Knowing Better: Improving Collective Decision Making in Higher Education Shared Governance

Autor/in	Manick, Christopher J. D.
Titel	Knowing Better: Improving Collective Decision Making in Higher Education Shared Governance
Quelle	(2016), (208 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Monographie
ISBN	978-0-3551-9661-0
Schlagwörter	Hochschulschrift; Dissertation; Governance; Higher Education; Participative Decision Making; Democratic Values; Debate; Epistemology; Transformational Leadership; College Administration; Leadership Styles; Educational Practices + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Thesis; Dissertations; Academic thesis; Education; Educational policy; Financing; Steuerung; Bildung; Erziehung; Bildungspolitik; Finanzierung; Hochschulbildung; Hochschulsystem; Hochschulwesen; Debating; Streitgespräch; Erkenntnistheorie; College administrators; Hochschulverwaltung; Führungsstil; Bildungspraxis
Abstract	This dissertation addresses the question: Should higher education governance and decision-making be an elite or collective responsibility? It brings into conversation (i) the debate over the future of shared (i.e. participatory, faculty) governance in higher education, and (ii) research in democratic theory, specifically the epistemic defense of deliberative democratic decision-making. It argues on epistemic (or knowledge-based) grounds that the answer to improved decision-making in academic governance is better, not less, deliberation. Colleges and universities should use deliberative decision-making mechanisms to tap the collective knowledge of its academic units to identify problems and likely solutions. To this end, I propose an epistemic theory of deliberation and intend it as an improvement and replacement to the governance practices that fail to meet the demands of academe's increasing technological and uncertain future. However, "better" deliberation does not simply mean more; there are also limits to the usefulness of deliberative approaches. My argument supposes that deliberative and democratic practices should be used to the extent that they provide epistemic benefits. When problems and solutions are collectively identified--i.e. once a group knows what to do--experts often prove more effective at getting things done. I conclude that effective shared governance consists of both a deliberative democratic body that can figure out what to do and an expertocratic body that can then get things done with the nimbleness and adaptivity that current critiques say is sorely lacking in today's current shared governance practices. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.] (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway, P.O. Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. Tel: 800-521-0600; Web site: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01