Abstract
Despite considerable international literature acknowledging issues associated with the effectiveness of university academic boards (also known as academic senates or faculty senates), there is little current empirical research exploring why difficulties might exist and what (if anything) might be done about them. This article reports the findings of case study research conducted in Australian universities, which examined fulfilment of academic board terms of reference and perceived academic board strengths and weaknesses. Based on the data, the article then considers the characteristics of one particular “effective” academic board. It concludes by highlighting some potential implications of the research for those universities seeking to enhance the future role and function of their academic board, which include discussing the apparent importance of latent or tacit functions of university academic boards, versus those functions or responsibilities which are formally documented, and the building of intellectual and symbolic capital for their respective universities through a focus on the substantive quality of core academic programmes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, J., Boyles, J. L., & Rainie, L. (2012). The future of higher education. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
Baird, J. (2007). Taking it on board: Quality audit findings for higher education governance. Higher Education Research and Development, 26, 101–115.
Birnbaum, R. (1989). The latent organizational functions of the academic senate: Why senates do not work but will not go away. Journal of Higher Education, 60, 423–443.
Bleiklie, I., & Kogan, M. (2007). Organization and governance of universities. Higher Education Policy, 20, 477–493.
Bourdieu, P. (1985). The social space and the genesis of groups. Theory and Society, 14, 723–744.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York, NY: Greenwood.
Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo academicus. Cambridge: Polity.
Carnegie, G. D., & Tuck, J. (2010). The ABC of university governance. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 69, 431–441.
Child, J., & Rodrigues, S. B. (2003). Corporate governance and new organizational forms: Issues of double and multiple agency. Journal of Management and Governance, 7, 337–366.
Dooley, A. H. (2007). Thematic analysis: The role of academic boards in university governance. Melbourne: Australian Universities Quality Agency.
Duderstadt, J. J. (2004). Governing the twenty-first century university: A view from the bridge. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), Competing conceptions of academic governance: Negotiating the perfect storm (pp. 137–157). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Emmanuel, I., & Reekie, G. (2004). Financial management and governance in HEIs: Australia. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training.
Ernst & Young. (2012). University of the future: A thousand year old industry on the cusp of profound change. Sydney: Ernst & Young.
Grenfell, M. (2004). Pierre Bourdieu: Agent provocateur. New York, NY: Continuum.
Huisman, J., de Boer, H., & Bótas, P. (2012). The UK HE system: The future of English higher education. London: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.
James, D. (1998). Higher education field-work: The interdependence of teaching, research and student experience. In M. Grenfell & D. James (Eds.), Bourdieu and education: Acts of practical theory (pp. 104–120). London: Falmer.
Jones, G. A., Shanahan, T., & Goyan, P. (2001). University governance in Canadian higher education. Tertiary Education and Management, 7, 135–148.
Kennedy, K. J. (2003). Higher education governance as a key policy issue in the 21st century. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 2, 55–70.
Kezar, A. J., & Eckel, P. (2004). Meeting today’s governance challenges: A synthesis of the literature and examination of a future agenda for scholarship. The Journal of Higher Education, 75, 371–399.
Lapworth, S. (2004). Arresting the decline in shared governance: Towards a flexible model for academic participation. Higher Education Quarterly, 58, 299–314.
Marginson, S., & Considine, M. (2000). The enterprise university: Power, governance and reinvention in Australia. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Moodie, G. (2004). The neglected role of a neglected body: Academic boards’ role in assuring equivalent standards. Australian Universities Review, 47, 35–41.
Morley, L. (2003). Quality and power in higher education. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Peters, M. A. (1992). Performance and accountability in ‘post-industrial society’. Studies in Higher Education, 17, 123–135.
Readings, B. (1996). The university in ruins. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rowlands, J. (2011). Academic boards: Less intellectual and more academic capital in higher education governance? Studies in Higher Education. doi:10.1080/03075079.2011.619655
Rowlands, J. (2013). The symbolic role of academic boards in university academic quality assurance. Quality in Higher Education, 19, 142–157.
Rytmeister, C. (2009). Governing university strategy: Perceptions and practice of governance and management roles. Tertiary Education and Management, 15, 117–156.
Shattock, M. (2002). Rebalancing modern concepts of university governance. Higher Education Quarterly, 56, 235–244.
Shattock, M. (2006). Managing good governance in higher education. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. (2012). Regulatory risk framework. Melbourne: TEQSA.
Tierney, W. G., & Minor, J. T. (2003). Challenges for governance: A national report. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis.
Whitchurch, C., & Gordon, C. (2011). Some implications of a diversifying workforce for governance and management. Tertiary Education and Management, 17, 65–77.
Woodhouse, D., & Baird, J. (2007). Academic boards’ role in quality and standards. Campus Review, 17, 10.
Zipin, L. (2010). Situating university governance in the ethico-emotive ground tone of post/late times. In J. Blackmore, M. Brennan, & L. Zipin (Eds.), Re-positioning university governance and academic work (pp. 147–162). Rotterdam: Sense.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rowlands, J. The Effectiveness of Academic Boards in University Governance. Tert Educ Manag 19, 338–352 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2013.822926
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2013.822926