Faculty
Life and Institutional Change in the 1990s: Interviews with Faculty from
One
U.S. University
Sondra K.
Patrick,
The George
Washington University
Introduction:
I |
n the face of dramatic changes in U.S.
institutions of higher education, faculty are experiencing a variety of
influences that act to render their academic practices far more complex and
challenging. These factors can be described in terms of sources of satisfaction
for faculty, their origins as internal or external influences, and whether the
influential changes arise at local or national levels. This paper describes the
findings of a series of interviews of faculty at a U.S. university, a research
process that offers understanding of the quality of the participants’ academic
lives. The interviews reveal that, while concerned with and affected by the
academic environment, faculty could benefit from institutional commitment to
the broader community and global settings.
A wide range
of strategic management approaches are being discussed at institutions of
higher education across the United States (Deming, 1986; Lindquist, 1978;
Schein,
1992; Senge, 1990). In the literature, at
conferences, and in faculty conversations,
there is the collective recognition that
the faculty role is changing. Many faculty are already experiencing heavier
teaching loads, larger class sizes, less administrative support, and growing
public pressure for greater accountability, greater commitment to student
learning, and greater use of technology. Faculty are also feeling government
and public pressure to increase accessibility to students and offer more
courses to enable students to move through degree programs faster. This
reality, however, does not reduce or diminish traditional faculty expectations
to undertake scholarly research, to search for new funding sources, to work
collaboratively on community projects and activities, and to serve on
university and academic committees.
As higher education is being repositioned
to meet the needs of 21st century students, dramatic institutional changes
increase the complexity of faculty life across academic ranks. This study seeks
to understand this complexity from the perspective of those who experienced it.
Through a series of open-ended interviews at a Doctoral I university1, faculty highlighted the complex issues
affecting the quality of their academic lives at a U.S. institution undergoing
institutional change in the 1990s. Three basic questions guided this study: How
do faculty describe their academic lives in the 1990s?
What are the primary factors influencing
the quality of their academic lives?
What changes are needed to improve the
quality of academic life in the future?
Research methods:
T |
he qualitative research approach was used
to gain an understanding of academic life from the perspective of faculty
across academic ranks (assistant, associate and full). Through stratified
random sampling by academic rank (6 assistant professors, 6 associate
professors, 6 full professors), eighteen tenured or tenure-track faculty were
selected to participate in the interview study. Of the eighteen, 8 were men and
10 were women.2
All
participating full professors were tenured, and all but one had spent more than
11 years in the academy. The one who had spent only 11 years in the academy
came to the profession after spending 21 years in industry. Because hers is a
highly technical field, prior practical experience added depth and richness to
her academic life, a depth and richness that she claimed was the critical key
to her success in the academy. Of the associate professors interviewed, all had
spent more than 8 years in the academy and all but one were tenured. The
untenured professor was in a technical field and entered the academy as an
associate professor (tenure track) after spending many years in industry.
Participating assistant professors were untenured except for one who had been a
faculty member at the research site for 28 years (tenured 21 years) and lived
through many shifts in institutional and educational thinking. Although
unconventional as an assistant professor, his historical insight proved
extremely valuable in understanding the impact of change in the academy, in
general, and at the research site, in particular.
The researcher conducted all of the
interviews. My role of researcher within this study was one of an ‘insider’
examining her own culture.3
Working in the Office of Academic Affairs, I was not only an employee at the
research site and a colleague of the faculty participants but worked closely
with those making retention, promotion and tenure decisions. I gained entry to
the research site from the Office of Academic Affairs of the regional research
university.
Managing the
research environment was very complex. Because of my working relationship with
those making personnel decisions, I continually monitored the research process,
making adjustments in response to participants’ needs and comments. The
qualitative design of this study allowed me to put my own assumptions aside and
to recognize emerging issues as I gathered and analyzed participants’
responses. I also knew that extensive organizational change can breed unrest
and suspicion among employees. Given my affiliation with the executive
administration, I expected some resistance on the part of faculty to trust my
constant assurance of confidentiality.4 Those concerns, however, were quickly alleviated during the first
few interview experiences. I soon realized that, in spite of my position within
the executive administration, faculty trusted me to protect them and were
willing to talk openly about their academic life experiences at the research
site. In addition, I was always considerate of their time. Because I was an
‘insider’, I understood the demands on their time and scheduled interview
meetings at their convenience.
The role of an insider researcher is
unique and carries with it added responsibilities and pressures to protect the
confidentiality of participants, to continuously monitor personal biases, and
to set high standards for objectively reporting findings. As the study
progressed, it became increasingly important for me to separate my role as a
researcher from my role as an administrator and faculty colleague at the
research site.
Although confidentiality is always an
important consideration, it was particularly critical in this study because of
my relationship to the research participants and site. The study complied with
the requirements established by the University’s Human Subjects Review Board.
All participants were assured of complete confidentiality throughout the data
collection process and were asked to sign an Informed Consent Form before
participating. The respondents were specifically told that faculty names would
never be revealed to anyone; that no interview transcript would be produced
connecting interview comments with faculty names, and that all data would
remain the sole property of the researcher; and all data would be stored at the
researcher’s home and not at the research site.
Throughout the interviews, faculty talked
about their experiences, illuminating their
expectations, disappointments, triumphs, fears,
and concerns. Their descriptions pointed to the complexity of balancing
academic life in the 1990s and underscored a growing conflict between
traditional and current realities for faculty work at the close of the 21st
century. After data analysis of verbatim interview transcriptions, recurring
emergent themes were grouped into three broad, descriptive categories5: (a) sources of satisfaction/sources of
dissatisfaction; (b) external pressures/internal pressures; and (c) national
change/local change. First, I provide a descriptive account of what I learned
during the faculty interviews. Then, after a brief summary, I examine the
implications of these findings for rethinking the relationship between faculty
roles and institutions of higher education at the beginning of the 21st
century.
Sources of Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction
A |
lthough most faculty participants across
academic rank enjoyed the flexible nature of academic life, many saw the
‘flexibility’ as a source of dissatisfaction because it provided greater
opportunity to take on too much or too little depending on one’s degree of
commitment to work or one’s position in the career cycle.
For most faculty, academic
flexibility contributed to the frantic nature of faculty life in the 1990s.
Although past studies have shown that faculty often describe their lives as
over-committed (Blackburn & Lawrence, 1995; Bowen & Schuster, 1986),
the faculty participants of this study provided descriptions of lives ruled by
a strong commitment to teaching, a desire to be accessible to students via
e-mail or by maintaining clearly defined office hours, a desire to stay current
in their field and to learn new technologies, and a commitment to both
professional and university service. For most, the over committed nature of
their lives was exacerbated by a decrease in administrative support due largely
to budget constraints; by a constant stream of unmotivated or under prepared
students; and by a reward structure that placed greater value on
discipline-specific research and encouraged commitment to external,
professional organizations.
The findings also suggest that academic
rank influences a faculty member’s degree of professional satisfaction. Having
been accepted into the academic profession by successfully negotiating the
rigors of a traditional promotion and tenure process, full professors had the
strongest sense of job security, peer recognition, and institutional
acceptance. As one full professor explained, “When you have tenure, you have
more opportunity. You have independence – greater independence and so you can
go off and take greater risks.” On the other hand, assistant professors tended
to feel less certain about the course of their academic careers. Pressures to develop
effective teaching skills, to build a strong research agenda, to seek external
funding, to speak nationally and to publish regularly are often overwhelming
expectations immediately facing new faculty. Similarly, associate professors
described lives caught between two worlds. Having just negotiated the rigors of
the tenure process, they were ready to broaden their academic role. Regardless
of academic rank, learning to juggle the often competing and sometimes
conflicting demands of academic life in a highly flexible work environment
becomes the ultimate demand on time and energy.
External Pressures/Internal Pressures
T |
he key external pressures identified by
full and associate professors were rapid technological advances, legislative
calls for accountability of faculty time and effort, and the public’s
misperception of faculty contributions. The assistant professors, however,
presented a different set of external pressures. They were more concerned about
the economic and political forces that were affecting their ability to get
faculty positions and to attract research dollars.
Although
technology had definitely influenced academic life at all levels, it had the
greatest impact at the full professor level and the least impact at the
assistant professor level. This difference is due largely to the fact that
assistant professors had more experience with technology during their graduate
years and, therefore, used it more routinely than full professors. On the other
hand, assistant professors felt more strongly than any group that the economy
had the greatest impact on their lives. Most of them spoke about the difficulty
they experienced in trying to find an academic position. Once in a position,
they found it equally difficult to get any kind of funding for their research.
Many assistant professors felt extremely frustrated because without research
funding their chances of surviving in the academy were greatly diminished.
In addition to the external pressures of technology and the
economy, full professors and associate professors expressed concern about the
growing public misperception about their work. They felt that, somehow, higher
education ought to do a better job of communicating with the general public
about the value of faculty contributions to the advancement of knowledge and
faculty commitments to the communities their institutions serve.
Several
internal pressures also influenced faculty life at the research site. Full
professors and associate professors were very concerned about the steady decline
in administrative support for both teaching and research. In general, they felt
that the cutbacks had greatly affected the quality of their teaching and
research efforts. They also felt that budget constraints had affected student
learning because they were not able to obtain the most current lab equipment or
teaching materials. At the same time, assistant professors were less affected
by institutional cutbacks because they were more insulated by their academic
units. In addition, most assistant professors at the research site had been
hired after many administrative cutbacks had occurred. For them, ‘living
without’ administrative support was the only professional experience they knew.
In addition
to a decrease in administrative support, most faculty expressed concern about
the faculty reward structure and the mixed messages often sent by an
institution that was striving to become a Research II University as defined by
the Carnegie Classification.6 Faculty across the ranks were concerned about
knowing where to place their efforts because the institution expected high
competence in all dimensions of faculty work but placed greater value on
publications within the reward structure.
Local Change/National Change
T |
hree major issues continually surfaced when
participants were asked about the kinds of changes needed to improve the
quality of their professional lives at the research site. The first issue
related to the faculty reward structure. Although the full professor
participants had tenure, one said she definitely felt ‘guilty’ about having
that type of job security today. Other full professors said that they were
concerned about the ‘mixed messages’ junior faculty received from the research
site administration. They felt that the pressure to demonstrate competency in
teaching and research was too high during the early years of one’s career. They
said repeatedly that they strongly urged their junior colleagues to concentrate
on publishing regardless of the institutional focus. The assistant professor participants
were the strongest advocates for changing the reward structure. They were
experiencing great difficulty balancing the demands of the academic jobs and
the demands of their personal life.
The second and third issues related to the development of a more
collegial atmosphere at the research site and the need to reformulate academic
standards and expectations. Across academic ranks, faculty expressed the need
for a greater sense of community for both faculty and students. The third issue
focused on the need to raise student standards for admission along with course
expectations in the classroom. Faculty continuously talked about the decline in
student motivation and level of preparedness for college work.
Implications
T |
he findings from this study suggest that
subtle but fundamental changes are already affecting the culture and climate of
faculty life at the research site. In particular, the faculty participants
described lives that are continually responding to several major forces such as
technological advancements, diverse student populations, organizational
restructuring, a traditional reward structure and calls for professional
accountability.
As noted by Kuh and Whitt (1988),
behaviors and actions are directly related to environmental influences.
Although the faculty participants said that they often felt left out of the
administrative decision making process at the research site, they wanted their
voices heard. In fact, participating faculty continually told me how pleasant
it was to be able to talk about their professional lives during the interview
process. On several occasions, faculty interviewees enjoyed the interview
experience so much that when the allotted time was up they delayed a scheduled
meeting so we could continue. This may be an indication that more opportunities
are needed that give faculty a voice in “how they create their reality” (Senge,
1990, p. 13).
Senge (1990) argues that in order for
organizations to successfully restructure, employees must see themselves as an
integral part of both the organizational structure and the community they
serve. The findings from this study point to the need for higher education
institutions to become “learning organizations” (Chickering & Reisser,
1993), allowing for greater collaboration in the decision making process
especially during times of rapid change.
To fully
understand the complexities underlying faculty life today, it is necessary to
look back to Bowen and Schuster’s 1986 landmark study on the status of faculty.
Their findings painted a rather pessimistic picture of academic life. On almost
every campus they surveyed, faculty morale was generally low. They attributed
this to several important changes that occurred in higher education during the
1970s and 1980s. These changes included a shift in campus priorities away from
teaching to research, a shift toward academic sub-specialties, and a shift in
loyalty from institutions to disciplines. Institutions of all kinds began to
mimic research universities, diminishing the role of teaching as a means to
achieving academic success. As a result, faculty members have continued to
place their time and effort on work that institutions value and reward. In
addition, the shift toward narrow academic specializations caused a feeling of
academic isolation, a loss of academic collegiality, and a lack of commitment
to institutions.
Writing almost 10 years after Bowen and
Schuster, William Plater (1995) suggests that today’s institutions of higher
education are at risk because the public will no longer support a higher
education system that caters to the convenience of professors. He
argues that faculty must be responsive to
constituent needs, accountable for time and research efforts, attentive to the
needs of diverse student populations, and technologically savvy. He warns that
since higher education no longer has the exclusive hold on knowledge, faculty
must be more concerned about serving the needs of students and communities than
ever before.
Although the faculty participants of this study did not seem to
suffer from low morale, they did describe professional lives stressed by an
institution that still adheres to the shift in priorities described by Bowen
and Schuster in 1986 while they struggle to make those priorities conform to
the changing world described by Plater in 1995.
The participants also acknowledged that
they were operating under enormous pressures.
They described lives focused on trying to
cope and adjust. One full professor said that he
simply worked ‘harder and longer as there
seemed to be less and less time’. Another suggested that his life resembled the
‘juggler with the spinning plates’. Not one faculty participant described the
serene, contemplative life mistakenly thought by the public to be the life of a
university professor. In addition, not one faculty participant described a life
almost exclusively devoted to research as Bowen and Schuster described in 1986.
Instead, this study found that faculty were trying to manage the competing
demands of academic life in a traditional environment that does not yet
acknowledge that there may be more than one model of a successful academician
and that today’s academicians must play multiple roles. These findings support
the argument by Blackburn and Lawrence (1995) that “It is therefore important
to study faculty, to learn about not only how they actually behave but also why
they behave as they do” (p. 4).
Implications for Practice
S |
everal universal inferences can be drawn
from these findings. Institutions should, as an example, expect universal
competence from faculty but that does not mean that all faculty should do the
same things. The main drawback of the current system is that a single model for
faculty life is expected. Since only a small minority of faculty actually
achieves it, tension and frustration result because of a lack of flexibility in
the reward system.
Institutions should recognize the close relationship between job
security and job satisfaction. Obviously there will always be sources of
dissatisfaction with anything one does but they are tolerable in an
organization when one feels a sense of belonging. The following response by one
associate professor participant to my question about improvement of faculty
life over time makes the inference clearer:
First of
all, I have tenure. There is no monkey on my back. I have a reasonable feeling
of security, you know. Although I haven’t changed my behavior, I just feel that
I can’t be fired. Isn’t that nice. It isn’t that I don’t do my job… I feel
accepted by the university community… I have a bit of seniority in the
department now so I now speak out… I say what I need to say. I have a bit of
power.
Institutions need to develop more
collaborative administrative structures as suggested by Chickering and Reisser
(1993) and Senge (1990). Several faculty said that the research site had
actually been more collaborative when it was a smaller institution.
We used to
be asked… When I first came here – some of these new building were being built…
we were given the plans for the buildings. We were given the architect’s
drawings. We were asked to look them over and suggest any modifications or
changes that might be appropriate for our use.
The
findings indicate that faculty wish to be informed about administrative changes
and they want their voices heard in the administrative decision making
process.
Institutions
need to consider the value of raising both admission standards and academic
standards for learning. Across all academic ranks, faculty expressed concern
about the lack of motivation and the lack of preparedness they recognized in
their students. Not a phenomenon unique to the research site, institutions of
higher education across the nation struggle to meet the needs of diverse student
populations whose degree of preparedness for college-level work varies widely
(Plater, 1995).
Furthermore,
institutions need to carefully consider the impact of institutional changes on
the quality of academic life for both faculty and students. Restructuring
academic units at the research site greatly increased the demands on faculty
time and energy. The following excerpt from one full professor describes the
sentiments expressed by most faculty participants:
Technically,
I have a ‘research’ day. Being program coordinator in a ‘departmentless’ school
means assuming duties typical of a department chair. I find myself buried with
details and paperwork that often is all consuming. I rarely take lunch and run
from meeting to meeting - then go to class. Only when I am away from the
University can I engage in writing or class preparation.
As schools, colleges and departments merge
their resources in an effort to become more
efficient and cost effective, greater
responsibility for routine work falls on faculty. This change clearly cuts into
the time faculty spend on the work traditionally thought to be the
responsibility of an academician (Plater, 1995). Closely associated with
changes in organizational structures is the rearticulation of institutional
missions that focus greater attention on teaching students and serving
communities. As organizational structures become more closely aligned with
institutional missions, the time and effort faculty spend on teaching and
service increases (Plater, 1995). This shift in priorities makes it even more
critical that institutions reexamine their faculty reward structures, making
sure to adequately and fairly reward faculty for the work required of an
academician today.
Implications for Research
Over the past decade, there have been
fundamental changes in the culture and climate at U.S. higher education
institutions, in general, and at the research site, in particular.
Technological advances have produced an almost frantic and costly struggle for universities to remain current in an age
of dramatic change and rapid dissemination of information. Additionally, the
changing demographics of our society can be seen on college campuses across the
US, creating a need for greater emphasis on teaching and as well as on multiple
ways of knowing and learning.
The growing influence of organizational
strategies like TQM (Deming, 1986) and
Organizational Learning (Senge, 1990) are
changing the way higher education operates.
These types of models can provide ways to
create and maintain more collaborative work environments, breaking down long
established barriers between faculty and administrators, as well as
universities and communities.
The growing unrest concerning the traditional faculty reward
structure clearly indicates a disjunction between the faculty role and the
promotion and tenure process. Finding ways to provide job security and still
maintain the integrity of academic freedom is a problem unique to higher
education for which no model currently exists.
Finding solutions to these problems
begins by carefully and systematically gathering data about academic
experiences. Large scale, quantitative studies such as those by Blackburn and
Lawrence (1995) and Bowen and Schuster (1986) are critical to providing a broader
understanding of the faculty experience. They do not, however, provide
contextual descriptions of the faculty experience directly from the voices of
the faculty. The work of Hageseth and Atkins (1988) laid the groundwork for
this study. Their qualitative approach provided rich information that led to
focused change at Appalachian State. This study is another step in the
direction they took. It provides a picture of current academic life at one
institution undergoing rapid change during the 1990s.
Because changes experienced by the research site are similar to
the types of changes
occurring at most U.S. institutions of
higher education, the implications drawn from this
study provide topical areas for future
qualitative inquiry. Since we are living in a time of rapid global change, more
contextual studies are needed to examine the impact of these changes on faculty
and students at different types and sizes of institutions within the U.S. and
around the world.
It is evident that we need further research to better understand
(a) how new forms
of scholarship should be rewarded in
different types of educational settings, (b) how faculty roles should be
redefined as institutions respond to increased pressure to place greater
emphasis on teaching and student learning, (c) how changes in faculty roles
impact student learning, (d) how changes in the academic culture can foster
greater responsiveness to the needs of global and local communities, and (e)
what leadership characteristics are needed to effectively manage higher
education institutions in the 21st century. Since the only thing we know about
the future is that it will be different from anything we have known before, the
type of insight gained from qualitative inquiry will become a critical
component of the decision making process in the future.
Conclusion and Next Steps
R |
ecognizing that many pressures were
affecting the research site in the mid 1990s causing changes to its
organizational structure and mission, and understanding that many assumptions
about the impact of change on the lives of its faculty were undocumented, I
undertook this qualitative study to both document and describe the state of
faculty life during the 1994-1995 academic year. Although the findings
represent the perspective of faculty at one institution, they are supported by
other large-scale studies (Blackburn & Lawrence, 1995; Bowen &
Schuster, 1986; Fairweather, 1991) showing that faculty members generally share
similar concerns about the state of higher education in the U.S.
This study’s
findings describe faculty who accept the values of traditional academic life
although they wish that the reward structure provided a better balance between
research, teaching and service. They continually advise junior faculty to place
greater effort on research, publications and grant funding. Although the
faculty participants were aware of the impact of technology on their
professional lives, few matched the advantages of technology to specific
learning objectives for their students. Even though most faculty participants
lamented the fact that their students did not share their love for learning,
few saw this as an issue requiring innovative teaching strategies or more
interactive course curricula. Almost all faculty participants agreed that
faculty should be accountable for their time and effort, but most saw it in
terms of their own teaching and research agendas, not in terms of the needs of
the communities they serve.
As faculty spoke of balancing the
competing demands of academic life, the word ‘integration’ became a constant
descriptor. Many said that the only way to survive in today’s academic
environment is to integrate teaching, research and service as much as possible.
This need to integrate was born more out of a struggle to manage time
efficiently in the Information Age than out of a need or desire to merge theory
and practice.
In
conclusion, two recommendations or ‘next steps’ emerge to address the issues
and concerns raised by this study. Higher education executive administrators
must more clearly articulate their institution’s mission, specifically how
faculty goals can support an institution’s obligation to the various
constituencies it serves. In addition, executive administrators must do a
better job of defining expectations for faculty work and be willing to enact a
more flexible reward system that recognizes new tasks that faculty at all
academic levels must undertake in the 21st century.
Institutions
must encourage faculty participation and support faculty development
efforts. As institutions of higher
learning become more attuned to the needs of students
and communities, the importance of faculty
collaboration within and across disciplines increases. Interdisciplinary
conversations can be supported effectively through faculty development
activities that expose faculty to the national debate and help them learn how
to meet the multi-disciplinary teaching, research and academic life challenges
that will face higher education worldwide in the next millennium.
At the end of the 20th century, U.S. higher education is searching
for its place in a highly technological and global environment. As tuition
rises and funding sources shrink, students, parents, prospective employers,
taxpayers, and lawmakers want to know what higher education has to offer on the
new playing field. Like all organizations, we must learn to embrace change,
realigning our priorities and our work with the needs of a larger, global
environment. We must be willing to value and equitably reward new dimensions of
work. To survive, we must be able to show that what we have to offer
contributes to advancing our world and preparing future generations to live and
work successfully in it.
Endnotes
1. The Carnegie Classification System was
created by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. The latest
update occurred in 1994. It includes all degree-granting U.S. colleges and
universities that are accredited by U.S. Secretary of Education recognized
agencies. Classification is based on amount of federal support, number of
degrees conferred, and highest degree level offered. For more information see
the April 6, 1994 edition of The Chronicle of Higher Education or access the
Internet at websites such as http://www.montana.edu/~aircj/policy/carnegie.html
or http://www.highered.
org/resources/carnegie_classification.htm
2. Each of the 18 participating faculty
members was interviewed for at least one hour. Each
interview was audio taped for immediate transcription and analysis. By rank the
gender breakdown was: Full Professors (3 men, 3 women), Associate Professors (3
men, 3 women), Assistant Professors (2 men, 4 women).
3. Aguilar (1981) points out that insider
researchers become immersed in the culture they are studying much faster than
outsiders, create a more relaxed research atmosphere for participants, and can
build checks for bias through a process of triangulation. My experience in this
study supports Aguilar’s claims and confirms the value of insider research.
Because I was familiar with the changes that occurred over time at the research
site, I shared a common understanding and language with the research
participants. Their descriptive anecdotes carried both implicit and explicit
meaning. Because my position within the research site made me aware of changes
at the wider university as well as the local academic unit levels, I understood the
participants on both the personal and institutional levels. When both researcher and participants not
only speak a common language but share common experiences, data analysis
becomes richer, more contextual, and more focused in reaching useful
conclusions.
4. Maintaining high ethical standards as a
researcher was paramount. Protecting the identity of the participants,
maintaining the integrity of the research process, managing and reporting data
accurately, and checking continuously for personal bias during data analysis
were critical components to producing quality results that can both inform and
improve social organizations. To guard against bias, I continually checked for
personal biases and looked for negative as well as positive points in the data.
In addition, I continually coded and categorized data, forcing myself “to ask
the most obvious questions” (Stephenson & Greer, 1991, p. 125). In the end,
I found that being an “insider” proved beneficial during data analysis since I
was able to attach cultural meaning to the descriptions, anecdotes, examples
and comments made by faculty participants.
5. Each one-hour interview was audio
taped, transcribed verbatim, and checked for accuracy by the researcher. Each
interview transcript was printed with each line numbered using The Ethnograph
(a qualitative data analysis software) and bracketed to identify emerging
themes within and across faculty ranks. Recurring themes were identified within
each faculty rank. A recurring theme was a theme that occurred at least three
times within an academic rank. Recurring themes were grouped into category
sets: Sources of satisfaction/sources of dissatisfaction, external
pressures/internal pressures, local changes/national changes.
6. Research II University is one of the 10
Carnegie Classifications of U.S. colleges and universities established by the
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (See endnote #1). Oxford
University Press. Higher Education. Human Organization, 40(2), 123-130.
References
Aguilar, J. L. (1981). Insider research:
An ethnography of a debate. In D. A.
Messerschmidt
(Ed.), Anthropologists at home in North America. Cambridge MA: Cambridge
University Press.
Blackburn, R. T., & Lawrence, J. H.
(1995). Faculty at work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bowen, H. R., & Schuster, J. H.
(1986). American professors: A national resource
imperiled. New York:
Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L.
(1993). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crises.
Cambridge, MA: Center for Advanced
Engineering Study, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Hilsen, S. Kahn, M. D. Sorcinelli, and R.
Tiberius (Eds.), To improve the academy:
Resources
for student, faculty, and institutional development, (Vol. 7). POD/New
Forums
Press.
Kuh, G. D., & Whitt, E. J. (1988). The
invisible tapestry: Culture in American colleges
and
universities. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington DC:
Association for the Study of Higher Education.
Lindguist, J. (1978). Strategies for
change. Berkeley CA: Pacific Soundings Press.
Plater, W. M. (1995). Future work: Faculty
time in the 21st Century. Change, 27(3), 22- 33.
Schein, E.H. (1992). Organizational
culture and leadership (2nd edition). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth
discipline. New York: Doubleday.
Stephenson,
J.B., & Greer, L.S. (1981). Ethnographers in their own cultures: Two
Appalachian cases. Human Organization, 40(2), 123-130.