Critique of Minor's Faculty Senate Models in University Governance

Presentation, Style, and Substance

In the article Understanding Faculty Senates: Moving from Mystery to Models, J.T. Minor presents four models of faculty senates, addressing how they operate within a university's system of governance. The article is written with the higher education community in mind; thus, the author's intended audience is most likely the faculty and staff of universities, with particular emphasis on faculty and administration. Furthermore, the author's stated purpose is to provide clarity on the topic of faculty senates' role in university governance. Minor argues that while a great deal of work has been completed regarding faculty participation in governance and decision-making, conversations on such matters are often muddled because no conceptual framework exists within which to debate them. He hopes to solve this problem by presenting a four-pronged model.

Organizationally, the article is more or less logical, introducing the reader to the topic, providing a literature review, and then discussing methods, models, and characteristics before offering a conclusion. The choice of genre — the scientific journal article — makes the presentation more formal and, thus, well suited to Minor's audience of university administration and faculty. Stylistically, the article benefits from clear language and thorough explanation. For instance, Minor presents a succinct description of what his study will entail and what it intends to accomplish before introducing his research. His straightforward statements carefully outline the article for the reader, and his style lends itself more to citation and fact than to abstraction, allowing the audience to form practical opinions about the piece much more easily.

Finally, the author's substance is weighty and fairly well developed. The article begins with an introduction to faculty participation in governance — necessary context for readers unfamiliar with the topic. By providing a literature review containing relevant research, along with a description of the role of faculty senates in governance, the author helps readers understand that the topic is both problematic and controversial. His descriptions of the models add an important contribution to the literature on faculty participation in governance, and his conclusion serves as a meaningful call for further research.

Strengths and Weaknesses

If the reader is to believe Minor's literature review, a major strength of this piece is that it contributes something entirely new to the literature on this topic. Beyond its novelty, the article has several other notable strengths. First, Minor asks an important substantive question: whether it is really possible to weigh in on faculty involvement in governance amidst the confusion that currently pervades academic conversations on the subject. Concluding that it is not, he poses a question that helps organize the discussion into something more manageable. Thus, a major strength of this piece lies in its subject matter — both its uniqueness and its appropriateness.

Another strength is the article's accessibility, which comes both in terms of style and research. Stylistically, Minor is explicit, informing his readers about what the article intends to do and why it is important. In addition, by providing a model, Minor packages his observations in a way that future researchers can readily engage with. Rather than simply recording observations, he presents a framework that further researchers can work with piece by piece in order to confirm or refute it.

Despite these strengths, several weaknesses can be identified. First, Minor relies on a considerable number of generalizations throughout his introduction. For instance, he states: "Many higher education scholars point out the importance of effective governance systems for managing this area of change and innovation in the academy" (Minor). After this assertion, however, he cites only two articles — a number most readers would agree falls far short of substantiating the claim "many." Such generalizations leave readers uncertain about the accuracy of his literature review, which in turn undermines his credibility as an author and the credibility of his stated purpose. Since Minor identifies a general confusion in conversations about faculty participation in governance as the very stimulus for his article, a faulty literature review could suggest that his model is unnecessary.

A second notable weakness is the presence of apparent bias. Throughout his introduction and literature review, Minor exhibits what can be characterized as a value-laden perspective. For instance, when discussing shared governance and democracy, Minor seems to imply that it is unfortunate when some universities appear to prioritize democratic process over operational effectiveness. This raises a question that cannot easily be answered: is it more important to be democratic or to be effective? Since Minor presents his models as a neutral framework for better assessing faculty participation in governance, an obvious bias risks corrupting those models and thereby weakening his entire argument.

Application of Findings and Recommendations

Although this methodology includes proper sampling techniques, it has several weaknesses in addressing the problem Minor sought to investigate. First, his interviewees did not include faculty members who were not senate leaders. This group's input would be important to the study, as senate presidents and faculty in leadership positions may hold very different views on university governance than faculty who hold no such positions. In addition, Minor's structuring of responses into categories or models could have been substantially shaped by his personal views or biases. He did not employ any type of algorithm or categorical sorting tool to organize the responses, which would have lent his models considerably more credibility and scientific rigor.

Minor found that faculty senates fit into four models: functional, influential, ceremonial, and subverted. In functional senates, the bodies fulfill traditional roles, existing mainly "to represent and protect the interest of faculty in university decision making." Influential senates, by contrast, hold real power to govern. Ceremonial senates typically have low activity and exist "in name only," but retain symbolic value. Finally, in subverted senates, other decision-making processes "undermine" the role of the senate (Minor, 2004). Minor also found that the specific characteristics of different senates were important variables in the context of governance and decision-making.