OBSTACLES IN IMPLEMENTING MEASURES OF EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER THREE UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE MODELS

 INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses several governance models used in different countries. It focuses on the general university governance models and how they influence effective governance. The following models will be discussed extensively: bureaucratic, political, collegial, corporate, and shared governance models. The researcher will draw examples from university governance models referring to different continents such as Europe, Asia, America, Australia and Africa.
Information about different university governance models will be analysed. This information will show how university authority flows and what influences decision making processes. Different factors that dictate how a university is governed or what model it adopts are reviewed. The structural configuration, the context within which each model applies, and the successes and challenges of each governance model are reviewed to ascertain gaps.
In the next section, a historical background of university governance models is reviewed to help provide an account of how different factors have influenced the nature and type of governance at universities in different continents and countries.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE MODELS

Governance has long been an important issue in educational institutions from European models of first American colonial institutions to the present day colleges and universities (McCauley, 2002:1). McCauley (2002:1) observes that early institutions in the 1600s in the United States were governed by state offices (for instance, Harvard by the General Court) and by the clergy (e.g. Yale). The influence of these governing bodies on the nature of governance was profound. However, as new institutions emerged in the 1700s and 1800s, public hostility towards denominational institutions permeated governance processes (Rudolph 1990, quoted in McCauley 2002:1). From the 1800s to 1900s, preference for boards moved towards a business and professional image (McClauley, 2002:1).
Rudolph (1990) in McCauley (2002:1-2) argues that as universities progressed into the 1900s, influx of college alumni, staff and students into affairs of university operations changed the framework of university governance.
According to Ospian (2008:3), different models of university governance have evolved to address the pressing issues of particular universities or higher educational landscape of different countries. Several researchers like: Gayle, Tewarie and White (2003:56); Lapworth (2004:314); Ospian (2008:10); Trakman (2008) and others, have observed that university governance models over time have been shaped by a number of factors both endogenous and exogenous. Eckel and Kezar (2004:282); Lapworth (2004:315); Trackman (2008:64-68) and Ospian (2008:3) identified the following as key factors that have influenced the nature and type of governance models adopted by countries or universities: locus of control that is whether direct control by central government or free and independent self governance; history of either the state and or the institution; participants (stakeholders); organisational culture and structure; staff and alumni, and educational content and processes.

THEORETICAL UNDERPINNING OF UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE MODELS

Universities being organisations, the study of their governance looks at different theories of organisation that provide a theoretical explanation of their structure. Therefore, three relevant theories are explored to guide this study: the structural theory, the political theory and the open systems theory.
According to Gayle et al, (2003:84) structural theory argues that goals and policies are set at the top level and organisational functioning is guided by these goals and policies. Gayle et al (2003:86) adds that the focus is on core processes, strategic planning and organisational rationality. From the above, the use of top bottom planning with a clearly defined chain of command creates a bureaucratic structure. Gayle et al (2003:86) as supported by Kezar and Eckel (2004:375-380) argue that bureaucracy defines organisational structures such as lines of authority, roles, procedures and bodies responsible for decision making although it is also argued that structures should be defined in amore broad sense and not limited to bureaucracy.
Gayle et al (2003:89) cites Birnbaum (1989) categorises the structure of academic organisations into five systems: tightly and loosely coupled collegial, bureaucratic, political, anarchical and cybernetic system. In the collegial, systems, organisational functioning and decision making approaches are achieved through consensus. Compartmentalisation and highly structured decision making arguments are visible in the bureaucratic systems, while in the political systems participation calls for groups, representation in the governance process. The anarchical systems rest on the assumption that academic organisations have vague goals and therefore the processes are obscure. The cybernetic systems call for self- correcting mechanisms that can monitor organisational functions and give warnings when things are not going well.

UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE MODELS

Kogan (2000:40-47); Manton (2000:56-59) and Lapsworth (2004:312-314) viewed universities as having dual structures, described universities as ascribing to bureaucratic model, and provided an alternative model through the collegial framework. Clark 1983 cited in Asimiran (2009:16) supported this paradigm and from the organisational perspective, he elaborated governance through his description on the triangle of coordination and control on universities. These models are discussed in the following sub-sections and include the following: bureaucratic viewed in 3.4.1, corporate 3.4.2, collegial, 3.4.3 political, 3.4.4 and shared 3.4.5.

Bureaucratic model of university governance

Trackman (2008:670) citing Lambardi Craig and Gaten (2002), argues that one of the traditional model describing university governance is the bureaucratic model. The bureaucratic theory of Max Weber (1952) dominates the bureaucratic model (Hall and Symes, 2009:212). It focuses on hierarchy, tied together by formal chains of commands, and communication, organisational goals, or predetermined rules and regulations, and on maximising efficiency. Hall and Symes (2005:214) suggest that bureaucracy focuses on such tenure system, method of appointment, salary as rational form of payment, career exclusiveness, life style centred in the organisational culture, acceptance of rank and file, and competency as the basis for promotion.
In this sense, authority is legitimised by enacted rules. Those elevated to authority by rules issue commands, which have to be obeyed by those on the receiving sides (Trackman, 2009:67-70; Hall & Symes, 2005:199-212). Chandan (2005:35) citing Weber (1952) adds that from a purely technical point of view, a bureaucracy is capable of attaining the highest degree of efficiency and is in this sense formally the most rational known means of exercising authority over human being.
McCauley (2002:3-4) suggests that the bureaucratic model is a formal structure having defined patterns of activity related to the functions spelled out in law and in policy decisions. Everything is delegated downwards through the institution and each level controls the actions of lower level. Osipian (2008:28-32) suggests that in a bureaucratic model of university governance, deans, registrars, and financial officers fill specific roles, but the role and the person are not identical. This suggests that people in a bureaucracy can be replaced as long as those replacing them are technically competent without hampering the work of the university. This explains why officers at most universities are hired for specified term limits. Osipian (2008:29) notes that efficient and effective functioning of the university depends on compliance with rules and regulations within the administrative hierarchy. Rules and regulations are created to deal with standard situations that occur on regular basis. Osipian (2008:28) citing Perrow (1979) argues that rules do the following:
They protect as well as restrict.
They coordinate as well as block.
They channel effort as well as limit it.
They permit universalism as well as provide sanctuary for the inept.
They maintain stability as well retard change.
They permit diversity as well restrict it.

CHAPTER ONE ORIENTATION OF THE STUDY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE IN UGANDA
1.3 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
1.4 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK10
1.5 AIMS OF THE STUDY
1.6 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
1.7 BACKGROUND OF SAMPLED UNIVERSITIES
1.8 DEFINITION OF TERMS
1.9 CHAPTER DIVISION
1.10 Summary
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 OBSTACLES IN IMPLEMENTING MEASURES OF EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE
2.3 DEVELOPING AND SUSTAINING EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE IN UNIVERSITIES
2.4 SUMMARY
CHAPTER THREE UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE MODELS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE MODELS
3.3 THEORETICAL UNDERPINNING OF UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE MODELS
3.4 UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE MODELS
3.5 SUMMARY
CHAPTER FOUR METHODOLOGY
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 RESEARCH QUESTION AND AIMS
4.3 RESEARCH DESIGN
4.4 ETHICAL MEASURES
4.5 DATA COLLECTION
4.6 DATA ANALYSIS
4.7 SUMMARY
CHAPTER FIVE DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 DISCUSSION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS
CHAPTER SIX SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 SUMMARY OF THE STUDY
6.3 CONCLUSIONS FROM THE STUDY
6.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.5 AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
6.6 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
6.7 CONCLUSION
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
DEVELOPING AND SUSTAINING EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE OF UNIVERSITIES IN UGANDA