|
« AAUP Homepage
|
Who Calls the Shots?
Alvin M. Saperstein
To The Editor:
I believe that Joseph A. Raelin in his May-June article, "Should Faculty Be Managed?" has lost sight of the importance of tradition in determining the roles and functions of universities. As a result, he attributes the function of selecting the goals of the institution to the administrators rather than to the faculty. ("Strategic autonomy entails the freedom to select the goals and the policies guiding the organization and is usually an executive function accorded the trustees and university administration.") That is certainly the case in business, government, industry, and nonuniversity education. I think you will find, however, in a survey of the most stable and prestigious American and European universities, that the situation is just the opposite.
Tradition holds that the goal of the university is to grant degrees and do research. The stable and prestigious ones do just that. And in those universities, the content and requirements for those degrees are set by the faculty. (Very often, the degrees themselves explicitly say so.) And in those universities, unlike in business and industry, the subjects and procedures of research are also set by the faculty researchers.
In the traditional university, the role of the administration is to aid the faculty as the latter carries out its traditional, self-determined duties, not to determine those duties. It is these traditions of the Western world's universities that have secured public support for them and inspired the rest of the world to emulate them.
It may be easier for a student of organizations, such as Raelin, not to set up a separate functional-structural classification for universities, but, in this case, the student tends to destroy that which is under study.
Alvin M. Saperstein
Physics
Wayne State University
Raelin Responds:
I find Alvin Saperstein's comments entirely appropriate regarding the academic role; indeed, he might note that I quote Thorstein Veblen's famous line that "administrators stand in the relation of assistants serving the needs of the body of scholars." So what could possibly be our disagreement? It occurs to me that it is probably a matter of language—a likely outcome of any attempt to establish a taxonomy, as meager as it may be. I find, for example, his reference to "the subjects and procedures of research" to constitute what I refer to as "operational autonomy," the clear province of the faculty.
However, the overall mission of the university organization might still fall within the purview of the administration, naturally in very close consultation with the faculty through senates and other governance structures. Further, I suggest that there are many exceptions when faculty may "encroach" on this strategic autonomy.
My own university might serve as an example. The president of Northeastern University, Richard Freeland, working with faculty, senior administrators, and the Board of Trustees developed a mission statement and a strategic direction for the university that focused the entire university community on the goal of being a top 100 university that is practice oriented, student centered, and urban. As a result, what was once a commuter school was transformed into a residential university. The mission has, in turn, resulted in changes in recruitment, hiring criteria, curricular development, and student services. Indeed, we have recruited a faculty committed to world-class research. The president, however, has a fairly modest role when it comes to determining the research agendas of the various schools.
I hope these remarks clarify things a bit. In any event, Saperstein's comments have helped me to become more focused in my thinking and expression.
Joseph Raelin
Center for Work and Learning
Northeastern University
|