BY ROBERT A. SCOTT

Guest blogger Robert A. Scott is President Emeritus and University Professor Emeritus, Adelphi University, and Author, How University Boards Work, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018.

I was recently part of a team engaged to review a regional teaching university with a new president who wants his institution to become a research university similar to its world-renowned neighbor. I asked him, “What do you mean by research? How do you define scholarship?”

I also have been asked for advice about dilemmas faced by institutional trustees when presidents have what are considered to be bold ambitions to improve quality, but have not involved the faculty in its definition. In each case, the president’s agenda was to increase the requirements for research funding by faculty as a consideration for reappointment and tenure. Because of my book, How University Boards Work, and my thirty years as a campus president, I was asked to comment.

In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with a president wanting to advance the scholarly productivity of faculty and the research reputation of the institution. The immediate questions are these: How does the goal relate to the campus mission and strategic plan? What is the role of the board of trustees in setting the mission of the institution? What is the role of the faculty in setting academic priorities? What is the role of “trust” in campus governance?

To change from a teaching-focused to a research-focused university is a change in mission, even when the mission statement refers to teaching, research, and service as its core activities. Such a statement is a general expression of the priority for research activity, not a specific mandate for grant-funded research. It does not specify the kinds of research and scholarly activities in which faculty must participate.

The board is responsible for adopting the mission of a college or university and then must seek state government approval to set or change the institution’s charter. It also must seek approval from the regional accrediting body. A mission cannot be changed by fiat, as a corporate board might do in changing its purpose from manufacturing to consulting. In evaluating a university’s proposed change in mission, the state agency and the accrediting team will ask about the governance processes used in resetting the mission.

The governance system to be evaluated includes the commitment to what is called “shared governance”. This is the covenant adopted in 1966 by the American Council of Education, the Association of Governing Boards of Colleges and Universities, and the American Association of University Professors. This statement of principles was built on a long history of efforts to define the roles of trustees in overall fiduciary responsibility for a campus or system; the president’s role as the executive responsible for fulfilling the mission in a legally, ethically, and financially sound manner; and the faculty’s role in setting academic standards and admission requirements, establishing the curricula, hiring and nurturing faculty, institutional and programmatic accreditation, and participating in strategic planning, setting priorities, and searches for senior administrators.

By shared governance, we do not mean co-equal authority, as the authorities of the president and the faculty are delegated by the trustees but guided by tradition and legal precedent. Some argue that shared governance is no longer relevant at a time of serious challenges and stresses on higher education. They assert that “waiting for the faculty” slows down the process of decision-making when institutions should be nimble and flexible in responding to the demands of the marketplace. At the same time, boards are criticized by faculty for appointing presidents, increasing health insurance fees, reducing pension contributions, substituting part-time for full-time faculty, cutting programs, or approving capital projects without campus input.

In response to these criticisms, I point out that colleges and universities are organizations with long time horizons. I also indicate how often businesses that focus on the short-term results seem to undercut their long-term viability. David Riesman said that the job of the trustee board is to save the institution of the future from the actions of the present. I agree.

Governance and leadership require trust. Trust is built by regular and honest communication. For a university to fulfill its mission, the parties responsible, the board as fiduciary responsible for the alignment of mission, goals, strategies, and results; the president as Chief Purpose Officer charged with keeping the focus on the mission; and the faculty, who are usually closest to the students, as guardians of the academic mission. These three must work together in mutually respectful ways if the institution is to thrive.

The mission defines the purpose of the institution. By definition, it establishes priorities. For all but very specialized universities, the first priority is for undergraduate student learning and graduation. The overall undergraduate graduation rates in the U. S. implicate not only the preparation of the students admitted but also the systems in place to support student success. Unfortunately, the average graduation rate among four-year colleges and universities of under 50% indicates that trustees, administrators, and faculty are not fulfilling their responsibilities very well.

So, when a president decides to expand on the mission for teaching, research, and service by giving greater weight to research grants when considering faculty for promotion and tenure, and does this without consultation, it is right for others to ask questions. Why is grant-funded research a better indicator of institutional quality? What is the definition of research? What was the campus process for establishing a new priority? Why is this the best use of resources to improve quality? After all, to become a research intensive university with significant grant funding probably will require new faculty with a focus on research and new staff for grants administration. How will this new emphasis affect the priority for undergraduate success? Why not focus on being the best undergraduate teaching university in the region instead of a “pretend” research university in the shadow of others?

This tendency of universities to equate quality with research and grant funding has been called “mission creep”. It has been described as similar to a reptile undulating across a meadow, with each part of its body following the twists and turns of its idealized Harvard-like head, copy-cat style.

Some years ago, the late Ernest Boyer, former U. S. Secretary of Education and president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, wrote about the four domains of scholarship. These domains include “Discovery”, or bench research and historical scholarship that lead to new knowledge or understanding; “Integration”, the synthesis of knowledge from different fields in order to suggest a new thesis; “Application”, solving problems by applying knowledge from disparate fields; and “Pedagogy”, the study of how people learn and the search for ever more effective ways of teaching. Each form of research and scholarship can have value, but they are not each eligible for support by government agencies and private foundations. A faculty member can have a robust agenda for research leading to new knowledge and yet not bring grants to the campus.

The terms research and scholarship are often used interchangeably, although scholarship includes keeping up to date in one’s field through reading, attending conferences, and participating in seminars. While it is not necessary to be an active researcher to be a great teacher, it is essential for faculty to teach students how to conduct research. I also believe that active scholarship is related to effective teaching.

So, what does the campus president mean when he or she asserts a priority for research grants as a criterion for hiring and promotion. By what means does a campus adopt a priority for one form of activity over another as the means to increase quality and improve institutional stature? Surely, it should not be by fiat.

There also is the question of the board’s role in faculty appointments. Some argue that there is none because the board is not competent to judge the academic credentials of candidates for appointment, reappointment, tenure, promotion, and sabbaticals, etc. While I agree with this argument, it is not sufficient. A faculty appointment can be the equivalent of a $4 million capital investment when one counts salary and benefits for 30 or more years.

An investment of this size in a facilities renovation would require a great deal of scrutiny. And so should the faculty appointment. But instead of evaluating individual credentials, the board should be assured that approved personnel policies and procedures were followed assiduously. The board should be shown how this appointment fits in the budget; how it helps fulfill the mission for student success, program improvement, and institutional reputation; how the appointment helps achieve goals for diversity; how the use of the budgeted faculty line in this way does not add to an imbalance of full-time and part-time positions with other departments, etc.

In other words, there are strategic questions that lie within the province of the board’s role even when particular questions of scholarly accomplishment and teaching effectiveness are not. And that is the board’s role: to ask questions, not prescribe answers. This is why it helps to have those with professional experience in higher education on the board, in addition to those who can help in fundraising. After all, no corporation would want board members who were uninformed about the purpose, competencies, and competitive landscape of its business.

Boards should support strong presidential leadership, but strong leadership does not mean ignoring the faculty’s role in campus governance. To follow that path often leads to a vote of “no confidence” in the president or the board, something that is happening five times more frequently now than ten years ago. This disrupts the campus and takes the focus away from student success, the very purpose of the institution.