1. Results of Shared Governance Survey
SSU Faculty Retreat 2019

2. The Survey
Based on American Association of University Professors (AAUP) instrument
Goals:
To assess benchmarks of good governance on campus
To frame campus conversation on mission/goals for shared governance
Structure:
32 closed-ended questions (statements asking faculty to respond on a true-false scale)
One open-ended question: “In general, how satisfied are you with the faculty’s role in shared governance?”
Final report available in Spring 2019

3. Who took the survey? 131 faculty (24% response rate)
Faculty Status
Tenured = 50%
Tenure Track = 23%
PT/Lecturers = 23%
Not given = 6%
Governance Experience
Faculty governance service = 60%
Administrative committee service = 38%
No service in faculty governance = 27%
Gender Identification (current governance: 59% women, 40% men)
She/her/hers = 56%
He/him/his = 20%
Other pronouns = 5%
Not given = 19%

4. Faculty are committed to shared governance
Faculty members view participation in shared governance as a worthwhile faculty responsibility.
True = 85%, False = 15%
“Faculty are remarkable in their dedication and service.”
“We work toward strong relationships…”

5. Faculty have a consistent vision of shared governance practices
The faculty sets agendas, chooses representatives and leadership, and establishes procedures for committees that oversee those areas in which the faculty has primacy.
True = 91%, False = 9%
Faculty committees largely determine standards and criteria for evaluating teaching and scholarly production
True = 86%, False = 14%
Faculty members who represent faculty on institutional committees and advisory workgroups are elected by the faculty or selected through faculty governance.
True = 96%, False = 4%

6. Faculty are dissatisfied with the administration’s commitment to shared governance
The institution fosters shared governance by maintaining reasonable workloads, supporting faculty development of governance skills, and rewarding participation in governance work.
True = 31%, False = 69%
The administration’s commitment to shared governance was characterized as
Symbolic
Lip-service
Buzz words
Disingenuous
Appearance without substance
Overall: Administrators say they support shared governance, but their actions do not evidence a genuine commitment to it.

7. Faculty see the administration as hostile to shared governance
“The concept of shared governance is under assault at SSU…The stakeholder model is not faculty governance.”
[SSU is] a “top-down institution in which decisions--often poorly thought-out--are imposed without any form of genuine shared governance.”
“[I]t seems we are working in a corporate environment…”

8. Faculty see their institutional influence as limited
The faculty has an influential role in developing and allocating the institutional budget, based on funding available.
True = 17%, False = 83%
Faculty participation influences the evaluation of academic administrators.
True = 19%, False = 81%
The faculty has a strong influence on the selection of academic administrators.
True = 25%, False = 75%
The president and administration use established mechanisms to ensure a faculty voice in matters of shared concern, consulting either the faculty as a whole or representatives who have been selected or approved by the faculty.
True = 49%, False = 51%

9. Faculty see their institutional influence as limited (continued)
Faculty’s role in shared governance was characterized as
Increasingly challenged, or ignored
Lacking real meaning
Lacking control
Disregarded
“Faculty do their very best, but in the end, the administration trumps their views consistently.”
“I have no interest in spending hours on search committees … only to have a decision overridden by the [administration].”

10. Lecturers see themselves as excluded from shared governance
Lecturers noted they are excluded from participation
Due to lecturer voice not being prioritized
Due to lack of compensation for service
Due to lack of spaces for lecturers on committees
Due to low unit totals preventing service
Lecturer comments were split between “dissatisfied” and “do not know” (due to lack of participation)

11. Discussion
Where should we go from here? What actions should faculty governance take with regard to shared governance?
What additional information is needed to better understand the state of shared governance on campus?
Are there any additional questions or issues that you would like to see discussed?