide committees, and being involved in projects th at resulted in significant outcomes or recommendations to the college. The panel al so identified serving as an officer of a faculty governance body and/or a chair of a co llege wide or campus wide committee as

PAGE 66

57 indicative of significant faculty involvement in institutional governance. Based on these results, I revised the questions in the s econd section of the survey to include the information from the expert panel. Data collection for this study began with a pilot study of a web-based survey administered in January 2003. The survey (see Appendix A) consis ted of the stated purpose of the study, six questions requesting demographic information, nine questions related to participation in faculty governance activities, and a 25-item survey (Miller and Vacik, 1998). While Miller and Vacik (1998) re ported an internal reliability of .70, the Cronbach coefficient alpha for the survey items for this administration was .88. The pilot study distributed the survey by email to a random sample of 400 full-time community college faculty in the state of Fl orida from a list of 5,582 email addresses of Florida’s full-time community college faculty obtained in December, 2002, from the web sites of the twenty-eight Fl orida community colleges. Of the 400 faculty in the pilot study samp le, 37 responded for a response rate of 9%. During the pilot study, the data collec tion process (see Chapter 3) proved successful, including the transfer of the data from th e web survey to the SQL database. Email addresses of community college employees w ho had been misidentified as faculty were also removed. Survey Distribution Following the pilot study, I distributed the survey in February, 2003, according to the data collection process delineated in Chapter 3. Of the 5,122 faculty members who received the final email regarding the surve y, 560 completed the survey for a response rate of 11%. This response rate met the desi red rate as determined by the a priori power

PAGE 67

58 analysis. Of the 560 respondents, the av erage age was 51 year s with 14 years of experience at the institution. Two hundred sixty-three (47%) were male, and 297 (53%) were female. According to the Fact Book of the Florida Community College System (2002), 2,424 (49%) full-time Florida commun ity college instructional personnel were male, and 2,527 were female (51%). A chi-square test indicated that the proportions of males and females in the sample were not si gnificantly different fr om the proportions of males and females in the population ( X2 = 0.80, p = .37). Thus, both male and female faculty members were well represen ted in the survey respondents. Furthermore, of the 560 respondents, 5.4% ( n = 30) were black, 3.2% ( n = 18) were Hispanic, 88% ( n = 493) were white, and 3.4% ( n = 19) identified themselves as other. The Fact Book of the Florida Community College System (2002) identified 8.8% ( n = 436) of the state’s full-time commun ity college faculty as black, 7.3% ( n = 360) as Hispanic, 81.4% as white ( n = 4029), and 2.5% ( n = 126) as other. Based on the results of the chi-square analysis, I determined th at the proportions of faculty of different ethnicity among the respondents were significa ntly different from the proportions of faculty of different ethni city in the population ( X2 = 23.24, p <.0001). While whites were overrepresented among the survey res pondents, blacks and Hispanics were underrepresented. The age, years of e xperience, gender and ethnicity of the nonrespondents ( n = 20) (see Chapter 3) did not differ noticeably from those of the respondents. Summary of Interview Process In accordance with the research design outlined in Chapter 3, I used purposeful sampling to select 12 faculty members, six each on two Florida community college

PAGE 68

59 campuses: Santa Fe Community College in Gainesville, Florida, and Daytona Beach Community College in Daytona Beach, Flor ida (including one in terview on the DeLand Campus). These two community colleges ha d among the highest su rvey response rate and the highest level of involvement in f aculty governance as se lf-reported by faculty (question III.8 on the survey). Furthermore, these two colleges had among the highest means for survey items #2 and #3. Santa Fe Community College was of particular interest since this college’s senate is compos ed of administrators and professional staff as well as faculty—a unique configurati on among Florida’s community colleges. According to the protocol establis hed in Chapter 3, I conducted six, hour-long, tape-recorded interviews at Santa Fe Co mmunity College on April 1 and 2, 2003, and six hour-long, tape-recorded interviews at Dayt ona Beach Community College on April 22 and 23, 2003. Upon completion of the inte rviews, I transcribed 11 of the interviews with a transcriptionist completing the final interview. Treatment of Data: Survey The unit of analysis was the individu al faculty member who responded to the survey. Each respondent was encouraged to answer every question, and respondents received a cue if any questions were unans wered. Responses were anonymous with no records kept of the email addresses from whic h the responses were sent. I used SAS for Windows, Version 8.12, to analyze the data en tered into Microsoft Excel from the SQL database. Furthermore, I treated all “don’t know” responses as missing data. Other data remained as entered except for the date of birth, which I changed to chronological age. I also recorded all of the indi vidual responses in the comments section at the end of the survey.

PAGE 69

60 For purposes of this study, the introduc tion to the survey defined the operational construct, faculty governance body as a forum generally composed of elected faculty representatives organized fo r the purpose of advising th e administration regarding policies affecting faculty—and not a collectiv e bargaining unit. In Florida’s community college system, some colleges have collec tive bargaining units a nd no defined faculty senates while other colleges have faculty se nates without any union representing faculty. A few community colleges in Florida have no f aculty senate or faculty union, and at least one college has both a faculty senate and a co llective bargaining unit. Given the diversity of these organizational structures, I made th e decision to accept every response, despite the college affiliation of the responding faculty member, because the unit of analysis was the individual faculty member and not th e individual college and because governance structures might have been in place of which I had no knowledge. Data Analysis: Quantitative Design Research Question 1 The first research question was: “What is the level of involvement of Florida’s full-time community college faculty in inst itutional governance?” Table 1 presents the responses to the question III.8 of the survey: How would you rate your level of in volvement in the governance of your institution?

PAGE 70

61 Table 1 Level of Involvement in Institutional Governance A high percentage of faculty (85.36%) reported themselves as either moderately or highly involved in the governance of their in stitutions (see Table 1). The large number of moderately involved faculty ( n = 419) clearly affected the survey’s data analysis. On the other hand, survey respondents ( n = 2) who identified themse lves as not involved did not appreciably contribute to the survey’s findings. Furthermore, in addition to the survey response rate of 11% ( N = 560), the small number of faculty who reported themselves as not involved raised questions about the faculty who did not respond to the survey. It is likely that the pe rcentage of Florida’s community college faculty who are not invol ved in institutional decision-making is higher than .36%. It is also probable that the faculty who responded to the survey were those who were interested in the survey’s subject and thus were more likely to be involved in faculty governance ac tivities. Among the nonrespondents ( n = 20), 25% reported themselves as not involved, 30% reported being not much involved, 30% reported a moderate level of involvement, and 10% reported themselves as highly involved. Therefore, the nonrespondent analysis confirmed that the survey data revealed Level of Involvement Percentage n Not involved .36 2 Not much involved 14.29 80 Moderately involved 74.82 419 Highly involved 10.54 59

PAGE 71

62 more about faculty who were moderately or highly involved than faculty who were not involved, which may be as much as half the faculty. Prior to question III .8, the survey asked the respo ndents a number of questions related to involvement in specific aspects of governance activities. The first question, III.1, was: Have you served as an officer of a faculty governance body (either a campus or college-wide position) within the last three years? Of the 560 respondents, 26.43% ( n = 148) indicated that they ha d served as an officer of such a body while 73.57% ( n = 412) had not. A Pearson co rrelation coefficient revealed a moderately strong relationship between the faculty member’s self-reported level of involvement and his or her service as a facu lty governance body offi cer within the last three years ( r = .37, p < .0001). A frequency table showed that only 98 (24%) of moderately involved faculty ( n = 419) answered yes to this question while 74% ( n = 43) of the highly involved faculty responded in the affirmative. These percentages help explain the strength of the correlation coefficient. The next question, III.2, asked: How many campus and/or college-wide meetings of your faculty governance body do you attend?

PAGE 72

63 Table 2 Attendance of Faculty Governance Body Meetings Table 2 indicates that the larges t percentage of respondents (41.96%, n = 235) attended none or almost none of their faculty governance bodies’ meetings while 38.93% ( n = 218) attended more than half, almost all, or all of the meetings. Perhaps this response is an indication that faculty either commit themselves to attending regularly or choose not to attend. To determine the direction and strength of the relationship between the selfreported level of involvement and the fre quency of attendance at faculty governance body meetings, I computed a Pearson correlation coefficient ( N = 560). Given the large sample size and the small p value, this correlation coefficient ( r = .41, p < .0001) showed a moderately strong relationship between fr equency of attending faculty governance meetings and the level of involvement of th e faculty member. A cross-tabular frequency Attendance of Faculty Governance Meetings Percentage n None or almost none 41.96 235 Less than half 14.11 79 About half 5.00 28 More than half 8.93 50 All or almost all 30.00 168

PAGE 73

64 table showed that of the 419 faculty who were moderately involved, 166 (39.6%) attended none or almost none of the m eetings while almost the same number ( n = 162, 39%) attended more than half or all or almost all of the meetings. This division among the moderately involved f aculty, the group most represented in the survey, helped determine the moderately str ong correlation coefficient. The next question, III.3, asked faculty: How many campus-wide or college-wide co mmittees have you served on within the past three years? Table 3 Service on Committees During the Past Three Years Number of Committees Percentage n None 1.61 9 One 16.43 92 Two 23.57 132 Three 26.07 146 Four or more 32.32 181 Nearly one-third of the respondents (32.32%, n = 181) had served on four or more committees within the past three years while only 1.61% ( n = 9) had served on no committees. Approximately half of the faculty responding (49.64%, n = 278) had served on two or three committees during the last three years (see Table 3). I conducted a correlation procedure to exam ine the direction a nd strength of the relationship between the faculty member’s self-reported level of involvement and the

PAGE 74

65 number of campus-wide committees he or she ha d served on during the last three years. The Pearson correlation coefficient ( N = 560) revealed a moderately strong relationship ( r = 0.31, p < .0001) between committee participation during the last three years and the self-reported level of involvement. A look at a cross-tabular freque ncy table showed that of the moderately involved faculty ( n = 419), 83% ( n = 349) had served on three, four, or more committees in the last three years, fu rther indicating a relati onship between a higher level of involvement and committee service. The findings for this question suggest that committee membership may be more directly related to a moderate or high level of faculty involvement in governance than at tendance of faculty governance body meetings. Of those faculty who responded affirmativ ely to question III.3 regarding service on committees, 193 (35.03%) had served as ch air or co-chair ( question III.4). A correlation analysis between question III.3 and III.4 indicated that faculty who served on more campus wide or college wi de committees were more likel y to serve as chair or cochair of one of those committees ( r = .27, p < .0001). A Pearson correlation coefficient indicated a weak relationshi p between a faculty membe r’s self-reported level of involvement and his or her service as chair or co-chair of a committee within the past three years ( r = .16, p = .0001). This weak relationshi p is further shown by a frequency table showing that, of the f aculty reporting themselves as moderately involved ( n = 419), 279 (67%) had not served as a committee officer. The next question (III.5) asked: How frequently did you attend committee meetings during the academic year (excluding summers)?

PAGE 75

66 Table 4 Attendance of Committee Meetings Attendance of Committee Meetings Percentage n Less than twice during academic year 11.62 64 At least twice during each semester 31.40 179 At least once a month 56.99 314 Not only do the survey respondents serve on committees (see Table 4), but over half (56.99%, n = 314) attend meetings monthly Furthermore, a Pearson correlation coefficient determined a strong relationship between the faculty member’s self-reported level of involvement and the frequency of his or her attendance at committee meetings ( r = .42, p = .003). A cross-tabular frequency ta ble revealed that compared to the moderately involved faculty, the highly involved faculty (n = 59) showed a significantly higher percentage (81.38%) attending committ ee meetings at least once a month as opposed to less than twice during the year or at least twice duri ng the semester. The findings for this question further supported co mmittee participation as more indicative of involvement in faculty governance than act ive engagement in the faculty governance body meetings. A high percentage (74.41%, n = 410) had served on a project or committee with a defined role that had resulted in significant outcomes or recommendations to the college (question III.6). A Pearson correlation coe fficient indicated a weak relationship between

PAGE 76

67 the faculty member’s self-reporte d level of involvement and his or her participation on a committee or a project with significant outcomes for the college ( r = .13, p = .0022). Furthermore, a frequency table revealed that the highly involved faculty ( n = 59) were more likely to have contributed to a committ ee or project with a defined role for the college (89.5%) while the faculty who were not much involved were almost evenly divided in their responses—perhaps contribu ting to the low correlation coefficient. Question III.7 asked su rvey participants: How often do you engage in dialogue (e.g., conversations, electronic bulletin boards) with other faculty regarding faculty issues in institutional decisionmaking? Table 5 Engagement in Dialogue About Faculty Issues Engagement in Dialogue About Faculty Issues Percentage n Never 15.00 84 Twice a semester 21.79 122 Monthly 30.00 168 Weekly 33.21 186 Table 5 shows that a thir d of respondents (33.21%, n = 186) indicated that they engaged in weekly dialogue. Sli ghtly less than a third (30.00%, n = 168) reported that they engaged in monthly dialogue while slightly more than a third (36.79%, n = 206) conversed about these issues tw ice a semester or never part icipated in such dialogue.

PAGE 77

68 To determine the direction and stre ngth of the relationship between level of involvement in governance activ ities and engagement in di alogue, I computed a Pearson correlation coefficient using the faculty membe r’s self-reported level of involvement and the response to questi on III.7. The analysis ( r = .35, p < .0001), indicated that faculty who self-reported that they were involved in faculty governance were likely to participate in dialogue about faculty issues in institu tional decision-making. Of the moderately involved faculty ( n = 415), the largest group of survey respondents, 75% ( n = 312) engaged in monthly dialogue about f aculty governance i ssues while 25% ( n = 102) participated in such dialogue on a weekly basis. Among the highly involved faculty ( n = 58), 10% ( n = 6) participated in monthly dialogue and 90% (n = 52) in weekly dialogue. These responses among the moderately a nd highly involved faculty supported a moderately strong relationship between the participation level of faculty and their engagement in dialogue about governance issues. Question III.9 asked faculty: Compared to five years ago, are you more involved in faculty governance activities, less involved, or involved about the same? Table 6 Faculty Governance Involvement Compared to Five Years Ago Governance Involvement Compared to 5 Years Ago Percentage n Same level of involvement 13.39% 75 Less involved 57.50% 322 More involved 29.11% 163

PAGE 78

69 Over half of the respondents (57.50%, n = 332) indicated th at they were less involved than five years ago (s ee Table 6). This percentage is almost twice that of faculty reporting that they are more invol ved currently than five years ago. I computed a Pearson correlation coeffici ent to explore the st rength and direction of the relation between the current self-reporte d level of involvement and the response to question III.9 above. The Pearson correlation co efficient indicated a moderately strong relationship between faculty’s current involvement in governance activities and the involvement five years ago ( r = .29, p < .0001). A cross-tabular frequency table showed that 97.5% of the faculty who reporte d themselves as not much involved (n = 80) were involved at the same level or were less invol ved than five years ago while 58% of the moderately involved faculty ( n = 242) and 37% of the highly involved faculty ( n = 22) were less involved in governance activities than five years ago. Table 7 provides a summary of the correlation coefficients and the p values for questions III.1 –7, and question III.9 as corr elated with the faculty member’s selfreported level of involvement. Table 7 Summary of Correlation Coe fficients and Probability Values Question Text of Question r p n III.1 Have you served as an officer of a faculty governance body (either a campus of collegewide position) within the last three years? .37 <.0001 560

PAGE 79

70 Table 7 (Continued) III.2 How many campus and/or college-wide meetings of your faculty governance body do you attend? .41 <.0001 560 III.3 How many campus-wide or college-wide committees have you served on within the past three years? .31 <.0001 560 III.4 Were you chair or co-chair of any of these committees? .16 .0001 560 III.5 How frequently did you attend committee meetings during the academic year (excluding summers)? .42 .03 557 III.6 Have you served on a project or committee with a defined role that resulted in significant outcomes or recommendations to the colleges? .13 .0022 560 III.7 How often do you engage in dialogue (e.g., conversations, electronic bulletin boards) with other faculty regarding faculty issues in institutional decisionmaking? .36 <.0001 560 III.9 Compared to five years ago, are you more involved in faculty governance activities, less involved, or involved about the same? .29 <.0001 560 Scale of Involvement The faculty member’s self-reported level of involvement (question III. 8) is a variable reflecting the faculty member’s pe rceptions of his or her participation in institutional governance. However, the se lf-reported level of involvement does not necessarily relate to specific behaviors deem ed by this study’s panel of experts to be

PAGE 80

71 relevant to faculty involvement in d ecision-making, including attending faulty governance body meetings, serving on committees, participating in special projects, and engaging in dialogue with other faculty rega rding faculty issues. Therefore, based on each respondent’s answer to each question in section III. of the survey, I computed a composite variable called scale of involvement This variable consisted of the sum of the z-scores for each faculty membe r’s responses to questions III. 1 through III. 9 (see Table 7). This variable is a better i ndication of faculty involvement than the self-reported level of involvement because it reflects the individua l faculty member’s res ponses to all of the questions in section III. as compared to the responses of other faculty to the same questions. A Pearson correlation coefficient s howed a relatively st rong relation between a faculty member’s self-reported level of involvement and his or her scale of involvement ( r = .62, p < .0001), but still indicates some differ entiation between the two measures of involvement. Based on the survey data results subject to the limitations of the survey response rate of 11% the answer to research question #1 is that the survey respondents are most likely to be moderately involved in the govern ance of their institutions. However, given the nonrespondent analysis, this finding cannot be generalized to the population. Furthermore, service on campus wide or colleg e wide committees, but not necessarily as chair or co-chair, is perhaps a greater indi cation of faculty involvement than attendance of faculty governance body meetings. Research Questions 2 and 3 The second research question asked: “Wha t are faculty members’ perceptions of the roles that faculty adviso ry bodies play in instituti onal governance?” The third

PAGE 81

72 research question was, “How do Florida’s fu ll-time community college faculty envision an ideal governance process?” I explored these questions by determining the means and standard deviations for survey items 1 thr ough 25 (see Table 8). Table 8 clarifies the results by sorting the survey questio ns from highest to lowest mean. Table 8 Descriptive Statistics for Survey Questions Sorted by Mean Question Mean SD n 21. Faculty should convince the admin istration that the faculty "voice" is a valuable component in decision-making. 4.44 0.80556 22. Faculty must insist on rights and resp onsibilities in appropriate governance roles. 4.44 0.80556 25. Faculty should be more involved in developing specific outcomes for budgetary expenditures. 4.15 0.87545 24. Faculty should assist in cl arifying roles of administrators so that they know they are to administe r policy and not impose their own. 4.11 0.98542 16. Issues considered by our faculty governance body are important. 3.95 0.99538 13. It is difficult to get people to serve on faculty governance body standing and/or ad-hoc committees. 3.61 1.15499 9. Faculty governance body me mbers and academic administrators meet regularly. 3.60 1.16487 15. Our faculty governance body leaders are well prepared to assume their positions. 3.40 1.12503 1. Our faculty governance body adeq uate represents the faculty point of view. 3.39 1.26535 18. The faculty governance body is utilized as a conduit through which faculty participation is solicited. 3.30 1.25544 23. Faculty committees should work harder to cooperate with the administration. 3.27 1.11535 2. Our faculty governance body is well represented on committees making decisions on policy, planning, and allocation of resources. 3.22 1.35529 7. Communication is good between our faculty governance body and academic administrators. 3.20 1.32519 4. Our faculty governance body operates efficiently. 3.09 1.22526 14. Management information is readily provided to the faculty governance body concerning issu es it considers. 3.02 1.21463 5. Our faculty governance body attracts the most capable people as members. 2.97 1.24519 11. Our faculty governance body is involved in important decisions about the way the institution is run. 2.92 1.30526 17. Faculty are empowered to question policy decisions through a well-articulated process. 2.88 1.34537 8. Communication is good between our governance body and the Board of Trustees. 2.65 1.31447

PAGE 82

73 Table 8 (Continued) 19. Institutional procedures involv e faculty governance early in the decision-making process. 2.59 1.25509 10. Faculty governance body represent atives and the Board of Trustees meet regularly. 2.56 1.26403 6. Our faculty governance body's op erating budget is adequate. 2.53 1.09336 12. Academic administrators' and faculty governance body's expectations regarding the governance body's role are the same. 2.48 1.19468 3. Faculty members are adequately rewarded for their participation in the governance process. 2.26 1.10506 20. Neutral "consultants" are utiliz ed to mediate faculty-administration dealings. 2.17 1.03412 Table 8 shows that respondents agreed that the faculty’s voice in decision-making should be heard, their governance responsibilit ies and rights should be fulfilled, and their roles in governance should be defined. They al so agreed that faculty should be involved in budget planning and that the issues consid ered by their faculty governance bodies were important. The survey respondents further confir med that the level of faculty involvement faculty is of concern, particul arly soliciting faculty to serv e on faculty governance body committees. However, respondents were neutral about whether their faculty governance bodies adequately represented the faculty point of view or whether the faculty governance body served as a conduit for soliciting facult y participation in decision-making In addition, faculty were neutral whether commun ication was good between faculty and administration, whether faculty were well represented on decision-making committees, and whether faculty committees should work harder to communicate with the administration. Respondents disagreed that faculty were involved in making important decisions about their institutions or that the faculty were empowered to que stion administrators’

PAGE 83

74 decisions. They also disagreed that communication was good between the faculty governance body and the board of trustees although many respondents did not know about this question ( n = 447), nor did many respondent s know whether their faculty governance body representative met regular ly with the board of trustees ( n = 403). Faculty further disagreed that their colleges use neutral consultants in faculty dealings with administration, but a lo w number of respondents ( n = 412) is perhaps an indication that most faculty do not know a bout the role of neutral cons ultants. Faculty respondents also disagreed that faculty and administrative expectations about th e role of the senate were the same or that the faculty were adequately rewarded for participation in governance. The fewest number of faculty ( n = 336) responded to the question, “Our faculty governance body’s budget is adequate,” indicating a lack of knowledge in this area among many of the respondents. Miller and Vacik (1998) administered this survey to 110 community college faculty from three states: Georgia, Mississi ppi, and Nebraska. The means for each of the first 16 survey questions, with two exceptions, were higher in the Mi ller and Vacik study. The respondents in this current study ha d a higher means for question #9, “Faculty advisory body members and administration meet regularly.” The means for this question for the current study and the Miller and Vacik (1998) study, respectively, were 3.6 ( SD = 1.16) and 3.52 ( SD = .89). Also, the mean in this current study was higher for question #13: “It is difficult to get people to serve on faculty advisory bodies and/or ad-hoc committees.” The mean for this study was 3.61 ( SD = 1.15) as opposed to 3.12 ( SD = 1.13) for the Miller and Vacik (1998) study. With these two exceptions, faculty in the

PAGE 84

75 Miller and Vacik (1998) study we re more likely to agree to statements related to their perceptions of faculty involvement in governance (questions 1-16). Questions 17-20 elicited responses rega rding the characteristics of an ideal governance process. Once again, the means fo r each question were higher in the Miller and Vacik (1998) study. Whereas respondent s to the Miller and Vacik study (1998) agreed with each survey item in this sect ion, the respondents to the current study were either neutral or disagreed with each item. Although the section of this survey was labeled “Characteristics of an Ideal Governance Process,” some of the survey respondents may have answered questions 17-20 based on their experiences at their own institutions rather than on their perceptions of an ideal governance process. For questions 21-25 relating to the desi red roles of faculty in the governance process, the means of the current study were higher for each question, with one exception. Florida’s faculty respondents were neutral about whether “faculty committees should work harder to cooperate with the administration” ( M = 3.27, SD = 1.11) whereas the respondents in the Miller and Vacik ( 1998) study agreed with this statement ( M = 4.22, SD = .71). Overall, in this section Florida’ s faculty agreed to the survey items to a greater degree than did the faculty in the Miller and V acik (1998) study. Overall, the data used to answer rese arch questions #2 and #3 indicated that survey respondents agreed about what the roles of faculty should be in institutional governance. However, they were less in agre ement about the characteristics of an ideal governance process or their perceptions of th eir faculty governance bodies’ current involvement in governance. Thus, there is an apparent discrepancy between faculty’s responses regarding their idea l roles as faculty members i nvolved in governance and their

PAGE 85

76 articulation of the role of their faculty gove rnance bodies in institutional decision-making or their understanding of an ideal governance process. Research Question 4 The fourth research question asked, “Wh at is the relation between a faculty member’s level of involvement in institutiona l decision-making and his or her perception of institutional governance?” Three null hypotheses addressed this question: 1. There is no significant relationship be tween a faculty member’s level of involvement in faculty governance and his or her perceptions of faculty involvement in inst itutional governance. 2. There is no significant relationship be tween a faculty member’s level of involvement in faculty governance and hi s or her perceptions of the desired roles of faculty in institutional governance. 3. There is no significant relationship be tween a faculty member’s level of involvement in faculty governance and hi s or her perceived characteristics of an ideal governance process. Because of the multiple null hypotheses, I used an a priori power analysis (Cohen, 1977) with the following assumptions: pow er of .80, alpha level of .02 (Bonferroni adjustment), and medium effect size (0.30). This analysis determined that the desired number of respondents was 440. The surv ey response met this requirement. To investigate the first null, I began by co mputing a coefficient alpha for internal reliability for items 1 – 16. The Cronbach coefficient alpha for these items was .72. Then I computed a Pearson correlation coefficient between the overall means of survey

PAGE 86

77 items 1-16 (for each respondent) and the responde nt’s self-reported le vel of involvement. The correlation procedure rejected the null ( r = .28, p < .0001). Thus, there is a moderately strong relationship between a f aculty member’s per ceptions of faculty involvement in institutional gove rnance and his or her self-re ported level of involvement. I also calculated a Pearson Correlation Coe fficient between the overall means of survey items 1-16 and the variable, scale of involvement. For this analysis, the p value also rejected the null hypothesis; how ever, this analysis showed a weak positive correlation between the scale of involvement for each facu lty member and his or her perceptions of faculty participation in institutional governance ( r = .14, p = .0009). For the second null, I checked the intern al reliability of survey items 21-25 by computing a coefficient alpha. The Cronbach coefficient alpha for these items was .70, showing a high correlation between the items. Then I examined the relation between the overall means of survey items 21-25 (for each respondent) and the f aculty member’s selfreported level of involvement. Using a Pear son Correlation Coefficient, the analysis rejected the null ( r = .16, p < .0001), indicating a weak re lationship between a faculty member’s perceptions of desired faculty ro les in governance and his or her level of involvement. I also computed a Pearson Corre lation Coefficient using the variable, scale of involvement, and the overall means for survey items 21-25. The p value rejected the null, but this analysis indicated a weak positive correlation between the variables ( r = .14, p = .0011), suggesting that as th e scale of involvement for th e individual faculty member increases, the faculty member is only slightly more likely to agree about the desired roles of faculty in institutional governance.

PAGE 87

78 For the third null, I investigated the intern al reliability of questions 17-20. The Cronbach coefficient alpha for these items was .81, showing a high correlation between the items. Then I examined the relation be tween the overall means of survey items 17-20 (for each respondent) and the faculty member’s self-reported level of involvement. Using a Pearson correlation coeffi cient, I rejected the null ( r =.24, p < .0001), demonstrating a weak correlation between the faculty member’s self-reported level of involvement and his or her perceptions of an ideal governance process. I also calculated the Pearson correlation coefficient for the va riable, scale of involvement, and the means for survey items 17-20. This correlation coe fficient also rejected the null, indicating a weak positive correlation between the variables ( r = .11, p < .0001). Overall, for each of the null hypotheses fo r research question #4, the survey items showed a high degree of in ternal reliability, the p value for each st atistical technique rejected the null, but the correlations between the variables were not strong. Thus, based on this survey’s results and a response rate of 11%, there is a significant relationship between a faculty member’s level of i nvolvement in governance and his or her perceptions of faculty involve ment in institutional governan ce and the desired roles of faculty in institutional governance. The strength and direction of the relationship are strongest for the second null hypothesis, lend ing further support to the findings for research questions #2 and #3. As suggest ed by the nonrespondent analysis, these findings are based on the responses of faculty more likely to be involved in faculty governance.

PAGE 88

79 Research Question 5 The fifth research question was: “Wha t is the direction and strength of the relationship between a faculty member’s invol vement in institutional governance and his or her gender?” The null hypothesis for question #5 is th at there is no signi ficant difference between female faculty members’ levels of involvement in faculty governance and male faculty members’ levels of i nvolvement. An a priori power analysis for this research question ( ES = 0.50, power = .80, a = .05) concluded that 256 respondents were needed to address this question. The survey response met this requirement. To investigate the null hypothesis, I used a two-tailed t-test to examine differences in the means between the female s’ self-reported levels of involvement in faculty governance ( M = 2.04, SD = .47) and the males’ se lf-reported levels of involvement ( M = 2.04, SD = .55). This t-test failed to reject the null ( p = .8349). The rejection of the null determined that the differences in the means between the females’ self-reported involvement and the males’ self -reported involvement in faculty governance were not statistically significant. To ch eck the degree of the mean differences, I computed Cohen’s d as -.15. This comput ation determined that the magnitude of differences in the means of females and ma les was less than .15 standard deviations apart—a very small effect. I also used a two-ta iled t-test to investigate the differences in the means between the females’ scale of involvement ( M = -1.78, SD = 4.57) and the males’ scale of involvement ( M = -1.50, SD = 4.62). This t-test al so failed to reject the

PAGE 89

80 null ( p = .5015). I also calculated Cohen’s d fo r this t-test as -.11, also a very small effect. Therefore, the answer to research ques tion #5 is that the survey data did not support a relationship between a faculty membe r’s self-reported level of involvement and his or her gender. Furthermore, the data di d not indicate any rela tion between the faculty member’s scale of involvement and his or her gender. Research Question 6 This question asked, “What is the dir ection and strength of the relationship between a faculty member’s level of invol vement and his or her race?” The null hypothesis was that a faculty member’s level of involvement in in stitutional governance does not vary according to his or race An a priori power analysis ( ES = 0.50, power = .80, alpha = .05, u = 4) estimated a need for 320 res pondents to this research question. These requirements were met. To explore the research question, I us ed an ANOVA procedure for unbalanced groups and a Tukey Studentized Range (HSD) Test to look for di fferences among four groups: black, Hispanic, white, and other. The independent variable was the faculty member’s race while the dependent variable was the measure of the faculty member’s self reported level of involvement. To check to see if the assumptions of normality had been met, I noted the skewness and kurtosis of each of the four groups and determined that the assumption of a normal distributi on had not been met. A Levene Test for homogeneity of variance indi cated that the variance of th e groups were not significantly different. Therefore, the assumption of hom ogeneity of variance was met. In addition, the ANOVA procedure met the assumption for the independence of observations.

PAGE 90

81 Table 9 Descriptive Statistics for Group: Race and Self-Reported Level of Involvement Race Group Mean Group SD Group n Black 2.033 0.4138 30 Hispanic 2.444 0.6157 18 White 2.030 0.5111 493 Other 2.053 0.4050 19 Table 10 Summary Table: ANOVA Race and Self -Reported Level of Involvement Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr >F Between groups 3 2.9818 0.9939 3.87 0.0093 Within groups 556 142.9021 0.2570 Total 559 145.8839 The F statistic and p value rejected the null ( F = 3.87, p = .0093), indicating differences in the means among the four groups (see Tables 9 and 10). Furthermore, the Tukey test (alpha = .05) indi cated a significant difference in the group means of Hispanic and black faculty members and a significant difference in the group means of Hispanic and white faculty members. I also used an ANOVA procedure to ex amine the differences between racial groups—black, Hispanic, white, and other—with the independent variable being the faculty member’s race and the dependent vari able being the faculty member’s scale of

PAGE 91

82 involvement. The F statistic and p value failed to reject the null ( F = 2.15, p = .0934), indicating there were no signi ficant differences in the m eans among the four groups (see Tables 11 and 12). Table 11 Descriptive Statistics for Group: Race and Scale of Involvement Race Group Mean Group SD Group n Black -3.2797 4.4404 30 Hispanic -3.4525 3.6141 18 White -1.5233 4.8464 490 Other -2.0556 4.8119 19 Table 12 Summary Table: ANOVA Ra ce and Scale of Involvement Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr >F Between groups 3 147.8447 48.2816 2.15 .0934 Within groups 553 12696.0913 22.9586 Total 556 12843.9936 Thus, there is likely some relationship between a faculty member’s self-reported level of involvement and his or her race. Sp ecifically, according to the survey results, there may be some effect of being a white f aculty member as opposed to being a black or Hispanic faculty member. However, this difference in effect is not present when examining a faculty member’s scale of invol vement in relation to his or her race—

PAGE 92

83 perhaps because there is a greater range of va lues for the variable, scale of involvement, and this variable is a better indication of involvement than the variable, self-reported level of involvement. Research Questions 7 and 8 This research question stated: “Wha t is the direction and strength of the relationship between a faculty member’s leve l of involvement in institutional governance and his or her age? The eighth research question was: “What is the direction and strength of the relationship between a f aculty member’s level of involvement in institutional governance and his or her ye ars of employment at the institution?” For both research questions #7 and 8, an a priori power analysis (Cohen, 1977) with a desired effect size of 0.30, power of .80, and alpha leve l of .05 concluded that the desired number of survey respondents to thes e questions was 256. The survey’s response exceeded the desired number. To investigate question #7, I first calc ulated a Pearson Correlation Coefficient between the faculty member’s se lf-reported level of involvement and his or her age. The p value for this analysis failed to reject the null ( r = .02, p = .7203), suggesting that there is no significant relationship between these variables. I then determined the Pearson Correlation Coefficient between the variable, scale of i nvolvement, and the faculty member’s age. For this analysis, the p value also failed to reject the null ( r = -.06, p = .1723), supporting a lack of correla tion between these two variables. For research question #8, a correlation procedure investigated the relationship between a faculty member’s self-reported leve l of involvement and his or her years of experience at the institution. The p value failed to reject the null ( r = 0.01, p = .8240). A

PAGE 93

84 correlation procedure further explored the re lationship between the variable, scale of involvement, and a faculty member’s years of experience at the institu tion. This analysis, however, rejected the null ( r = .10, p = .0214), indicating a w eak positive correlation between the variables. Therefore, to answer research questi on #7, the survey data did not reveal a relation between a faculty member’s self-repo rted level of involvement and his or her age. Furthermore, the survey’s results di d not show a relations hip between a faculty member’s scale of involvement and his or her age. In response to research question #8, the data did not indicate a link between a faculty member’s se lf-reported level of involvement and his or her years at the institution, but did demonstrate a weak relationship between the faculty member’s years at the institu tion and his or her scale of involvement. Data Analysis: Qualitative Design The 12 interviewees are full-time commun ity college faculty from two Florida community colleges, Santa Fe Community College and Daytona Beach Community College. I chose these colleges from those with among the highest survey response rate and the highest level of involvement in institutional governan ce as self-reported by faculty. This purposeful sampling does have limitations in that the faculty at these colleges are involved in governance to a greate r degree (as measured by the survey) than faculty at other of Florida’s community co lleges. Therefore, these interviewees’ experiences are not necessarily representa tive of those of other full-time community college faculty.

PAGE 94

85 Using an inductive approach, I discovered a variety of themes threading their way through the interviews. All of the interviewees discussed their structures for faculty governance, and the differences between these stru ctures were evident. In addition, all of the interviewed faculty articulated the processes that their senates used for communication and discussion of issues and concerns. Each faculty member also mentioned the most important issues that the senate discusses and the issues that have been effectively (or ineffectively) repres ented to the administration with important outcomes for the college. The faculty also provided information regarding the college’s administrative structures and how these stru ctures have interacted with the senate. Particularly important are the college’s committee structures especially those outsi de the confines of the senate. The interviewees detailed the out comes of several decisions made with the faculty and administration working togeth er for the benefit of the college. In response to research question #9, the inte rviewees discussed their current levels of involvement as well as the personal a nd institutional characteris tics that encouraged and/or hindered their involvement. More over, they acknowledged the key leadership roles of the college president and the senate president. They also communicated their perceptions of their f aculty leader’s interaction with th e Board of Trustees and how the faculty leader’s pos ition might evolve in an ideal govern ance process. Finally, several of the interviewees pr esented some of the statewid e implications for governance. Faculty Governance Structures The governance structure at Santa Fe Community College (SFCC) is a college senate with representatives from professi onal and administrative staff and full-time

PAGE 95

86 faculty. (Long-term adjunct faculty are curre ntly being considered for membership.) Faculty senators represent their academic de partments. In a national survey of faculty senates in community colleges by Miller (2003 ), six out of 61 respondents reported that their senate was made up of ad ministrators and staff as we ll as faculty. Furthermore, 41% of the respondents ( n = 18) had senates with faculty representing an academic department. SFCC’s representative stru cture dates from the early 1980’s. In contrast, the senate at Daytona Beach Community College (DBCC) is a faculty senate with all full-time faculty as member s but no representation from departments or other constituency groups within the college. The survey by Miller (2003) indicated that 14% of the respondents ( n = 6) had senates with all eligible faculty as members. DBCC’s structure dates from the early 1990’s. Before that time, DBCC’s faculty senate was a representative senate. When I asked why DBCC changed its faculty senate to a nonrepresentative structure, a faculty member said that the former senate had “lost. .the trust of the faculty. That’s why we went to. . th e general representation. . .There is a lot of resistance to going back to an elected senate body.” The organizational structure of SFCC’s co llege senate has several advantages, as represented by the interviewees. One a dvantage is clearly the presence of the administration, including the president, at co llege senate meetings. As one interviewee said, “They [the administration] hear our voices.” Another faculty member cited increasing attendance at senate meetings because faculty “get a feeling that they’re [the administration] listening to us.” Although th e college senate was de scribed as “a forum where we [faculty] sort of have an equal we ight,” a former college senate president admitted that non-faculty present at the senate meetings might be resentful that so much

PAGE 96

87 time at the senate was spent talking about classroom issues and perhaps not enough time about the concerns of non-faculty. Another f aculty member was clear in her desire for a faculty only governance forum at SFCC: “Faculty do not have a gathering place.” Some of the DBCC faculty member s are pleased with the current nonrepresentative system because more faculty can participate and department chairs, who are faculty, can attend. The DB CC faculty senate is desc ribed as “one governance structure, and we all feed into the structure. ” One faculty member conceded that she “felt more of an obligation under the old system to come back and let everybody [in her department] know what was going on.” One f aculty member who has participated in both a representative and a non-repr esentative senate claimed: “They seem . to operate about the same. The level of involvement is limited.” Administrative Structures Related to Faculty Governance The interviewees shared th eir knowledge of the administ rative structures at their colleges. Since these structures affect the interaction between the senate and the administration, a brief introduction to the ad ministrative structure of each institution appears below. At SFCC, the president of the college sets the agenda for the president’s cabinet, of which the faculty senate president is a member. The president and the faculty senate president are also members of the college senate’s executive council. Both the president and key members of his administration atte nd college senate meetings. The college senate appoints a variety of faculty to sena te standing and ad hoc committees as needed to discuss critical issues.

PAGE 97

88 At DBCC, the college president also chairs the president’s cabinet, but membership “is at the discretion of the pr esident himself” and does not include the faculty senate president. The cabinet does include the vice-presidents and the associate vice-presidents as well as the EA/EO o fficer, but does not include the deans or department chairs. The per ception among DBCC faculty is th at the president’s cabinet makes the decisions. A key part of DBCC’s institutional governance is the planning council. The planning council is composed of 50% faculty and 50% members from other constituency groups (professional, career, etc.). Of the approximately 15 faculty members on the planning council, half are a ppointed by the president, a nd half are elected through a process involving the faculty senate. The planning council makes recommendations to the president regarding various issues such as prioriti zation of budget items. The planning council has a number of committees that report to it concerning personnel issues, budgetary issues, etc. Administrative Processes: Committees At SFCC, college senate committees such as the budget advisory committee, professional standards committee, curriculu m committee and salary/benefits committee convene and make a report to the senate. Th e senate then takes a vote of support (or lack of support) on their recommendations and motions The college senate president reports the results of the committee’s work to the college senate executive council and to the president’s cabinet. Several of the SFCC f aculty who were interv iewed indicated their desire for even more faculty involvement on college senate committees: “There are more concerted efforts to get facu lty on committees, [but] we’re no t as good as we could be.”

PAGE 98

89 Some committees and task forces also operate outside the purview of the college senate, including a few committees that were the resu lts of the Southern A ssociation of Colleges and Schools (SACS) accreditation process— e.g., the strategic planning committee. When a new president came to DBCC a few years ago, he initiated a new governance process called the planning c ouncil, which recently received a SACS commendation. The planning council hosts a nu mber of committees including a faculty senate committee (chaired by the faculty se nate president), a teaching and learning committee, a technology committee, and a human resources committee. The president has promoted the planning council as “faculty -driven,” yet except for the faculty senate committee, all the committee chairs are administrators. In response to the planning council, the f aculty senate has appointed a number of subcommittees—in essence, subcommittees that are parallel to the committees of the college wide planning council. The goal is to have a faculty senate member on each of the planning council committees and to coordi nate planning council and faculty senate efforts—“to increase and enhance communica tion through. . a team approach so we’re all working toward the same goal.” However, the perception is that “the committees that you participate in as part of the faculty senate are not view ed as important committees.” Some faculty speculated that this duplic ation between the pl anning council and the faculty senate has resulted in less active participation by faculty in the faculty senate. The potential for conflict and duplication of efforts between the planning council and faculty senate is clear. An example is the re cent healthcare plan presented to the faculty by some “supposedly representative” task force whose members were unidentified.

PAGE 99

90 Faculty Governance Processes Each senate has specific processes it uses to “bubble up” concerns from faculty for senate discussion, to report back to faculty about the events at senate meetings, and to carry discussion from the senate to the ad ministration. For example, SFCC’s college senate sends out the senate agenda and mi nutes electronically a nd uses an electronic bulletin board and email for faculty concerns and feedback. Furthermore, college senate meetings are generally broadcast via the Internet. Because SFCC’s governance is representative, senate representatives send reports from the senate meeting by email and/or repo rt informally at department meetings. Department members also communicate reque sts through their repr esentatives to the senate—either informally through email or “w ater cooler” conversations or formally through department meetings. The culture of SFCC informally promot es representative governance. A new SFCC representative indicated his strong desire to cast his vote at the college senate according to his department’s wishes: “I made it very clear to my faculty that I’ll vote their way even if I am violently opposed to it. . I’ll do it that way because that’s the charge.” Another representative stated: “You’re not there to take over and do things against the wishes of your department. You’re there to inform them of what’s going on and get their input and to vote their group mind.” One minimally involved SFCC faculty member indicated her support of the representative process: “I usually let my senate rep do most of the work.” Another faculty me mber, however, indicated some dissatisfaction with a department representative to the senate : “Sometimes that [representation] hasn’t

PAGE 100

91 worked very well. We had reps in the pa st who didn’t know what was going on or what they were representing us on.” At SFCC, the college senate president, a faculty member, is responsible for communicating the decisions at the senate to the college executive council and to the president’s cabinet for further discussion. Like SFCC’s college senate, DBCC’s faculty senate uses email (including occasional informal surveys) and an elec tronic bulletin board to communicate with faculty, although one of the inte rviewees mentioned that the electronic bulletin board was rarely used. Faculty also indica te their concerns to the faculty senate officers informally. A former senate officer made this statement about the frequency of faculty coming by his office to express concerns: “Occasionally they do, but really they don’ t. They’re just so uninvolved.” A major problem of DBCC’s faculty senate is the lack of attendance at many of the senate meetings. Only about 20 faculty—l ess than 10% of the full-time faculty—are present at most senate meetings, prompting one former senate officer to describe the attendance as “pathetic.” Although DBCC broadcas ts faculty senate meetings to remote sites over its television system attendance at the remote site s is not good either. With so few faculty attending senate meetings, “onl y a small minority of people are actually influencing the decisions,” and th e fear is that “the [college] president doesn’t really feel that the faculty senate repres ents the faculty because such small numbers actually show up.” In the past, DBCC’s senate tried a vote proxy system through which faculty appointed a department member to voice th e department’s opinions, but the faculty senate president at that time believed that “some faculty members felt that only members

PAGE 101

92 that were present at the meeting should be voting.” Another former DBCC faculty senate president remarked: Another problem with not having an electe d body is that different people show up at different meetings, so you’ll have something discussed and carried forth to the next meeting. Now you’ve got another group of people showing up at the second meeting. They haven’t heard the disc ussion from the first meeting, so the continuity is awkward. With this “awkward” continuity, it is not cl ear what the process is for communicating to faculty what has happened at the senate mee tings—other than through the senate minutes. At DBCC, the faculty senate pr esident does serve as chair of the faculty senate committee and does meet with the president at regular intervals along with the chairs of other constituency groups (professiona l, career, etc.). However, the DBCC faculty senate does not sit on the president’s cabinet and does not represent the faculty’s concerns at that level. Faculty Issues Discussed at Senate Both the SFCC and DBCC senates have di scussed a wide variety of faculty issues. The issues most frequently identified as important to the interviewees were salary and faculty development and evaluation proces ses. Not only were faculty salaries a regular topic of discussion, but faculty at bot h colleges mentioned the senate’s role in recent faculty equity studies. Other less frequently discussed issues incl uded faculty benefits such as the health care plan and retirement; personnel issues (need for more faculty, hiring procedures, discrimination and sexual harassment policie s); classroom-based issues (teaching and

PAGE 102

93 learning, summer terms, new programs); or ganizational culture issues (academic freedom, need for communication/information sharing); and budgeting. Faculty interviewed at both colleges, how ever, mentioned issues that had not been discussed widely at senate but that warranted discussion or should have been discussed in a timely manner. These included issues in spec ial committees or tasks forces that should be within the confines of the college sena te, such as work load/equity issues, hiring projections, the reasons for a la ck of involvement in faculty senate, and a discussion of the competition between the faculty senate a nd other administrative structures such as DBCC’s planning council (discuss ed later in the ch apter). Faculty also indicated two issues that should have received more discus sion at senate but were brought before the group with little time left before implem entation: minimesters to begin in Fall 2003 (SFCC) and the healthcare plan (DBCC). I also asked interviewees a bout issues that were discussed at the senate that did not appear to them to be substantive. Thr ee of the interviewees did not believe that the senate discussed many issues that were not substantive. Many of the other issues mentioned as not being substantive were college-specific such as the Lifetime Achievement Awards at SFCC or the distri bution of dog track funds at DBCC. Two former senate officers viewed nonsubstantive is sues as “the process of personalizing too many things that don’t involve the collectiv e group” and “yakking [about issues] that never really can come to conclusion.” Faculty Governance Outcomes The interviewees noted several exampl es of faculty issues that had been effectively represented to the administration. The interviewees felt that the senate most

PAGE 103

94 effectively represented their concerns related to faculty salary/benefits (portfolios, credit banking, phased retirement) and the eval uation process (self-evaluation, faculty evaluation of supervisors and administra tors). Another faculty member highly experienced in governance stated that effective representation did not mean institutional changes: “Certain thi ngs went the wrong way, even with all our efforts.” One-third of the interviewees either coul d not give examples or did not know of issues lacking effective representation. Ot her issues mentioned by faculty as lacking effective representation to the administration were faculty work load, sabbaticals, the healthcare plan, and the process for faculty gr ievances. One faculty member implied that many issues on his campus lacked effective representation because there was an illusion or covering of some sort of representativ e involvement. . [but ] no real meaningful involvement.” Faculty and Administration Inte raction: Implications for Institutional Decision-Making The interviewees identified a number of in stitutional decisions that were a result of faculty and administration working togeth er. At both colleges, interviewees cited decisions related to faculty salaries and be nefits. At SFCC, facu lty and administration worked together to investigate faculty salari es at other community colleges in Florida and made a major salary adjustment to full-time faculty salaries in an attempt to raise the average salary of its faculty as reported in The Community College Fact Book issued annually. Other important salary/benefits decisions made with the faculty and administration working together include d credit banking and phased retirement. At DBCC, the faculty senate and administ ration worked on a faculty equity salary study, also examining salaries at othe r community colleges and across campus

PAGE 104

95 departments. The faculty senate recomme nded a step plan that was “modified by the administration.” The faculty interviewed at SFCC also c ited administrative support for a proposed faculty self-evaluation process changing the focus from faculty evaluation to professional development. This proposal, developed by the professional standards committee of the college senate, included a pilo t study currently in progress. Other institutional decisions mentioned were revised hiring procedures for faculty, the transformation to a technological campus, and the hiring of a ne w president. However, not every SFCC faculty member is pleased with the interacti on of the faculty and administration to make decisions. For example, one interviewee cite d a successful student program that had not been refunded because it was not a budget priority. Two of the faculty interviewed at DBCC identified the establishment of channels of communication between faculty and admi nistration as an important institutional decision worked out between both groups. Another faculty member discussed DBCC’s “upward evaluation” of administra tors and supervisors by faculty. These institutional decisions ideally “va lidate what we are do ing out here at the grassroots level of the institution.” Faculty and administration acknowledge that “we can help each other” and that “it’s best to at le ast listen and be responsive to senate input.” The result is a healthy tension between admi nistration and faculty with both consensus building and conflict. Other faculty, however, are not confident that the administration is listening to faculty input in institutional decision-making--specifically at DBCC. One faculty member said that sometimes the work of a committee is “completely disregarded.”

PAGE 105

96 Another stated that “there are [opportunities for inte raction] as long as we are in unison with the general plan.” Still other facu lty believe that many decisions made by the administration are a “kind of a done deal,” “a fait accompli “a preset plan . as to what’s going to happen and that’s what’s go ing to happen.” One faculty summarized his perception of faculty par ticipation in institutional governance : “There’s an artificiality to the governance. I think that it’ s a lot of busyness to create th e illusion of participation.” Interviewees’ Level of Involvement in Faculty Governance Among the interviewees, the length of serv ice at the institution ran from less than one year to 34 years. This wide range of year s of experience at the institution means that the interviewed faculty’s view s range from those of novice to expert. They are also committed to the community college system. Although two of the interviewees have over 30 years experience at the college, only one plans to retire within five years. The interviewed faculty included two who are new to faculty governance involvement, two who are minimally involved, four who are highly involved (including former senate officers), and three who are cu rrently heavily involved in committee work. One faculty member, a former faculty senate president who described her involvement as “very little,” said, “When I first came into be ing involved in this college in faculty senate or other committees that I participated in, I would criticize coll eagues that would not come to faculty senate, . but, unfortunatel y, I have become one of them.” However, another former faculty senate president, still highly involved, described his active participation as being over “many, many, ma ny, many years.” Of the 12 interviewees, seven are more involved than five years a go, one is involved about the same, and four

PAGE 106

97 have less involvement. Two of the four facu lty with less involvement are still involved but are no longer senate presid ents, so they reported them selves as “less involved.” Personal Characteristics Encouraging Involvement These faculty noted many personal motiv ations for their current level of involvement. Three faculty mentioned a desi re to serve their departments as elected representatives to the senate. Half of the interview ees cited support from colleagues, administrators, a department chair, and facu lty mentors as encouraging factors. One faculty member credited her involvement to a former senate president who worked in her area: “He talked it up with us. . and he was engaged and he was letting us know what was happening, [so] we became more involved.” Two faculty became involved because they strongly believed in a faculty voice in governance. One of these faculty affirmed: “They [faculty] should be sharing in the decision-making. . especially in things that affect the classroo m.” Other motivating factors included social networking (getting “out of the silo”), being a “busy body,” and being invited to be a faculty senate officer or major committee chair. One faculty member cited her curiosity as a major reason for her involvement: “To be an effective faculty member. . I need to know what the issu es are, what the big picture’s all about, so that’s one of the main reasons I’ve gotten involved.” Some faculty mentioned that being in the senate offered them leadership opportunities and a chance for recognition. As one faculty member said: I think it’s [being a faculty senate officer] really propelled me. . I wasn’t really ladder climbing; that was really not my poi nt, but I think that there’s no doubt that there’s a direct correlation between the faculty senate vice-presidency and my

PAGE 107

98 new chairmanship role at the college. . It put me into a position to deal with the administration, get to know them, and they saw whatever they liked or they didn’t like, and they made thei r own judgments on that. Some of the interviewed faculty who we re new to senate involvement clearly liked what they saw happening at the mee tings. A faculty member, who described himself as “antipolitical,” admitted he was elected as a representative when he “missed a meeting,” but now, “I see the good things that are getting done in our senate, and I want to be a part of that.” Another faculty member, who had been uninvolved for many years while working on his doctorate, said that wh en he was inactive in faculty governance, he “didn’t see any direct results of being in the f aculty senate,” but his attitude has changed: “I do now.” Institutional Characteristics Encouraging Involvement Although one faculty member said that, until recently, he was “minimally aware” of the faculty senate although he had been at the institution for 20 years, the other interviewees felt that certain institutional characteristics of the college promoted involvement in faculty governance. One of th ese characteristics is the expectations of faculty members to provide service to the co llege and develop themselves professionally. A former faculty senate president stated th at being involved in governance has “become more and more a part of our job description a nd a part of the obligation that we have to the college. And it’s widely publicized and promoted by the administration.” Another institutional characteristic en couraging faculty involvement in governance is incentives or rewards for that involvement. At DBCC, for instance, a portfolio system used for salary ranges and assignment of professional rank promotes

PAGE 108

99 faculty senate involvement, particularly as an officer. At both colleges, faculty senate officers received release time and/or stipends. Both institutions have provided a way for th e senate meetings to be broadcast to the college community. SFCC provides web cas ting for its senate meetings while DBCC offers video conferencing. A former senate president mentioned that the senate meetings were scheduled at a time when f aculty should be able to come. Clearly, the organizational culture of the institutions can promote faculty involvement in institutional governance. SF CC faculty were proud of their history of shared governance. One former senate presid ent at SFCC, a faculty member with over 30 years experience at the institution, supported the current climate at the college: We’ve been lucky that we’ve had an admi nistration that has b een very supportive of the whole process. . It’s clear that the administration always makes the final decision, but they’ve been involved with re aching out to the college senate when they make a committee or they are looki ng into a new area. They try to be responsive. . And they have backed up the shared governance model. At DBCC, the faculty were less certai n about an organizational climate for effective faculty governance. The primary advisory body on campus is not the faculty senate, but the planning council that came into being with the arrival of a new president a few years ago. One of the DBCC faculty expressed confidence in this governance structure: “The new presiden t. . perceives a participator y governmental system of the college. It involves faculty se nate, but it also involves many other orders of the career employees, the professionals, and everything else combined at the college to make decisions.”

PAGE 109

100 Personal Characteristics Hindering Involvement The interviewees also stated some pe rsonal concerns that could discourage involvement in faculty governance. Five of the interviewees mentioned that work load was a hindrance to involvement in governance because a community college faculty member’s work load is already heavy—part icularly for those faculty teaching Gordon Rule courses—without adding on the respons ibilities of faculty involvement in governance. For example, each college requires fa culty to teach a base load of 15 credit hours each semester (except for the Santa Fe Community College’s English faculty, whose base load is 12 credit hours). A f aculty member’s teaching schedule often includes evening classes, and many faculty t each supplemental classes and online classes in addition to their base loads. A DBCC f aculty member added that the responsibilities of the vocational faculty often precluded th em from attending afternoon faculty senate meetings. Other faculty, particularly at DBCC, are clearly discouraged about faculty governance outcomes at their institutions. Speci fically, they are concerned about a lack of attendance at faculty senate meetings b ecause the faculty senate’s power is waning compared to that of the planning council. They are also concerned about faculty who are “putting the brakes” on faculty governance involv ement: “It’s not that they’re not active. They’re just active doing what they need to do to maintain their particular niche.” Another discouraging factor is the belief by some of the faculty—specifically at DBCC--that the faculty senate is a “waste of time” because the administration will do what it wants to do and the faculty senate lacks power. One interviewee succinctly

PAGE 110

101 stated: “I have come to the epiphany that, unfortunately, the involve ment of faculty in the governance system is a futile exercise.” Institutional Characteristi cs Hindering Involvement Certain institutional characteristics hinder involvement as well. For example, both SFCC’s college senate and DBCC’s faculty senate meet in the afternoons. One SFCC science faculty member mentioned that she often had labs scheduled during the times when the college senate met, precluding her attendance. A former senate president at DBCC added that there was frequently comp etition for the time previously dedicated to faculty senate meetings: Over the last couple of year s, there seem to be more and more meetings during that period of time, but it [the time for the senate meeting] was set up . to allow for faculty not to be tied up in other kinds of academic meetings or college wide committee meetings so that they would be free to attend the faculty senate. Although DBCC does have a portfolio evaluation system which encourages faculty involvement in the governance of the institution, this incentive is removed when a faculty member has reached the top of a salary range (or prof essional rank). As one faculty member stated: “I’m not as involve d any more because I’ve reached the top of the senior professor level, so I have nothing to do to go any further, so I let other people do all those kinds of things.” One-third of the interviewees cite d another discouraging institutional characteristic—a “top-heavy,” hi erarchical administrative stru cture so that faculty have “the perception that it [involvement in facu lty governance] may not matter.” In both colleges, senate decisions are advisory only: “They [the administration] always make the

PAGE 111

102 final decision. It’s always a dvisory what the senate does; it’s never mandated what they do.” Another faculty member believed that the male-dominated administrative structure in many of Florida’s community colleges might be an obstacle for minority and female involvement in faculty governance. Role of the College President At SFCC, half of the interviewed fa culty cited the support of shared governance by the current college president, Dr. Jackson Sasser. One faculty member stated: “He has always tried to keep faculty involv ed, our entire campus involved, asked for our opinions, advice, and feedback and information.” Another faculty member stated the role of Dr. Larry Tyree, one of SFCC’s previous pr esidents: “He asked for input, he took it to heart, and he listened to us, and he. . made us all believe in such a thing as shared governance.” The current SFCC president also intervened in several instances to resolve faculty concerns at the college senate. One of these issues involved hiring procedures for faculty. When the president le arned about a conflict in the procedures for the search and screening of faculty, he intervened at senate and helped resolve the i ssue. This resolution resulted in changes in the wording of the hi ring procedures. After these wording changes occurred, the revised documents were sent to th e senate for review. Just after Dr. Sasser arrived at SFCC, he became involved in a controversy regarding one of the college’s art exhibits. Because of the c ontroversial nature of the e xhibit, the president was under pressure from some of the major donors to the college and from other members of the community. However, as one faculty member stated it, President Sa sser stepped into the fire and supported academic freedom a nd the art exhibit’s presence on campus.

PAGE 112

103 According to one faculty member, “The facu lty was greatly surprised not because we knew him and thought he wouldn’t support us, but because we didn’t know him and we just assumed that he wouldn’t, that he w ouldn’t stand up.” Because of the president’s active involvement on campus, one faculty member said: “I definitely feel that I’m more informed about the campus.” At DBCC, President Kent Sharples has instituted the planning council as a form of participatory governance. He has also he ld a president’s forum for all employees to attend and interact with the pr esident. According to one of the DBCC faculty, with Dr. Sharples, “everything is about relationships.” However, some faculty were concerned about president-driven decision-making and the “illusion of inclusio n” in participatory governance. One DBCC faculty member gave the example of the health care plan recently presented at the faculty senate by a task force outside the conf ines of the senate. At the senate meeting, none of the task force member s were identified, and though the task force supposedly included faculty members, no f aculty member made a presentation on the proposed plan. This faculty member’s perception was that the plan “w as just done to us . . It wasn’t open for discussion. It was just done.” Clearly, the faculty who were interv iewed on both campuses believe that the president sets the tone for faculty in put into institutional decision-making. Furthermore, the senate’s effectiveness depe nds in large part on the relevance the president assigns to faculty involvement in institutional governan ce. The faculty interviewed recognize that faculty senates and college senates are advisory only. As one faculty member stated, “I think we’re [faculty and administration] still not trusting each other very well.” Role of the Faculty Senate President

PAGE 113

104 The SFCC college senate president, Ward Scott, chairs the college senate and appoints the senate committees. As the spoke sperson for the senate at the president’s cabinet and president’s executive council, he “has been very instrumental in making the college senate play a greater role in the life of the campus.” The college senate president is also president of a statewide organizati on, the Community College Faculty Coalition of Florida, and has been active in promoting a community colle ge faculty voice at a state level. SFCC faculty view him as actively engaged in the decisi on-making processes of the college. One of the members of the coll ege senate stated: “Our president has been very proactive in making sure that as much information about whatever decisions that he has insight into somehow come to the senate.” The DBCC faculty senate president just left her position. Her responsibilities were to attend constituency meetings cal led by the president, to solicit faculty involvement in the senate, and to esta blish channels of communication to the administration by establishing committees para llel to those in the college planning council—what one faculty member called “a tou gh road.” She chaired the faculty senate meetings and set the agenda. The DBCC faculty senate presiden t asked to be a part of the president’s cabinet, but this request was declined. Reportedl y, the president indicated his worry about setting precedence for future f aculty senate presidents. A former faculty senate president at DBCC stated: “Being f aculty senate president. . was. . not something that would. . be considered im portant.” Another former DBCC faculty senate president added that the president’s no t allowing the faculty senate president to sit on the cabinet “spoke volumes as to how faculty were perceived. We were perceived as

PAGE 114

105 outsiders. . as people who would just rob the decision-making process if we were able to listen to what was said, let alone actually have input into what was being said.” Just as the college president sets the tone for faculty governance, the faculty’s confidence in their senate leaders affects their willingness to i nvolve themselves in governance activities. One faculty member e xpressed her confidence this way: “There have been some faculty senate leaders that I thought really cared about what was going on at DBCC and cared about f aculty senate having a voice, and so I think that when leaders like that have been in office, I’ ve been more involved in the process.” The Senate and the Board of Trustees The faculty at both colleges receive no tice of board of trustees meetings. Furthermore, there was some confusion among the interviewed faculty about whether the senate president attended the board meetings or regularly appeared on the agenda. Two of the faculty had no knowledge of the faculty sena te president’s attendan ce at the board of trustees meeting or his or her place on the ag enda. Three faculty be lieved that the faculty senate president was present at the board meetings but was not on the agenda. One faculty member was sure that the faculty senate president was on the board agenda, but added, “I doubt that anything controversial, or. . not in unison would be spoken of there.” Another faculty member incorrectly believed that the senate president was a member of the board of trustees. Interestingly, five of the interviewees re ported that faculty were not encouraged to talk to individual board of trustees member s. One faculty member, a counselor at her institution, said: “In all the leadership traini ng I’ve gone to, they’ve said that it’s not our role to interact with the board of trustees .” When I asked a former faculty senate

PAGE 115

106 president if the board had ever asked him what faculty thought about an issue, he replied, “I cannot imagine it happening at this institution.” Assimilation of New Faculty into Faculty Governance With so many faculty retiring in the next few years as part of Florida’s Deferred Option Retirement Plan, many new faculty will be entering the community college. Part of the governance responsibilities of the in stitution is the assimilation of these new faculty into the decision-making processes. Tw o of the interviewees indicated that they did not know the process for the assimilation of new faculty although they “would like to see something like that.” Another one-thir d mentioned informal mentoring (through the “grapevine”) as a way of assimilating new facu lty. Over half stated that they knew of a college orientation for new faculty that the faculty senate presid ent attended. A few faculty mentioned the importanc e of the faculty senate lead er’s email to new faculty welcoming them and seeking their involvement. Both colleges, then, use both formal and informal structures to assimilate new f aculty into the governan ce activities of the institution. Ideal Governance Process When asked to identify the characterist ics of an ideal governance process, some faculty envisioned this process as a partners hip with administration and faculty having equal voices, footing, and access in an atmos phere of mutual respect and enlivening inquiry—or, as one faculty member describe d it, not having to beg to get the college president to listen to a concer n. The goal is a “healthy te nsion” between administration and faculty leading to the “b est outcome without letting one group dominate.” Several faculty mentioned that this partnership would require more visibility and participation in

PAGE 116

107 governance by faculty so that the senate’s work is respected and taken into consideration. Thus, more initiatives would be faculty-driven a nd would not appear “out of the blue” from the administration. The role of the senate president is also vital in this ideal governance process with the sena te president working closely with the coll ege president and presenting faculty concerns to the pr esident’s cabinet and other decision-making bodies. One faculty member argued for an ideal governance process being a “benevolent dictatorship” with th e leader actively cons idering everyone’s opinion and then making the decision best for the group from a long-term perspective. This benevolent dictator would use his or her wisdom and take the heat for the decisions that were made. However, other faculty members desired sh ared governance with the administration actively asking for faculty involvement in in stitutional decision-making because “it’s very hard for people to partic ipate in decisions when they feel that they had no voice making them.” Without this involvement, mistrust occurs, and “things are not going to work.” In fact, as one faculty member stated : “It takes very, very little to make a good college and to make it run well and to make everybody happy and to do a great job.” Statewide Implications With the recent change in higher educa tion governance in Florida, the Community College Faculty Coalition lacks its former pl ace on the agenda of the State Board of Community Colleges, which no longer exists Furthermore, the Presidents’ Council, consisting of the presidents of Florid a’s 28 community colleges, has no faculty representative, and the Coaliti on is not on the agenda of the Presidents’ Council. In fact, when the Faculty Commission of the Florida Association of Community College asked

PAGE 117

108 for representation on the presid ents’ council, the request wa s refused. Thus, according to four current or former community college senate presidents, there is “zero outlet” statewide for a report of community college faculty’s views. As one faculty member said, “There’s been a real b acksliding on the statewide leve l in governance for listening to faculty views.” Summary As reflected in the data analysis of the survey results, Florida’s community college faculty are generally moderately invo lved in institutional gove rnance activities. As a group, they do not regularly attend facu lty governance body meetings, but they do participate on committees and talk to their co lleagues about issues related to governance. Many of the survey respondents are less invol ved in governance than five years ago. Florida’s community college faculty agree abou t what the role of faculty should be in decision-making but are less in agreement a bout the desired role of their faculty governance bodies or the characte ristics of an ideal governan ce process. According to the survey’s results, personal characteristics su ch as age, and years of experience at the institution do not relate to the faculty memb er’s self-reported leve l of involvement. However, there is some effect of race on a faculty member’s self-reported level of involvement. Emergent Themes A careful analysis of the interviews re veals a number of im portant, recurring themes. These themes, interwoven through the interviews, are echoed in the voices of the interviewed faculty present in the remainder of this chapter. One of these predominant themes is the need for the faculty voice to be heard in institutional decision-making—no

PAGE 118

109 matter what the faculty governance structure is. Not only is the voice of the faculty important, but also the perception that the vo ice is heard, respected, and trusted by those in a decision-making role. Faculty want to believe that their work in governance is making a difference in the institution. Another key theme is the need for intern al and external communication structures and processes to clarify faculty’s opinions on a wide variety of issues and to make these opinions known to the faculty as a whole, the administration, and other bodies such as the board of trustees and the state board of community colleges. Some of the communication is lateral, including comm unication with other faculty and with department chairs. Upward communication is also critical—for example, communication between the faculty governance leaders and gove rnance participants and decision-makers within the administration. The voices of the interviewed faculty speak clearly to the importance of what the local senate does and the issues it discusse s. Faculty can articulate what has been achieved with the administration and faculty working together toward a desired goal. Furthermore, they recognize the influence that both the faculty senate president and the college president should have as leaders of the institution and as promoters of shared governance. Another recurring theme is the motivation for the personal invol vement of faculty in institutional decision-making—coming out of their offices to do the work of governance. The motivations for involvemen t are both intrinsic and extrinsic. Many faculty clearly believe such participation is part of their servic e to the college and

PAGE 119

110 embrace that duty, and some enjoy the social networking. Faculty also look for both the tangible and intangible rewards the college o ffers faculty who participate in governance. The concerns of these faculty are also evident. Some fret about the lack of involvement of many faculty in institutional decision-ma king. They worry that the administration has predetermined plans and so participation in facu lty governance is not valued. They wonder about how new faculty w ill be assimilated into the institution and its governance. These faculty have visions of an ideal governance process and can articulate their dreams. They believe that faculty should be empowered to make decisions and that faculty will be more likely to abide by decisions that they helped make. SFCC is an example of a community college where shared governance is a reality. The faculty interviewed at SFCC expressed th eir confidence in the college’s leadership, and the college senate is ac tive, addressing a wide range of issues. The SFCC faculty could describe the decision-making processes and the outcomes of those processes. The senate representatives take their roles seriousl y and work diligently to keep open the lines of communication. In contrast, faculty participation in de cision-making at DBCC takes place largely in the planning council—the college presid ent’s forum for participatory governance. Participation in the faculty senate is waning, and some of DBCC’s faculty are not convinced that meaningful shared governance is occurring at their college. Instead, many faculty are discouraged by the displacement of faculty participation from the senate to the planning council and by the college presiden t’s refusal to allow the faculty senate president on his cabinet. Th is discouragement has result ed in the perception that

PAGE 120

111 institutional decisions are often predetermi ned by the administration and that faculty participation in institutional decision-making is frequently an artifi ciality—an illusion. Conclusion In light of this study’s pu rpose and nine research ques tions, this chapter presented the results of the data analysis of each surv ey item following the procedures set forth in Chapter 3. Furthermore, using established qu alitative analysis techniques, I explored the interviews of 12 of Florida’s full-time commun ity college faculty at two institutions. The purpose of using both quantitative and qualita tive analysis was to enhance the study’s findings, conclusions, and implications.

PAGE 121

112 Chapter 5 Summary of Findings, Conclusions, and Implicat ions for Theory, Practice, and Research This study’s purpose was to investigate th e level of involvement of Florida’s fulltime community college faculty in institutiona l governance activities. Furthermore, this study examined Florida’s full-time community college faculty’s perceptions of the faculty governance body’s role in institu tional decision-making as well as the characteristics of an ideal governance proce ss. This study also explored the relation between a faculty member’s level of involve ment in governance activ ities and his or her perceptions of the desired role s of faculty in institutional governance. Other topics for investigation included the relation between a faculty member’s level of involvement and his or her gender, race, age, and years of employment at the institution. Certain factors within the college’s environment that encour age or discourage facu lty participation in governance were also probed. For purposes of this study, a faculty governance body was defined as a forum generally composed of elected faculty representatives or ganized for the purpose of advising the administration regardin g policies affecting faculty. A faculty governance body was also called a faculty advisory body The terms faculty governance body or faculty advisory body did not refer to a collective bargaining unit.

PAGE 122

113 Method Summary I distributed a 25-item surv ey developed by Miller and Vacik (1998). The survey included an introduction deta iling the purpose of the study, demographic questions, and questions related to the faculty member’s le vel of involvement in governance activities. The response rate of 11% ( n = 560) met the a priori power analysis requirements but raised questions about the char acteristics of thos e who did not respond to the survey. An analysis revealed that while whites were overly represented among the survey respondents (as compared to the number of white full-time instructional faculty in The 2002 Fact Book of the Florida Community College System ), Hispanics and blacks were underrepresented. The percentage of male and female survey respondents was not significantly different from the percentage of males and females in the population (Florida’s full-time commun ity college faculty). Various statistical techniques, including nonrespondent analysis, were used to study the data and analyze the survey results. Following the administration of the survey, I employed purposeful sampling methods to c hoose twelve faculty at two community colleges for one-hour, tape-recorded interviews Using inductive methods, I analyzed the interview transcripts and presented the results. Summary of Findings Using both quantitative and qualitative anal ysis techniques, this study explored nine research questions, each of which is pr esented below with a summary of the findings for each question. 1. What is the level of involvement of Florida’s full-time community college faculty in inst itutional governance?

PAGE 123

114 A majority of the survey’s respondents (85.34%) reported themselves as either moderately or highly involved in the governance of their institutions. Further evidence of involvement was the fact that approximately one-quarter of the res pondents indicated that they had served as a faculty governance body offi cer within the last three years. Using correlation analysis, I determined a mode rately strong relation between a faculty member’s self-reported level of involvement and his or her service as a faculty governance officer. However, a nonrespondent analysis revealed that while only 14.36% of the survey respondents reported themselves as not invol ved or not much involved in the faculty governance of their institutions, 55% of th e nonrespondents were either not involved or not much involved. This study’s outcomes, th en, were affected both by the large number of moderately involved faculty and th e small number of uninvolved faculty who responded to the survey. Among the interviewees, two of the f our faculty who had once served as presidents of their faculty governance bodies reported their current level of involvement as less involved than five years ago (the time of their tenure as president). Seven of the 12 interviewees were currently highly involve d in governance activities—more involved than five years ago. Among survey respondents, attendance at faculty governance body meetings was reported as weak with slightly more than half of the respondents attending less than half of the meetings. This low attendance may be due to the fact that many community college senates are representative. However, at one of the institutions I visited that has a non-representative structure, only about 10% of the full-time faculty attend—and faculty

PAGE 124

115 from that institution reported that the attend ance at many of the senate meetings was even less than the 10%. Survey respondents were actively involved in committee work with over half the respondents attending committee meetings mont hly during the fall and spring semesters. Nearly one-third of the respondents had serv ed on four or more committees during the past three years. One-fourth of the inte rviewees are presently highly involved in committee work. Committee work clearly play s an important role in the governance of community colleges—both within and outside th e confines of the senate. At one of the community colleges, Daytona Beach Community College, the primary governance committee is outside the senate—the college’s planning council. The college’s faculty senate, realizing the challenge of this c ouncil, has created a parallel system of committees—a testimony to the perceived im portance of the role of committees in institutional decision-making. Not surprisi ngly, the results of a correlation analysis indicated a moderately st rong relationship between committee work and a faculty member’s self-reported level of involvement. Among survey respondents, faculty who ch aired or co-chaired committees were more likely to serve on fewer committees, probably because of the amount of work that chairing or co-chairing a committee often i nvolves. Three-fourths of the survey respondents had served on a committee or projec t resulting in significant outcomes to the college. Florida’s community college faculty use both formal and informal methods to communicate their concerns to their governance bodies. Several of the interviewees discussed the importance of “w ater cooler” conversations fo r informal “bubbling up” of

PAGE 125

116 concerns from faculty to the se nates. Faculty also reported discussing faculty concerns at department meetings and with their senate representatives. Slightly more than half of the survey respondents reported themselves as less involved than five years ago. One-third of the interviewed faculty reported less involvement than five years ago. One faculty member admitted her disaffection with the faculty governance process, believing it to be futility. However, several other faculty who had been uninvolved for many years ac knowledged the benefits of faculty participation in institu tional decision-making. In response to research question #1, Fl orida’s community college faculty who responded to the survey are likely to be moderately involved in the institutional governance. Many do not attend faculty gove rnance body meetings regularly, but they do serve on committees. Therefore, service on committees is perhaps a stronger indicator of faculty participation in governance than attendance of faculty governance body meetings. 2. What are faculty members’ perceptions of the roles that faculty advisory bodies play in institutional governance? The survey results, based on the means and standard deviations for survey items 1-25 in section IV., demonstrated that facu lty believe “that faculty should convince the administration that the faculty ‘voice’ is a va luable component in decision-making.” This survey item (question #21) had the highest mean of the 25 items. Another survey item (question #22) with the same mean stated: “Faculty must insist on their rights and responsibilities in appropriat e governance roles.” Faculty al so agreed that the issues considered by their faculty governance body were important (question #16) ( M = 3.95,

PAGE 126

117 SD = .99). However, faculty were neutral about whether “faculty committees should work harder to cooperate with th e administration” (question #23) ( M = 3.27, SD = 1.11). In general, survey respondents showed agreem ent on survey items related to the roles of faculty governance bodies in institutional governance. The faculty who were interv iewed supported the survey re sults. Several of the faculty interviewed mentioned specifically that they had entered faculty governance because they believed that faculty should have a voice in decision-making. The faculty who were interviewed at Daytona Beach Co mmunity College clearly desire another voice, the voice of their faculty senate president sitting on th e president’s cabinet in an “appropriate governance role,” ye t the president has refused to allow the faculty senate president to assume this role. In addi tion, the faculty who we re interviewed had no trouble identifying a total of 15 important issues Most of the issues related to faculty salaries and benefits although f aculty identified a number of issues related to teaching and learning concerns. Several of the faculty at Santa Fe Co mmunity College desired more faculty on committees. Faculty at both colleges pointed to institutional decisions that had been made with faculty and administration worki ng together on committees. Yet there is the concern that the work of a committee may be disregarded and th at the outcomes of committees may be predetermined. 3. How do Florida’s full-time community college faculty envision an ideal governance process? Among the survey questions related to th is question, questions 17-20, the question with the highest mean was question #18: “T he faculty governance body is utilized as a

PAGE 127

118 conduit through which faculty part icipation is solicited” ( M = 3.30, SD = 1.25). Faculty did not agree with the other survey items: whether facu lty are empowered to question policy decisions (#17), whether faculty govern ance is involved early in the decisionmaking process (#19), and whether neutral c onsultants mediate faculty-administration dealings (#20). However, it is conceivabl e that survey respondents answered these questions based on their experiences at their institutions even though that section of the survey clearly indicated that th e questions were related to the characteristics of an ideal governance process. None of the faculty interviewed menti oned anything related to question #20 as related to an ideal gov ernance process. In fact, interv iewees believed that consensus building and conflict promoted a healthy te nsion between administ ration and faculty. Moreover, several faculty stated that an ideal governance pro cess would involve a partnership, with the administration seeking faculty input and respecting faculty-driven initiatives. This respect would include bringing issues to the senate in time for the senate to engage in full discussion of those issues before decisions were made. Faculty further acknowledged that an ideal governance process would requi re leadership, increased participation by faculty, and all parties listening to each other. Overall, in response to research questi ons #2 and #3, Florida’s community college faculty agreed about what the roles of faculty should be in institutional decision-making. However, there was less agreement about the roles their faculty governance bodies play. 4. What is the relation between a faculty member’s level of involvement in institutional decision-making and his or her perceptions of institutional governance?

PAGE 128

119 The quantitative analysis of this question addressed three null hypotheses. The survey response met the a priori power analysis requirement for each null. A correlation procedure rejected the first null, finding a moderately strong relationship between a faculty member’s percepti ons of faculty involvemen t in institutional governance (represented by the overall means for survey items 1-16) and the se lf-reported level of involvement. A correlation analysis also in dicated a weak positive correlation between the scale of involvement for each faculty member and his or her perceptions of institutional governance. The quantitative analysis for the second null showed similar results, examining the relation between a faculty member’s level of involvement and his or her perceptions of the desired roles of faculty in institutio nal governance. Correlation procedures showed a weak positive correlation between the faculty member’s se lf-reported level of involvement and his or her perceptions of th e faculty roles in in stitutional decisionmaking as well as a weak positive correlation between the faculty member’s scale of involvement and those perceptions. The third null was whether a faculty memb er’s level of involvement was related to his or her perceptions of an ideal g overnance process. Correlation procedures demonstrated a weak correlation between a faculty member’s self-reported involvement level and his or her perceptions of ideal governance and between the faculty member’s scale of involvement and those perceptions. A comparison with the results of the survey by Miller and Vacik (1998) indicated that although Florida’s community college f aculty understands what the roles of faculty governance bodies should be in institutional governance (research que stion #2) and, as

PAGE 129

120 shown through the interviews, can articulate this knowledge, they are less in agreement about the characteristics of an ideal governance process (re search question #3) and the relation between a faculty member’s level of involvement and his or perceptions of institutional decision-maki ng (research question #4). Demonstrating this lack of agreemen t about a faculty member’s level of involvement and the perceptions of institu tional governance are the interviewed faculty, particularly at DBCC, who are greatly concerned with the lack of participation of faculty in the faculty senate. Some faculty believed that faculty did not attend faculty senate meetings because of other commitments. Ot her faculty, however, are convinced that the lack of participation is due to the percep tion that the faculty senate does not matter— perhaps because of its competition with othe r governance groups such as the planning council. The answer to research question #4, based on the survey results, is that there is a significant relationship between a faculty memb er’s participation in governance and his or her perceptions of faculty involvement in th at process, the desired roles of faculty in institutional governance, and the characteris tics of an ideal governance process. 5. What is the direction and strength of the relationship between a faculty member’s level of involvement in in stitutional governance and his or her gender? The quantitative analysis showed no significant difference between the female and male faculty members’ self-reported leve ls of involvement in faculty governance. Furthermore, the data analysis revealed no significant difference between the means of the females’ scale of involvement and the m eans of the males’ scale of involvement.

PAGE 130

121 Of all the interviewees, only two discu ssed gender issues and faculty involvement in governance. One faculty member guessed that she was appointed to committees because, in addition to severa l other factors, she was fema le. Another faculty member spoke of differences in male and female communication styles and the effect on governance: “We’ve had to communicate at their [the males’] level to help them understand that this is not the way we’re goi ng to communicate, so we’re just going to shut down and not say anything.” Therefore, according to this study’s an alysis, the survey data did not support a relationship between a faculty member’s gend er and his or her level of involvement. 6. What is the direction and strength of the relationship between a faculty member’s level of involvement in in stitutional governance and his or her race? An ANOVA procedure followed by a T ukey Studentized Ragne (HSD) Test looked for differences in the self-reported leve l of involvement among four racial groups: black, Hispanic, white, and other. The a ssumptions of normality, homogeneity of variance, and independence of observations were met. The analysis showed differences between the means of Hispanics and black s and between the means of whites and Hispanics. However, an ANOVA procedure to examine differences in the scale of involvement among the four racial groups did not reveal any significant difference in the means of the different racial groups—perhaps because the variable, scale of involvement, has greater variability than the variab le, self-reported level of involvement. Only one of the interviewed faculty mentioned race as a reason for her involvement on so many governance committees although she mentioned other personal

PAGE 131

122 factors as well: “The bottom line is that peopl e are trying to have a level of diversity in their committees. You know, being an African -American female faculty member . I think that’s some of the reason initially. I think over time I’ve proved myself. So that’s not the major concern, but it’s still, it’s a part.” Therefore, while there may be some relationship between a faculty member’s selfreported level of involvement and his or her r ace, this difference of effect is not present when analyzing a faculty member’s scale of invol vement as it relates to his or her race. 7. What is the direction and strength of the relationship between a faculty member’s level of involvement in in stitutional governance and his or her age? A correlation analysis showed no signifi cant relation between age and either a faculty member’s self-reported level of involvement or a faculty member’s scale of involvement. Furthermore, no interviewees mentioned the age factor as related to participation in institutiona l governance activities. Based on this study, there is no apparent link between a faculty member’s level of involvement and his or her age. 8. What is the direction and strength of the relationship between a faculty member’s level of involvement in in stitutional governance and his or her years of employment at the institution? A correlation procedure did not show a re lationship between a faculty member’s years of experience at the inst itution and his or her self-re ported level of involvement. However, a correlation coefficient did show a weak correlation between the faculty member’s scale of involvement and his or her years of service. This difference may be

PAGE 132

123 accounted for because the scale of involvement is a composite, rather than a single, variable. Of the faculty who were interviewed, one faculty member had been at the institution for twenty years (seventeen of them as an adjunct) but was only minimally aware of the presence of the senate or the se nate’s participation in institutional decisionmaking. Another faculty member, in her fi rst year as a counselor at the college, volunteered to serve as the facu lty senate secretary. In sum, there was a wide range of involvement levels among the interviewees and the survey respondents and perhaps a weak relationship to the length of service at the institution. 9. What do faculty members perceive to be the factors within an institution that either encourage or discourage faculty participation in governance? Qualitative research, rather than quantitative analysis, addressed this question. Interviewees mentioned factors within th e institution that both encouraged and discouraged faculty participat ion in governance. These fa ctors were both personal and institutional in nature. Faculty mentioned intrinsic motivation, a desire for leadership opportunities and recognition, a need for social networking, and the personal support of colleagues as reasons for their involvement in faculty govern ance. Faculty also strongly stated their belief in a faculty voice sharing in instituti onal governance and their satisfaction with the “good things” occurring at the senate meetings Institutional factors that encouraged involvement included the expect ations of faculty member to provide service to the college, the incentives and rewards for such se rvice, and the use of college resources to

PAGE 133

124 broadcast the meetings. Furthermore, the organizational culture of the college should foster faculty involvement. Faculty at both colleges felt discourage d from involvement by their work loads and teaching schedules, often preventing them from attending senate meetings. Another discouraging personal factor wa s the disillusionment of so me faculty that work in governance made a difference, resulting in a l ack of participation at faculty senate meetings and apathy. Institutional characte ristics that hindered active involvement included hierarchical communica tion structures and the comp etition between the senate and other governance structures. Conclusions Faculty governance in Florida’s community colleges has not been a subject of extensive research for the past twenty years. Before this study, the current level of involvement of Florida’s fu ll-time community college f aculty in their institution’s governance activities was not known. Also the le vel of faculty participation of Florida’s community college faculty governance bodies in institutional decision-making was undetermined. A study of governance among Florida’s community colleges by Ervin Gatlin (1980) indicated that the level of faculty participation in decision-making was largely informal while faculty desired more formal procedures of governance. Furthermore, Gatlin’s study (1980) showed that faculty ha d the “least particip ation and satisfaction level in personnel and faculty welfare activities” (p. 103). The unit of analysis for Gatlin’s study (1980) was the individual college while the unit of analysis for this study was the individual faculty member.

PAGE 134

125 In the 23 years since Gatlin’s study, all but two or three of Florida’s community colleges have some formal procedures for faculty involveme nt in institutional governance, according to the Florida Commun ity College Coalition. Faculty at two colleges, Florida Community College at Jacksonville and Miami Dade Community College, are working to determine the future of faculty governance at their institutions after recent votes to unionize faculty. This study has shown that among the surv ey respondents, Florida’s full-time community college faculty do participate in th e governance of their institutions but often do not regularly attend faculty governance body meetings. They are, however, actively involved in service on committees and are likely to attend committee meetings regularly. They frequently discuss faculty issues in dial ogue with other faculty. Only a third of the faculty respondents, however, are more involved in faculty governance than five years ago with more than half reporting themse lves as less involved—a troubling trend. While the faculty survey respondents can identify the role s faculty governance bodies play in institutional governance, they are less in agreement about what characterizes an ideal governan ce process or what their perc eptions are about the desired level of involvement of faculty. Age does not seem to affect faculty involvement in institutional governance although the race of the faculty member may have some effect. The faculty member’s years of experience do not seem to have a major effect on the faculty member’s level of involvement. The faculty interviewed for this study believe that the voice of faculty should be heard in institutional decision-making. Although they recognize that the role of faculty governance bodies is advisory, they still consider the issues th ey discuss important. They

PAGE 135

126 desire that the college’s governance structur es and processes shoul d allow faculty to disseminate their opinions to all members of the college community. They also want a faculty “voice” at the state level. The in terviewed faculty rec ognize the importance of the organizational culture in fostering faculty pa rticipation in governance—particularly the roles of the college presiden t and the senate president. The college president’s belief that faculty governance is important is central to the succe ss of faculty governance. These faculty want their senate president to be a member of the hi ghest-level decisionmaking body at the college. At Santa Fe Community College, shared governance is a reality appreciated by the faculty interviewed there. This representa tive structure via a colle ge senate is unusual among Florida’s community colleges, but Sant a Fe’s faculty seem satisfied with the decisions made through shared governance. At Daytona Beach Community College, f aculty participation in the senate, a nonrepresentative structure, is declining, and the college president is creating other governance structures. The majority of the faculty interviewed at Daytona Beach are discouraged about the future of faculty governance at their institution, including the future of their faculty senate. Limitations This study has several limitations. One is that minority faculty members are slightly underrepresented in the sample, so that the survey sample is not representative of the population in every aspect. The sample however, does adequately represent males and females among Florida’s full-time community college faculty.

PAGE 136

127 Another limitation is the restriction of the sample to Florida’s full-time community college faculty. This limitation me ans that the results of this study may not be generalized to full-time community college faculty in other states or to part-time community college faculty. A third limitation is that the purposeful sampling for the interviews resulted in interviews with faculty who, for the most part, were highly involved in governance. Thus, the findings of the interviews may not be generalized to all of Florida’s full-time community college faculty. Perhaps the most important limitation of th e study is the survey response rate of 11%. This response rate raises questions of possible survey error, addressed in part by the nonrespondent analysis. The survey respon se rate also raises questions about the large number of Florida’s community college faculty who did not respond to the survey and the generalizability of the study’s findings to the target populat ion of all full-time community college faculty in the state of Florida. Implications for Theory Organization development re searchers such as Ouchi ( 1981), Yukl (1981), Kanter (1983), Deming (1986), Bolman and Deal ( 1997), and Harvey and Brown (2001) have argued that participative ma nagement and shared decisi on-making are desirable in organizations. They have asserted that the desire to participate in decision-making is consistent with employees’ professional development and success and that the performance of employees will increase w ith governance structures that fit the organization and its mission. Furthermor e, employees who participate in making decisions are more likely to assu me responsibility for them.

PAGE 137

128 Reflecting the work of organizational de velopment scholars, community college researchers such as Floyd (1985), Gollattsch eck (1985), Birnbaum (1988) examined the processes and structures for decision-making within community colleges. In the 1990’s, many community college researchers such as Milosheff (1990), Lovas and Fryer (1991), Twombly and Amey (1994), and Thaxter and Gr aham (1999) investigated the advantages of participatory management from a human resources perspective. They argued that shared governance enhanced the quality of decision-making processes and fostered satisfaction among commun ity college faculty. More recently, community college resear chers such as Lova s and Fryer (1991), Birnbaum (1991), Miller and Vacik (1998), Barwick (1999), Guffey, Rampp, and Masters (1999), and Pope and Miller (2000) ha ve explored governance from a political framework. These researchers have examined issues of power: who has power over the governance agenda of community colleges; who controls rewards and incentives; who promotes leadership; what are the catalysts for change within the institution. These researchers have discovered that access to decision-making does not equal power because in many community colleges faculty have input into decisions but la ck control over the outcomes of these decisions. Despite the research on institutional effectiveness and organizational development, many community colleges are st ill hierarchical administrative structures with decisions made at the highest level of authority and in arenas where faculty leaders lack access. Although Alfred (1994) predicted that comm unity college governance was moving from autocratic structures to partic ipatory governance with faculty at the center

PAGE 138

129 of decision-making, governance that is shar ed between a faculty governance body and an administration appears to be a rarity in Florida’s community colleges. Gilmour (1991) in a study of community colleges found that participation in faculty governance bodies was insufficiently rewarded, that faculty governance bodies lack efficient processes for decision-making, and that more involvement of faculty is needed in institutional governance. Yet Mi ller (2003) asserted that “the community college has become a fertile testing ground for shared decision-making” (p. 420) although this article offered little evidence to support th is statement. This study, an examination of the level of involvement of Florida’s comm unity faculty in the governance of their institutions and the implicati ons for decision-making, has added to this body of research. While Florida’s community college faculty are moderately involved in institutional governance and can articulate what the role of faculty should be in institutional decisionmaking, they are less certain about the value of participating in their faculty governance bodies and are concerned about faculty’s lack of access to shared governance. According to the results of the survey and the analys is of the interviews, Florida’s community college faculty’s participation in decisionmaking stems less from their involvement in faculty governance bodies and more from th eir participation on committees and the governance practices of their lo cal institutions. Based on the findings of this study and the limited research on community college governance, perhaps future community college research should not only examine the pa rticipation of faculty in senates and other formal governance structures but should al so focus on other forms of governance—for example, faculty participation on college wi de committees, presidents’ cabinets, boards of trustees, and state wide co mmunity college organizations.

PAGE 139

130 Implications for Practice The results of this study lead to se veral implications for decision-making in Florida’s community colleges. These include changes to make facu lty participation in governance authentic by promoting access to decision-making and improving communication: 1. The administration of Florida’s commun ity colleges should create structures that cooperate and collaborate with the faculty governance organization of the institution. 2. The faculty and administration shou ld work together to communicate institutional decisions that have been made through shared governance and to solicit feedback from all constitu ents regarding those decisions. 3. Faculty should have a voice in th e decision-making structures of the institution, including the presence of the faculty senate president at the highest level of decision-making. Organizationa l development research has clearly shown that employees governed by cert ain decisions should participate in making those decisions. Also, empl oyees are more likely to commit themselves to the decisions made with their involvement. Other suggested changes in practice would provide leadership skills and recognition for faculty: 4. The administration and the faculty shoul d provide leadership and mentoring opportunities to strengthen the faculty’s ab ility to make institutional decisions and to deal with consensus build ing and conflict in decision-making.

PAGE 140

131 5. Faculty and administration should give consideration to the assimilation of new faculty members into the governance ac tivities of their institutions. This consideration should include both st ructures and processes for this assimilation such as orientations and invitations to visit senate meetings. Other changes would provide ince ntives for faculty governance: 6. The administration and faculty should work together to identify both the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards for part icipating actively in faculty governance. 7. The administration and faculty s hould encourage attendance at senate meetings and should examine their facu lty governance struct ures to see if certain characteristics of those structur es are hindering faculty participation. Some changes in practice are necessary to broaden faculty participation in governance: 8. The administration of Florida’s co mmunity colleges should work toward establishing structures and processe s for shared authority or shared governance with faculty. Florida’s comm unity colleges should recognize and support the role of the college president and the senate presid ent in setting the tone for shared governance. 9. The administration and faculty should wo rk together to disp el the “illusion of the inclusion” of faculty in institutional decision-m aking. Administration and faculty should communicate that shared governance is a priority. 10. A faculty representative should be a member of the college’s board of trustees.

PAGE 141

132 11. Florida’s community college faculty s hould have a voice at the state level including representation on the Presiden ts’ Council of the Florida Association of Community Colleges. Implications for Research The results of this study suggest several areas for future research: 1. a comparison of the faculty governance st ructures of community colleges to those of four-year coll eges and universities; 2. an examination of the structures, processes, and outcomes of faculty involvement in decision-making within community colleges with collective bargaining units compared to t hose colleges with out unionization; 3. an investigation of which faculty gover nance structure (representative vs. nonrepresentative, college senate as opposed to faculty senate) is most effective in institutional decision-making within community colleges; 4. an inquiry into formal governance stru ctures within community colleges other than faculty senates (committees, presidents’ cabinets, boards of trustees); 5. an exploration of faculty re presentation at a state leve l in Florida compared to faculty representation in other states; 6. the influence of differences in ge nder communication styles on faculty involvement in decision-making; 7. the influence of differences in ethnic ity on faculty involvement in decisionmaking.

PAGE 142

133 References Alfred, R. L. (1985). Power on the periphery: Faculty and student roles in governance. In W. L. Deegan & J. F. Gollattsche ck (Eds.), Ensuring effective governance (pp. 25-39). San Francisc o: Jossey-Bass. Alfred, R. L. (1994). Research and pract ice on shared governan ce and participatory decision-making. In George A. Baker III (Ed.), A handbook on the community college in America: Its history, mission, and management (pp. 245-258). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Allen, L. (1991). Implementing shared govern ance: Models for empowering teachers. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, Chicago, IL. ERIC ED 334 680. Allen, L., & Glickman, C.D. (1992). School im provement: The elusive faces of shared governance. NASSP Bulletin, 76 180-187. American Association fo r Higher Education. (1967 ). Faculty participation in academic governance Washington, DC: American A ssociation for Higher Education. Barwick, J.T. (1989). Team building: A faculty perspective. Community College Review, 17 33-39. Berry, L. H., Hammons, J. O., & Denny, G. S. (2001, Feb.). Faculty retirement turnover in community colleges: a real or imagin ed problem? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 25 : 123 – 137. Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Birnbaum, R. (1991). The latent organizati onal functions of the academic senate: Why senates do not work but will not go away. In Robert Birnbaum (Ed.), Faculty in governance: The role of senates and jo int committees in academic decision making. (pp. 7-25). San Fran cisco: Jossey-Bass. Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1997). Refram ing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (1989). The American community college (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power an alysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.

PAGE 143

134 Community College Faculty Coalition of Florida. (2001, January 26). Constitution Deegan, W. L. (1994). Entrepreneurial mana gement in American community colleges: Theory and practice. In George A. Baker III (Ed.), A handbook on the community college in America: Its history, mission, and management (pp. 319329). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Deegan, W. L. (1985). Toward a new paradi gm: Governance in a broader framework. In W. L. Deegan & J. F. Gollattsche ck (Eds.), Ensuring effective governance (pp. 73 81). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Deming, J. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Boston: MIT Press. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method New York: Wiley & Sons. Eells, W. C. (1931). The junior college. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Evelyn, J. (1998, Aug. 10). Miami-Dade faculty put Padron in the hot seat. Community College Week, 11 6-12. Florida Community College System (2002, Feb.). Putting minds to work: The fact book report for the Florida Co mmunity College System. Retrieved July 10, 2002, from http://www.dcc.firn.edu/MIS/fact_book.htm Floyd, C. E. (1985). Faculty participation in decision making: Necessity or luxury? ASHE-ERIC Higher education No. 8. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education. Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. ( 1996). Educational research: An introduction. 6th ed. White Plains, NY: Longman. Gatlin, G. E. (1980). A comparative study of Florida’s public community colleges: Internal governance structures; faculty sa tisfaction with their roles in decisionmaking, and their perceptions of collective bargaining Tallahassee: Florida State University. Gilmour, J. (1991). Particip ative governance bodies in hi gher education: Report of a national study. In Robert Birnbaum (Ed.) Faculty in governance: The role of senates and joint committees in academic decision making (pp. 27-39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gleazer, E. J. (1994). Evolution of junior colleges into community colleges. In George A. Baker III (Ed.), A handbook on the community college in America: Its history, mission, and management (pp. 17-27). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

PAGE 144

135 Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research New York: Academic Press. Gollattscheck, J. F. (1985). Developing and ma intaining governance. In W. L. Deegan & J. F. Gollattscheck (Eds.), Ensuring effective governance (pp. 83 96). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Guffey, J. S., Rampp, L. C., & Masters, M. ( 1999, Fall). Barriers a nd issues for shared governance implementation in academia. The Educational Forum, 64 14-19. Haber, S. (1991). The quest for authority and honor in the American professions Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Harvey, D., & Brown, D. R. (2001). An experiential approach to organization development (6th ed.). Upper Saddle Rive r, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kanter, R. (1983). The change masters: Innovation for productivity in the American corporation New York: Simon & Schuster. Kaplan, W. A., & Lee, B. A. (1995). The law of higher education (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Koos, L. (1925). The junior college movement New York: AMS Press. Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews London: Sage. Lee, B. A. (1991). Campus leaders and cam pus senates. In Robert Birnbaum (Ed.), Faculty in governance: The role of senates and joint committees in academic decision making (pp. 41-61). San Fr ancisco: Jossey-Bass. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry London: Sage Publications. Lovas, J. C., & Fryer, T. W. (1991). Lead ership in governance : Creating conditions for successful decision making in the community college San Francisco: JosseyBass. Menges, R. J. (1999). Dilemmas of newly hire d faculty. In R. J. Menges, et al. (Eds.) Faculty in new jobs: A guide to sett ling in, becoming established, and building institutional support. (pp. 19-38). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Miller, M. T. (2003). The status of faculty senates in community colleges. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 27 419-428. Miller, M. T., & Vacik, S. M. (1998, Oc t./Nov.). Community college faculty involvement in institutional governance. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 22 645-655. Retrieved May 28, 2002, from EBSCO database.

PAGE 145

136 Milliron, M. (2002, April 12). Web cast. St. Petersburg College. Milosheff, E. (1990, Summer). Factors contri buting to job satisfaction at the community college. Community College Review, 18 12-33. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The st ructuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Myran, G., and Howdyshell, L. (1994). Stra tegic management of community colleges in a dynamic environment. In George A. Baker III (Ed.), A handbook on the community college in America: Its history, mission, and management (pp. 589 602). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. O’Hara, L. (1990). Faculty self-esteem: The 4th governance paradigm. Community/Junior College Quarterly, 14 149-154. Retrieved July 10, 2002, from EBSCO database. Ouchi, W.G. (1981). Theory z Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage. Peterson, M. W., & Dill, D. D. (1997). Understanding the competitive environment of the postsecondary knowledge industry. In Marvin W. Peterson, et al. (Eds.), Planning and management for a changing environment (pp. 3-29). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1992. Pope, M., & Miller, M. (2000, Sept.) Community college faculty governance leaders: Results of a national survey. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 24 627-739. Retrieved April 6, 2001, from EBSCO database. Ratcliff, J. (1994). Seven streams in the hist orical development of the modern American community college. In George A. Baker III (Ed.), A handbook on the community college in America: Its history, mission, and management (pp. 3-16). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Richardson, R.C. (1973, April). Governan ce and change in the community-junior colleges. Journal of Higher Education, 44 299-308. Retrieved April 22, 2002, from JSTOR database. Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: Praeger.

PAGE 146

137 Schaefer, D., & Dillman, D.A. (1998). Development of a standard e-mail methodology: Results of an experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62 378-397. Schein, E. (1992). Organizati onal culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: JosseyBass. SISA. Simple statistical interactive analysis. (n.d.). Retrieved October 26, 2002, from http://home.clara.net/sisa/bonhlp.htm Thaxter, L., & Graham, S. (1999, Nov.-Dec.). Community college faculty involvement in decision-making. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 23, 655-675. Retrieved April 6, 2001, from EBSCO database. Tierney, W. G. (1991). Symbolis m and presidential pe rceptions of leadership. In Marvin W. Peterson (Ed.), Organization an d governance in higher education (4th ed.). (pp. 432-440). Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press. Tierney, W. G., & Bensimon, E. M. (1996). Promotion and tenure: Community and socialization in academe Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Townsend, B. K., & LaPaglia, N. (2000, Summer). Are we marginalized within academe? Perceptions of two-year colle ge faculty. Community College Review, 28 41-49. Retrieved July 10, 2002, from EBSCO database. Twombly, S. B., & Amey, M. J. (1994). Leader ship skills for part icipative governance. In George A. Baker III (Ed.), A handbook on the community college in America: Its history, mission, and management (pp. 268-283). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Vehovar, V., et al. (2002). Nonresponse in we b surveys. In Robert M. Groves, et al. (Eds.), Survey nonresponse. (pp. 22 9-242). New York: Wiley & Sons. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and econo mic organization. (T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Free Press. Wheatley, M. J. (1999). Leadership and the new science San Francisco: BerrettKoehler Publishers. Yamada, M. M. (1991). Joint big decision committees and university governance. In Robert Birnbaum (Ed.), Facu lty in governance: The role of senates and joint committees in academic decision making (pp. 79-95). San Francisco: JosseyBass. Yukl, G. A. (1981). Leadership in organizations Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

PAGE 147

138 Appendices

PAGE 148

139 Appendix A Survey Instrument I. The purpose of this research is to expl ore the level of involvem ent of Florida’s fulltime community college faculty in institu tional governance. This study is also investigating the relationship between the le vel of a faculty member’s involvement and his or her gender, age, race, and years of service at the in stitution. For the purposes of this study, faculty governance body is defined as a forum generally composed of elected faculty representatives organized for the pur pose of advising the ad ministration regarding policies affecting faculty. This body is not a collective bargaining unit. II. Please complete the follo wing demographic information: Gender ___________ Date of birth ___________ Race ____________ (Black, Hispanic, White, Asian, American Indian, Biracial/Multiracial) Academic discipline ____________________ Years of service at the institution _______________ Are you planning to retire from your position with in the next five years? Yes______ No_____ III. Level of Involvement in Faculty Governance 1. Have you served as an officer of a f aculty governance body (either a campus or college-wide position) w ithin the last three ye ars? Yes______ No______ 2. How many campus and/or college-wide m eetings of your faculty governance body do you attend?

PAGE 149

140 Appendix A (Continued) All or almost all More than half About half Less than half None or almost none 3. How many campus-wide or college-wide co mmittees have you served on within the past three years? None_______ One______ Two_______ Three______ Four or more______ 4. Were you chair or co-chair of any of these committees? Yes_____ No______ 5. If the answer to question #3 is one or more, how frequently did you attend committee meetings during the academic year (excluding summers)? At least once a month At least twice during each semester Less than twice during the academic year 6. If the answer to question #3 is one or mo re, have you served on a project or committee with a defined role that resulted in signi ficant outcomes or recommendations to the college? Yes_____ No______ 7. How often do you engage in dialogue (e .g., conversation, electronic bulletin boards) with other faculty regardi ng faculty issues in inst itutional decision-making? Weekly Monthly

PAGE 150

141 Appendix A (Continued) Twice a semester Never 8. How would you rate your level of involvement in the governan ce of your institution? Highly involved Moderately involved Not much involved Not involved 9. Compared to five years ago, are you more involved in faculty governance activities, less involved, or involved about the same ? More involved ______ Less involved _____ Same level of involveme nt______ Not applicable_______________ IV. Please indicate the extent to which you ag ree or disagree with each of the following statements about your faculty governance body. Circle one response for each item using the following scale: SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Di sagree, N = Neutral, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, DK = Don’t Know 1. Our faculty governance body adequately represents the faculty point of view. SD D N A SA DK 2. Our faculty governance body is well represented on committees making decisions on policy, planning, and allocation of resources. SD D N A SA DK

PAGE 151

142 Appendix A (Continued) 3. Faculty members are adequately rewarded for their participation in the governance process. SD D N A SA DK 4. Our faculty governance body operates efficiently. SD D N A SA DK 5. Our faculty govern ance body attracts the most capable people as members. SD D N A SA DK 6. Our faculty governance body’s operating budget is adequate. SD D N A SA DK 7. Communication is go od between our faculty governance body and academic administrators. SD D N A SA DK 8. Communication is go od between our governance body and the Board of Trustees. SD D N A SA DK 9. Faculty governance body members and academic administrators meet regularly. SD D N A SA DK 10. Faculty governance body representatives and the Board of Trustees meet regularly. SD D N A SA DK 11. Our faculty governance body is involved in important decisions about the way the institution is run. SD D N A SA DK

PAGE 152

143 Appendix A (Continued) 12. Academic administrators’ and faculty governance body’s expectations regarding the governance body’s role are the same. SD D N A SA DK 13. It is difficult to get people to serve on faculty governance body standing and/or ad-hoc committees. SD D N A SA DK 14. Management information is readily provided to the faculty governance body concerning issues it considers. SD D N A SA DK 15. Our faculty governance body leaders are well prepared to assume their positions. SD D N A SA DK 16. Issues considered by our faculty governance body are important. SD D N A SA DK Characteristics of an ideal governance process 17. Faculty are empowered to question policy decisions through a well-articulated process. SD D N A SA DK 18. The faculty governance body is utilized as a conduit through which faculty participation is solicited. SD D N A SA DK 19. Institutional procedures involve faculty governance early in the decision-making process. SD D N A SA DK

PAGE 153

144 Appendix A (Continued) 20. Neutral “consultants” are utilized to mediate faculty-administration dealings. SD D N A SA DK Role of the faculty in an ideal governance process 21. Faculty should convince the administration that the faculty “voice” is a valuable component in decision-making. SD D N A SA DK 22. Faculty must insist on rights and responsibilities in appropriate governance roles (such as curriculum, graduation requirements, etc.). SD D N A SA DK 23. Faculty committees should work harder to cooperate with the administration. SD D N A SA DK 24. Faculty should assist in clarifying roles of administrators so that they know they are to administer policy and not impose their own. SD D N A SA DK 25. Faculty should be more involved in developing specific outcomes for budgetary expenditures. SD D N A SA DK

PAGE 154

145 Appendix B Interview Guide/Questions I. Introduction Thank you for agreeing to participate in this research study. Please be assured that all of your responses will be confid ential. I also want to remind you that this interview will be recorded on tape. The purposes of this interview are to explore your involvement as a facult y member in the governance of your institution, to investigate the involvem ent of your faculty governance body in institutional decision-making, and to discover your ideas about an ideal faculty governance process. II. Demographics A. How many years have you served as a full-time faculty member at this institution? B. Are you planning to retire from your positi on within the next five years? Yes_____ No_____ III. Level of involvement A. How involved are you in the faculty governance act ivities of your institution? B. Would you describe your current level of involvement as greater, less, or about the same as your level of involve ment five years ago? If a change has taken place, describe some reasons for this change. C. Describe how you first became involved in faculty governance at your institution.

PAGE 155

146 Appendix B (Continued) D. What are some of the characteristic s of your institution that facilitate and encourage your involvement in faculty governan ce activities? E. What are some of the characteristic s of your institution that hinder your involvement in faculty governance? IV. Communication A. Describe some of the opportuniti es that your faculty governance body has to interact in a decision-making role with members of the administration. B. Does your institution encourage your interaction with the Board of Trustees? C. Can you recall a time when your faculty governance body effectively represented faculty’s concerns on a sp ecific issue to the administration? D. Can you recall a time when your faculty governance body did not effectively represent the faculty’s concerns to the administration? E. In what ways does your institution co mmunicate its expectations to new faculty regarding their participa tion in faculty governance? V. Decision-Making A. How well is your faculty represented on college-wide committees responsible for making decisions on policy, planning, and budgeting? B. Can you give an example of some impor tant institutional decision that was made by your faculty advisory body a nd administration working together? C. What are the most important issu es that your faculty governance body discusses? (To interviewer: List en for issues involving salary and

PAGE 156

147 Appendix B (Continued) benefits, working conditions, faculty development, institutional budgeting, institutional planning, institutional program policy, academic policy decisions) D. Which of these issues do you consider most important? Why? E. Which of these issues do you cons ider least important? Why? F. What process does your faculty govern ance body use to discover faculty opinions about these issues? VI. Ideal Governance Process A. In an ideal governance process, what would be the relationship between the faculty’s repres entative body and the administration? B. In an ideal governance process, what issues would be decided by the faculty’s representative body and th e administration working together? VII. Concluding Questions A. Would you like to add anything to our discussion? B. What question should I have asked that I didn’t?

PAGE 157

148 Appendix C Email Cover Letter Dear Florida Community College Faculty Member: You are being asked to participate in a re search study. The purpos e of this research is to determine: the level of involvement of Florida’s full-time community college faculty in institutional governance their perceptions of the roles that faculty governance bodies play in institutional decision-making the characteristics of an ideal governance process. Plan of Study You will be asked, with your informed consent, to provide demographic information and complete a survey about your involvement in institutional governance and your faculty governance body’s participation in institutional decision-making. The survey can be completed in 10 minutes or less. Payment for Participation You will not receive compensation for participation in this study. Benefits of Being a Part of this Research Study Although you will not likely recei ve a direct benefit from this study, participation may help you to understand your current leve l of involvement in the governance of your institution as well as the participation of your faculty governance body. Such an

PAGE 158

149 Appendix C (Continued) understanding may help you improv e the processes and structures for decision-making in your institution. Risks of Being a Part of This Research Study The research does not anticipate any physic al, psychological, and/or social risk for participation in this study. Precautions to minimize these risks include informed consent, voluntary partic ipation, and confidentiality ensured through anonymity. Confidentiality of Your Records Your privacy and research records will be kept confidential to the extent of the law. Authorized personnel, employees of th e Department of Health and Human Services, and the USF Institutional Board may inspect the records from this research project. The results of this study may be publishe d. However, the data obtained from you will be combined with that from other pe ople in the publication. The published results will not include your name or any informati on that would in any way personally identify you. Responses to the survey will be writte n to a database and maintained by the principal investigator. Only authorized pe rsons will be granted access to the files. Survey responses will be reported in the aggregate, not as individual responses. Volunteering to be Part of this Research Study Your decision to participate in this res earch study is completely voluntary. You are free to participate in this research study or to withdraw at any time. If you choose not to participate, or if you withdr aw, there will be no penalty.

PAGE 159

150 Appendix C (Continued) Questions and Contacts If you have any questions about this rese arch study, contact Martha E. Campbell. 727-712-5703 (work) or campbellm@spjc.edu If you have any questions about your rights as a person who is taking part in a research study, you may contact a member of the Division of Research Compliance of th e University of Sout h Florida at 813-974-5638. I agree to the following: I have fully read this informed consen t form describing a research project. I have had the opportunity to question one of the persons in charge of this research and have received satisfactory answers. I understand that I am being asked to pa rticipate in research. I understand the risks and benefits, and I freely give my consent to participate in the research project outlined in this form, unde r the conditions indicated in it. I understand that proceeding to the survey will serve in lieu of signing a copy of this informed consent form. I understand that I can print out a copy of this consent form for my safekeeping. To access the survey, click on the following link: www.spjc.edu/docwebsurvey/MCsurvey.htm Thank you for participating in this study. Martha Campbell Professor, Communications St. Petersburg College

PAGE 160

151 Appendix D Online Survey Online Survey The purpose of this research is to explor e the level of involve ment of Florida’s full-time community college faculty in in stitutional governance. Th is study is also investigating the relationship between the level of a faculty member’s involvement and his or her gender, age, race, and y ears of service at the institution. For the purposes of this study, faculty governance body is defined as a forum generally composed of elected faculty representati ves organized for the purpose of advising the administration regarding policie s affecting faculty. This body is not a collective bargaining unit. Section I Please complete the following demographic information: Gender Male Female Years of service at the institution (numeric) Date of birth Month Day Year Race Click Here Community College Click Here Academic discipline Click Here Are you planning to retire from your position within the next five years? Yes No Section II Level of Involvement in Faculty Governance: 1. Have you served as an officer of a faculty governance body (either a campus or college-wide position) within the last three years? Yes No 2. How many campus and/or collegewide meetings of your faculty governance body do you attend? All or almost all More than half About half Less than half None or almost none

PAGE 161

152 Appendix D (Continued) 3. How many campus-wide or collegewide committees have you served on within the past three years? If you've answered None, jump to 4. None One Two Three Four or more 3a. Were you chair or co-chair of any of these committees? Yes No 3b. How frequently did you attend committee meetings during the academic year (excluding summers)? At least once a month At least twice during each semester Less that twice during the academic year 3c. Have you served on a project or committee with a defined role that resulted in significant outcomes or recommendations to the college? Yes No 4. How often do you engage in dialogue (e.g., conversation, electronic bulletin boards) with other faculty regarding faculty issues in institutional decisionmaking? Weekly Monthly Twice a semester Never 5. How would you rate your level of involvement in the governance of your institution? Highly involved Moderately involved Not much involved Not involved

PAGE 162

153 Appendix D (Continued) 6. Compared to five years ago, are you more involved in faculty governance activities, less involved, or involved about the same? More involved Less involved Same level of involvement Not applicable Section III Please indicate the extent to whic h you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about your f aculty governance body. Click one response for each item using the following scale: Level of agreement SD = Strongly Disagree D = Disagree N = Neutral A = Agree SA = Strongly Agree DK = Don't Know SD D N A SA DK 1. Our faculty governance body adequately represents the facu lty point of view. 2. Our faculty governance body is well represented on committees making decisions on policy, planning, and allocation of resources. 3. Faculty members are adequately rewarded for their participation in the governance process. 4. Our faculty governance body operates efficiently. 5. Our faculty governance body attracts the most capable people as members.

PAGE 163

154 Appendix D (Continued) SD D N A SA DK 6. Our faculty governance body’s operating budget is adequate. 7. Communication is good between our faculty governance body and academic administrators. 8. Communication is good between our governance body and the Board of Trustees. 9. Faculty governance body members and academic administrators meet regularly. 10. Faculty governance body re presentatives and the Board of Trustees meet regularly. SD D N A SA DK 11. Our faculty governan ce body is involved in important decisions about the way the institution is run. 12. Academic administrators’ and faculty governance body’s expectat ions regarding the governance body’s role are the same. 13. It is difficult to get people to serve on faculty governance body standing and/or ad-hoc committees. 14. Management information is readily provided to the faculty governance body concerning issues it considers. 15. Our faculty governan ce body leaders are well prepared to assume their positions.

PAGE 164

155 Appendix D (Continued) SD D N A SA DK 16. Issues considered by our faculty governance body are important. 17. Faculty are empowered to question policy decisions through a well-articulated process. 18. The faculty governance body is utilized as a conduit through which facu lty participation is solicited. 19. Institutional procedures involve faculty governance early in the decision-making process. 20. Neutral “consultants” are utilized to mediate faculty-administration dealings. SD D N A SA DK 21. Faculty should convince the administration that the faculty “voice” is a valuable component in decision-making. 22. Faculty must insist on rights and responsibilities in appropriate governance ro les (such as curriculum, graduation requirements, etc.). 23. Faculty committees should work harder to cooperate with the administration. 24. Faculty should assist in clarifying roles of administrators so that they know they are to administer policy and not impose their own. 25. Faculty should be more involved in developing specific outcomes for budgetary expenditures.

PAGE 165

156 Appendix D (Continued) Section IV Additional comments ar e greatly appreciated: Please be patient while your in formation is being processed: S ubmit

PAGE 166

About the Author A South Carolina native, Martha Ethe redge Campbell receiv ed a bachelor’s degree in English from Furman University in 1972 and a master’s degree of arts in English from Duke University in 1973. She is entering her thirtieth year of teaching with twenty-eight of those years in the commun ity college teaching English, humanities, and instructional technology. She taught two y ears at Mountain View College in Dallas, Texas, nine years at DeKalb Co llege in Atlanta, Georgia; an d the past seventeen years at St. Petersburg College—Tarpon Springs Ca mpus in Palm Harbor, Florida. She is the author of two developmental writing textbooks, Focus: From Sentence to Paragraph (Prentice Hall, 1999) and Focus: From Paragraph to Essay 2E (Prentice Hall, 2000). While in the Ed.D. program at th e University of South Florida, she served for three years as the President of the Faculty Governance Organization of St. Petersburg College.