An analysis of the structure and functions of faculty governance organizations in public universities in Texas

Abstract

The purpose of this research was the development of a composite image of the structural and functional aspects of faculty governance organizations in Texas. In support of this objective, the organizational documents obtained from the participating organizations were analyzed incorporating a methodology dependent exclusively on manifest content. It was expected that the resulting information would provide the profession of educational administration with a more lucid conception of these organizations, both in terms of their composition and operations. In addition, it was intended that practicing administrators and their faculty counterparts would derive a measure of benefit from the results of this investigation. The referent group involved in this study included 19 of the 21 public universities in Texas with an established faculty governance organization. The president of each of these institutions was asked to provide copies of the faculty organization constitution, charter, bylaws, and related documents, as well as a complete set of organizational minutes encompassing the 1981-82 academic year. These documents were subsequently examined through a content analysis and the findings processed on the Amdahl V6/V8 computer at Texas A & M University. Descriptive statistics were generated through the Statistical Analysis System (SAS), utilizing a series of sorting routines. The following conclusions were offered as a consequence of the data analysis and the review of pertinent literature: (1) Faculty senate constitutions incorporate some combination of 11 general structural components which are individually and collectively typical of representative governance bodies. (2) Although variations exist regarding the composition of the various senate constitutions, the differences are not substantive. While the same can be said of the organizational structures, the effect of these latter differences may be of some consequence. (3) Overall, the faculty governance organizations share many common criteria for membership and encourage broad representation, although administrative membership is decidedly limited. (4) Finally, the functional emphases associated with the senates included the general categories of institutional policies, informational processes, and institutional resources. Within these categories, the senates exhibited a tendency to address with equal frequency matters of faculty affairs and those of a broader institutional nature.