Edited by Joseph C. Hermanowicz
Part I
Chapter 1

“Universities are complex multipurpose organizations” who:
 Want to maximize learning, want the most knowledgeable faculty, are
willing to take on other tasks which play a role in learning (ex. special
library collections), do not like to participate in activities that do not play a
role in learning

The two main activities of universities are research and teaching, and
they must determine how much of each is necessary
 Marc Nerlove (1972) suggested “value-adjusted units … that optimizes the
outputs of both teaching and research”
 A combination of teaching and research is chosen that “optimizes the outputs” of
both
 The “optimal balance of teaching and research might fluctuate somewhat in the
short run; however, in the long run both are stabilized by more powerful
dynamics”

Academic trend (turn of the 21st century), the “belief that the
contribution of university research to economic development was
crucial to the global competitiveness of the U.S. economy”
 Federal research policies influence university behavior and support
additional faculty, fund joint programs or outside partnerships, promote
improvements, and support research institutes
 The mixing of disciplinary expertise for teaching and research is common
but hiring faculty for interdisciplinary purposes is complicated
 Research institutes Have been in existence since the opening of the Harvard
Observatory (1847) and have faced two major problems: the inability to
influence departmental hiring and the equivocal status of full-time
researchers
 Education is raising the bar and it’s difficult for new PhDs to obtain
academic appointments today – those who do get appointments are likely
to have extensive research, this is partly due to a crowded market

“If you want to increase research, hire more regular faculty; if you want
to increase teaching, hire fixed-term teachers”
 The appointment of full-time, non-tenure faculty (FTNTT) is on the rise with
the focus on teaching, while tenure-track professors are meant to spend their
time on scholarship and research (these type of instructors have increased in
liberal arts, natural science, and business)
 Part-time faculty are hired to teach lower-level courses and other necessary
courses, to reduce costs, to bring real-world experience, etc.
 Studies show that student engagement with faculty has positive impacts on
student learning outcomes and adjunct and part-time staff usually have less
contact with students; however, some positive influences may include smaller class
sizes or a more advanced curriculum
 Because of the financial and competitive pressures present at many academic
institutions, we will likely continue to see this trend
Chapter 2

The research-based academic profession emerged (1895) and
intensified after WWII, “The Academic Revolution”
 Served nation by providing greater access, expert advice, etc. but teaching
suffered
 Students began evaluating instructors in the 1920s which improved teaching but
lowered standards (professors wanted to please students and win good remarks)
 Effective teaching was highlighted as the most important thing to consider for
promotion; however, faculty were still penalized for not doing research even in
unfavorable conditions
 In the 1980s education started to be seen as a private consumption good
 Educational quality was brought to the forefront during this time
The 1970s saw a rise of teaching and learning centers to improve instruction,
especially for TAs and GAs
 Movement away from standard lectures and towards “active modes of
learning” occurred (1980s)

 Included group projects, discussions, presentations, etc.
A new ideology emerged putting focus on instructors uniting under the ideas
of studiousness and learning, teachers = scholars (1990, Boyer)
 The Association of American Colleges and Universities added courses on
gender, diversity, and non-Western cultures to add diversity to liberal arts
(1980s and 90s)
 The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching began a program
to promote teaching for understanding (late 90s and early 2000)

 “Students should demonstrate competence by performing skills in front of their
teachers and classmates, rather than by passively absorbing information”
(Shulman, 1997)

Performance funding started in the 1980s amidst new demands for
accountability, and was costly
 Included such things as reporting of retention, graduation and job placement
rates

A shift occurred towards a “learning paradigm”
 “A college … exists to provide instruction” and should focus on what students
do learn, as opposed to what they should learn (Barr and Tagg, 1995)
 This shift increased the call for universities to measure student learning outcomes
through standardized testing (report cards)
An increase in reforms for higher education was called for, as reports
indicated past efforts were ineffective (early 2000)
 Six regional accrediting agencies serve as quality assurance agencies

 All track student success and have instruments in place to “achieve established
goals for student learning” which is the first of 9 areas regional accrediting
agencies are required to have standards for as stipulated by Congress (1998)

Practical consequences of the reform movements
 Improved classroom teaching, a move from lecture-centered
classrooms to those focusing on presentations, reflective writing,
real-life illustrations, etc. (active learning) leading to improved
critical thinking, reasoning and writing skills
 More work still needs to be done to better measure learning outcomes
and more accurately gauge accountability

Consequences of the legitimization of teaching identities
 Teaching as opposed to research has been highlighted solving
problems with “status inconsistency,” teaching moved from a
“scholarly profession into more of a helping profession”
 For the future academics may have to look back at the researchcentered institutions of the past to keep up with other countries
Chapter 3

Information varies over the position of faculty when discussing
educational space, especially in today’s high-tech world
 One way to understand this position is by looking at policy decrees and
positions of specific associations
 When looking at the American Association of University Professors, American
Federation of Teachers, and the National Education Association:
 All three generally put the educational space of classrooms and the formal
curriculum as central to technology in education
 Almost all discuss technology in education with regards to distance learning,
without mentioning other areas (ex. hybrid classes)
 None of them look at course management software systems that have
themselves become new educational spaces (ex. Blackboard)

The League for Innovation (LfI)
 The site of the LfI makes many references to learning but little reference to teaching or
faculty
 When discussing educational space, it mentions two main players – technology (facilitates and
enables learning) and large corporations like Compaq and IBM (which “influences and advances
education”)
 It is looking to change educational space by bringing technology, and companies that “promote
and market information technologies” to the front, nearly eliminating the need for faculty

Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U)
 The site of the AAC&U talks about redefining liberal education and vital learning
outcomes, and cites learning numerous times, with faculty mentioned as central and
technology barely mentioned at all
 Essential and practical skills are included with the learning outcomes identified by employers,
and focus is put on “engagement and active involvement in learning,” not solely on technology
 For both the LfI and AAC&U, learning is seen as most essential, and they both include business in the
definition for learning outcomes; however, LFI puts more emphasis on technology and less on faculty, and
AAC&U vice versa

Another way to understand the position of faculty in educational space is by
looking at public claims of interstitial teaching/learning units
 Ohio University – Has faculty learning communities (FLCs) that are meant to
cultivate “pedagogical innovation” for a smooth transition to “learning centric
institution(s)”
 The centers provide things like workshops, discussions, individual consultations,
faculty resources, etc.
 The centers are located in the library, showing how libraries are rethinking their
uses and constructing new educational spaces to “teach professors how to teach”
 University of Arizona – Has two interstitial units, The University Teaching Center
and The Learning Technologies Center
 The teaching center provides new faculty orientation and orientation for graduate
assistants, as well as workshops and consultations, while the learning center mainly
focuses on technology like computer-based instruction
 Professional jurisdiction over educational space at the U of A offers both types of
interstitial units with overlap between them




Faculty organizations mostly tend to distance themselves
from important questions of educational space regarding
technology
They have “opened the door” to claim both old and new
educational spaces to focus on learning outcomes and
technology
Learning is seen as center with an opening for third parties to
come in and enhance teaching and learning
Classrooms are conventional educational spaces but this is
changing in the high-tech academy
 So, whose educational space is it? This is still being worked out
but it’s clear that faculty are having to share space with many
different parties
Chapter 4

There has been some consideration as to whether certain longestablished professions in American society are undergoing
deprofessionalization or a “decline in power”
 Observers of academe have witnessed significant losses of power for the
profession which began in the 80s – these have been due to such things
as for-profit higher education, growth of non-tenure faculty, etc.
 A study was done to address these challenges, specifically, to explore how
professors view the proper relationship between their own politics and
their research and teaching (57 American professors, five disciplines –
sociology, economics, literature, biology, and engineering)
 There were three main findings: there is a significant variation across
disciplines in the degree to which notions like objectivity and politically
value-free knowledge are seen as unproblematic and desirable, with
regard to teaching, norms are in place in all five disciplines against overt
partisanship in the classroom and critical pedagogy is rare, and there is a
disagreement within the profession about the meaning of academic
freedom

The Possibility of Objective, Value-Free Knowledge
 At the extreme ends are those who are deeply skeptical about the possibility of
objective knowledge or those who believe in widespread objectivism
 Less than a third saw objectivity in research as unproblematic or desirable

Political Neutrality versus Transparency in Teaching
 Most professors distanced themselves from others who would impose their
political views on students and were divided into two main groups – those who
thought their politics didn’t factor into their teaching and those who believes it
was good for professors to share their personal views
 Some were more neutral in nature, either accidentally by the nature of their
classes or they “cultivated political neutrality” meaning they kept their own
views hidden regardless of the political nature of the discussion

Conceptions of Academic Freedom
 Most professors have likely not given much thought to the concept
 The study found that around 20% of professors felt that their academic freedom
had been threatened in some way in the last few years
 Two main groups emerged – those who took academic freedom to mean they had
the right to work on anything they desired, and those who saw it as a professional
prerogative with certain responsibilities – the rest were somewhere in between
Part II
Chapter 5





Socialization process involves learning and adopting the norms,
standards, and expectations of the group one is joining.
Doctoral education is the period in which future faculty are socialized
to the work and life of being a professor.
Tierney and Rhoads (1994) said socialization is a "cultural process".
Socialization is not just the new member homogenizing, but rather a
merging of experiences, ideas, and expectations.
A changing academic environment benefits from new faculty coming
in with their own hopes, goals, and creativity. This benefits both the
new faculty and the institutions they enter.
For graduate students: "the socialization process involves graduate
students learning knowledge and skills, interacting with faculty and
student peers, and becoming integrated into their fields".






Doctoral students preparing to be faculty are entering a field that is
entirely different than their current professors and mentors entered.
Change comes from 3 factors:
1. Faculty work itself is changing.
2. Faculty career is changing.
3. Aspiring faculty-doctoral students-are brining new and different
ideas and standards to their career planning.
May be need to look at the current approach to doctoral education
and change, supplement, or amend it to better fit the changing
climate in faculty roles.

Four significant changes in faculty work:






"The opportunities and challenges of ever-present technology"
"The move toward interdisciplinarity and the expansion of knowledge"
"The changing characteristics of students"
"Fiscal constraints, accountability, and increased competition"
Key elements that remain the same in faculty work: academics
teach students, partake in service to their institution, and
participating in research and writing.
Faculty who are involved in training doctoral students need to
face the obstacle of training students for the changing context in
academic work.




Decrease in percentage of faculty on tenure-track.
Contract-renewal positions and fixed-term appointments are
increasingly embraced by faculty.
Part-time positions are also increasing in the higher education
faculty sector.
"Unbundling" means the division of work amongst faculty. For
example: one professor might design a course, and another
might actually teach the course.





New trends in how students are thinking about facing the
academic profession.
Desire for a "balanced life": work and outside interests are a part
of their daily life.
Students don't want the stress-full lifestyle that their faculty
advisors lead.
Due to societal shifts in expectations, students value the ability
to hold domestic responsibilities, work is not always the first
priority.
Students want to pursue professional and personal passions.




Prospective faculty are often not involved in systematic learning
about the faculty career. Example: students gets to grade papers,
but isn't involved in the designing of curriculum.
Students often are not given specific guidelines or expectations
(or feedback) for the work that they do.
Students want to feel community, and often students report
feeling isolated. This feeling is particularly expressed by women
and students of color.
Students report that they do not know the range of opportunities
and careers that are options for them.

Socialization to future faculty should develop competency in
four areas:
Conceptual understandings: understanding/knowledge of a person's
discipline and its culture is a requirement of the academic profession.
 Knowledge and skills in key areas of faculty work: faculty need to be
prepared and know how to engage in teaching, research, and service.
 Interpersonal skills: strong need for well developed verbal and written
communication skills, as well as strong active listening skills in order to
best connect with a diverse group of individuals.
 Professional attitudes and habits: faculty need to learn to self-regulate,
handle issues regarding conflict of interest, confidentiality, and
intellectual ownership.







New socialization practices need to be embraced, rather than the processes that
have been used years previous.
Attention to socializing and preparing new faculty should be shared by deans,
faculty advisors, scholarly associations, foundations and agencies, and students.
More conversations with faculty advisors regarding ethical issues and what "dayto-day" activities look like is a great tool.
Conference roles for individual disciplines that include sessions that help future
faculty learn their roles, connect them via professional networking, and introduce
students to various institutional types that they could live out their professional
lives.
Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) provides students the opportunity to explore the
profession through mentored internships near their research institutions.
Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning (CIRLT) provides
publications, courses, and workshops to doctoral and postdoctoral students at
various institutions that emphasize "teaching-as-research".




Socialization process of future faculty more important than ever!
There does not need to be MORE time spent with students,
rather time needs to be more PURPOSEFUL.
Informal and formal conversations between faulty and future
faculty are equally important.
Engagement between current faculty and future faculty is key.
Chapter 6



Norms come from different situations and events that faculty
face from their day-to-day interactions and through professional
associations.
Particular pattern of behavior = Normative
Therefore, a normative structure for graduate teaching and
mentoring exists.


What inviolable patterns of behavior constitute the normative
structure of graduate teaching and mentoring?
Does faculty espousal of the empirically identified inviolable
normative patterns vary between faculty holding academic
appointments in universities of high and of very high research
intensity?

Missions of institutions influence institutional structures. Institutional
structures influence faculty work. Therefore, different faculty in different
university settings will impact the inviolable norms.

Does faculty espousal of the empirically inviolable normative
patterns vary across different academic disciplines?


Differences between disciplines are "profound and extensive". Therefore,
faculty espousal of inviolable normative patterns of graduate teaching
and mentoring will vary between different disciplines.
Does faculty espousal of the empirically identified inviolable
norms vary by gender and administrative experience?

Women faculty demonstrate a stronger commitment to teaching than
male academics, and the perceptions of what "good teaching" is varies
dependent on gender. Therefore, gender may affect the faculty level of
espousal for inviolable normative patterns of graduate teaching and
mentoring.



Population: full-time, tenured or tenure track assistant
professors, associate professors, and full professors in academic
departments offering the PhD in U.S. universities.
Sample strata were academic discipline (biology, chemistry,
history, and psychology) and the institution's research category
of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
3,512 faculty members were invited

Graduate Teaching and Mentoring Behaviors Inventory (GTMBI)

instrument consists of 124 behaviors that fall into one of the following
categories:







supervising graduate research assistants
mentoring and advising
planning for a graduate course or seminar
in-class practices and behaviors
class/seminar grading and examination practices
directing the thesis/dissertation
other behaviors regarding graduate students and the graduate program
124 norms worded negatively to support Durkheim's sociological premise that
norms are best recognized when violated.
 793 individuals completed the GTMBI


Five inviolable normative patterns of graduate teaching and
mentoring:
Disrespect toward student efforts
 Misappropriation of student work
 Harassment of students
 Whistle-blowing suppression
 Directed research malfeasance





The 124 behaviors in the GTMBI may not be exhaustive of all the
possible behaviors that meet normative criteria.
Relatively low response rate of 22.6%.
Study is confined to only certain academic professions.
Study only used doctoral granting universities from Research
Universities-High and Research Universities-Very High.
Therefore, faculty in the research/doctoral level are not
included.

Two main conclusions from this study:
The five derived inviolable norms provide moral boundaries and standards for
graduate teaching and mentoring. The boundaries stem from the more
privatized and decentralized nature of teaching and mentoring.
 Although institutional type and academic disciplines offer great variety, the
norms of student harassment, whistle-blowing suppression, and directed
research malfeasance are core norms and do not vary.


Faculty malfeasance = graduate faculty violates one or more of the
five normative patterns identified in research. Faculty malfeasance at
the graduate level is more dangerous than at the undergraduate level
because the role that mentors/teachers present are seen as models for
the professorial role that the next generation of professoriate.



Violation of these norms by a teacher/mentor is a great
disservice to the future faculty.
Norms and behaviors are never perfectly correlated.
Learning appropriate norms in graduate school is preferred to
learning them as full-fledged faculty members.





Research to learn the extent to which violations of norms are being
perpetrated would be useful. Graduate students would need to be the
subjects of the study because they are the one's seeing the violations.
Including graduate students in this research would allow further
gauging of problematic socialization occurring.
Graduate-degree-granting departments and programs should
develop codes of conduct for teaching and mentoring.
Institutions should create academic integrity committees, if they don't
already exist.
Sanctions for faculty graduate teaching and mentoring malfeasance
should be formulated.
Part III
42




On a macro level, knowledge production, dissemination and application are the
reasons that universities exist.
On a micro level, scholarly learning is an individual’s emotional process and
“involves wrestling with knowledge—a scholar struggling between her own longheld conceptions of a topic and new or different conceptions that counter her views”
(p. 202).
“This interrelationship—of knowledge creation (macro organizational) and scholarly
learning (micro individually anchored)—captures how and why scholarly learning
matters: scholarly learning can be viewed as the person-level instantiation of the
larger university’s knowledge creation function and, more broadly, of the mission of
higher learning to which colleges and universities aspire” (p. 209).
However, the movement from a tenured faculty to a contingent workforce impacts
scholarly learning, and the author stated that “to reduce or disassemble the traditional
faculty role—where scholarly learning has existed without public name—is to
threaten it, to question its continuance as a site of deep learning” (p. 211) and “we
may be witnessing, in our time, the deprofessionalization of the academic profession”
(p. 211).
43





Anomie is the “result of a divide between achievement aspirations among members of a
profession and the profession’s capacity to recognize individuals for their contributions”
(p. 217).
Academic careers need forms of recognition (publication, citation of work, awards, etc.)
to assess success and to reward based on merit.
“If recognition is so central to the academic profession, and if quests for recognition are
institutionally expected of academics, then a problem emerges when the profession
cannot confer recognition to numbers of people who may warrant it” (p. 220) .
“As research is more greatly stressed, career expectations rise in accord with attempting
to satisfy organizational demands. As expectations rise, the likelihood of satisfying them
decreases. These conditions favor dissatisfaction and disaffection for the academic
career” (p. 233).
Adaptive strategies include retreatism (embracing alternative reward systems such as
teaching or administration), ritualism (performing enough perfunctory research),
innovation (illicitly gaining recognition), and rebellion (rejecting normal standards).
44
Part III
45




On a macro level, knowledge production, dissemination and application are the
reasons that universities exist.
On a micro level, scholarly learning is an individual’s emotional process and “involves
wrestling with knowledge—a scholar struggling between her own long-held
conceptions of a topic and new or different conceptions that counter her views” (p.
202).
“This interrelationship—of knowledge creation (macro organizational) and scholarly
learning (micro individually anchored)—captures how and why scholarly learning
matters: scholarly learning can be viewed as the person-level instantiation of the
larger university’s knowledge creation function and, more broadly, of the mission of
higher learning to which colleges and universities aspire” (p. 209).
However, the movement from a tenured faculty to a contingent workforce impacts
scholarly learning, and the author stated that “to reduce or disassemble the traditional
faculty role—where scholarly learning has existed without public name—is to threaten
it, to question its continuance as a site of deep learning” (p. 211) and “we may be
witnessing, in our time, the deprofessionalization of the academic profession” (p. 211).
46





Anomie is the “result of a divide between achievement aspirations among members of a
profession and the profession’s capacity to recognize individuals for their contributions”
(p. 217).
Academic careers need forms of recognition (publication, citation of work, awards, etc.)
to assess success and to reward based on merit.
“If recognition is so central to the academic profession, and if quests for recognition are
institutionally expected of academics, then a problem emerges when the profession
cannot confer recognition to numbers of people who may warrant it” (p. 220) .
“As research is more greatly stressed, career expectations rise in accord with attempting
to satisfy organizational demands. As expectations rise, the likelihood of satisfying
them decreases. These conditions favor dissatisfaction and disaffection for the academic
career” (p. 233).
Adaptive strategies include retreatism (embracing alternative reward systems such as
teaching or administration), ritualism (performing enough perfunctory research),
innovation (illicitly gaining recognition), and rebellion (rejecting normal standards).
47
Part IV



Academic freedom means being able to “follow research where
it leads and to communicate the results” without limitations.
Autonomy means not being controlled by outside forces and
being independent as well as self-directed.
State agencies somewhat manage the control of academic
freedom, which includes various agencies such as public
institutions, businesses, courts, social organizations, etc.

The level of academic freedom varies depending on the agency and
whether or not they are liberal, neoliberal, conservative, etc.




AAUP was organized in 1915 with the expectation to protect faculty
by enforcing the Statement of Principles and to investigate when a
faculty member is dismissed.
The Statement of Principles of academic freedom was defined by the
American Association of University Professors (AAUP) as “ free
search for truth and its free exposition” (p. 265).
AAUP policies have been adopted by many colleges and universities
to protect academic freedom, particularly with personnel policies of
hiring, promoting, dismissal, evaluation, and tenure processes.
AAUP also feels that a system of governance is necessary to help
protect academic freedom as well as to ensure proper policies. In
addition, faculty should have a significant say with regards to
decisions at an institution.



Free-market politics “reshaped” state agencies allowing them to
negotiate their power and rule with regards to the research (p.
267).
Free-market allows public institutions to choose neoliberal state
policies and entrepreneurship to let the market decides on
success and not professional or peer reviews.
There is a concern with regards to the institutions and faculty’s
role in these partnerships.

University of California-Berkeley and the Novartis Case is a prime example of
where a relationship did not work out as well as hoped causing a debate on
faculty’s role and academic freedom.


Urfsky v. Gilmore had academic restrictions set by legislation which caused a shift
in power from the faculty doing the research to the states due to the sexual nature
of the research.


Free-market politics resulted in legislation that can reshape state agencies to emphasize
neoliberal characteristics that challenge the historic academic incentives of discovery,
publication, and prestige, creating challenges to academic freedom.
Legislation enacted to enforce a socially conservative morality restricts academic freedom.
Ward Churchill Case proved that critiquing and criticizing wars can cause
additional investigation to prove misconduct.

Supreme court rejected Churchill’s appeal to get his job back and awarded $1 him for the
violation of the 1st Amendment.

Institutions and industrial relationships are common, as is the
adaptation of business processes into the academic. There is not
a clear or defined way these relationships are built, but the
relationship has been known to cause some concerns with
regards to the research agendas. Codes of commerce do have
some form of presence, which gradually increases over time.

1960’s – Enrollment doubled due to the GI Bill, but the world of
commerce had minimal effect on the academe; however,
institutional accountability from the government, corporations,
and foundations started to increase.


Commerce was not used as often due to federal and foundation support.
1970’s – As competition for students and resources increased, so
did corporate giving as well as the used of more business
practices.


The “golden age of higher education was [considered] over” (p. 303)
Enrollment started to decline

1980’s – Industrial partnerships started to become more popular
as well as the use of marketing languages describing the benefits
of education for students as well as economic development.


Academic researched also increased by 25%
1990’s – the distinction between academe and industry seemed
to be more like one in the same.



More restriction on information
Institutions becoming institutionalized and no longer need to justify
using business practices
Outcomes assessments became more business-like


Self-regulation – academic research has autonomy and control
over the process, direction, and outcome.
External regulations – Includes review boards as well as
evaluations of conduct being done by a federal agency.




Have control over the process.
Have control over publication of results.
Researcher becomes more of an “employee rather than an entrepreneur”
(p. 321).
People involved in the process have either direct or indirect roles via
organizational field or subfield.

Research has always been important and significant in academe,
and has steadily grown over the years.


Between 2003 and 2005, research had increased between 14 to 16 percent
(p. 318). In addition, the funds allocated for research doubled between
1976 to 2009 going from $68 billion to over $144 billion.
However, since the 1970’s, there have been changes in the way research
is being conducted, which caused an increase with the creation of
external regulations and guidelines.

Some of the people involved in the process of research have a more
active role than others, but all play a part in the change of academic
research via organizational field or subfield.
These people include research teams, universities, committees, public and
private funding agencies, regulation agencies, journal editors, professional
associations, and the general public.
 The relationship of involvement with the research goes from personal (e.g.,
researcher and project to direct (e.g., collaborators, funding agencies, IRBs, and
journal editors) to indirect (e.g., research universities, ORI, peers, policy
committees, and professional societies) to distant (e.g., policy makers,
accrediting bodies, advocacy groups, and media).

Hermanowicz, J. (2011). The Organizational field of
academic research. [image] The American Academic
Profession, Transformation in Contemporary Higher
Education. Figure 11.1

There are three different periods that reflect the shifts of
regulation: “following ‘normal’ practice of science” (pre-1975),
“preventing scientific misconduct” (1975-1990), and “promoting
research integrity” (1990-present) (p. 322).
Normal practice of science suggests that folks are willing to accept that
the research being presented can be trusted. That it has competence,
benevolence, and integrity characteristics.
 Preventing scientific misconduct means there has not been any false or
stolen information.
 Promoting research integrity means that it has honesty, accountability,
fairness and good stewardship in all aspects of research.

Part V
61






Academics defined as a profession includes expertise and autonomy, the foundations for
academic freedom and shared governance, which some feel are eroding.
Faculty have authority over “clients,” such as students and those who use their research, and
“subordinate groups,” such as administrators, GAs, and non-tenured faculty. These factors
indicate a profession.
However, faculty have conflicts between themselves. For example, “locals” who invest time in
their discipline and internal university systems and “cosmopolitans” who invest time in the
profession and external systems. Another conflict area is between “scientists” and
“humanists” including type, length, and funding of research.
The author stated, “The community of faculty still needs to stand united in the face of threats
to academic freedom” (p. 327).
“A bigger threat to shared governance, however, may be the internal divisions within the
faculty. Locals and cosmopolitans are likely to disagree about whether it is worthwhile to
invest any time in shared governance. Scientist and humanists may find that their working
conditions are actually quite different from each other’s, and that they do not share common
interests when a shared governance issue is being considered” (p. 328).
“Maintaining professional solidarity in the face of intellectual diversity and shifting loyalties
between discipline and university may prove to be the most difficult task for the faculty” (p.
329).
62





Faculty experienced rising salaries and were viewed as respected experts during the
Golden Age, a time of expanded enrollments and increased state and federal support.
However, they faced threats to academic freedom during that same timeframe, in the form
of McCarthy-era loyalty oaths.
Stanford University aggressively pursued newly-formed federal research grants with a topdown directive, not through shared faculty governance. “One legacy of the Stanford case
is to conclude that it shows how over time research took priority over teaching in the
American university (Cuban 1999)” (p.338).
Higher education losing its way: “Multiversity,” stressing graduate education, research
and “publish or perish,” versus “Miniversity,” stressing traditional faculty roles
1970’s saw student dissatisfaction with quality of undergraduate education, declining
confidence in higher education due to student activism and lack of campus control,
inflation, and declining enrollments.
“The academic revolution subsided and simultaneously the managerial revolution
ascended” (p. 344) with increases in administration and fund-raising offices. “The oncerevered Faculty Club typically now has been closed—and renovated and upgraded as a
club for administrators, alumni, and donors” (p. 346).
63