| The role of faculty in governance, and in particular the role of academic senates, has received renewed interest in the professional literature. While some feel that academic senates are essentially dysfunctional, or serve largely symbolic ends, others argue that the senate is or should be the principal architect of faculty governance.; In an effort to gather contemporary data regarding faculty governance structures, the National Center for Post-Secondary Governance and Finance conducted a national survey of college presidents and governance body chairs at a stratified random sample of institutions.; This study represents a secondary analysis of these data, focusing specifically on academic senates at state colleges. It might be thought that faculty governance at state colleges is particularly susceptible to the criticisms attached to academic senates. First, the paternal tradition of administration at teachers colleges, from which they evolved, was more inclined than elsewhere to be unfavorable toward collegial governance. Second, the tight control by state governments, in both programmatic and financial affairs, may restrain the local autonomy conducive to independent academic senates. Finally, the disproportionate incidence of collective bargaining at these institutions may further limit and provoke disputes over the areas subject to senate jurisdiction.; On the whole, the results of this study do not support the hypothesis that state college faculty senates are perceived, at least by their chairs and presidents, any less positively than their counterparts in the other sectors. Although chairs tend to be somewhat more favorable than presidents, persons in these roles are generally satisfied with senates, and believe that they adequately and efficiently represent the faculty point of view. Where concerns exist, they tend to cluster around issues of the quality of faculty representation and the ease of securing members to serve. The influence of collective bargaining does not appear as threatening to senates as suggested in some literature. There does seem to be some indication that while the presence of collective bargaining decreases the degree of senate authority, it simultaneously increases the scope of its authority as defined by the number of different committees under its aegis. |
