BY SUSAN E. RAMLO
Now in my twenty-fifth year of teaching at a public urban university in the Midwest, I research subjective viewpoints mainly using a somewhat obscure, eighty-year-old methodology that has been gaining popularity. Q methodology (Q) is unique in its ability to scientifically study divergent viewpoints in a way that distinguishes and describes the varying perspectives using empirical evidence. Recently, an event triggered my thoughts about viewpoints of speech on campus. My readings included various AAUP publications and a book by Erwin Chemerinsky and Howard Gillman, Free Speech on Campus. Certainly, on my own campus and at others, there is not a singular view about speech on campus.
Research
My research study is complete and available online at Studies in Higher Education, “Free speech on US university campuses: differentiating perspectives using Q methodology.” However, the research process deserves at least a quick summary here. In Q, a researcher collects statements about the topic, reduces their number in a way that preserves the communications, and then participants sort those statements into a grid that ranges from something like “most like my view” to “most unlike my view.” Similar views, represented by sorts, are grouped using statistics. The results provide descriptions of the divergent viewpoints as well as consensus. Here sorters were from a variety of institutions but primarily from what we will refer to as Institution-A. Institution-A could be a poster-child for other troubled institutions.
Findings
Within this study, five divergent viewpoints about speech on campus emerged: Idealistic, Social Justice, Speech Crisis, Sage on the Stage, and Fox News. Certain demographics were linked to some of these viewpoints (that is, Social Justice view-holders linked to younger graduate students & Speech Crisis view-holders linked to Institution-A).
The Idealistic view sees tenured faculty as the shepherds of speech on campus. These stakeholders are focused on the importance of ideas and tenured faculty, both seen as vital to free expression. Yet, they are unsure if the future of freedom of speech on their campus is in danger. Additionally, those holding this view see the fostering of relationships with the administration as a necessity even when they do not necessarily trust that administration.
Alternatively, those holding the Speech Crisis view are certain free speech on their campus is in danger primarily by one or more of the following: administrators, outside forces, and the increase in contingent faculty. This view paints a picture of administrative intolerance of faculty ideas and shared governance with an unbalanced power struggle between the upper-administration and other campus stakeholders. Written comments and Q results describe fear and a tyrant administrator (the provost). Figure 1 shows a word cloud representation from this view’s written comments. Importantly, consensus across divergent views revealed acceptance that ideas taught and expressed at institutions of higher education should rest with the expertly trained and independent faculty rather than boards of trustees, administrators, politicians, or donors.
Figure 1 – Word cloud representation for the Speech Crisis view
Implications for Institution-A and Beyond
Q’s ability to allow researchers to study subjectivity also provide a means to explore communications. Oftentimes, both consensus and divergent viewpoints can trigger deep conversations and explorations of other perspectives. Thus, Q can be used to prepare facilitators for and to facilitate dialogue regarding a topic especially when frustration, bafflement, and, possibly, infuriation occur. Within Q, the goal of the statistical analyses is to find solutions that are operant (that is, genuinely functional and pragmatic) as opposed to merely statistical. Yet opinions are not correct or incorrect. More importantly, the question is whether these viewpoints are authentic. Thus, I will examine a current situation at Institution-A within this context.
Here is the situation: The board of trustees approached Institution-A’s AAUP Executive Committee about a possible deal regarding the next presidential search. The board wants to have a secret presidential search in which top candidates would no longer visit campus for open forums. Although the board would retain final say on the selection of the next president, some faculty would be nonvoting members of the search committee. Those faculty leaders would sign nondisclosure contracts. The Chapter Executive Committee and Liaison Council considered the changes and sent them to the membership for consideration.
AAUP chapter membership, open forum, and Liaison Council discussions indicate that there are differing views about the above situation. While one group deems it imperative that the chapter work with the administration to improve shared governance, even in the face of a restricted search, the other view distrusts the administration and board and, therefore, is against the idea as presented. The second view posed questions of an ethical nature although did not mention social justice. The divergent views expressed within these contexts appear to match the Idealistic and Speech Crisis viewpoints.
Considering these divergent viewpoints may have helped communications within the chapter. A popular meme is that most people listen to respond not to understand. That may be the case in this situation. I hope that by sharing the results of this study as well as describing a current, authentic situation at Institution-A, more of us can become cognizant of other viewpoints and listen to better understand other perspectives. As AAUP and university faculty struggle with communicating ideas such as speech on campus and academic freedom, we need to be cognizant that different views exist even within our communities.
Susan E. Ramlo is a professor at the University of Akron, where she primarily teaches the first two semesters of technical physics. Her research focuses on physics and STEM education as well as applications of Q methodology.
