SHARED GOVERNANCE FOR INTELLECTUAL OVERMATCH

An important and cost-effective innovation lies in the process by which institutions evolve their curriculum.

In 2020, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) directed professional military education (PME) to prepare joint officers to “achieve intellectual overmatch against adversaries.” Motivated by the “return of great power competition,” the Joint Chiefs of Staff directed PME leadership to “adapt our leader development enterprise and not shy away from fundamental change where appropriate.” In response, PME leadership are considering a range of options, from new teaching methods to innovative uses of technology to meet this challenge. An important and cost-effective innovation lies in the process by which institutions evolve their curriculum. While the JCS provided PME broad institutional objectives, the experts who can best achieve those objectives, on a curricular level, are PME faculty. Alas, the military’s tradition of top-down leadership has left PME institutions with few effective mechanisms to promote faculty-administrative collaboration. To achieve the “overmatch” directive, PME institutions must emulate the best practice of shared governance from civilian higher education, which empowers faculty to play a central role in curricular design.

The term shared governance is used in higher education to denote a power sharing relationship between the faculty and the senior administration on issues ranging from broad educational objectives to institutional operations. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) characterizes shared governance as a pathway to “increased capacity to solve educational problems,” provided “all the components [of a college or university] are aware of their interdependence, of the usefulness of communication among themselves, and of the force of joint action.” Recognizing that colleges and universities have diverse educational objectives, the AAUP does not provide “blueprints” for the implementation of effective faculty-administrative collaboration – but considering a few blueprints is a good place to start.

Some models of shared governance give faculty direct control of the curriculum. For example, the faculty at Pennsylvania State University elect a Senate. That Senate elects its own leadership, sets its own rules, and appoints its committees, including curricular affairs. While administrators have opportunities for input when changes to the curriculum are proposed, ultimately, the faculty retain sovereign control over the establishment of and adjustments to academic majors and minors, the catalog of course offerings, and graduation requirements.

Other models of shared governance give senior administrators a more prominent role in curricular decision-making. For example, the Provost of Auburn University serves as ex-officio Chair of the Curriculum Committee of the Senate. Serving alongside the Registrar (the ex-officio Secretary) and the Dean of the Graduate School (an ex-officio member), the provost works with elected faculty representatives to review changes to the university’s curriculum. While faculty maintain a voting majority on a curriculum committee, the senior administration has more influence over the direction of curricular change, and, under certain circumstances, veto power over committee decisions.

PME faculty sometimes idealize the power held by the professoriate in traditional civilian institutions. Our ongoing review of faculty senate constitutions from civilian institutions of higher education, originally compiled by Woessner and Kehler, reveals that civilian higher education place considerable constraints on faculty control over curriculum. Accordingly, the Penn State model, which vests so much influence in the Faculty Senate, is by no means the norm. For much of civilian higher education, adopting a system that vests ultimate control of the curriculum in the faculty is a bridge too far. Accordingly, to emulate the best practices in curricular design, PME institutions would not need to turn over control of curriculum to a board of academics. Rather, military colleges can more effectively draw from the faculty’s curricular expertise by establishing shared governance institutions, like a faculty Senate, and adhering to a few basic rules:

First, the faculty governance organization needs a leader (president or chair). The leader should be nominated from and elected by the faculty. Particularly in PME institutions, who constitutes “the faculty” is often a difficult question. Given their educational mission, PME institutions might be tempted to define faculty purely as a function of teaching. However, academic work is multi-faceted. As a rule of thumb, faculty includes full time employees (both civilian and military) who regularly engage in teaching, research and service. This ensures that faculty who are entirely dedicated to research are given a voice in important institutional discussions.

The precise voting procedures will vary depending on the size of the faculty. Smaller institutions tend to elect a faculty chair based on a vote of the entire college faculty while larger institutions tend to conduct elections through their representatives in a faculty senate. Regardless of the method of selection, an elected faculty chair represents a singular point of authority that can oversee the shared governance organization and provide an independent perspective on important academic issues.

Second, for the curricular process to be faculty-driven, a curricular committee must be led by a member of the faculty, composed primarily of faculty experts, and held responsible to the faculty Senate. While it may be advisable for one or two administrators, or their representatives, to sit with a curriculum committee, the faculty experts must be given wide latitude to examine curricular proposals and provide candid feedback. By limiting the administrative voice in the review process, the committee can provide an independent judgement on proposed curricular changes rather than merely act as a bureaucratic echo chamber.

Third, while the administration would presumably take the lead in establishing program learning outcomes (PLOs), it should be the responsibility of the curricular committee to provide detailed and substantive recommendations about how to achieve those learning objectives. Thus, the committee is empowered to engage in ongoing discussions about proposed curricular changes, and to make recommendations to the administration. The administration would retain the final authority in curricular decisions.

When curricular proposals are vetted by faculty experts and supported by faculty representatives, it creates buy-in that will simplify the implementation of changes and bolster faculty morale.

Creating an independent faculty voice particularly in curricular development serves two purposes. It alerts administrators to potential faculty concerns about forthcoming changes in the curriculum and permits an ongoing dialogue about how best to achieve PLOs. When curricular proposals are vetted by faculty experts and supported by faculty representatives, it creates buy-in that will simplify the implementation of changes and bolster faculty morale.

We would be remiss not to acknowledge that PME differs from traditional higher education in several respects. Compared to expansive curricular options in civilian higher education where colleges have to oversee diverse programs ranging from physics to dance, PME curriculum focuses almost exclusively on the military’s practical mission. With a focused program of study, PME leadership will be more knowledgeable about the elements of the complete core curriculum than a typical college president. Nevertheless, recognizing their unique understanding of the material, shared governance can provide administrators with a mechanism for incorporating the views of front-line faculty into the curricular design process.

Apart from adopting rules which incorporate faculty input into the curricular process, PME institutions must create a climate that embraces dissent. For a curriculum committee to function appropriately, faculty should enjoy a broadly defined right to academic freedom. Whereas many academic freedom statements are limited to protections for research and teaching, the most effective policies give faculty the right to voice their opinion on a wide range of institution policies including the curriculum. The ability to respectfully criticize curricular proposals without fear of reprisal from colleagues and the leadership will ensure that administrators are getting the best possible advice. Ultimately, academic freedom policies should create a culture that promotes rigorous debate and, when necessary, establishes space for respectful descent.

While it may seem unusual to hold elections and empower a body, like a faculty Senate, when the panel lacks formal authority, such advisory groups have a long and noble tradition. In “Faculty Constitutions in the Ivory Tower: Exploring the Balance of Power between the Professoriate and the Administration” Woessner and Kehler point out that the ancient Roman Senate had very few formal powers. Its influence in state policy was largely a function of its experience and prestige. Similarly, many faculty Senates exert meaningful influence in shaping the curriculum merely by offering highly informed and thoughtful advice. Establishing structures which encourage faculty-administrative cooperation through shared governance has played an important role in ensuring that civilian higher education’s curriculum remains current, comprehensive and agile.

Only by adopting the best institutional practices from civilian higher education, which include elected faculty leadership, faculty dominated committees and broadly defined policies on academic freedom can institutions create a culture that promotes faculty-administrative collaboration. If we truly aspire to graduate students capable of “intellectual overmatch” PME must adopt a model of shared governance that will effectively draw from the talent and experience of its faculty.

Dr. Matthew Woessner has served as the Professor of Institutional Research at the United States Army War College since 2019. His scholarship explores the impact of ideology on American higher education and how shared governance can promote cooperation between the professoriate and the administration. From 2017 to 2018 he served as the 52^nd Chair of the Penn State University Faculty Senate.

Dr. Nicholas J. Rowland is Professor of Sociology at the Pennsylvania State University where he is the University’s Academic Trustee on the Board of Trustees and where he is a Past-Chair of the University Faculty Senate. In his research, he studies the future, the state, and the conduct of science.

Bjorn Prandtner served as an Interdisciplinary Research Intern at the U.S. Army War college under Dr. Matthew Woessner and Dr. Nicholas Rowland, where he learned about faculty governance in military higher education. He is now working at Hanover Research as a Business Development Associate on the Higher Education team.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Army War College, the U.S. Army, or the Department of Defense.

Photo Credit: Image by succo from Pixabay