University Corporate Social Responsibility and University Governance (Advances in Business Ethics Research, 8) 3030775313, 9783030775315

Table of contents :
Contents
Contributors
Part I: The Modern University and Its Changing Context
Chapter 1: The Complexity of the Modern University and the Emergence of Issues Related to Corporate Social Responsibility
1.1 Introduction
1.2 The Emergence of the Multiversity or Megauniversity
1.3 The 20th Century Boom in Universities
1.4 Precipitating Factors
1.4.1 Values Shift: Wither Modernity?
1.4.2 The Shift from Cultural Identity to the Drive for Excellence
1.5 Unpacking the Variables
1.6 Faculty Employment, New Economic Realities and the Growth of University Administration
1.7 The Emergence of Post-modernity and Division Among Disciplines
1.8 Conflict Between Faculty and Administration
1.9 Bicameral University Governance
1.9.1 University Social Responsibility, Corporate Social Responsibility and the Triple Bottom Line
1.10 University Social Responsibility (USR)
1.11 Profit (Economic/Corporate Responsibility)
1.12 People (Legal and Ethical Responsibility)
1.13 Planets (Legal and Ethical Responsibility)
1.13.1 The Chapters Which Follow
1.14 The Role of Faith in the 21st Century University
1.15 University Students
1.16 Faculty: Roles and Responsibilities with Respect to the Responsible Conduct of Research
1.17 Research Ethics and Integrity: Implications for Teaching and Research
References
Chapter 2: University Citizenship, Social Compacts and Conflicting Objectives
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Corporate Citizenship and Social Compacts
2.3 The Contemporary Context
2.3.1 Massification of Higher Education and Research
2.3.2 Internationalization of the Higher Education Sector
2.3.3 Public Policy Effects
2.4 The Governance Implications of University Citizenship and Social Contracting
2.5 Universities and Societal Development or Transformation
2.6 Conclusion
References
Chapter 3: Bending Without Breaking: The Role of Higher Education in a Changing Society
3.1 A Brief History of U.S. Higher Education
3.1.1 First Wave
3.1.2 Second Wave
3.1.3 Third Wave
3.1.4 Fourth Wave
3.1.5 Fifth Wave
3.2 The Rising Costs of Education
3.3 Education as a Knowledge Transfer Process
3.4 Higher Education and Social Responsibility
3.4.1 State
3.4.2 Partners
3.4.3 Investors
3.4.4 College Students
3.4.5 Employees
3.5 Suggestions for Shaping the Future of Higher Education
3.6 Conclusion
References
Chapter 4: Corporate Social Responsibility in Universities and Sustainable Development
4.1 Aims of Education
4.2 Individual and Social Sustainable Development
4.3 Quality of Life
4.3.1 Critical Issues
4.4 University of London Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Statement
4.4.1 London and the World
4.4.2 Access and the Student Experience
4.4.3 Public Benefit
4.4.4 Collaboration
4.4.5 Environmental Sustainability
4.4.6 High Performing Organisation
4.5 Conclusion
References
Chapter 5: Service Leadership as the Backbone of University Social Responsibility
5.1 Criticisms of Contemporary University Education
5.2 The Service Leadership Model
5.3 Importance of Service Leadership Qualities for University Students
5.4 Nurturing Effective Service Leaders as a Core University Social Responsibility
5.5 Conclusion
References
Chapter 6: Mission-Oriented Values as the Bedrock of University Social Responsibility
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Understanding the Relationship Between University and Social Responsibility
6.3 Aligning Mission-Oriented Values with University Social Responsibility
6.4 Methodological Approach
6.5 Research Findings
6.5.1 Mission-Oriented Values in Universities’ Strategies
6.6 Discussion
6.7 Conclusions
References
Chapter 7: Dominance Encounters in University Management
7.1 In Context
7.2 Generic Social Processes: An Analytical Frame
7.3 Dominance in an Interactionist Context
7.4 Dominative Encounters
7.5 Dominance as Joint Action
7.6 Management and the Process of Dominatization
7.6.1 Experiencing Role and Status Challenges
7.6.2 Developing Commitments to Dominative Practices
7.6.3 Displaying Dominance
7.6.4 Developing Dominative Fluency
7.6.5 Managing and Sustaining a Dominative Identity
7.7 In Sum
References
Chapter 8: The University and Social Justice
8.1 Justice & University Disputes
8.2 The Function of a University
8.3 Application to the Disputes
Part II: The Role of Spirituality in the University and Students, Faculty and Research in the Twenty-First Century
Chapter 9: The Catholic University—Identity, Mission, and Responsibilities
9.1 Introduction
9.2 The Catholic University: From Medieval to Modern Times
9.3 The Catholic University: Identity and Mission
9.4 Responsibilities in Teaching and in Research
9.5 Responsibility in Service to the Church and Society
9.6 Responsibility and Accountability in Building the University Community
9.7 Conclusion
References
Chapter 10: Preparing Future Citizens: Global Warming, the Social Good, and the Critical Role of University Teaching
10.1 Universities as Corporate Entities
10.2 The Corporatization of Universities
10.3 Corporate Social Responsibility
10.4 Corporations and Global Warming
10.5 Universities and the Social Good
10.6 Students and the Critical Role of Teaching
10.7 Hope for a Better Future
10.8 Conclusion
References
Chapter 11: The Duty to Protect: Privacy and the Public University
11.1 The Purpose of Education
11.2 The Professoriate
11.3 The Impact of the Context on Institutional Behaviour
11.4 A Young University Loses Its Innocence
11.5 Conclusion
References
Chapter 12: Academic Freedom and the Good Professor
12.1 Introduction
12.2 Research and the Good Professor
12.3 Teaching and the Good Professor
12.4 Service and the Good Professor
12.5 Concerns About the Good Professor
12.6 Conclusion
Chapter 13: Organizational Revolutionaries in a Transformative World
13.1 The Need for Improvement
13.2 Proactive Innovation Through Positive Organizational Scholarship
13.3 Conclusion
References
Chapter 14: The Ethical Responsibilities of Researchers in the Sciences and Social Sciences
14.1 Acquiring New Ethical Information
14.2 Mastering New Ethical Skills
14.3 Developing New Ethical Habits
14.4 Future Challenges
14.4.1 Faculty Workload Issues
14.4.2 Faculty Pushback
14.4.3 Journal Editors
14.4.4 University Administrators
14.5 Conclusion
References
Chapter 15: Summary and Suggestions for Future Directions
Index

Citation preview

Advances in Business Ethics Research Series Editors: Deborah C. Poff · Alex C. Michalos

Deborah C. Poff   Editor

University Corporate Social Responsibility and University Governance

Advances in Business Ethics Research A Journal of Business Ethics Book Series Volume 8

Series Editors Deborah C. Poff, Brandon University null, Ottawa, ON, Canada Alex C. Michalos, University of Northern British Columbia,  Brandon, MB, Canada

Advances in Business Ethics Research is intended to extend the Special Issue tradition to attract collections of manuscripts arising from an interdisciplinary approach that will push forward the current frontiers of business ethics. The series will welcome proposals that have a fairly specific focus on problems or projects that will lead to innovative research charting the course for new developments for corporate and individual actors in mixed market economies. In broad strokes manuscripts for this series may be located in the fields of accounting, finance, business law, case studies, codes of ethics, corporate governance, sustainability, corporate social responsibility (or corporate responsibility), labor relations, international management, leadership, marketing, consumer behavior, philosophical foundations, small business, entrepreneurship, social enterprise, teaching business ethics, and values-based management. Advances in Business Ethics Research: A Journal of Business Ethics Book Series More information about this series at https://link.springer.com/bookseries/8805

Deborah C. Poff Editor

University Corporate Social Responsibility and University Governance

Editor Deborah C. Poff Carleton University Ottawa, ON, Canada

ISSN 2520-1654     ISSN 2520-1662 (electronic) Advances in Business Ethics Research ISBN 978-3-030-77531-5    ISBN 978-3-030-77532-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77532-2 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

We were saddened to hear of the recent passing of author, friend and colleague Dr. Frank Cunningham. This book is dedicated to his memory.

Contents

Part I The Modern University and Its Changing Context 1 The Complexity of the Modern University and the Emergence of Issues Related to Corporate Social Responsibility ��������������������������    3 Deborah C. Poff 2 University Citizenship, Social Compacts and Conflicting Objectives����������������������������������������������������������������������   29 Greg Shailer 3 Bending Without Breaking: The Role of Higher Education in a Changing Society������������������������������������������������������������������������������   51 Jennifer L. Kisamore 4 Corporate Social Responsibility in Universities and Sustainable Development ����������������������������������������������������������������   75 Alex C. Michalos 5 Service Leadership as the Backbone of University Social Responsibility��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  105 Daniel T. L. Shek, Po Chung, and Xiaoqin Zhu 6 Mission-Oriented Values as the Bedrock of University Social Responsibility��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  119 Loreta Tauginienė 7 Dominance Encounters in University Management ����������������������������  135 Scott Grills 8 The University and Social Justice����������������������������������������������������������  155 Frank Cunningham

vii

viii

Contents

Part II The Role of Spirituality in the University and Students, Faculty and Research in the Twenty-First Century 9 The Catholic University—Identity, Mission, and Responsibilities ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  167 Domènec Melé 10 Preparing Future Citizens: Global Warming, the Social Good, and the Critical Role of University Teaching����������������������������������������  183 Judith C. Lapadat 11 The Duty to Protect: Privacy and the Public University����������������������  203 Deborah C. Poff 12 Academic Freedom and the Good Professor ����������������������������������������  211 J. Angelo Corlett 13 Organizational Revolutionaries in a Transformative World����������������  241 Grant Szalek and Cam Caldwell 14 The Ethical Responsibilities of Researchers in the Sciences and Social Sciences��������������������������������������������������������  255 Phillip N. Goernert 15 Summary and Suggestions for Future Directions ��������������������������������  265 Deborah C. Poff Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  269

Contributors

Cam Caldwell  University of Texas, San Antonio, TX, USA American University of the Emirates, Dubai, United Arab Emirates Po  Chung  Hong Kong Institute of Service Leadership & Management, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China J. Angelo Corlett  Professor of Philosophy & Ethics, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA Frank Cunningham  Department of Philosophy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada Phillip  N.  Goernert  Department of Psychology, Brandon University, Brandon, MB, Canada Scott Grills  Department of Sociology, Brandon University, Brandon, Canada Jennifer L. Kisamore  Department of Psychology and the Tulsa Graduate College, University of Oklahoma-Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, USA Judith  C.  Lapadat  Faculty of Education, University of Lethbridge, University Drive, Lethbridge, AB, Canada Domènec  Melé  Business Ethics, IESE Business School, University of Navarra, Barcelona, Spain Alex  C.  Michalos  University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC, Canada Deborah C. Poff  Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada Greg Shailer  Research School of Accounting, College of Business and Economics, The Australian National University, ACT, Australia Daniel  T.  L.  Shek  Department of Applied Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China ix

x

Contributors

Grant Szalek  University of Texas, San Antonio, TX, USA Loreta Tauginiene  Department of Management and Organisation, Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland Kaunas Faculty, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania Xiaoqin Zhu  Department of Applied Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China

Part I

The Modern University and Its Changing Context

Chapter 1

The Complexity of the Modern University and the Emergence of Issues Related to Corporate Social Responsibility Deborah C. Poff

Abstract  This chapter outlines the issues presented in the chapters which follow in this anthology. Specifically, the chapter analyzes the complex and often incompatible values of the current day multiuniversity, particularly in western democratic nation states. This chapter identifies the incommensurable values of the traditional, vocational commitment to teaching and research as goods in themselves as well as values of education and research for the common good with the values of neoliberalism and the impact of those values on the various activities of universities today. These neoliberal values foster an environment that promotes entrepreneurial income generating universities and the perception of students as sources of income. This, in turn, leads to the argument that the nature of universities as incorporating activities consistent with corporate personhood requires that universities abide by a commitment to corporate social responsibility. Keywords  Multiuniversity · Corporate social responsibility · Neoliberalism · University governance

1.1  Introduction This book begins with an outline of the current state of Universities. This necessarily involves generalizations that are uncomfortable when discussing something as complex as the current state of universities in the world. Part of the complexity with respect to any adequate discussion of the nature of today’s university is that many incorporate so many diverse activities and goals that universities can also be described in terms of the cognitive dissonance and fragmentation that is part of their current nature. Further, the type of university which is the relevant focus and scope

D. C. Poff (*) Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 D. C. Poff (ed.), University Corporate Social Responsibility and University Governance, Advances in Business Ethics Research 8, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77532-2_1

3

4

D. C. Poff

of this introduction is the Western, 21st century university as it exists in democratic nations states. The discussion consequently involves a number of glosses, some of which will be unpacked as the topic is explored (e.g., the distinction between free or low tuition-based universities and the more diverse landscape of public and private universities with different tuition approaches and funding models in the United States). The contention here is that despite some distinguishing features in different nations and despite internal tensions in the purposes and activities of universities, there is a recognizable 21st century university in all of its complexities that dominates the discourse on the contemporary university. While its nature and scope are not universal, this view and this type of contemporary university has had and continues to have a universal impact on all universities that makes it the main focus of this book. The second focus of this introductory chapter will be on corporate social responsibility (CSR) and how that concept which comes from the study of the nature and purpose of business is relevant to and has significant impacts on the 21st century university. The chapter by Michalos does a close read and analysis of Corporate Social Responsibility as it is articulated by the University College of London. Beginning with this introduction, this chapter also situates many of the chapters which follow. This chapter ends with a brief description of those chapters, the purpose of which is to present and analyze various aspects of the purposes, accountabilities and responsibilities of the 21st century university.

1.2  The Emergence of the Multiversity or Megauniversity The term multiversity, which will be used as a synonym to megauniversity, comes from a couple of sources but most notably is attributed to Clark Kerr. Kerr (2001, 14) states something that is even more clear now than when he first articulated some of his ideas as early as 1963. Most importantly, he notices that, The multiversity is an inconsistent institution. It is not one community but several.

Kerr was referencing not only all of the constituencies within the university which are often at odds with one another but also stakeholders external to the university. The inconsistent features of the university are even more evident today than when Kerr coined the notion of an inconsistent institution. This is so because of internal dissent, external criticism, failure to deliver on its broader civic aspirational goals and because some activities seem to be at odds with or incompatible with other activities. When we add to the mix such external factors as globalization and global competitiveness in the 21st century, we begin to get a sense of the breadth of the changes for universities in the current climate. As the authors explore in various chapters within this text, the modern university emerges within the 20th century as a response to numerous political, economic, social, historical and world events. There are also changing economic drivers and

1  The Complexity of the Modern University and the Emergence of Issues…

5

ideological shifts over time in government views about the nature and purpose of universities. Although the specific accounts vary in accordance with geographic, national, political and historical contexts (e.g. Shailer’s account compared with Kisamore’s account in their respective articles), clear generic features of the mid to late 20th century university emerge.

1.3  The 20th Century Boom in Universities The Western Liberal Democratic university of the 20th century emerges, to a great extent, in a number of countries as a predominant response to a post World War I and especially post World War II worldview. Wherever one starts surveying or analyzing the history of the university, be it the middle ages or with Cardinal Newman’s (1852) The Idea of a University: Defined and Illustrated or Humboldt University as the paradigmatic historical model for the modern research and teaching university, the modern university which emerges particularly after World War II shares key common features.

1.4  Precipitating Factors These features are common to North America, the United Kingdom and other British Commonwealth countries as well as many other countries (particularly democratic nations) around the world. The post-World War II period, like its predecessor after the first world war, brought home the countries’ veterans. The world had changed and these former soldiers needed to be reintegrated into the work force and into the economic and social fabric of their various nations. As well, as war has long done and continues to do, new technologies and industries emerged in the post war economy and individuals had to be educated for the emergent technological advances and opportunities that followed. A number of countries offered accessible and affordable university education to veterans through programs specifically designed for them. Women who had worked outside of the home throughout the war needed to be re-socialized to go back to what the state considered to be their primary role as housewives and mothers. While their paid labour supported domestic economies and the war effort through the war, they were now expected to return to domesticity and make room for men. This was, at best, only a partial success, and the early 1960s saw a re-emergence of the women’s movement and the beginning stages of women’s significant increase in participation in higher education. However, from 1946 to 1964, family sizes did grow and the children of this demographic expansion, who became known as baby boomers initiated a number of cultural changes, including an increased demand for access to university education. For all of these reasons, existing universities expanded and many new universities were built. Rhetoric at the time was idealistic and expansive with respect to the

6

D. C. Poff

benefits of higher education and the future of the state and its citizens. University education would serve as a vehicle for the social and economic mobility of veterans and their children. As Giroux (2014, 31) characterizes this era, The post-WWII Keynesian period up to the civil rights movement and the campus uprisings in the 1960s witnessed an ongoing expansion of public and higher education as democratic public spheres. Democratic ideals were never far from the realms of public and higher education…

In Canada, as in other countries, the promotion of this idealism and aspirational commitment to higher education included the introduction of various forms of subventions through affordable tuition, grant and loan programs as well as extensive ‘new build’ of a number of new universities. Goals for university education typically identified the following: • A larger educated population to increase the informed participation in democratic and civic development; • A more highly educated and consequently more prosperous population of World War II veterans who would reintegrate and flourish in their respective nations; • A larger percentage of educated and skilled professionals to diversify the number and type of job classifications and to advance new science and new technology; • A broader population base of educated professionals to increase competitiveness and the GDP in many nations; • Individual social and economic benefits to those achieving higher education, and a • Better quality of life and health for a better educated population. Kerr (2001, 199) summarized his own optimistic views on this period in his 1963 Godkin Lectures at Harvard as follows, The ‘multiversity’ was central to the further industrialization of the nation, to spectacular increases in productivity with affluence following, to the substantial extension of human life, and to worldwide military and scientific supremacy.

He further reflected on his own earlier views, In 1963 I wrote from an American point of view that ‘the wave of the future may more nearly be middle-class democracy, with all its freedoms, through its better use of intellect in all of intellect’s many dimensions, than the “dictatorship of the proletariat” …’

Many of these goals were achieved through levels of higher educational advancement in the 75 years since the last world war. However, as time went on, for a variety of complex reasons, university education did not fulfill all of its promised objectives. As the century wore on, universities predicted and experienced a levelling off of university participation with the exit of the baby boomers from the system as they entered the workforce. Further, the expectation that education would be the great leveller of inequality and the vehicle for social justice was not realized and the social and economic mobility that did occur failed to systemically change the socio-­ economic status that students held when they entered university. This failure brought disappointment and disillusionment, particularly for some students and their parents

1  The Complexity of the Modern University and the Emergence of Issues…

7

who accepted the received wisdom of the state that higher education was a catalytic guarantor of significant social and economic mobility. During the post war educational boom, two things can be said about the goals of the time. Some of the identified objectives articulated intrinsically valuable goals (i.e. education as a value in itself) while others identified instrumentally valuable goals (e.g. more professionally educated citizens to foster economic development, competitiveness and wealth). But our understanding of the purpose of universities was beginning to take some shifts, in values, objectives and activities. Underlying that 20th century model of university development and expansion was a grand narrative based on an understanding of the university as a center of modernity and progress. This is manifestly clear in the list of goals identified above. What is also clear is that such assumptions fit nicely and in a complementary fashion to Western capitalism. Modernity was conceived of as a vehicle of progress which in turn fed and justified the growth of industry, business and consumer interest in material advances to improve quality of life. Higher education was assumed to have a central role in producing an increasingly larger percentage of educated professionals who would serve and complement modern progress and capital development. However, international and transnational economic events, beginning in the 1970s were to raise questions and matters of confidence in the synergy of these variables globally and in many nation states. These emergent concerns precipitated shifts which started to take place in terms of ideology, politics, participants and assumptions about the purpose of higher education. This was the beginning of a fragmentation in commitment to and sense of the overall unity of purpose for universities, which in some concrete examples, may have been more reality-based than ideal. As this shift began, however, there was a tenacious grasp among various stakeholders in this idealized notion of the university of the mid 20th century. As Readings (1996, 180) puts this, …there consistently remains a strong tendency in modernity to imagine the University as a model of the rational, the just, or the national community, which incarnates a pure bond of sociality around the disinterested pursuit of the idea.

1.4.1  Values Shift: Wither Modernity? As noted, many scholars claim that the purpose of “the university” is co-­ extensive with key notions of modernity. The origin of modernity is sometimes argued to have its nascence from 17th to 18th centuries of the Enlightenment onward while others position the modern university with 19th century industrialization with its development of science and technology and the belief in progress built on education and reason-based development as a prerequisite to such progress. The development and growth of universities in the post-world war II surge is consistent with these somewhat different understandings of modernity, reason and progress. This fed the enthusiasm which built and expanded many universities in the

8

D. C. Poff

1950s and 1960s. But somewhere in the late 1970s, dissolution and disappointment began to grow in the collective faith in the power of university education and research. The reasons were various although many concur about some of the contributing variables. Examples include: 1. The globalization of the economy as contributing to the erosion of the position of the state. 2. The erosion of the importance of the nation state with a resulting diminution of the role of the university as serving that state. 3. The globalization of universities offering access to higher education and research and competing between and among nation states for students and reputation. 4. As a corollary to 3, the shift in emphasis in thinking of universities as institutions of higher education for the teaching of future professionals and for the creation of new knowledge to characterizing universities as corporate entities existing within a highly competitive national and international environment vying to attract consumers (i.e. students) as well as competing for prestigious grants (i.e. funds for research). This propensity is strengthened through the development of comparative key indicators of performance and the emergence of national and international rankings of “excellence”. 5. The shifts in ideology in both small and big P partisan politics in a number of nations (notably the United Kingdom and the United States) to more conservative “neoliberal” views resulting in a shifting perspective on the purpose of university education from the public interest to the private interest with the implication that personal, private funds should pay for the cost of education and the viability of the institutions. 6. The erosion of respect for expertise, education and experience as societal values generally as well as the growth of anti-intellectual populism/nationalism in a number of democratic countries. 7. The consequent reduction of public dollars for university base operating budgets which has led to increased tuition, more corporate philanthropy (to fill the gap) and increased activity in securing alternative funding, including industry-­ university partnerships and the entry of universities into various commercial ventures. 8. Paradoxically, at the same time as the erosion of nation states and the reduction in government funding, the rising level of government intrusion into the direction and accountabilities of the university with explicit directives from government in terms of specific and explicit deliverables. 9. The rise in stature of disciplines that can attract external research funds and private sector partnerships and the diminishing respect for and funds available to disciplines in the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences. 10. The failure of universities to achieve many of the goals of social and economic mobility for students from lower-and-middle-class backgrounds. The increas-

1  The Complexity of the Modern University and the Emergence of Issues…

9

ing levels of debt load among poorer students, higher levels of attrition prior to graduation compared to upper-middle-class students, and a wage gap between graduates from higher socio-economic backgrounds compared to students from lower-or-middle-class backgrounds. As Zimmerman (2020, 2) notes, “We like to imagine college as an egalitarian force, which reduces the gap between the rich and poor. But over the past four decades it has mostly served to reinforce or even to widen that gap.” 11. The recognition by students of the resilience of class structure that mitigates social and economic mobility which increases student disengagement and less commitment to academic integrity and scholarly goals (Allahyar & Cote, 2007). 12. The response to budgetary constraints with respect to employment of faculty through the growing numbers of part-time, underpaid and limited term faculty employees in universities with both diminished status and economic differentiation from tenure track and tenured university faculty. 13. The fragmentation and division within universities concerning the nature of knowledge and the consequence of that fragmentation (e.g. modernity versus post-modernity epistemologically and politically). 14. A growing division and distrust between university administrators and university faculty. 15. The emergence of governance issues in light of all of the aforementioned changes listed here. The cumulative and collective facts identified here are frequently identified as a dystopian failure of the previously idealized and aspirational view of higher education. As Giroux (2014, 35) summarizes this perspective, At the level of higher education, the script is similar with a project designed to defund higher education, impose corporate models of governance, purge the university of critical thinkers, turn faculty into a low-wage army of part-time workers, and allow corporate money and power to increasingly decide course content and determine what faculty get hired. As public values are replaced with corporate values, students become clients, faculty are deskilled and depoliticized, tuition rises, and more and more working-class and poor minority students are excluded from the benefits of higher education.

While each of these factors will be elaborated upon in turn, one critical point must be stressed. This point is that as universities have responded to and changed in response to national and global pressures, they have not necessarily dropped their previous values and commitments. This has created tensions and/or incommensurable beliefs about the nature and function of universities. This will become apparent particularly when the discussion turns to corporate social responsibility and the university. Universities frequently are institutions with competing new endeavours as well as discordant older values from different stakeholders within and external to the institutions. In some real senses, the university is an institution with visions and goals from the past, present and future vying for pride of place.

10

D. C. Poff

1.4.2  T  he Shift from Cultural Identity to the Drive for Excellence Readings (1996) argued that the understanding of the purpose of a university was historically tied to cultural identity which in turn was tied to nationhood, understood in terms of its specificity. As universities shifted from their affiliation with the Church or the Monarch to the State, universities shifted from serving these masters to serving the state, that is, to serving the particular culture of the nation state in which they operated with a commitment to a reason-based and culture-based approach to modernity, knowledge and progress. But, with the growth and flourishing of transnationalism, the loss of dominance of nationhood and the flourishing of money making supra economic entities, the shift from culture and nation state also changed as consequently did the rationale for universities to be agents of culture, knowledge and vehicles for the promotion of the well-being of the state through education and research. Such a shift necessitated a rearticulated focus for universities. According to Readings’ plausible and readily observed shift, that new focus became the concept of excellence. The accuracy of Readings’ insight here is matched by his critique of excellence as an empty and vacuous vessel to replace the university purpose in serving the nation state and its culture which is based on reason and statehood. One is hard pressed to find many universities that do not state a goal of excellence as a primary aspiration for those universities. Frequently, not well examined in operationalizing what excellence means in a university context, it does get operationalized in accordance with various national and international ranking systems in competition with each other in perverse and counter-productive ways. These ways will be articulated throughout the discussion of the numerous points identified in this section.

1.5  Unpacking the Variables Scholars speak of the impact of globalization and nation states in varying but complementary terms. Readings (1996, 44) states, …instead of states striving with each other to best exemplify capitalism, capitalism swallows up the idea of the nation-state. This shift is usually referred to as globalization: the contemporary rise of those transnational organizations (TNCs) that currently control more capital than the vast majority of nation-states.

This notion of the erosion of the position of the nation in relation to the global economy was well captured in Daly and Cobb’s For the Common Good. They put it this way (1989, 215) A world of cosmopolitan money managers and transnational corporations which, in addition to having limited liability and immortality conferred on them by national governments, have now transcended those very governments and no longer see the national community as

1  The Complexity of the Modern University and the Emergence of Issues…

11

their residence. They may speak grandly of the ‘world community’ as their residence, but in fact, since no world community exists, they have escaped from community into the gap between communities where individualism has a free reign.

More recently and with specific attention to higher education in the United Kingdom, Radice states (2013, 407–408), The multiple crises of higher education (HE) in the UK have their origins in the economic, social and political transformations that constituted the rise of neoliberalism since the mid-­1970s. That rise was associated in particular with the rule of Thatcher in the UK and Reagan in the US, and then spread across the globe under the auspices of the IMF, the World Bank, the OECD and (in the 1990s) the European Union also. It is based on four processes of change in the political economy of capitalism: privatization, deregulation, financialization and globalization.

The consequence of the introduction and dominance of neoliberalism and its impact on universities has continued to play out in the universities in western democracies and is still very much a part of our current university geography and climate. This shift from the understanding of the university as supporting nation states in various ways to competing entities individually striving for excellence exposes the numerous ways in which universities have lost a core understanding of their purpose or at least have numerous competing indicators for what that purpose means. The points listed here have been translated and communicated with respect to the context and purpose of university education in both national and international terms and by implication have resulted in a set of new parameters for universities. To a certain extent, these new parameters co-exist in an uneasy relationship with the previous more progressive values that shaped the post World War II university. The dual sets of beliefs impact the various stakeholders differently and as they apply to students, parents, university employees, politicians, business and government. Since this shift in understanding has not extinguished earlier, more traditional views on the purpose of universities and higher education, the result is a confusing juxtaposition of competing views and values that co-exist in various stakeholder perspectives leading to a less than coherent understanding of the purposes of universities in societies. Both the new understanding of universities in a neoliberal and globalized world and the extant perspective of universities from its progressive period, translate into the following educational understandings and the somewhat discordant values that are reflected in all of the points identified above. • A university education is primarily a benefit to the educated individual who chooses to access higher education – higher education is a choice and if chosen its benefits are private rather than public. • A university is still understood to be a place of higher learning for its own sake, for the common good and for the well-being of the student. • Students (and sometimes their parents) are understood to be private consumers of education and consequently should pay a major portion of the cost of ‘buying’ a credential in higher education.

12

D. C. Poff

• Many faculty and university administrators reject the notion of buying credentials and still believe that students are learners to be educated by faculty who are experts in their respective disciplinary fields. • Faculty are qualified and contribute expertise to the education of students and the creation of new knowledge. • Governments which subsidize universities (such as, public universities) should cut back on base operating budgets for universities. • Higher education should be government subsidized in the same way that primary and secondary education is subsidized and open to all. • Changes in attitudes towards universities result in institutions becoming more differentiated and competitive in marketing to students, and in hiring research competitive faculty, focussing on proven ability and potential for success in research grant acquisitions. Research faculty frequently have lower teaching responsibilities and a second and lower tier of teaching-only limited term positions is required to manage the requirements for teaching undergraduate students. Rankings of universities has stratified the value of university education between the highly prestigious universities and the rest of the universities in nations and between nations. • In addition to increased competition for students and research monies, universities have increased tuition and increased attention to philanthropic and development activities to attract private sector donations. • Universities should be universally funded with free tuition. • Students’ perceptions of their relation to higher education as consumers has resulted in a corollary loss of respect for knowledge providers and expertise. Faculty are selling a product – knowledge. Students who do not perform well may consequently treat faculty like bad salespeople with a faulty product. Some people have erroneously interpreted this as an ‘entitlement’ attitude among the current traditional 18–24-year-old students who expect faculty to teach them and grade them well, independent of any effort in preparation and work which they contribute to their learning outcomes. • Students still respect their professors and value learning for its own sake and their betterment. • The shift from public good to private good also has driven administrators of institutions that are less prestigious and more dependent on government grants and tuition to think of students as ‘bums in seats’ – tuition-paying learning units. This has included the marketing to international students at significantly higher tuition rates compared to domestic students and to an interpretation of international students as ‘cash cows.’ • Higher education of students is a higher order value and should respect individual learners as ends in themselves. • Social justice requires that international students should be treated the same as domestic students and receive the benefits of a university education for the same level of financing.

1  The Complexity of the Modern University and the Emergence of Issues…

13

• Students from upper middle-class and wealthy backgrounds have inculcated the message that you get what you pay for and that the marketability of the degree is dependent upon the pedigree of the institution which varies in terms of reputation and cost. Mettler (2014, 30) notes, Students from high income backgrounds increasingly attend elite private universities and colleges and the flagship public universities  – those with national and international reputations.

• Faculty are sometimes considered the employees of government to the extent that tax payer dollars support the institution and sometimes considered the employees of students to the extent that they pay for the education through tuition and fees. This perception also led to reduced respect for knowledge and expertise in the population. • Universities are autonomous from governments and faculty have academic freedom to teach and conduct research consistent with their academic expertise. • There has been a recognition that there is no guarantee that receiving a higher education will result in the acquisition of a better professional position or social or economic compensation for the investment. Class and socio-­economic status prior to higher education is a very good predictor of class and socioeconomic status after attending higher education as is frequency of successful graduation. Since university education of students from lower and middleclass backgrounds have less awareness of the variability of reputations which exists both in countries where university fees and tuition are controlled (e.g. Canada) and countries where prestige drives differential tuition (e.g. the United States), as noted earlier, university is perceived as a private benefit. Consequently, differential student debt load – consumer pays – is disproportionally higher among students from lower income families with lower graduation rates. Mettler (2014, 23) states, “…degree attainment among upper income households [US data from 1970–2011] so dramatically outpaces that of low – and middle-income people that the percentage who obtain diplomas among the top income quartile is greater than the other three quartiles combined.” • Universities should be agents of social and economic mobility. While these discordant values frequently exist and are held variously by stakeholders in universities and the public, there are also other determinative factors from the dominant neoliberal perspective that has resulted in direct challenges among different players within university structures. Other Factors: More About Faculty Employment, Division Among Different Disciplines, Conflict Between University Administrators and Faculty, Post-­ Modernity versus a modern version of truth and knowledge and Governance Matters

14

D. C. Poff

1.6  F  aculty Employment, New Economic Realities and the Growth of University Administration With declining operating budgets from government for universities, whether the institutions are public, private non-profit, private for profit, university managers have increasingly looked to balancing budgets with the largest part of their operating budget  - faculty and staff  – through increasing the number of part-time and limited term contracts among those faculty and staff who are hired to serve as teachers and student support workers. At the same time, the role of administrators has grown in responding to demands from government to introducing and meeting increasing accountability requirements. Many universities with government grants have, for the last few decades in most western democratic states, had an increasingly large number of key performance indicators requirements to report to governments to account for government funding to those institutions. At the same time, with the shift in values and orientation of ‘neoliberal’ sentiments about the purpose of universities, there has also been an increasing requirement for universities to participate in what are known colloquially as P3s  – public private partnerships. This includes conditionality from government on funding which is dependent on matched private monies. These arrangements sometimes introduce guarantees of profit sharing with respect to research projects as well as commitment of student labour through internships which may or may not involve financial compensation to those students. As well, some university capital projects will only be partially and conditionally funded if there are matching philanthropic donations to the project. As Bleikle (2018, 1) summarizes these changes, In recent decades higher education (HE) reforms have been driven by many concerns: the formidable growth of HE in terms of students and number of institutions, the increasing complexity, costs, and political visibility of HE systems; as well as the rising significance attributed to HE and research for economic prosperity .... In a time when budgetary restrictions are a recurring challenge, reforms aiming at increasing the productivity, efficiency, and relevance of academic activities have been launched and progressively implemented since the 1980s....

The increased management direction of universities has resulted in a professionalization of leadership in university heads with a significant inflation of salaries for these positions. This has led to increased levels of dissatisfaction among faculty who see the salaries as unwarranted, particularly in challenging economic times and as also resulting in the marginalization of faculty in decision-making with respect to how universities are run. As Ginsberg (2011, 4) states, At most, though perhaps not all, of America’s thousands of colleges and universities, the faculty has been shunted to the sidelines. Faculty members will learn about major new programs and initiatives from official announcements or from the campus newspaper. Power on campus is wielded mainly by administrators whose names and faces are seldom even recognized by students or recalled by alumni.

University administrators focused on the financial bottom-line in turn devote a significant part of their work to entrepreneurial, profit generating activities. This

1  The Complexity of the Modern University and the Emergence of Issues…

15

includes the creation of business/industry developmental parks as well as activities like real estate development, property management, and hotel and conference services management, to name a few examples. In a search for extra funding, some faculty are from disciplines which generate external research funds in the biomedical, science and technology fields and are perceived as receiving higher favour among university administrators than the traditional arts and social science fields.

1.7  T  he Emergence of Post-modernity and Division Among Disciplines Another critique that co-exists with the emergence of the neoliberal university is a critique within the Humanities and some Social Sciences that traditional knowledge, particularly in the Sciences but also to an extent within broad areas of study and research, is biased, sexist, classist and racist. The critiques range from questioning the objectivity of scientific claims to discover scientific facts and critiques about traditional methodological rules that are accepted as rigorous paths to establish knowledge. Further critical arguments claim that much of the “knowledge” produced in traditional academic disciplines is actually confounded with bias. At its most extreme, the claim is made that all knowledge is relative and there are no privileged facts. While a detailed examination of all of these claims is not the main purpose of the chapter, it is important to note that this discourse is the source of significant division within and among disciplines and has resulted in demands for equal standing within the institution with traditional disciplines and policies and procedures to correct the various sources of marginalization of some disciplines (e.g. Women’s Studies, Gender Studies, Indigenous Studies, African American Studies, Queer Studies, etc.).

1.8  Conflict Between Faculty and Administration As noted earlier, the professionalization and growth of administrative leadership within universities has led to conflict and distrust between faculty and university administrators. The employment divisions among tenured, tenure track and part-­ time, limited term ‘teaching only’ contract faculty has further created division and factious relations. In many cases, this has led to the unionization of faculty and contested relations that can impact not only the working relationship between faculty and administration but the governance structures within universities, as well as, students attainment of standard educational goals.

16

D. C. Poff

1.9  Bicameral University Governance Most universities in western democratic universities operate with what is known as a bicameral system of governance. Just as this chapter does not discuss the entire history of the university, so here, it will not discuss the complex history of Senate and Board Governance. As with universities in general, the focus here is on the modern western democratic university. While different universities evolved different structures, many have followed variants of the bi-cameral structure. As Jones et al. (2004, 38) note “The 1906 Royal Commission on the University of Toronto provided a clear rationale for the development of bicameral governance structures in Canadian universities…[and made the case for the ‘divorce’ of the university]…from the ‘direct superintendence of political powers’”. This divided the administrative affairs of the governance of the university to a board of governors or regents and the academic affairs to the Senate. This type of governance was intended to protect the autonomy of the academic endeavours of the university from direct government interference while ensuring the accountability for the institution by the members of the board. While there are variations among institutions, this standard structural division between Senates (sometimes called Academic Councils) and Boards is still common. Senates have traditionally been seen as optimal forms of collegial governance where faculty and academic administrators determine academic matters in the university, such as, programs of study, and rules of performance including criteria for graduation. This was the traditional manner in which the content experts set the rules and substance of what gets taught and researched within the university. The boards of governors are appointed in accordance with the legislation under which the universities operate. The members of the boards are the fiduciaries of the organization. Frequently, they appoint the President of the University (variously also called Rectors, Vice-Chancellors, or Chancellors in some countries) and review her or his performance. The President is usually an ex officio voting member of the board. As fiduciaries, boards have oversight for various financial, physical plant and entrepreneurial activities of the university. Consistent with the activities that emerged in the discussion of universities in its significant growth period after World War II, universities and their management began to be sources of friction and political action in the early 1970s which was a precursor to the neo-liberalization of university which began in the mid to late 1970s. The dramatic growth of universities precipitated student protests on campuses about, among other things, the lack of openness, transparency and representation on Senates and Boards. In Canada during this period, according to Jones et al. (2004, 38–39), “Faculty and students demanded a greater role in university governance as well as more open and transparent governance structures”. According to Pennock et al. (2012), In the U.S….controversies regarding the managerial/corporate model, unionization, and shared governance practices have caused shifts in governance practices…The increasing importance of the market led to increased corporate management in Australian

1  The Complexity of the Modern University and the Emergence of Issues…

17

u­ niversities ….After laws aimed to delegate more decision-making power to universities were introduced in Portugal, traditional collegiate governance has become the focal point of debate between university management and academics and among academics themselves....

Senates grew throughout the 1970s to include more constituent representation of students, non-academic staff, board representatives, faculty and administration. Despite the growth of Senates, many academics express frustration that in the current neoliberal context, academic voices are marginalized when compared to the authority of university administrators and boards of governors. As Bleiklie (2018, 2) summarizes this perspective, …institutional autonomy is seen as a basis for strategic decision making by leaders who consider satisfying the interests of major stakeholders as their primary task within institutions where the voice of academics is but one among several interested parties. Academic freedom is therefore circumscribed by the interests of other stakeholders, and decision making takes place within more hierarchical structures designed to provide leaders with authority and managerial resources to make and enforce strategic decisions within the organization. While power is supposed to be invested in the professoriate according to the first ideal, [of traditional, collegial, Senate governance] it is vested in stakeholders and institutional leaders according to the second ideal [of board and senior leaders’ governance].

Pennock et al. (2016, 77) echo the same sentiments among participants of their study of academic Senates, as follows, …The administration has made whatever decisions they want to pursue, and they come to senate for a rubber stamp of those decisions, with little or no room for genuine dialogue. The board of governors effectively inserts itself into academic matters through the budget process.

1.9.1  U  niversity Social Responsibility, Corporate Social Responsibility and the Triple Bottom Line In summarizing the discussion of the chapter thus far, it seems reasonable to remember Kerr’s early statement in this chapter that the university is an inconsistent institution that embodies not one community but several. As the authors in this volume consistently attest, while visions and versions of what a university is and what should be retained and what should be jettisoned vary significantly, the importance of universities in carrying out its sometimes discordant and complicated activities is still critically important for national and international education, research and development in higher education. The main final discussion in this chapter focuses on introducing the various topics in this book. The leifmotif will be on how universities need to preserve their original mandates in education and research and, at the same time, appropriately and accountably recognize their complex and necessary requirements frequently identified as the corporate responsibility of members of the moral community.

18

D. C. Poff

The traditional way of analyzing the relationship of universities to their mandates of teaching and research, on the one hand, and commercial activities on the part of universities in their various roles as landlords, restaurateurs, commercial incubators, etc., on the other, is often seen as oppositional in nature and requiring governance guidance to assess whether a given activity is a step too far. Bok (2003, 185–187) articulates these two disparate sets of activities as follows: The prospect of new revenue is a powerful temptation that can easily lead decent people into unwise compromises, especially when they are under pressure to accomplish more than they can readily achieve by conventional means…[Further]…Driven by their financial needs, university leaders rarely encounter any constituent pressures or procedural safeguards strong enough to force them to conduct their search for funds with a consistent respect for academic values.

Bok’s answer is to these issues is basically a recommendation to high standards both for ensuring academic excellence and in accessing and seeking funding consistent with those values through strengthening of the traditional forms of governance of universities. Essentially, Bok suggests that Trustees could do more and Faculty could do more in balancing standards and effective resources. Trying to accomplish this, however, as noted earlier in this chapter is often the source of contested grounds. Similarly, Bok sees a role for government but also understands its limitations. These contested views need a new conceptual perspective to manage the complex communities that comprise university activities and values. This book proposes to position these governance entities within a new conceptual lens, that of corporate social responsibility and particularly through the articulation of CSR in the triple bottom line interpretation.

1.10  University Social Responsibility (USR) One developmental approach to addressing the multiplicities of the roles and responsibilities of universities has been the emergence of the concept of University Social Responsibility and its adoption at many universities around the world. University Social Responsibility speaks of the need for universities to reach out beyond the traditional ivory tower to address the impact and relationship between universities and the communities in which they operate. This view also articulates the responsibility of universities to address the needs of students to be educated to understand and participate in real world issues when they graduate. Wicked problems such as global poverty, environmental degradation, and the need for business to operate in accordance with CSR are just some of the examples of current intractable social and economic justice issues facing university graduates. In addition, more concrete experience in applying educational learnings within communities while studying is accepted by universities operating in accordance with USR. As Shek et al. (2017, 13) state of USR “In practice, it is to promote the social usefulness of knowledge, as a result contributing to improving the quality of life.” As they further state,

1  The Complexity of the Modern University and the Emergence of Issues…

19

Acknowledging that USR is a wide-ranging and evolving concept, which is open to interpretations, we propose, in its broad meaning, that university social responsibility could be understood as the responsibility shared by universities in contributing to social betterment through the integration of social responsibility policies into institutional management, teaching, research, services and public activities.

The authors state that “…our underlying rationale for USR is that, as corporations, universities should have corporate social responsibility, which we call university social responsibility”. The USR movement in universities resulted in the establishment of a global network, the University Social Responsibility Network, which strives to broaden the accountability and responsibility measures for universities beyond the traditional scope of teaching and research. In this volume, an example of that work is included in the chapter by Shek, Chung and Zhu. This is consistent with the understanding that universities are corporations and as such should have the same responsibilities as other corporations that are members of the moral community. Some thought is being given to fully embracing that CSR may be a more appropriate a term than USR given all of the commercial ventures that universities engage in. This is the stance of the University College of London which Michalos examines in Chap. 4. As this introductory chapter is not a revisiting of the history of universities, so too it is not an overview of the last few decades of research on CSR, particularly in the business ethics literature. Consequently, the chapter will make the claim that universities operate in many of the same ventures as do other businesses, such as, hiring, evaluating and terminating employees as well as most of the other human resource functions. They also are landlords and, in some cases, hoteliers and restaurant owners and operators. They negotiate loans and develop financial ventures, such as, incubator/industry parks. They may or may not be institutions for profit but many of the entrepreneurial activities of universities must be minimally self-­ sustaining and hopefully generate significant financial resources for the university to subsidize teaching and research activities either directly or indirectly. The complex nature of universities that has been discussed in this chapter means that universities are and should be considered corporations perhaps more explicitly than even that which is acknowledged by the USR movement. Much of the CSR literature begins with a fundamental disagreement with the position of Milton Friedman (2005) in his famous 1970 article entitled The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profit. Although he makes many arguments to support why this is his claim, that fundamental claim is that executives in corporations are agents of the stockholders of the company and should serve their interests (i.e., the principals) in maximizing profit while obeying the law and local moral norms. Everything else that serves a larger social purpose is wrong simpliciter. Advocates of corporate social responsibility also claim that corporations are part of the moral community and, as such, have broader responsibilities in the world. Garriga and Mele (2004) summarize four main categories of types of theories within the CSR literature: instrumental; political, integrative and ethical

20

D. C. Poff

theories. While these types of theories articulate various positions and arguments concerning the responsibilities of corporations and to whom they are responsible, most contemporary theories assume a version of the claim that the society in which corporations operate brings with them responsibilities to that society. Of the four types of theories Garriga and Mele identify, the most relevant to this discussion are political, integrative and ethical. Briefly, political theories focus on the social power of corporations in society and note that “some large multinational corporations have greater economical and social power than some governments.” Thus, the responsibility flows from the economic and social power. Integrative theories are general stakeholder theories when the breadth of external accountabilities stretch far beyond obligations to stockholders and ethical theories which “focus on the ethical requirements that cement the relationship between the business and society.” The complexity and diversity of the activities of universities make them good candidates to be considered under the three pillars of CSR in the triple bottom line (TBL) theory which, in this treatment, are Profits, People and Planet. This iteration of the triple bottom line is adopted from Zsiezak and Fischbach (2017).

1.11  Profit (Economic/Corporate Responsibility) Many of the entrepreneurial activities of universities do not imply that universities just care about the bottom line. The requirement for alternative sources is partially a consequence of the need to mitigate significant cuts to operational base funding that many universities have experienced in the last few decades. This, in turn, is an indicator of government shifts in understanding the relationship of the university to the state and the purpose of education. If full subsidization were a plausible future direction for university budgets, institutions might have to rethink their engagement in financial entrepreneurial activities although they might still see some income generating activities as important independent of economic benefits (e.g., research in partnership with some industries, internship and cooperative education opportunities for students). With respect to universities and, especially with respect to the generation of external resources, it is critical to evaluate the impact that income generating activities have on the core activities of universities to teach and conduct research. As Ksiezak and Fischbach claim of profit and CSR more generally, “The point is to consider the impact the business has on its stakeholders, therefore local communities, employees, NGOs, customers and suppliers.” In universities, these stakeholders include not only faculty and staff but undergraduate and graduate students as well as society’s investment in research and the social and economic benefits of direct investment through government support which in turn is funded by taxation.

1  The Complexity of the Modern University and the Emergence of Issues…

21

1.12  People (Legal and Ethical Responsibility) To again quote Ksiezak and Fishburn (2017, 101) “People are the lifeblood of a company…CSR is a tool that serves to develop good relationship between society and an enterprise.” Since the 1970s onward, growing discontent has been expressed both within and about universities. As noted by Mettler (2014) and many others, rather than actualizing social and economic mobility, universities have not been successful in transforming socio-economic opportunities for graduates among the poor and lower middle class who are first time university attendees and which the advocates of progressive values of the post World War II aspired as one reason for the growth and expansion of universities. As Mayhew (1977) notes with respect to higher education and the working class in the UK, “It was hoped that education would provide the escape route from relative economic deprivation, an opportunity for people to escape their class origins – that working class kids would be empowered in the labour market” but as the author elaborates, “this has not been the case.” This fact as well as demands for responsible teaching, the responsible conduct of research and ethical relations in all endeavours with community stakeholders and partners requires serious attention. Universities need to address parity issues between faculty and administration as well as consider further adaptations to ameliorate differential university outcomes among students from different socioeconomic backgrounds.

1.13  Planets (Legal and Ethical Responsibility) In 2014, a large prestigious Canadian University, the University of British Columbia and CIMCO Refrigeration, were fined $1.2 million dollars and $800,000 respectively when they purged residual ammonia dump from the refrigeration system of a university arena “into a storm drain that flowed into a ditch and then…[a]…creek. According to the Canadian Broadcasting Company (2019) the court found the university guilty of: • Depositing or permitting the deposit of a deleterious substance into water frequented by fish. • Depositing or permitting the deposit of a deleterious substance into places that may enter waters frequented by fish. • Failing to report the incident in a timely manner. As Ksiezak and Fischbach (ibid, 104) state, If large corporations pollute the environment with their actions and drive the planet to destruction, they will be equally affected as anything else on the Earth. Natural environment is the responsibility of everyone, and primarily of corporations, which are often the first reason for its damage.

The University Social Responsibility movement has strongly recognized this claim and recommended that all university students be educated to understand and

22

D. C. Poff

operate in their working career as environmental stewards and advocates. Recognition of the responsibility of accountability for sustainability as corporate entities makes the requirements much more evident.

1.13.1  The Chapters Which Follow Consistent with all the points that have been made in this first introductory chapter, the chapters which follow are not intended to present a unified understanding of the nature of universities in the 21st century. Rather each chapter diversely presents the complex, various voices and perspectives to which universities must respond if they are to continue to serve constituencies and stakeholders including students, faculty, staff, researchers, tax payers, government as well as broader stakeholders such as the environment. This book does not answer all of these questions but it does present many of the accountability requirements which universities do need to address. Having said this, there are thematic threads which tie the text together. This is true particularly of the first eight chapters of the anthology, inclusive of this introduction. All of these chapters recognize the impact of neoliberalism and responses of universities in their individual and collective responses to shifts in interpretations of the role of universities in nation states and internationally. In Chap. 2 of the first section of book, for example, Shailer starts the discussion in his article on “University Citizenship, Social Compacts and Conflicting Objectives” in terms of a university social compact through which he notes the profound shifts in university corporate citizenship which he explores through an analysis of the social and economic changes that have creating challenging expectations for universities. Kisamore, in Chap. 3, provides an alternative history of the American university in five waves of development ending with the current state of affairs of US universities. However, specifically in terms of the current state of American universities, she focuses on the financial pressures and consequences of cut backs in public funding that universities are facing. Kisamore explores the impact of many of the variables noted in this introductory chapter. Slashing budgets while increasing accountability measures is devastating to many universities. Marketing and competition include excessive expenditures on improving amenities to attract students which, of course, has nothing to do with the quality of education. The chapter also provides an excellent stakeholder analysis which exacerbates competing demands. Kisamore ends her discussion with a series of recommendations for change. Michalos begins with the evidence-based assumption that universities are complex corporate entities with multiple aims. Michalos defines corporate social responsibility as follows: The corporate social responsibility of universities is to aim for and achieve individual and social sustainable development.

1  The Complexity of the Modern University and the Emergence of Issues…

23

Such a definition, Michalos claims, captures persistent understanding of the aims of education and contemporary understanding of the aims of current institutions. This introduction and brief history, is followed by a close read and interpretation of the University of London’s CSR statement and ends with recommendations for further consideration. In Chap. 5, Shek, Chung and Zhu provide critical analyses of four areas that are highly problematic in contemporary universities and then focus on the fundamental purpose of universities to nurture students to be leaders in the emergent service economies. The article is situated in the current state of the multi or mega university and their proposal for achieving this is through service learning theory which they present and discuss. In this manner, universities meet the requirements article according to the University Social Responsibility movement. Of particular strength is the commitment to the education and service learning of future citizens who must be knowledgeable about environmental sustainability and accountability to society. Next in Chap. 6, Tauginiene notes the impact of neoliberalism on western style universities and emphasizes the importance of values-based university missions in such a conservative view on the purpose of universities. Tauginiene uses Lithuanian universities as the context for examining such mission-oriented values as the bedrock of USR. The article analyses 80 institutional values in current Lithuanian universities to present her case. Earlier in this chapter, it was noted that a number of the changes in how universities are funded and what is the role of faculty and administration in the management of the institution can result in conflictual relations between faculty and management. This has led to more unionization of faculty in universities, the belief that faculty have been disenfranchised in what traditionally has been regarded as collegial governance and concern that administrative salaries have been inflated in disproportionate ways within institutions of higher education. In Chap. 7, Grills takes up one of the themes of the introductory chapter, namely the tension and frequent distrust of faculty and administration within the 21st century multiuniversity. Grills looks at the issues of roles and responsibilities with university faculty, staff and administration through the lens of dominance as it manifests itself within universities. As he states, “Relationships of superordination and subordination are lived out in the routine activities” of managing a university. His purpose is to illustrate and more fully understand the roles that dominance and subordination play in everyday university decision-making. The last chapter in this section discusses the purpose of a university in the context of social justice. Cunningham explores the various constituencies of persons who may be considered as candidates for admission to universities as students and the hiring of faculty and explores justice principles as ethical foundations and rationales in selection. Different normative understandings and justice considerations are explored in the article.

24

D. C. Poff

Part II: The Role of Spirituality in the University, and Students, Faculty and Research in Universities in the 21st Century This section of the text involves a number of articles concerning various aspects of university functioning in the 21st century in terms of elements such as traditional values and universities, the professoriate, students and teaching and research and accountability structures on faculty research.

1.14  The Role of Faith in the 21st Century University This anthology would be remiss if there was not some attention to the historic and current faith-based approaches to universities. Many universities which are now secular had their origin and establishment by different religious faiths. In Western democracies that faith in medieval Europe was generally Catholic in nature. The next chapter is focused on this orientation and its impact on university values and belief systems, both historically and currently. In Chap. 9, Mele outlines the development of universities from their medieval and religious foundations through the development of their national state university to the evolution in the 19th century to 21st century to the current modern university. While Catholic Universities are not immune to the multiplicity of activities that characterize the 21st century megauniversity, there is a continuity of values that state that ethics are imbued as primary for university which, in this context, derived from Catholic philosophy and theology. Having said this, Mele notes the autonomy of Catholic Universities and while reason, science and technology are granted due place of importance, the values of service and volunteering are central to the educational mission of the institutions. As he notes, It is required to consider the ethical dimension of science, technology, and other knowledge, and related with this, the human and social implications of science, technology and any other matter. ‘Because knowledge is meant to serve the human person, research in a Catholic University is always carried out with a concern for the ethical and moral implications both of its methods and of its discoveries.’

Thus, the values of the purpose of human agency and values in universities is still a dominant theme in the history of western universities generally but also in various iterations is still articulated in modern secular universities in mission statements of values. One of the challenges and disptutes in 21st century universities is disagreement with whether the multiuniversity in all of its facets is at odds with these basic ethical commitments.

1  The Complexity of the Modern University and the Emergence of Issues…

25

1.15  University Students This would not be a truly academic anthology without some disputatious contributions and disagreements. While I respect Dr. Lapadat’s work and her contribution, I think her dissenting thesis will be unsuccessful, removed as far as it is, from the actual state of the current multiuniversity. Lapadat’s thesis in Chap. 10 is a Cri de Coeur for the public non profit university. Interestingly, her arguments include many of the issues identified in this introduction as well as in other chapters of this anthology. Her grounds are familiar territory among university faculty. Capitalism is corrupt. Corporate Social Responsibility is voluntary and does not work. The values and purpose of a university is an anethma to Capitalism. While I value and applaud her contribution to this anthology, I think significant progress has been made through global pressure, including significant work by the United Nations for corporations to become more socially responsible and I also think that universities are so far down the road in their entrepreneurial activities that not to impose CSR requirements is to let them escape corporate responsibility. The chapter contains many strong arguments against what she fears is the consequence of the corporatization of the modern university. In Chap. 11, Poff explores the nature of the responsibility of universities to students using a personal experience in managing the death of a student through suicide. The article also explores the nature and responsibility of the university professoriate. As such, the chapter focuses on the responsibility of the university both as an institutional entity with larger responsibilities for the wellbeing of students and the limitations of those responsibilities and about the role of the faculty in terms of the dissemination of knowledge to students.

1.16  F  aculty: Roles and Responsibilities with Respect to the Responsible Conduct of Research Chapter 12 shifts the focus from students to Faculty. In this discussion, Corlett combines a very personal and self-reflective discussion of the ‘good’ professor and the nature of ‘academic freedom’ and situates the article both in terms of the introductory chapter to this text as well as within the discussion in the scholarly literature. There is lengthy personal discussion of failure on the part of faculty in meeting the three standard requirements of the professoriate, namely, teaching, research and service to the university and to the profession. There is also discussion of the failure of administration to uphold and reinforce standards, including the imposition of credible grading standards and consequences for student plagiarism. The author articulates the nature of excellence in teaching, research and service in a classical and idealistic aspirational sense. He speaks of excellence not only in descriptively normative terms concerning competence and performance but also in the normative

26

D. C. Poff

moral sense. As such, the article serves as a standard bearer for what needs to be preserved and have preeminence in a corporate entity that calls itself a university. Chapter 13 represents the classic stance of the Faculty ‘maverick’. Many of the concerns identified earlier in this chapter, such as, the lowering of the percentage of growth of permanent full-time faculty and the growth of university academic administrators are discussed by Szalek and Caldwell in this chapter. Using the Business Department as exemplar, the problems of universities are basically but not necessarily laid as the door of academic administrators and the article discusses issues with organizational structures and decision-making within universities. Even Department Chairs, normally part of Faculty, are cast as cynical and unethical administrators. The authors make a number of recommendations for change under the rubric of Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS) brought about through Organizational Revolutionaries.

1.17  R  esearch Ethics and Integrity: Implications for Teaching and Research As with many other forms of increased accountability for universities outlined in this introduction, the last 20 years have seen professional organizations and governments develop and, in many cases, require ethics education and ethical codes, frameworks and guidelines for all research conducted through and within universities. This is one further intrusion into university autonomy and self-governance and one which was precipitated by unfortunate and at some times egregious violations of ethical principles, such as, lack of voluntary informed consent from research participants. The implications of new requirement has an impact both on teaching and research about the nature of ethics. In Chap. 14, Goernert discusses both the responsibility of faculty to instruct students in ethics, research ethics and the responsibility of ethical behaviour beginning with undergraduate students. As he notes, “Regardless of the domain, students need an awareness of the seriousness of scientific misconduct, a definition of what constitutes misconduct in their field, and an understanding of the consequences of engaging in such behavior.” Shifting more directly to the responsible conduct of research, Goernert notes that mastering knowledge about ethical research practice “should include all students, trainees, faculty, and research staff involved in research.” Turning to research proper, the article identifies some of the major violations of ethics that are included in many government and professional guidelines, such as, the fabrication or falsification of data. Goernert also notes that a number of professional organizations, such as, the Council of Science Editors have identified ethical misconduct in the dissemination of research through scholarly publishing as a serious concern for securing the scientific record. He further speaks to the resistance to compliance among some faculty in following standard research ethics guidelines

1  The Complexity of the Modern University and the Emergence of Issues…

27

and the labour costs for faculty in supervising students as part of their education in understanding the importance of research ethics in the methodology and conduct of ethical research. Chapter 15 presents a brief summary of the text and suggestions for future directions.

References Allahyar, A., & Cote, J. (2007). Ivory tower blues: A uniiversity system in crisis. University of Toronto Press. Bleiklie, I. (2018). New public management or neoliberalism, higher education. In J. C. Shin & P.  Teixeira (Eds.), Encyclopedia of international higher education systems and institutions. Springer. Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton University Press. CBC. (2019, June 22). UBC fined. $1.2M for releasing ammonia into Fraser River tributary. https://www.cbc.ca/news/cabada/britishcolumbia/ubc-­fined-­ammonia-­fraser-­river-­1.5186513 Daly, H., & Cobb, J. (1989). For the common good: Redirecting the economy toward community, the environment and a sustainable future. Beacon Press. Friedman, M. (2005). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profit. In D. C. Poff (Ed.), Business ethics in Canada (4th ed.). Pearson Canada. Garriga, E., & Mele, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 51–71. Ginsberg, B. (2011). The fall of the faculty: The rise of the all-administrative university and why it matters. Oxford University Press. Giroux, H. (2014). Neoliberalism’s war on higher education. Haymarket Books. Jones, G., Shanahan, T., & Goyan, P. (2004). The academic senate and university governance. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 34(2), 35–68. Kerr, C. (2001). The uses of the university. Harvard University Press. Ksiezak, P., & Fischbach, B. (2017). Triple bottom line. Journal of Corporate Responsibility, 4(3), 95–110. Mayhew, L. (1977). Legacy of the seventies experiment, equality and expectations in American higher education. Jossey-Bass. Mettler, S. (2014). Degrees of inequality: How the politics of higher education sabotaged the American dream. Basic Books. Pennock, L., Jones, G., Leclerc, J., & Sharon, X.  L. (2012). Academic Senates and University Governance in Canada: Changes in structure and perceptions of Senate members. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Higher Education Researchers, Belgrade, Serbia. oise.utoronto.ca Pennock, L., Jones, G., Leclerc, J., & Li, S. X. (2016). Challenges and opportunities for collegial governance at Canadian Universities: Reflections on a survey of academic senates. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 46(3), 73–89. Radice, H. (2013). How we got here: UK higher education under neoliberalism. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 12(3), 407–418. Readings, B. (1996). The university in ruins. Harvard University Press Shek, D., & Hollister, R. (Eds.). (2017). University social responsibility and quality of life: A global survey of concepts and experiences. Springer Nature. Zimmerman, J. (2020). What is college worth? The New  York Review of Books. Nybooks.com, July 2, issue.

28

D. C. Poff

Deborah C. Poff is a retired Professor of Philosophy and Senior Academic Administrator. She holds four degrees from three universities in Canada (University of Guelph, Queen’s University, Carleton University). Her PhD was in Philosophy of Science. During Deborah’s career, she was variously the Director of a Research Institute; a Dean of Arts of Science; a Vice-President Academic and Provost and a President and Vice-Chancellor at various Canadian Universities. During her career, she has also been an active researcher, teacher and editor and currently edits the Journal of Academic Ethics. She is also the Editor of the Journal of Scholarly Publishing. Her research areas are: Applied Ethics, including Business and Professional Ethics; Research Ethics, Publication Ethics and Feminist Studies. She is Editor in Chief of the Encyclopedia of Business and Professional Ethics and a book series entitled Advances in Business Ethics Research. In 1995, she was awarded a lifetime honorary membership by the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women in the category of “Outstanding Contribution to Feminist Scholarship”. In 2016, Deborah C. Poff was awarded the Order of Canada through the Office of the Governor General of Canada. For many years, Deborah C. Poff has been a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics Council and Trustee Board where she was Chair from 2019 to 2021.  

Chapter 2

University Citizenship, Social Compacts and Conflicting Objectives Greg Shailer

Abstract  This chapter explores the nature of the contemporary university’s citizenship, depicting it as a complex construct that requires universities to embrace multifaceted social compacts entailing institutional roles and constraints across multiple arenas, and the competing and sometimes conflicting interests of different stakeholders. Discourse regarding universities generally recognizes them as social entities that are intended to serve society as knowledge institutions. The purpose of universities as knowledge institutions is the basis for ascribing their social compacts, which confer privileges and responsibilities consistent with the notion of corporate citizenship. But contemporary debates reflect a profound paradigm shift in universities’ social identities and the expectations of their stakeholders. Therefore, in exploring the nature of the contemporary university’s citizenship, this chapter discusses how the contemporary context of universities is a consequence of major social and economic changes that expanded participation in higher education and the diversity of universities, internationalized higher education, and changed expectations in relation to research. This discussion highlights some of the challenging tensions for universities in meeting stakeholders’ expectations, and in their role as integral elements in the institutional structure in the modern nation state. Keywords  University citizenship · Corporate citizenship · Social compacts · Massification of higher education

2.1  Introduction In the wake of the industrial revolution, two institutional transformations transpired during the nineteenth century; the emergence of the democratized welfare-oriented modern nation state and the rise of the research-oriented university as a knowledge G. Shailer (*) Research School of Accounting, College of Business and Economics, The Australian National University, Acton, ACT, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 D. C. Poff (ed.), University Corporate Social Responsibility and University Governance, Advances in Business Ethics Research 8, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77532-2_2

29

30

G. Shailer

institution. These interacted to deeply affect societal developments in North America and Western Europe during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Wittrock & Wagner, 1996). Universities became key institutions for both knowledge production and strengthening national and cultural identities. The disciplines of social sciences gained robust presence and universities contributed influentially to public discourse (Wittrock, 1993). Thus, universities were positioned to influence societal and institutional development, both as agents of perpetuation and transformation. The nature of universities around the world were strongly influenced by this conceptualization of the university, either through cultural links or as nations sought to emulate the industrial nations of North America and Western Europe. A century later, in the social and economic aftermath of the second world war, another coincidence of deep institutional transformations, bolstered by revolutionary advances in technology, had profound effects globally. Public policies pushed universities as key institutions for knowledge transfer, by broadening access to higher education and emphasizing the more immediate economic payoffs from applied research. These developments changed public discourse concerning the roles of universities, and the relations between universities and society. Persistent debate as to the economic relevance of universities as knowledge institutions emphasizes how education and research are linked to the economic interests of the nation state, while more corporatized universities have become enmeshed in a global education market and increasingly concerned with the commercialization of knowledge production, amid raised tensions or ambiguities regarding university contributions to national and cultural identity. In this evolved context, public policy debates concerned with the rights, roles, responsibilities and relevance of universities now seem commonplace. While the focus and tone of these debates have varied, they have inherently recognized universities as social entities, whereby each has its own identity and collective purposes, but all generally derive meaning for their existence in terms of how they might beneficially serve society as knowledge institutions. The purpose of universities as knowledge institutions is the basis for ascribing their social compacts, which confer privileges and responsibilities consistent with the notion of corporate citizenship. The contributions of universities in advancing industrial nation-states through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were a consequence of their autonomy and their privileged institutional position, which enabled them to pursue the continuous generation and transmission of knowledge that was not guided by economic interests. This has been challenged by social and economic developments since the mid-­ twentieth century which, nonetheless, amplify the social and economic importance of universities as knowledge institutions. Massively increased participation in higher education and the associated growth in the number of universities, and increased emphasis on knowledge generation and distribution for economic purposes, has rendered universities more socially embedded (Benneworth & Arbo,

2  University Citizenship, Social Compacts and Conflicting Objectives

31

2006), rather than merely socially situated, with expanded numbers and types of stakeholders.1 Since the late twentieth century, following the massification of tertiary education in developed countries, there has been continued widespread advancement of neo-­ liberal policies that emphasize private benefits from education, the economic benefits of research and the roles of markets as determinants of the relevance of university contributions. This policy direction has coincided with (or encouraged) the increased internationalization of providers and students seeking higher education, and the disruptive effects of advances in information technology. The interactions of these changes substantially changed the mix of stakeholders and how universities engage with them, and how universities function as knowledge institutions. Thus, we have experienced a profound paradigm shift in universities’ social identities and the expectations of their stakeholders. This chapter takes a broad perspective to explore the nature of the contemporary university’s citizenship in the context of these evolved circumstances, and depicts it as a complex construct that requires universities to embrace multifaceted social compacts entailing institutional roles and constraints across multiple arenas, and the competing and sometimes conflicting interests of different stakeholders.2 Thus, for a university to be socially responsible, those charged with its governance must embrace stakeholder expectations and forms of accountability that may be even more complex than their equivalents in private enterprise. This chapter is intended to highlight some of the challenging tensions and conflicts for universities in aligning their actions with their missions, and aligning their missions with the social compacts, and in pursuing their roles as integral elements in the institutional structure in the modern nation state. Many of the issues raised here have received more substantial attention elsewhere, with detailed evidence applicable to particular contexts. The discussion is mainly focused on public universities because these dominate the university systems of most countries, but most issues might also apply to private universities.3 The rest of this chapter proceeds as follows. The next section expands on the conceptualization of universities’ citizenship and their social compacts. It then elaborates on the issues noted above by discussing how the contemporary context of universities is a consequence of major social and economic changes, and associated public policy developments, that increased participation in higher education, 1  In economic sociology, “embeddedness” refers to the degree to which actions are constrained or guided by non-economic institutions – and particularly social roles. 2  The perspective taken in this chapter is not so broad as to encompass all types of universities. The discussion is generally concerned with public and not-for-profit private universities that have a physical presence in a home country that is intendedly democratic, a reasonable degree of autonomy, and a public education agenda. For-profit, virtual and corporate universities are not directly considered. 3  Internationally, the U.S. system is an exception, with its more elite universities being predominantly private non-profit universities and public universities providing an alternative for those who cannot access the elite universities. Elsewhere in the world, it is the more usual case that public universities are the elite and private providers are the alternative.

32

G. Shailer

expanded the diversity of universities, internationalized higher education, and changed expectations in relation to research. The chapter then returns to the theme raised here, regarding the potential for conflicts and tensions in university citizenship, emphasizing the current challenges for a university in meeting the expectations of its stakeholders and its obligations as an integral element in its country’s institutional structure.

2.2  Corporate Citizenship and Social Compacts At the most general level, corporate citizenship is largely concerned with a corporate entity’s legal obligations, social responsibilities and civic engagement – it is not concerned with electoral participation but an entity’s relations with political institutions matter. The nature of corporate citizenship is contextual and culture-­dependent. A university’s corporate citizenship can manifest differently across multiple jurisdictions; these different manifestations may pertain to the levels of government that license the university or fund its activities, may be guided by physical locations or student catchments, and may be conditioned by collaborative relationships with institutions in other places. For example, the City University of New York (CUNY) is funded by the State of New York, tuition revenue and New York City, but its mission is focused on higher education for, and enhancing the prospects of, the disadvantaged members of the diverse communities of NYC, where all of its campuses are located. In comparison, New York University (NYU) is a private university that is also based in NYC, but seeks students nationally and internationally, with 13 other academic sites throughout the world, including degree-granting campuses in Abu Dhabi and Shanghai. We might expect that CUNY will have persistently perceived its citizenship in relation to NYC, while NYU may have originally identified with its NYC constituency but might now consider responsibilities of citizenship in relation to both its city presence and national catchment, plus its campuses in Abu Dhabi and China, where the nature of its social contributions and civic engagement depend on its relationships with relevant governments and other local stakeholders, and the prevailing social norms. In essence, the character of university citizenship is a consequence of any societal obligations that are inferred from the apparent expectations of stakeholders. A social compact exists because an organization acquires economic, social or political obligations when society grants it license to operate; the elements entailed in this social compact may be implicit or explicit. It would be difficult to sustain an argument that communities or countries should fund or accommodate universities, but that universities should not acquire obligations in return. Analyzing the nature of citizenship and attendant social compacts appears more complex overall for universities than for profit-oriented commercial organizations because universities are inherently more socially embedded. A generalized exploration of the nature of social compacts involving universities is also challenged by the substantial diversity in combinations of numerous factors, including: how they are owned and funded;

2  University Citizenship, Social Compacts and Conflicting Objectives

33

whether they are not-for-profit or for-profit; their organizational and geographical structures; whether they are part of a defined university system; their network relationships; the extent of their physical and virtual presence(s); their local (city, regional or national) purposes; and their international aspirations.4 Every university exists in a social context and has a diverse array of stakeholders. For a university to be responsive to its stakeholders’ needs and expectations, it must recognize and navigate the array of, and potential conflicts in, expectations. But the ordering of obligations is problematic. Like any body corporate, a university can be viewed as a nexus of relationships between a variety of actors with interests that are not always congruent. Different stakeholders have different motivations for engaging in relationships with a university, and thus differ in their expectations of the university. The success of universities in addressing this major governance problem influences perceptions of their social relevance. This challenge for universities is not new but the problem has become more visible and more complex over the last few decades, due to the conflation of changes noted in the introduction. University governance has not been exempt from the heightened public awareness of, and political attention to, corporate governance concerns in relation to public and private organizations in general, which demand greater transparency and accountability. This increased awareness coincides with economic and social dynamics and technological developments that have dramatically increased the complexity of universities’ social contexts and, correspondingly, their roles and responsibilities. The dynamics of social compacts relevant to universities has been substantially affected by changes in social and political imperatives with respect to access to and the general objectives of higher education, and expectations regarding the nature of research and how it is shared. International engagement adds other dimensions, with complicating effects that can vary with the extent and nature of the university’s international engagement in education and research, and how this aligns or conflicts with its inferred domestic social compact. Also adding to this complexity of roles and responsibilities, technological developments have substantially impacted university structures and geographical reach, the content and delivery of education, and how universities can engage with their various stakeholders. While all universities are necessarily affected by these dynamics, neither their starting points nor exposure to the changes are uniform. Consequently, there are both many commonalities and substantial differences across universities regarding their intended and prevailing roles in education, research, community engagement or social impact, and their international engagement, and how these might be changing. A university’s intended roles and obligations in education, research, and community engagement are present in its idiosyncratic mandate when it is granted license to operate. This social licensing  is a perpetual process and a university’s intended roles and obligations exist and evolve in the context of local institutions and culture. The nature of these roles and obligations and how they are framed by 4  It is beyond the scope of this chapter to examine the large array of factors that differ across university; the focus is on some major broader systemic factors that variously affect expectations of universities.

34

G. Shailer

institutions and culture evolve endogenously with how universities influence societal and institutional development. Universities’ roles in both perpetuating and transforming culture, social norms and institutions can also be seen as social compact elements; that is, there may be expectations that universities will contribute to preserving or enhancing local culture and institutions – but this, too, is highly variable. This variability can be illustrated by comparing, say, a university’s mandate to collect and preserve a local language and culture (e.g., the National University of Ireland) with the often-espoused role of universities (particularly in the U.S. context) in maintaining and advancing a Western perception of democratic ideals.

2.3  The Contemporary Context Contemporary universities function in contexts that are substantially different, both socially and economically, from the circumstances in which the traditional research university reached its previous evolutionary stasis. All universities have been substantially affected by the general “massification” of higher education in the late twentieth century and the impacts of technology on education accessibility and delivery mechanisms. They are more variously affected by the internationalization of higher education as an industry, by government policies that differ in their emphasis on the private and public benefits of higher education, and by policies and expectations regarding university research and intellectual property.

2.3.1  Massification of Higher Education and Research It is generally accepted that the massification of higher education in the late twentieth century was the consequence of major social and political shifts in attitudes towards higher education and universities. Population growth, social advancement, economic aspirations and technology have also contributed to the massification of both education and research. From the mid twentieth century, social and economic transitions in many countries led to changes in funding and access policies that were designed to increase domestic access. This dramatically increased the proportions of populations enrolling in universities, changing universities’ relationships with students, local communities, and governments. Based on UNESCO data, participation in tertiary education (as expressed by gross enrolment ratios) grew worldwide from less than 10% in 1970 to over 38% in 2018, and from less than 24% to over 75% in high income countries. In volume terms, enrolments in tertiary education grew from 32 million in 1970, to over 100 million in 2000, and nearly 224 million in 2018.5

5   Tertiary participation data are from United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization at http://data.uis.unesco.org

2  University Citizenship, Social Compacts and Conflicting Objectives

35

Corresponding to the growth in participation, there were also substantial increases in the number of institutions recognizable as universities in many countries, further diversifying the profiles of universities. World growth rates are not easily identified, but the World Higher Education Database indicates the number of higher education institutions exceeded 19,000 in 2018. While it is likely that much of the recent growth in the number of universities is concentrated in emerging economies, there has been significant growth in developed economies; for example, the number of degree-granting institutions in the U.S. grew from 3231 in 1980–81 to 4583 in 2015–16). Thus, the scale and diversity of university systems and universities worldwide have expanded dramatically.6 The global growth in the numbers of students and universities has required a corresponding increase in the number of academics. This has increased demand for PhDs or equivalents and, consequently, the number of active researchers competing for research funding and publication opportunities, as well as increasing the volume of research outputs. This, in turn, has generated a large increase in the number of academic journals (facilitated by the cost advantages of electronic journal production and delivery). The growth in research outputs is illustrated in Fig. 2.1, which is taken from Bornmann and Mutz (2015) and used a database belonging to the Max Planck Society that is based on Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science. This indicates that the number of published papers doubled every 20 years through to 2012. A similar analysis in Jones (2010) finds that the number of published papers doubled

Fig. 2.1  Exponential growth in number of publications 1980–2012. (Source: Bornmann & Mutz, 2015) 6  Data from the World Higher Education Database were obtained at https://www.whed.net/home. php. U.S. data are from National Center for Education Statistics at nces.ed.gov

36

G. Shailer

every 13 years from 1960 to 2010. Given both studies probably omit much of the social science literature (and particularly that from the business and economics domain), and precede the surge over the last decade in publications from researchers in China and the increased number of outlets and journal frequency facilitated by online publishing, they probably greatly understate the rates of increase. While growth in the number of publications reflects the increased numbers of researchers that resulted from the increased number of academics needed to teach the vastly increased numbers of students, it has also been facilitated by advances in technology that have enhanced research productivity and reduced publication costs. It is also posited that it is a consequence of, or exacerbated by, the implementation of academic performance metrics based on numbers of publications (Bornmann & Mutz, 2015). While higher education participation has increased, the OECD reports that public expenditure per student has not kept pace. Many governments have shifted more of the cost burden onto individuals (OECD, 2017) and given public universities more freedom to manage their resources and generate income. The massification of education has not only increased the numbers of students, but also their diversity in preparation and aptitudes, and their expectations when seeking a university degree. The massification of both higher education and research appears to have had major effects in relation to university governance and their social compacts. These apparent effects include increased managerialism, changes in academic appointments and promotion practices, commodification of programs, and changes in relations with students, communities, government and the general public. These effects are also associated with internationalization and public policy developments, discussed below.

2.3.2  Internationalization of the Higher Education Sector Higher education is now a competitive global industry, with a degree of internationalization and integration that surpasses any other sector. Academics and students enjoy extraordinary levels of international mobility, which suggest high levels of transferability of scholarship and the credentials awarded by universities (at least among the universities involved, and from the provider universities to the home countries of the students). This transferability (and the implied substitutability of provider universities) ensures a high level of international competition in the provision of higher education. The extent of the internationalization of the university student market is, in large part, a consequence of established universities facing domestic resource constraints (perhaps exacerbated by the strains of local expansion of access and participation that was not fully supported by public funding) and being attracted by the revenues from the rapid growth in demand for university education by fee-paying students from countries with burgeoning high-income groups but with inadequate higher education sectors. In some destination countries, access to this lucrative

2  University Citizenship, Social Compacts and Conflicting Objectives

37

international student market has fundamentally changed the economics of the higher education sector; for example, in Australia, international students (across all education sectors) are now a major source of international trade income, second only to iron ore and coal. It also had significant impacts on relations between universities and their local communities and influenced university governance practices. Combined with the massification of higher education in general, the internationalization of higher education and competition for fee-paying students has also affected university culture in many countries, as programs have been increasingly commercialized and commodified, and students are increasingly portrayed as customers, rather than as members of academic communities. The large concentration of international student enrolments in some universities is a global phenomenon; for example, according to Times Higher Education in 2018, international students comprised around 84% of students at the American University of Sharjah in the UAE (which was established as a regional university), 71% at London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), 55% at École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, 50% at Maastricht University, 45% at Sciences Po, 42% at Auckland University of Technology, 42% at University of Hong Kong, 41% at the University of South Australia, 34% at MIT and 31% at the National University of Singapore. But, within a country, the exposure of individual universities to these forces is highly variable; returning to the earlier New York comparison, international students comprised less than 4% of enrolments for City University of New York compared to around 25% for New York University.7 The scale and concentration of international student enrolments in some universities has significant implications for other stakeholders. On one hand, it may (in fact or perception) divert the university’s attention from its local education mission, increase the prospects of cultural conflict, threaten the quality of education and the standing of degrees (if, for example, admissions standards are compromised and academics are pressured to pass underperforming students), and increase local competition for university places and student accommodation. On the other hand, tuition fees from international students may subsidize the pursuit of the university’s local mission, engagement with international students may enrich the campus and course experiences of local students, and student spending on accommodation and living costs provide economic benefits to the local community. It has been argued that the World Trade Organization’s treatment of education as a commercial service advances the commodification of higher education and does not give any recognition to its possible roles of nation-building, or preserving transmitting local language and culture (Kelsey, 1999), and international trade in education services is generally more commercialized and less regulated than education delivered within national boundaries (Zigulous, 2005). This has raised quality concerns in public discourse among various stakeholders, including concerns regarding language competency, the ‘leveling-down’ of course standards, and pressures to ensure 7  Times Higher Education data were accessed at https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/ best-universities/international-student-table-2018-top-200-universities. Percentages for NYU and CUNY are from the universities’ websites.

38

G. Shailer

fee-­paying students are satisfied. Universities with high proportions of international students have become financially dependent on tuition fees and face major financial risks in this regard. Australian public universities present a particular illustration of such risks, with aggregate enrolments entailing the highest proportion of international university students globally, and with particularly high dependence on students from China. In 2018, international students accounted for more than 28% of all university students in Australia, and around 11% of all university students in Australian were from China.8 Babones (2019) reports that, for some prestigious Australian universities, over 20% of their annual revenues from operations are from students from China; and observes that the levels of exposure for many Australian universities mean that even a small decline in student enrolments from China can impose financial hardship. While international students in Australia are heavily concentrated in business schools, their tuition fees finance activities across the university and thus the revenue risks have implications for all aspects of university operations and stakeholders.9 Universities have adopted a variety of approaches for pursuing income from the international provision of education, with differing implications for their social identities and commitments. These approaches range from strategies to attract students to the university’s home campus, to joint or twinning arrangements with universities in other countries in which students complete part of the programs with both universities (physically or virtually), to transnational programs (which include on-line courses available internationally with the provision of local study centers, licensing of foreign entities to deliver courses on behalf of the awarding university, or establishing campuses in other countries). Direct international networking relationships between universities are common and can be extensive. For example, as at 2019, LSE maintains teaching and research partnerships with Columbia University, Sciences Po, Peking University, the National University of Singapore and the University of Cape Town, offering several double or joint degree programs, and also offers joint degrees with Fudan University, University of Southern California in Los Angeles, New York University and HEC School of Management, Paris. Similarly, the National University of Singapore offers joint, concurrent and double degree programs with six French Grandes Écoles, Sciences Po, Waseda University, University of Melbourne, The Australian National University, University of Dundee, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and The Johns Hopkins University. When a university establishes a physical presence in another country, it is largely motivated by its appetite for tuition fee revenue. This suggests these unievsities are effectively repositioning themselves to be more like a multinational for-profit 8  International student percentages for Australia are based on data from Australian Government, Department of Education and Training, International Student Data 2018 at https://internationaleducation.gov.au/research/International-Student-Data/Pages/InternationalStudentData2018.aspx and uCube at http://highereducationstatistics.education.gov.au/Default.aspx 9  This chapter was written in 2019, prior to the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, which dramatically evidenced the financial vulnerability of universities dependent on international student income.

2  University Citizenship, Social Compacts and Conflicting Objectives

39

business or, at least, public universities doing so are acting like private universities. Programs involving a “commercial presence” (as identified in the WTO framework) may entail less conflict in stakeholder interests or less threat to domestic social compacts for a private university than for a public university, for which there may be challenges in reconciling a physical presence in another country with the public university’s domestic mission. Stakeholder engagement and satisfying social compacts generally becomes more challenging when universities’ identities increasingly transcend geography or political borders, because this is likely to increase the complexity of their societal obligations and potentially lessens their focus on their domestic missions. In general, foreign commercial presences are for selling education services to private students with the intention of returning a surplus to the home university; there is usually no direct government funding in the foreign country and no credible expectation of maintaining research programs that are intended to benefit the foreign location. Essentially, such operations inherently treat the foreign delivery of education as a commercial undertaking, selling commodified degrees to private consumers. It is assumed that governments in the foreign countries permit such entrepreneurial endeavors because they anticipate social and economic benefits from their citizens being able to access such education programs without incurring the costs of relocating internationally, and without the government incurring the costs of establishing or expanding local universities. The number of international PhD graduates has also grown substantially for disciplines with high student demand and because some countries are growing the number of domestic universities. Many international PhD graduates return to their home countries, but many also seek placement in the countries in which they studied, or internationally generally. Consequently, the diversity of faculty in the destination countries has increased, while the universities in the home countries of the international students are increasingly staffed by foreign-trained academics. While the social implications of these particular developments are not self-evident, it seems likely that the phenomena will further fuel the internationalization of education and research.

2.3.3  Public Policy Effects The nature of the licenses granted to universities very much depends on the state. Government expectations of publicly funded universities vary with political and economic ideologies, local circumstances, and the level of government involved. Nonetheless, universities have been central to public policy strategies for delivering the knowledge requirements for social and economic development, as perceived by governments, while universities that receive public funding are expected to account for their activities and performance to government and the public, and there is a general pattern in many countries of increasing demands to justify public expenditure on universities’ research and education activities in terms of economic benefit.

40

G. Shailer

Non-economic public benefits that universities might provide for countries, such as the formation or preservation of national and cultural identity, enhanced individual opportunity, and democratic commitment, are notionally recognized as important by political leaders but it is the economic pay-offs that are mostly emphasized in policies, and these benefits are now largely envisaged, in many countries, as the private benefits of education and commercialized research. The emphasis on private benefits may seem inconsistent with the idea that a nation’s human capital, and the new ideas and innovations generated by that human capital, are the major drivers of economic growth. Theorists such as Berman (2012) and Giroux (2002) posit that neo-liberal ideology within public policy poses a significant challenge for universities with regional or community missions, because it emphasizes the economic and private purposes of higher education at the expense of the system’s public purposes. Employers may assert preferences for graduates with technical skills that enable them to more immediately serve the current needs of the employer, and more equitable access to higher education means there are a very large number of students seeking qualifications that enhance their employment prospects. The concern with employer-sought knowledge is evident in current public and industry interests in the employability of university graduates, and in the dominant student demand for courses in industry-relevant disciplines. Emphasis on the “job-readiness” of education can challenge a university’s emphasis on long-term social benefits of education, because the rapidity of change in the technological structure and state of the business sector can soon render prior employer-centric training obsolete. The job-readiness emphasis has also promoted the commodification of degrees, in which knowledge transfers are emphasized over the education that advances critical reasoning and original decision-making. This is reflected in the plethora of named degrees that emphasize narrow specializations, and the emergence of even narrower micro-credentials focused on specific skills or competencies as an alternative to degrees. Distance education, on-line delivery of course materials, open universities, and the scale of student populations, have increased the distance between universities (and academics) and students, encouraging both universities and students to view students as customers. The internationalization of education, and the incentives that motivate many international students and their families to pay large tuition fees, has further emphasized demand for courses that are seen as improving the students’ immediate employability and exacerbated the “customer” orientation. The emphasis on greater job-readiness and economic relevance for higher education was evident in many countries towards the end of the twentieth century and is illustrated by the UK’s Dearing Report (1997). This report reflects how relevance, utility, social inclusion and accountability to a wider public dominate public expectations and government policy aspirations. The Report refers to “… a new compact involving institutions and their staff, students, government, employers and society in general” (para 3 of Introduction). This compact entailed much broader access to higher education programs that provide for lifelong learning of people starting from

2  University Citizenship, Social Compacts and Conflicting Objectives

41

diverse positions and with diverse aspirations; greater relevance of programs to the social and economic needs of the local and national communities; quality assurance to satisfy stakeholders about the maintenance of standards despite the threats to quality resulting from massification and diversity of participants; and maintenance of high quality research. Just as public policies and international market effects have encouraged the commercialization and commodification of higher education, there has been some convergence of political and economic pressures that promoted increased commercialization of universities’ research output. Policies aimed at the protection and commercial exploitation of intellectual property have resulted in changes in academic culture and university governance; for example, Schachman (2006) suggests that financial incentives have changed the scientific culture from “publish or perish” to “patent and prosper”. In the U.S., commercialization of intellectual property by universities increased significantly in the 1980s after the Bayh–Dole Act (Government Patent Policy Act of 1980) gave universities the right to seek patents for scientific discoveries made by their researchers with support from federal funds. Various studies illustrate the subsequent boom in universities’ patents and formation of spin-off commercial companies, while also identifying factors additional to the Bayh-Dole Act (e.g., Kortum & Lerner, 1999; Mowery et  al., 2001; Sampat, 2006); according to Sampat (2006), only 250 patents were issued to university research in the U.S. prior to 1980 but, between 1980 and 2003, 3933 patents were issued to university research and universities created 4081 companies. Focusing on commercialization in academic research has been portrayed as contrary to the notion of universities as “intellectual commons” in which discoveries are for the benefit of all of society, because reductions or delays in knowledge sharing are inherent in the patenting process (Liebeskind, 2001). Other commonly articulated concerns in relation to the effects of research commercialization include its potential to reduce efforts in basic research (e.g., Varma, 2002) and conflicts of interest for researchers and institutions (e.g., Monotti & Ricketson, 2003). The dynamics of government policies can substantially affect universities’ incentives and ability to identify and satisfy their complex social compacts. The emergent compacts entailing expanded inclusiveness, relevance and accountability do not necessarily diminish the autonomy of universities as entities – but they have changed how university autonomy is exercised. For example, Australia has a strong tradition of university autonomy, with an historical mix of elite research universities and regional universities, technology institutes and community-oriented higher education institutions that were originally under the jurisdiction of state governments (The Australian National University is the only Australian university established by the national government). But the national government became increasingly influential and assumed full responsibility for primary funding in 1974. Since then, many universities have been challenged to focus on the competing expectations of many stakeholders while keeping pace with movements in public policy and

42

G. Shailer

international influences. In the late 1980s, after a brief period when students did not pay any tuition fees, the system was reformed into a supposedly single-tier system of research universities with funding largely based on regulated enrolments, while students contributed (in cash or as debt to the national government) a portion of their notional tuition fees, according to the perceived degree of private versus public benefit of their studies. In the 1990s, the government sought to redress a perceived shortcoming in applied research by creating a cultural shift in the national research profile through research scholarships and grants, including joint research with industry partners. The government also established two systems for assessing university performance: The Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) which, since 2010, publicly rates universities’ research output at the discipline level; and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency that was formed in 2011 as a quality assurance and regulatory agency for higher education, and is seen largely as a bureaucratic exercise. During these many years of reforms, government funding did not keep pace with university enrolments and research expectations, and universities attempted various profit-seeking ventures and increasingly sought revenues from international students. Many Australian universities now exhibit very high dependence on international student income, some are challenged by a policy focus on research performance that can appear inconsistent with their community obligations, and all must address industry and political challenges regarding the short-­ term economic relevance of their teaching and research.10 Similar policy challenges are also evident in other countries, while some must also deal with multiple levels of government and different political agenda. The demand for universities to be more transparent and accountable has led many countries to implement national university evaluation or accreditation systems that require universities to expend considerable administrative resources on satisfying the reporting requirements. While the objectives of such systems include the protection or advancement of social objectives in relation to education quality and the value or relevance of education and research, their implementation often includes metrics that many commentators argue emphasize short-termism. These systems can also exacerbate conflicts between the education, research and civic roles of universities in the system; for example, managers in a university that was established to largely serve local educational needs may be motivated by a research evaluation system to try to recruit established ‘star’ researchers to improve their university’s research ratings, even though this might have little impact on the regional relevance or value of their education activities. Noting the primacy of government policies and funding in setting explicit expectations of universities, the nature of their social compacts also depends on university staff (particularly those engaged in providing research and education), students and their sponsors, alumni, private benefactors, potential employers and society in general.

10

 See footnote 9.

2  University Citizenship, Social Compacts and Conflicting Objectives

43

2.4  T  he Governance Implications of University Citizenship and Social Contracting The social contracting view of university citizenship entails rights and responsibilities that are first determined locally by their idiosyncratic mandates and purpose, which exist in the context of evolved local institutions and culture. Historically, these responsibilities were grounded in education and scholarship agenda with long-term public benefits, and for a university that was (compared to now) small and selective, largely governed by academics, and clearly situated geographically. In this context, education and research activities were pursued in accordance with some notion of academic freedom and relatively free from the pressures of markets. Universities social responsibilities were largely centered around the quality of their outputs and their contributions to public discourse. The preceding exploration of the contemporary context in which universities must now identify and embrace their social compacts shows that contemporary universities are situated in a more complex arena; this involves an intersection of domestic and international forces, with expectations from a much more diverse collection of stakeholders. This context yields social responsibilities that are multi-layered and influenced by contemporary notions of corporate social responsibility. A university’s mission should be a manifestation of its social contract and should be reflected in the organizational culture of the university and guide its governance and actions. However, universities in many countries are confronted by political urgency, with inducements and regulation that can obviate their ideal purpose and reduce them to instruments for generating short-term outcomes that satisfy politically driven policy aspirations. Domestically, the focus on the apparent usefulness of education programs, largely guided by interests associated with training for job markets, potentially constrains the delivery of broader public benefits of higher education; this has notionally parallel concerns over the demand for applied research that is expected to yield commercial value competing with universities’ traditional missions in the delivery of basic research. Funding realities make it difficult for universities to resist these public policy forces; this affects managerial behaviour and, ultimately, the ability of academics to exercise their historical freedom in education and research. Revenues from international students became a financial lure that provides opportunity for some universities to address their domestic missions by financing infrastructure renewal or development, financing improvements in the capacity of high-demand education disciplines to provide quality programs, subsidizing the provision of smaller scale programs, and resourcing research activities. However, in many cases, it appears that managerial behaviors evolved to make the pursuit of these revenues an objective per se, disconnected from the domestic missions of their universities. In addition, the attendant rise of international university ratings systems referenced by the international student recruiting industry have encouraged behaviors that are more concerned with advancing international rankings and less concerned with universities’ missions that are supposedly grounded in

44

G. Shailer

their domestic social compacts, although achieving higher ratings also provide some political salve in the domestic context. Tensions and conflicts in a university’s objectives and governance are more endemic in the contemporary context, compared to periods preceding massification and internationalization. These tensions and conflicts are evident within and between education, research and civic roles. The following list is illustrative, not exhaustive. • Within education, tensions and conflicts are evident in: the general expectations of long-term social benefits of higher education versus the short-term orientations and demands of some stakeholders; differences between stakeholders’ interests in relation to local education objectives and the pursuit of revenues from international students; the maintenance of diverse education disciplines whose programs have different levels of exposure to (either or both) local or international student demand; the demand for inclusiveness and equal opportunity, pressures for standardization and demand for demonstrated quality; the demand for demonstrated current relevance and value of education outcomes and long-term usefulness of higher education; and differences in the services required for advancing the welfare of international and domestic students. • Within research, tensions and conflicts are evident in: the potentially conflicting demands of basic research versus applied research in some disciplines (including duration, resources, staff recruitment and retention; the demand for demonstrated current relevance and value of research and long-term nature of progressing some discoveries from the research domain to marketable applications; the short-­ term orientation of research performance measures and the long duration of some potentially high societal value research; expectations of commercialization of research versus open sharing of discoveries; national competition benefits from research versus international collaborations; and the potential status benefits to a university of competition versus cooperation with other universities in research. • Between education and research, tensions arise when academic status (of individuals or universities) is based primarily on research outputs, but a university is expected to substantively serve local needs for education. • Between civic roles and education or research, a university can face tensions: in maintaining an expected community focus while seeking to be internationally competitive in education or research; in preserving or advancing national culture or research agenda and international collaborations that are inconsistent; when international education aspirations threaten an expected domestic focus of some fields of education (most likely in some humanties or social science areas); and when academics are primarily evaluated on the basis of research outputs when a university has substantive civic obligations. More general tensions can arise in the management of a university, and particularly between management and academics or students, because of factors such as:

2  University Citizenship, Social Compacts and Conflicting Objectives

45

• Managing staff relations and expectations while seeking to attract and retain academics in high-demand disciplines (with competition from other institutions and industry) that require market-driven remuneration practices. • The confusion of research inputs with outputs in rising pressures (because of a revenue-for-revenue-sake perspective or the implications for rankings and status) to participate and be successful in increasingly competitive research grant schemes. • Conflicting objectives in relation to cooperation and competition in relation to other knowledge institutions. • Financial management and responsibilities in relation to students’ welfare, and any differences in the welfare needs of domestic and international students. While the tensions and conflicts confronting contemporary universities vary across countries because of differences in public policies, they are not merely consequences of momentary government policies regarding public funding issues or political aspirations; many have emerged as results of substantial changes in economic environments and social norms. Consequently, it is not credible that all of the major tensions can be eliminated in democratic nations by a major public policy reset (such as massively increased public funding), although policy-makers may eventually be persuaded to change the nature of their discourse and demands in relation to their country’s universities to reduce policy-induced dysfunctionalities. Tensions also arise when internal university governance becomes more managerialist, with managers better positioned to pursue personal career interests by means not designed to advance the university’s mission. As the scale of universities increased, and public funding constraints motivated many universities to become more entrepreneurial and to pursue international markets, the role of the chief executive (president, rector or vice chancellor) moved from that of (substantively) an administrator to strategic manager. Many universities’ administrations came to exhibit preoccupations with financially driven strategic management issues, which promoted a managerialist culture that further corporatized universities and made their governance less collegiate. The advance of managerialism in the organization of both teaching and research can disconnect university administration from the university’s mission; for example, there are many instances of universities pursuing  entrepreneurial activities (such as real estate development) that appear to be solely for generating revenues and without any link to the mission of the university. The advance of managerialism also risks the fallacy of managerial primacy, whereby things that make management difficult must necessarily be removed or reformed, irrespective of impacts on students’ interests or the work of academics. Threats to good governance can also arise when a university’s mission objectives are approached with an urgency that mirrors the political urgency of a government. For example, while there are many cases in the university sector of beneficial innovations in the uses of technology (for administrative, outreach, educational and research purposes), information management, and education practices, the

46

G. Shailer

perpetual pursuit of “innovation” readily becomes dysfunctional by rewarding changes where costs outweigh benefits (or, in some cases, are devoid of sustainable benefits); that is, encouraging change for the sake appearing innovative. Urgency is also often evident in “strategic” recruitment practices. It is not unusual for a university’s mission statement to include an aspiration to be a world, regional or national leader in research that is not reflected in its placement in university ratings schemes. While this might raise an expectation that the university will either review its mission statement to ensure it is consistent with its social compact or invest in the development of internal processes and resources to enable its academics to more effectively engage in high quality research, some universities focus on trying to recruit established “star” researchers to improve their research ratings, rather than advancing an existing research agenda; in many cases this has merely provided a short-term gain (if any), while resulting in reduced internal cohesion and productivity, impedance of existing long-term research work, disenfranchisement of other academics engaged in high quality research or  teaching, and salary cost burdens requiring reduced expenditures on other activities. More generally, criteria for appointing, confirming, rewarding and promoting academic staff provide strong signals as to how university management perceives the organization’s mission. If the university’s mandate emphasizes a strong civic role or education objectives and does not present a dominant research role, then academic staffing practices that emphasize research performance over civic engagement or teaching quality suggest a misspecification, or lack of understanding, of the university’s mission, or the presence of conflicting managerial objectives.

2.5  Universities and Societal Development or Transformation While universities were historically poised to influence societal and institutional stability and development, their contributions to social transformation, compared to the reproduction or perpetuation of institutions and culture, necessarily depends on the state of societies in which they are embedded. Universities have provided protected spaces for individuals acting to achieve transformations, but the ability of a university (as a knowledge institution) to be instrumental in this regard is more likely if a society is already in a transformative state and where governments encourage universities to take such a role. Perhaps the most dramatic illustration of such a state was post-apartheid South Africa, where post-1994 legislative policy aimed to transform higher education institutions and to make them more socially responsive and critically engaged in deepening and broadening South Africa’s democracy (Reddy, 2004); this was more dramatically expressed by Badat (2006), who described the South African higher education policy formation and implementation as “framed by the overall social goal of transcending the contemporary social structure and institutionalizing a new social order”. This example shares some logic with the nineteenth century transformations referenced in the introduction; it is possible that a prevailing state of institutional transformation may be a pre-requisite, or at

2  University Citizenship, Social Compacts and Conflicting Objectives

47

least a more enabling condition, for a university or its constituencies to engage in actions that are intended to significantly change some aspect of society. But, as the nineteenth century experience revealed, transformations do not have to be as rapid and direct or deliberate as suggested by the South African example. A university might most effectively influence the nature and quality of future institutional states by how it influences the long-term future civil engagement and ethos of its current students. The social capital necessary for constructing healthy civil societies and cohesive cultures can be advanced by the norms, values, attitudes and ethics that universities impart to students (World Bank, 2002). These properties may serve to perpetuate institutions and culture, as well as preparing future actors to contribute to the advancement of society. Universities impart norms, values, attitudes and ethics to students in the content and delivery of their education programs, their research practices, and their community engagement practices. Alongside these, universities also convey norms, values, attitudes and ethics through their management policies and actions. Campus management practices, purchasing strategies, admissions and financial assistance policies and practices, and demonstrated attitudes towards staff and students signal values to students and other stakeholders, and may inculcate these into students’ attitudinal and ethical development. Thus, a university’s internal culture and governance practices matter greatly in meeting its social responsibilities and its impact on societal development.

2.6  Conclusion The discussion in this chapter regarding tensions in universities’ obligations and choices confronting those responsible for the governance of contemporary universities covers issues that have received more substantial and more nuanced discussion elsewhere. The purpose here is to highlight some of the challenging tensions and conflicts for universities in aligning their actions with their missions, and aligning their missions with the social compacts, and in pursuing their roles as integral elements in the institutional structure in the modern nation state. Espoused national systemic “solutions” to the prevalent predicament tend to be ideologically grounded and, while the attendant debates may help identification and articulation of concerns, system changes can be achieved only in the relevant public political arena – and not by universities. Many will argue that members of universities should be free to contribute to this process, but the reality in many countries is that individual universities must find their own way in balancing the competing and sometimes conflicting demands of their stakeholders, to achieve alignment between their operations, missions and social compacts as knowledge institutions. In this regard, managerialist tendencies to run a public or non-profit private university as though it is a commercial enterprise pursuing growth and revenues for their own sake are counterproductive. Socially responsible governance requires that a university’s mission be aligned with its social compact, and that it be fully embraced at all levels of university oversight and management. For universities to be socially effective and

48

G. Shailer

perceived as good citizens, they must engender public confidence and trust in how they pursue their missions. This requires transparency and accountability with respect to all aspects of decision-making and actions relevant to the key stakeholders in the university as a knowledge institution.

References Babones, S. (2019). The China student boom and the risks it poses to Australian Universities (CIS Analysis Paper 5). Centre for Independent Studies. Badat, S. (2006). From innocence to critical reflexivity: Critical researchers, research and writing, and higher education policy-making. In Neave, G. (Ed.), Knowledge, power and dissent critical perspectives on higher education and research in knowledge society. Education on the move series, UNESCO Publishing. Benneworth, P., & Arbo, P. (2006). Understanding the Regional contribution of higher education institutions: A literature review. OECD/IMHE. Berman, E. (2012). Creating the market university: How academic science became an economic engine. Princeton University Press. Bornmann, L., & Mutz, R. (2015). Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. Journal of The Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(1), 2215–2222. Giroux, H. (2002). Neoliberalism, corporate culture, and the promise of higher education: The university as a democratic public sphere. Harvard Educational Review, 72(4), 425–463. Jones, B. (2010). As science evolves, how can science policy? NBER Working Paper 16002. Kelsey, J. (1999). 10 reasons why the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) is bad for public education. Association of University Staff of New Zealand. Kortum, S., & Lerner, J. (1999). What is behind the recent surge in patenting? Research Policy, 28(1), 1–22. Liebeskind, J. (2001). Risky business: Universities and intellectual property. Academe, 87(5), 49–53. Monotti, A., & with Ricketson, S. (2003). Universities and intellectual property: Ownership and exploitation. Oxford University Press. Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. Research Policy, 30(1), 99–119. OECD. (2017). Who really bears the cost of education?: How the burden of education expenditure shifts from the public to the private sector, Education Indicators in Focus, No. 56, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4c4f545b-en. Reddy, T. (2004). Higher education and social transformation: South Africa case study. Council on Higher Education. Report, D. (1997). Higher education in the learning society: Main Report. In The National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. At https://www. leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/sr_008.htm Sampat, B. N. (2006). Patenting and U.S. academic research in the 20th century. The world before and after Bayh-Dole. Research Policy, 35(6), 722–789. Schachman, H.  K. (2006). From publish or perish to patent and prosper. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 281, 6889–6903. Varma, R. (2002). Are we eating our seed corn? Basic research in the corporate sector. Prometheus, 20(1), 1–14.

2  University Citizenship, Social Compacts and Conflicting Objectives

49

Wittrock, B. (1993). The Modern University: The three transformations. In S.  Rothblatt & B. Wittrock (Eds.), The European and American University since 1800: Historical and sociological essays. Cambridge University Press. Wittrock, B., & Wagner, P. (1996). Chapter 3: Social science and the building of the early welfare state: Toward a comparison of statist and non-statist western societies. In D. Rueschemeyer & T.  Skocpol (Eds.), States, social knowledge, and the origins of modern social policies. Princeton University Press. World Bank. (2002). Constructing knowledge societies: New challenges for tertiary education. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. Zigulous, C. (2005). Chapter 6: International trade in education services: Governing the liberalization and regulation of private enterprise: Counterpoints. Globalizing Education: Policies, Pedagogies & Politics, 280, 93–112. Greg Shailer is a Professor at The Australian National University, where he leads the Corporations, Governance & Society Research Group. His research spans the disciplines concerned with corporate governance, and includes corporate social responsibility, regulation, auditing and assurance, and corporate accountability and disclosure. He has a strong interest the political economy of corporate governance, including institutional development in emerging markets, and in the economic relevance of institutional and cultural conflict. His research papers appear in many leading international journals. Professor Shailer is currently an editor for Journal of Business Ethics and the Springer Encyclopedia of Business and Professional Ethics, a member of the Editorial Advisory and Review Board for Emerald’s peer-reviewed book series Critical Studies on Corporate Responsibility, Governance and Sustainability, and the editorial boards of Journal of Accounting and Emerging Economies and International Journal of Auditing.  

Chapter 3

Bending Without Breaking: The Role of Higher Education in a Changing Society Jennifer L. Kisamore

Abstract  According to historians, the U.S. higher educational system has been transformed through five successive waves of development. In each wave, institutions have had to respond to the prevailing ideologies regarding the purpose of higher education while also adapting to political, social, historical, economic, and global pressures. The current chapter briefly describes the major events, perspectives, and resources that distinguish each wave and highlights how prevailing views from each wave continue to affect contemporary institutions. The chapter examines the current wave in the greatest depth, specifically addressing factors that have contributed to sharply rising tuition rates. The SPICE model, a multiple stakeholder model of corporate social responsibility developed by Sisodia et  al. (Firms of endearment: How world-class companies profit from passion and purpose, 2nd edn. Pearson, Upper Saddle River, 2014), is adapted for higher education. The model highlights the need to ensure university-stakeholder relationships are balanced and equally valued to support the health of higher education institutions and society as a whole. The chapter concludes with a list of recommendations for initial steps to bring these reciprocal relationships into balance. Keywords  History of American universities · SPICE model · Corporate social responsibilities · Stakeholders As Poff (2022) describes in the introductory chapter of this text, western liberal democratic universities have been shaped by ideological and economic changes as well as by political, social, historical, and global forces. The current chapter will begin with an examination of five successive waves historians use to describe different eras relevant to U.S. higher education and the key events and ideologies of each. A description of the prevailing view of the university in each of these waves J. L. Kisamore (*) Department of Psychology and the Tulsa Graduate College, University of Oklahoma-Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 D. C. Poff (ed.), University Corporate Social Responsibility and University Governance, Advances in Business Ethics Research 8, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77532-2_3

51

52

J. L. Kisamore

will reveal how competing pressures have and continue to shape contemporary institutions of higher education. Special attention will be given to the current wave which has been marked by massive reductions in resources and changes in funding structures at many institutions. Factors that contribute to the rapidly rising cost of a university education will be discussed as will the nature of knowledge including how it differs from other commodities in terms of production methods and costs. The rising cost of knowledge production and transfer at the same time the costs of production of other commodities have decreased has necessitated that universities change the nature of their relationships with their various stakeholders. Key facets of these reciprocal relationships will be discussed including why maintaining balance in these relationships is key for the health of higher education and society at large.

3.1  A Brief History of U.S. Higher Education Academic historians discuss the development of the American higher educational system in five eras, or waves, typically lasting about 50 years each. Each wave can be described in terms of the major events and the prevailing forces that shaped the higher education landscape during that period. In response to these forces, the higher educational system has responded like a tree, bending but not breaking as it lives through various seasons, adapting to new pressures, losing weak branches to harsh winds, and expanding its roots and reach when favorable conditions serve to support and sustain it. In Riding the fifth wave in higher education: A survival guide for the new normal, Castagnera (2018) describes these five successive waves while in A perfect mess: The unlikely ascendency of American higher education, Labaree (2017) describes how these waves continue to shape American higher education through a pyramidal structure that fosters both accessibility and elitism.

3.1.1  First Wave The first wave in the development of U.S. higher education has been the longest wave thus far. During the Antebellum period, specifically the period between the end of the Revolutionary War and the beginning of the Civil War, approximately 800 small, liberal arts colleges were established with seed money provided by private individuals and groups (Cox, 2000; Labaree, 2017). These early colleges were developed in towns rather than in the cities where high schools were located because colleges and high schools often competed for students rather than serving as successive educational achievements as they do today. Towns welcomed the establishment of colleges which enhanced their legitimacy and increased their access to resources (Labaree, 2017). Thus, colleges were already dotting the U.S. landscape even without state or federal support. These liberal arts colleges planted the roots for American

3  Bending Without Breaking: The Role of Higher Education in a Changing Society

53

higher education, establishing the American perspective that the role of post-­ secondary institutions is to provide liberal education to prepare individuals to be effective citizens in the new democracy. This perspective contradicted European views of education which were focused on intellectual pursuits and elitism (Cassuto, 2015; Labaree, 2017).

3.1.2  Second Wave The second wave of development began after the Civil War and lasted until the end of the nineteenth century. The expansion of higher education during this wave focused on the development of public rather than private institutions as a result of an 1819 Supreme Court decision asserting states have no rights to control private colleges to which they had granted charters (Labaree, 2017). Thereafter, states sought to establish colleges over which they had some measure of control. The Morrill Act, also known as the Land-Grant College Act, provided this opportunity. The Act was signed by Lincoln in 1862 and paved the way for a new era in higher education that recognized the value of both liberal and practical education.1 The end of the Civil War marked a shift in the economy and subsequently the nature of work. Professions arose which in turn nurtured the rise of a strong middle class. Institutions responded by developing credentialing systems to give legitimacy to these new professions. The accessibility of rail transportation also meant that small, family-run businesses were, for the first time, competing with larger businesses located elsewhere. Rather than pass on their struggling family businesses, many middle-class families sent their children to college to gain credentials in management and other professions (Labaree, 2017). During this time, lawmakers viewed education as a source of competitive advantage for the country and thus supported government funding of universities (Cassuto, 2015) including the Morrill Act of 1890 which provided appropriations for land grant institutions established earlier. In this supportive environment, higher education expanded rapidly. Unlike first wave colleges which were small and vulnerable, the institutions developed in the second wave were large and government supported. At this time, the focus of higher education changed from how colleges would shape students to how they could serve them by preparing them for the new economy. Elective credits and practical education replaced previous fixed curricula as colleges competed for students by building grassy campuses, erecting dormitories, and establishing fraternities, sororities, and athletic programs to attract as many students as possible. While European systems were rooted in intellectualism and elitism, the American system thrived and expanded because it was both accessible by the middle class and practice-oriented (Labaree, 2017). The rapid expansion during the second wave also included 1  While the Morrill Act provided substantial resources and support for the growth of U.S. universities, the Act did so through violence-backed treaties and the seizure of land from tribal nations (see Lee et al., 2020).

54

J. L. Kisamore

proliferation of normal schools which were originally established in the first wave. Normal schools were designed as vocational schools to prepare students to become teachers; they functioned essentially as high schools during the first wave but evolved into teacher colleges during the second wave (Labaree, 2017). Not only did the second wave establish deeper roots for higher education in the U.S., but also facilitated further growth with the establishment of Johns Hopkins University in 1876, the first American research university (JHU, 2018).

3.1.3  Third Wave As in the first wave, the third wave saw significant private efforts to support higher education. By the beginning of this wave, less than a quarter of the small, liberal arts colleges established in the first wave remained due to competition from the large, public, land-grant institutions founded in the second wave (Cox, 2000). From 1900 until World War II, other wealthy industrialists including Andrew Carnegie, John D.  Rockefeller, Leland Stanford, and Cornelius Vanderbilt followed the lead of Johns Hopkins by endowing world-class, research-focused private institutions (Castagnera, 2018). These institutions “sought to create educational opportunities of the highest quality for students who otherwise lacked access to any form of advanced education” including women and often minorities (Cox, 2000, p.  14). During the third wave, the U.S. was hit by the Great Depression, a time in which college graduates sought fellowships and scholarships for graduate study when they could not find work elsewhere (Cassuto, 2015). Unlike previous waves, college applications far outnumbered institutional capacities due to funding limitations resulting from the Great Depression. Schools had to turn away a multitude of qualified individuals for the first time and universities were criticized for producing too many Ph.D.s because new graduates often had difficulty finding employment (Cassuto, 2015). The third wave was a trying time for American higher education as the rapid expansion of large universities that so characterized the second wave slowed due to resource limitations. While large institutions struggled, teacher colleges saw growth as they evolved into regional public universities due to their number, geographic accessibility, and lower costs compared to state flagship and land-grant universities.

3.1.4  Fourth Wave During the fourth wave, a period lasting from the later part of World War II until the end of the twentieth century, the prevailing winds once again blew towards public higher education. It was during this period that “megauniversities” emerged thanks to heightened government funding (Labaree, 2017). Immediately after World War II, the GI bill was established to funnel the influx of returning veterans into new

3  Bending Without Breaking: The Role of Higher Education in a Changing Society

55

roles within society and to foster technological innovation. This period is viewed by contemporary scholars as the “Golden Age” of higher education marked by liberal government funding, high enrollments, and numerous job opportunities for graduates along with lower teaching loads to allow ample time for faculty members to conduct research (Cassuto, 2015; Labaree, 2017). The Cold War prolonged public support of higher education; government investments in both education and research increased vastly as a tool to “combat the Soviet menace” through workforce development and demonstration of the rich social opportunities inherent in liberal democracies (Labaree, 2017, p.  141). Although the focus during this wave was on the growth of public institutions, private universities also benefited from government funding through the GI bill. Even for-profit institutions, legitimate and fraudulent, gained from the GI bill, at least initially, until complaints mounted about deceptive practices (Douglass, 2012). Eventually, however, GI enrollments dwindled creating financial strain for private and public institutions alike. Private institutions sought to stabilize their futures by undertaking major capital campaigns to grow their endowments, pursuing sizable contributions from wealthy donors. Public universities also sought to grow endowments but instead relied on their larger pools of mostly middle-­class alumni for support. Research-focused institutions also sought to obtain grants from public and private sources to diversify their funding base (Castagnera, 2018).

3.1.5  Fifth Wave U.S. higher education is currently in its fifth wave. Scholars generally describe this wave as beginning sometime between the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the turn of the twenty-first century. Thus far, it has been marked by several extreme events, political polarization, and attacks on democratic ideals to which colleges and universities have had to respond. The terrorist attacks of September 2001 and the worldwide economic recession fueled by the U.S. mortgage crisis have affected the way societies view their place in the global community, while the rise of political conservatism, anti-intellectualism, and populism seek to damage the legitimacy of universities and the value of real expertise (Paloff, 2018). The mortgage-lending crisis led to massive declines in housing values which subsequently eroded the tax base in most states, necessitating cuts to state-funded institutions and programs. Higher education has taken the brunt of these cuts. At the same time, higher education has faced challenges from disruptors to the traditional higher education process including but not limited to increased competition from for-profit entities, the proliferation of online education including massively open online courses (MOOCs; Long, 2013), and the liberalization of credentialing (Castagnera, 2018). Like in other market sectors (see Christensen, 1997), these disruptors are forcing traditional universities to change the ways they deliver education and redefine performance expectations to remain competitive and relevant.

56

J. L. Kisamore

Although higher education costs were already on the rise, the economic crisis of 2008 and subsequent state budget cuts have exacerbated this issue. State funding has declined dramatically over the last several decades with leading public research universities receiving minimal funding from their home states; currently about 90% of funding for these universities comes from donations, endowments, grants, patents, and tuition with only about 10% coming from the states in which they are located (Labaree, 2017). According to Mortenson (2012, p.  3), “based on trends since 1980, average state fiscal support for higher education will reach zero by 2059” adding that, for some states, that may become a reality as soon as 2025. As states reduce funding of higher education, costs are passed onto students in the form of higher tuition and fees. Tuition rates are rising at an unprecedented pace. While many state flagship universities blossomed into megauniversities thanks to liberal public funding during the early part of the fourth wave, these same institutions now are in crisis due to rapidly rising costs and consumer distrust regarding the value of higher education. According to Mortenson (2012), between 1980 and 2011, inflation-­adjusted tuition and fee charges at state flagship, state universities and colleges, and community colleges increased by 247%, 230% and 164%, respectively. Students’ share of higher education costs was about 50% in 2000 but that share increased to nearly 75% by 2015 (Helland & Tabarrok, 2019). As financial support from state government wanes, public institutions have moved from being “state-­ supported” to “state-affiliated” or only “state-located” (Castagnera, 2018, p. 31). As Mortenson (2012, p.  1) succinctly stated, “public higher education is gradually being privatized.” The Great Recession had another impact on education, it bolstered the growth of for-profit institutions. According to Douglass (2012, p. 248), “economic downturns tend to push up demand for tertiary education, in part because unemployed workers are looking for ways to retrain and improve their employability.” Thus, winds have shifted again toward private funding of education but in the fifth wave, the private funding is coming increasingly from students themselves. At public institutions, this is evident in the fact that tuition and fees are rising rapidly as students pay a larger proportion of the total cost of their education. At private, not-for-profit institutions, students have always paid higher tuition costs than their public-institution peers, yet these rates continue to rise. Conversely, students attending for-profit institutions are likely to seek out federal grants or loans to pay for the bulk of their incurred educational costs. In essence, taxpayer dollars are increasingly subsidizing for-profit institutions through government-backed student loan programs. Thus, while the state and federal governments have little control over these for-profit institutions, taxpayer dollars are still funding them indirectly. For instance, data suggests student enrollments at for-profit institutions account for only 10% of enrollments in accredited higher education institutions nationwide but that these students receive 24% of federal Pell Grants and more than 25% of subsidized federal loans but account for 44% of the defaults on such loans (Baum & Payea, 2011; Castagnera, 2018). This is especially problematic given that for-profit institutions tend to cost twice as much as public institutions while also having dismal completion rates. Thus, the students who attend those institutions are likely to accumulate massive amounts of debt yet

3  Bending Without Breaking: The Role of Higher Education in a Changing Society

57

not complete their degree programs and thus not be able to secure employment that will allow them to pay back their government-subsidized loans. The average 6-year completion rate at such institutions is only 22% while the corresponding rate at public institutions is 55%. Although for-profit institutions commonly have lower degree completion rates, degree programs of dubious value, and high student loan default rates as compared to public and not-for-profit private institutions, taxpayer dollars continue to be funneled to for-profit programs through loan and grant programs because of lax regulations favored by some politicians (Castagnera, 2018). While other countries allow for-profit education to grow only when publicly supported institutions cannot meet demand, the U.S. for-profit sector has been allowed to grow while public institutions have been in decline (Douglass, 2012). The bleak financial landscape has led a number of institutions including those in the public, private, and for-profit sectors to close their doors during this wave; even more are expected to follow. There is a growing backlash against the reduced public funding of higher education that has characterized the fifth wave thus far; several major political candidates have campaigned on promises of student loan forgiveness and free tuition. Help cannot come soon enough for institutions and students alike. For instance, Alaska’s higher educational system is in dire trouble. During the summer of 2019, Alaska’s Governor Mike Dunlevy planned to slash the higher education budget by an astonishing $130 million in one year representing a 41% budget cut for higher education in the state (Mangan, 2019). While that cut was not ultimately implemented, a major cut in still underway; cuts totaling $70 million are planned to be enacted over 3 years (Whitford, 2020).

3.2  The Rising Costs of Education The rapidly rising costs of higher education that began in the fourth wave and which have accelerated in the fifth wave have been attributed to a variety of factors including administrative bloat, greater regulatory burdens, and enhanced amenities. For instance, a Vanderbilt University study estimated that federal regulation compliance costs institutions $27 billion annually (Stratford, 2015). Of that $27 billion, regulations directly affecting colleges and universities such as financial aid and programmatic and regional accreditation account for $11.1 billion. Another $10.2 billion is spent meeting research-based regulations and the remaining $5.6 billion is spent meeting federal regulations (e.g., immigration compliance) that affect organizations of all types. Of the 13 institutions studied, between 3% and 11% of their operating expenditures and 4–15% of faculty and staff time were spent on federal regulatory compliance; small and medium-sized institutions spent larger proportions of time and money on regulatory requirements than did large institutions (Moran, 2015). Castagnera (2018) attributed the movement toward greater regulation of universities to several factors, one of which is the terrorist attacks of 2001 in which some terrorists obtained student visas and studied at U.S. institutions to prepare for the attacks on American civilians. Castagnera (2018) also pointed to the election of a

58

J. L. Kisamore

democratic president in 2008 who instituted greater regulations to ensure students were obtaining degrees that would provide them with enhanced employability and social mobility rather than burden them with debt. Greater regulations enacted during the Obama Administration were a response to reduced regulations during the Bush Administration. These regulation reductions had allowed for-profit institutions to prosper through increased access to federal financial aid despite such programs often leaving students degreeless or with poor employment prospects while they incurred high levels of student loan debt and subsequent financial sanctions due to loan defaults (Castagnera, 2018; Douglass, 2012). Though regulations added during the Obama years were intended to ensure students and taxpayers were receiving value added for their investment, the regulatory environment became unnecessarily complex as newer regulations were often passed without revising or removing existing regulations. In 2013, a bipartisan Senate Task Force was convened to review and streamline regulations though additional work remains to be done. While some blame increased regulations for the rising cost of higher education, others blame the amenity war in which many colleges are engaged. Higher educational institutions have been increasing the amenities they offer to attract students, primarily at the undergraduate level. Amenities such as individual apartments replacing dorm rooms, climbing walls, and lazy rivers are frequently under attack as frivolous and too expensive. A historical look at U.S. universities, however, suggests such amenities may be necessary for the survival of many colleges given the consumer mentality of U.S. students. According to Labaree (2017), unlike their European counterparts, U.S. institutions need to be customer-focused given institutions of higher education are plentiful and are largely funded through student-paid tuition and fees. This is not the case in other countries where higher education institutions are scarcer, yet tuition rates are drastically lower or non-existent due to liberal government funding and tight regulation (Labaree, 2017; Ripley, 2018). Thus, in the U.S., higher education opportunities are plentiful, but the financial situation of many institutions is tenuous, so institutions compete to attract the greatest number of students as well as the best and brightest talent possible. Recent work by economists Helland and Tabarrok (2019) counter the arguments that administrative bloat and excessive amenities are responsible for rapidly rising costs. They note that administrative costs over the last 30 years have been relatively flat, averaging 16%. Additionally, they counter the amenity argument by noting that costs have increased in higher and common education at about the same rates despite common education not having competition. They further note that the average “plant share” of costs which covers amenities, has fallen over time. Their analyses strongly suggest that bloat and amenities are unlikely to have contributed in a significant way to the rapid rise in educational costs seen over the last several decades. Instead, through examination of 139 industries, they conclude that the Baumol Effect or “cost disease” best explains the rising costs in both education and healthcare sectors. The Baumol Effect, named after William Baumol (1967), occurs when there is unbalanced expansion in the economy. That is, when there are significant productivity gains in progressive sectors of the economy, prices will rise in stagnant sectors. According to Baumol (1967), technology and the role of labor in a

3  Bending Without Breaking: The Role of Higher Education in a Changing Society

59

sector determines whether that sector is progressive or stagnant. Industries in which labor is a means of production will be progressive when technology can adequately replace that labor; sectors in which labor is the product itself will remain stagnant. Helland and Tabarrok (2019) applied these principles to 139 industries noting that skilled-labor-intensive industries, such as healthcare and education, have had lower productivity gains while other industries have experienced rapid productivity gains due to technological advances that allow for more efficient production. Using the automobile industry to illustrate the Baumol Effect, Helland and Tabbarok (2019) noted that the inflation-adjusted price of a new car is about half what it was in 1950 but the cost to service a vehicle has almost doubled in the same period. Because manufacturing now relies more on technology than on human labor to build a car compared to manufacturing processes in the 1950s, cars can be produced more cheaply. On the other hand, servicing a specific problem on a single vehicle remains a labor-intensive process which now, unlike during the 1950s, requires highly skilled labor given the increased complexity of automobile systems. It is important to note that sectors that are labor-intensive and require highly skilled labor are doubly affected in the current economy. Not only is the labor more expensive due to greater skill demands, but those sectors must also pay more in healthcare costs because production is primarily a function of human labor rather than machine work. For instance, instructional costs account for more than half of total costs in common and higher education; approximately 90% of instructional costs are devoted to salary and benefits (Helland & Tabbarok, 2019). This rising cost of faculty labor should not be taken as an indication that faculty are overpaid but rather that the skills faculty members possess are in demand in other sectors of the labor market (see Barnshaw & Dunietz, 2015). Thus, demand for skills that are in limited supply drive up the cost of these skills. The solution to this dilemma is to educate more individuals so there is enough skilled labor to drive down costs; when the supply is adequate to meet demand, costs will stabilize rather than rise even higher. When desired skills are limited in supply, Baumol (1967) cautioned that there is an “inherent threat to quality” in the stagnant sector due to unbalanced productivity growth. Baumol warned that to continue to meet the demand, the difference often will have to be made up by “amateurs” but that these are the very services that “do so much to enrich our existence” and thus to let them die or be taken over by amateurs is a real danger that should not be ignored (Baumol, 1967, p. 422). The educational system faces a threat because the rapidly climbing costs of its services compel institutions to quell such rising prices by replacing high-priced labor with lower-­ priced alternatives. Despite Baumol’s (1967) warning, his prediction has come to fruition. According to Douglass (2012) because public institutions are unlikely to regain the level of funding they had in the fourth wave, The future tertiary market will not be the result of a well thought out policy at national or state levels, but a quasi-free market consequence that will foster lower quality providers and fail to meet national goals to increase the educational attainment level of Americans. (p. 243)

60

J. L. Kisamore

This is already happening as seen in the growth of for-profit institutions. Nor are reputable, established institutions immune from these forces; economic shifts have led to widescale reductions in tenure and tenure-track positions with a concomitant increased reliance on adjunct and renewable term instructors. Data collected by the American Association of University Professors just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic indicated that full-time tenured and tenure-track positions account for less-­ than one-third of academic positions (Colby, 2020). The tenure process, however, adds stability to universities that is not possible with a largely contract-based labor force (Lebaree, 2017). Additionally, traditional universities are increasingly embracing online learning to expand their reach. The shift to online instruction, however, is often taken without adequately preparing faculty members to teach in an environment that is fundamentally different than the physical classroom. The COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing move to online and remote learning formats highlight these limitations. Thus, although we can reach as many or more students using alternative types of instructors and educational methods, is the quality of knowledge transfer being preserved?

3.3  Education as a Knowledge Transfer Process At its core, education is the transfer of knowledge. There are three forms of knowledge: explicit, implicit, and tacit. Explicit knowledge is knowledge that has been captured in a formal way such as procedures, policies, and facts; it is knowledge that is easy to transfer in that it does not require interpretation. Implicit knowledge is knowledge that thus far has not been captured but can be captured through proper questioning of experts. Tacit knowledge is the deepest form of knowledge; it is ineffable. Tryon (2012, p. 34) describes tacit knowledge as “the most important organizational knowledge in existence” and also “the most challenging to transfer.” These concepts are related to the distinction psychologists make between declarative and procedural knowledge. Declarative knowledge is knowledge of “what,” such as facts and figures that are easy to disseminate. Procedural knowledge is knowledge of “how” something is done. Like tacit knowledge, procedural knowledge is hard to transfer and takes longer to develop. Universities focus on creating and transferring knowledge at all levels. While some knowledge is easy to transfer, other knowledge takes considerable time and effort. Knowledge management scholars have yet to figure out how to transfer tacit knowledge directly and efficiently from expert to novice. That is quick-fix and low-cost alternatives cannot adequately replace intensive, highly interactive experiences such as training and cross-training programs as well as mentorships and apprenticeships which tend to be necessary to transfer tacit and procedural knowledge. Nevertheless, these intensive transfer processes have innumerable benefits. Tryon (2012) notes that knowledge is unique from other types of assets such as physical assets, in that when knowledge is shared, there is no loss to the original knowledge; the sharing of knowledge instead often results in the creating of new

3  Bending Without Breaking: The Role of Higher Education in a Changing Society

61

knowledge through interaction between the giver and receiver. That is, one-way knowledge sharing processes cannot be as effective as two-way processes that involve quality interaction between the giver and receiver of knowledge (Leonard et al., 2015). This is a result of the synergistic effect that increases both party’s level of knowledge and often results in the creation of new knowledge important to innovation. As society and institutions attempt to counteract the Baumol Effect, attention must be given to ensure alternative and substitute forms of instruction do not have unintended consequences of lowering the quality of knowledge transfer and subsequent potential for innovation.

3.4  Higher Education and Social Responsibility The fundamental mission of universities is the creation and transmission of knowledge. Institutions of higher education do not exist in a vacuum, however, as they are just one part of a larger system that is society. As described in the introductory chapter by Poff (2022), contemporary universities need to both fulfill their commitments to education and research as well as satisfy their obligations to society as members of the moral community. As part of a larger community, universities must interact with their communities in positive and meaningful ways that enhance the lives of all community members, not only those who attend the university. That is, they must engage in university social responsibility. In their book Firms of Endearment, Sisodia et al. (2014) studied companies who took a systems perspective in decision making and who worked to ensure that different stakeholders were treated ethically and equitably. The companies designated as “Firms of Endearment” outperformed peer companies both in terms of financial outcomes and public accolades for their socially responsible practices. Sisodia et al. (2014) developed the SPICE model to illustrate these interdependencies which served to sustain the company’s high levels of performance year after year (see Fig. 3.1). The SPICE model derived its name from the system’s constituents: society, partners, investors, customers, and employees. Each stakeholder group radiates as a spoke from the center of the model, which is the company. The key to the SPICE model’s effectiveness is that no stakeholder is valued above the others; each type of stakeholder is valued and esteemed for the role it plays in the success of the business. While a pure business model is not appropriate for educational institutions, aspects of the SPICE model apply to higher education given its embeddedness within a larger system and its interdependent stakeholders. Like a tree that exists within a larger ecosystem, higher education exists within a larger system. Progress and the health of the system is greatest when all stakeholders are held in balance, each providing unique investments in the system and consequently receiving balanced rewards. In the SPICE model, no stakeholder should be exalted above the others just as no stakeholder should be exploited. Imbalance distorts the system, slows progress, and can lead to system collapse. This

62

J. L. Kisamore

Fig. 3.1  The SPICE stakeholder model applied to business. (Source: Sisodia et al., 2014)

approach contrasts the previous growth of U.S. higher education in which different stakeholders had an outsized role in each wave. For example, the state was at the forefront of Wave 2 given that state’s rights were undermined in the way institutions developed in the first wave. In Wave 3, several very wealthy investors were at the forefront, founding elite private institutions that continue to shape the higher education landscape including the ways in which institutional prestige has come to be defined. Below, each type of stakeholder will be examined for the role it plays in higher education and its interconnectedness to other stakeholders. The names of some types of stakeholders have been modified in this model to better reflect the higher education environment (see Fig. 3.2).

3.4.1  State The state is a stakeholder in higher education given it has a vested interest in the institutions that operate within its borders. This realization was evident in 1819 when the Supreme Court ruled states had no control over the operations of higher

3  Bending Without Breaking: The Role of Higher Education in a Changing Society

63

Fig. 3.2  The SPICE stakeholder model applied to higher education

education institutions that existed within their borders if such institutions were not state-funded. In public higher education models, the state is a stakeholder, in terms of both funding determined by state legislators and regulations through boards of regents. States have a duty to care for their residents. Part of that duty is to ensure residents have access to educational opportunities that will allow them to obtain quality employment and a respectable standard of living. Additionally, states have a vested interest in promoting higher education as higher education produces a myriad of benefits that advance state interests including greater innovation and the ability to attract private industry by having a skilled and educated pool of talent. Higher education is associated with better health, higher incomes (and thus higher tax revenues), and lower reliance on social services. Higher education institutions are also major employers for the states in which they reside further adding to the state’s tax base. Education is essential for a robust and functioning democracy which was the major driver of the first wave of U.S. higher education. States, however, have been reducing their funding of public higher education institutions yet still expect to accrue the benefits such institutions provide.

64

J. L. Kisamore

3.4.2  Partners Universities partner with outside organizations to fulfill their missions while also helping the university function more effectively and efficiently. Universities, especially research universities, regularly partner with federal, state, and non-­government organizations (NGOs) to conduct research. The university receives grant money that helps financially support the university while partner agencies have access to services and talent they do not have in-house. For instance, government agencies such as the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health regularly rely on the expertise of research faculty employed at universities to help meet governmental needs. Similarly, NGOs such as the American Heart Association and American Cancer Society provide funding to university-based researchers to further understanding of the causes of heart disease and cancer, respectively, and to develop new drugs or treatments for these ailments. Currently, most large universities obtain more funding in total from these partner agencies than they do from their state governments. Partnerships between higher education institutions and outside entities can and often do produce mutual benefits given that agencies are able to access experts on topics as needed and universities receive funding that helps hire more faculty, support their research facilities and missions, and give opportunities to involve students in research that can advance their careers. Partnerships, however, are not limited to funding-based relationships. For instance, private companies can partner with institutions to offer internships and other career-related opportunities. Such partnerships can be mutually beneficial as universities are able to provide job placement opportunities for graduates while private companies gain access to a pool of qualified job candidates. Partnerships can go awry, however, when one side garners outsized benefits or seeks to unduly influence the other. Such unbalanced partnerships can affect other stakeholders such as through the development of a bad reputation that hurts other agencies in the state or that reduces investments by outside parties to the public institution or private organization.

3.4.3  Investors Investors have been part of higher education since the first wave when private citizens and groups founded liberal arts colleges. Investors can greatly enhance the quality of higher education and most institutions could not survive without them. Investors provide funding that produce a myriad of benefits to universities including but not limited to funding the construction of new facilities, increasing the number of faculty members through sponsored Chair positions, financial support of specific colleges or programs within the larger institution, and financing of scholarships and fellowships for disadvantaged or high-caliber students. Investments and donations can be directed to specific needs of the university or offered based on donor preferences. Some donations, however, may lead to greater costs for institutions after the

3  Bending Without Breaking: The Role of Higher Education in a Changing Society

65

original donation. For instance, a donor may provide funding to build a new lecture hall to be named for the donor which is appealing to a cash-strapped university. Future building maintenance costs may later exceed the amount donated and lead an already cash-strapped university to further financial losses. Another concern is that donors may come to have an oversized impact on the future of the institution. In politics, it is all-too-common that decisions that affect the masses are made by relatively few, non-elected individuals who provide major financial investments in political candidates. Universities, like liberal democracies, are to have shared governance. Donations, especially large ones, may distort this shared governance process. Investments by outside individuals or groups that will affect all stakeholders must be carefully reviewed to avoid exalting or exploiting any institutional stakeholders.

3.4.4  College Students College students are integral to higher education. Universities cannot meet their missions without them. There are two opposing views on the relationship between students and institutions of higher education. Faculty members tend to view students as products of education, consistent with deeply rooted beliefs that the goal of education is to shape students to be societal leaders. College students, on the other hand, are more likely to view themselves as consumers of education. As described by Labaree (2017), this view is unique to the U.S. given students pay a large share of their own educational costs through tuition and fees; thus, they believe that colleges and universities must earn their “business” given the array of options from which they can choose. In countries in which educational costs are primarily paid by the government resulting in low or no tuition charges, students are more likely to view themselves as the beneficiaries of higher education and as such, deem they should repay society’s investment by doing well and contributing back to the society that invested in them. Neither of these views are complete, however, but each holds a kernel of truth. Faculty should allow students some say in how their education is delivered, nevertheless students are students because they are learning about a field. That is, they do not yet possess the expertise to definitively know what is in their best interests in terms of learning. For instance, some ambiguity in an assignment produces more learning on the part of the student who must spend time contemplating how to successfully complete the assignment. Such ambiguity, however, tends to lead students to give instructors lower course evaluations. Similarly, attempts to avoid offending students through trigger warnings and bans of controversial speakers seek to appease students as consumers but such actions can ultimately limit their ability to have respectful but serious debates with those who hold opposing views. It should go without saying that students must be treated with respect. They are not inanimate objects which faculty mold or which institutions can use as a tool to increase revenue or exploit for productivity. At the graduate level, many students work as

66

J. L. Kisamore

teaching assistants and research assistants which helps the university offer more courses or conduct more research. In return, these assistants usually receive a stipend (paycheck) and a waiver of some or all tuition costs as well as the opportunity to build career-relevant skills. Universities and faculty members must ensure that duties given to such students are relevant to their career goals, do not interfere with their studies, are commensurate with their pay, and that students are treated with respect. To deal with financial crises due to reduced state funding, universities are increasingly turning to out-of-state and international students who pay higher tuition rates. Institutions need to carefully consider whether these markedly different tuition rates are justifiable and if the benefits of studying outside of one’s home state or country (e.g., exposure to different experiences, regional cultures, and ideas) do outweigh the greater financial burden placed on these students. Higher education produces both public and private benefits. It stands to reason that college students should bear some of the costs of higher education given they will also reap some personal rewards from it. The costs many students are expected to bear, however, have become untenable. College students are increasingly incurring debt loads that can take decades to repay. Approximately one-third of students nationwide deal with housing and food insecurity (Hess, 2018); food pantries are cropping up on campuses across the U.S. Students are also increasingly encountering mental health issues due to the various pressures they face as they attempt to simultaneously balance school, family, employment, and financial pressures. Thus, the various stakeholders who support and benefit from higher education need to ensure that students can maintain a decent standard of living during their studies as well as leave the university with significantly greater skills and employment prospects than when they commenced their studies.

3.4.5  Employees Employees as a stakeholder group include faculty, staff, permanent and adjunct instructors, administrators, and contract workers. While employees of the university do not pay directly financially as do other stakeholder groups, their pay to the university comes more in terms of opportunity costs given universities typically pay lower salaries than can be obtained in private industry or other agencies, though this may differ by field. Faculty members benefit by being part of a larger mission; they have a sense of calling that can be fulfilled in the university that is less likely to occur in profit-driven ventures. This is also true of support staff and even administrators who can earn more in similar roles in private industry but choose to stay in institutions to serve a public good.2 2  Total compensation levels of some high-level administrative positions (e.g., presidents) have received increasing scrutiny given the frequency with which compensation increases outpace inflation and growth of faculty salaries (Colby, 2020) and/or contain lavish perks (Krupnick & Marcus, 2015).

3  Bending Without Breaking: The Role of Higher Education in a Changing Society

67

Some individuals who work for universities are exploited. Adjunct instructors typically are not paid a living wage and are not benefits eligible. This is a widespread phenomenon which has become more pronounced as state funding has been cut and universities seek to uphold their missions while teaching more students with less state support. Conversely, universities may compete to hire “star” faculty members by offering them high salaries and low teaching loads to join the university. Competitions are likely to occur for researchers with extensive external funding or faculty members who have earned widely recognized credentials (e.g., Nobel recipient) that are generally viewed as indicators of university prestige. While these faculty members bring heightened recognition and can make significant contributions to the university, high-profile competitions can lead to lowered morale among other faculty members who are consistent performers but who end up feeling their own contributions go unnoticed. State taxpayers may also view such salaries as exorbitant and unnecessary. In general, faculty are not very proficient at helping stakeholders, especially taxpayers, understand what they do and how they contribute to societal progress. At most institutions, faculty must engage in scholarly activity (i.e., research or creative work depending on the field), teaching, service, and sometimes administrative work. Service work alone can involve service to the profession, university, and community while research leads to new technologies, medicines, and practices that improve quality of life for the public at large. Thus, although faculty members have heavy loads and work long hours (Flaherty, 2014), the public rarely gets to see this side of academic life. According to Wyllie, people are working a lot harder than the average U.S. citizen probably recognizes, and that’s actually really bad for higher education. Because if people don’t think we’re working, they’re not voting in legislators who are going to give money to higher education. (2018, p. 3)

Thus, when faculty do not communicate their contributions to larger society, higher education institutions and their stakeholders, including the public, lose.

3.5  Suggestions for Shaping the Future of Higher Education Labaree (2017) describes U.S. higher education as “a perfect mess” that we ought to leave alone. While the U.S. higher education system has evolved over time to the form it takes today, it did not evolve without concerted actions by individuals and groups who sought to transform it at different points in time. This includes state and federal governments as well as private individuals and groups. The U.S. higher education system is not really a system at all; instead, it is a loosely connected set of institutions that seem to move in concert based upon some shared understanding of what higher education is and can be (Labaree, 2017). There continues to be a need to shape and nurture it but in a new direction based on social realities inherent in the current wave.

68

J. L. Kisamore

Fig. 3.3  Labaree’s depiction of the stratified state of higher education in the U.S. Developed based on descriptions in Labaree, D. F. (2017)

According to Labaree (2017), the current system is strongly stratified and typically maintains the status quo both in terms of institutional prestige and the individuals who attend these institutions (see Fig.  3.3). Yet, Americans believe, at a basic level, that education should afford advantages and that hard work and talent should provide individuals greater opportunities. If, as Labaree (2017) alludes, the greatest social advantage goes to those who need it least and those who need it most are likely to instead be burdened by the system, that “system” is broken and should be repaired, not left alone. First, we need to examine our values regarding higher education. According to Labaree (2017), “Americans are attuned to think that social inequality is OK as long as social opportunity is wide open, and education is how we have long provided such opportunity” (p. 181). The problem is, social opportunity is not wide open currently, if it ever was. The recent college admissions bribery scandal has shown that opportunities are much greater for the wealthy than for the poor due to systemic factors and accepted practices that further advance the wealthy. Formal practices that favor wealthy applicants include but are not limited to early admission decisions and preferences for applicants with certain types of experiences (e.g., community service, unpaid internships) that are less available to applicants from low-income backgrounds. Unsanctioned but common practices also favor the wealthy as is evident from the scandal in which wealthy individuals were able to obtain admission to prestigious universities for their children through fraudulent means (Jaschik, 2019). As a society, we must consider whether current practices support our values; do we want a system that allows anyone with aptitude to obtain quality higher education or do we prefer the current practice of high selectivity that favors certain types of students? We must decide whether society is best served by a broadly educated population or a highly stratified educational caste system that largely reflects socioeconomic status differences rather than serving to neutralize such differences. Second, we need to better regulate for-profit institutions to remove predatory practices while also streamlining and simplifying regulations regarding higher education. Poor individuals are subjected to predatory tactics from for-profit

3  Bending Without Breaking: The Role of Higher Education in a Changing Society

69

educational institutions that use their motivation for self-improvement to bilk taxpayers rather than as a real opportunity to provide social advantage. The main mission of for-profit institutions is to increase shareholder value, not to produce benefits to students or society; if such benefits do occur, they are merely “unintended side effects” (Labaree, 2017, p. 139). Thus, we need to develop regulations that prevent predatory practices; existing, reputable institutions should be involved in developing such regulations. Third, we need to stop adding new layers to the higher education pyramid and instead expand the types of education available through existing universities. Labaree (2017) describes the current higher education institution pyramid as consisting of four layers (see Fig. 3.3). The top layer is comprised of Ivy League schools mostly developed during the Colonial period and state flagship institutions established in the early to mid-nineteenth century. The second level consists of land grant institutions developed in the mid to late nineteenth century. The 3rd tier consists of former normal schools that developed into teacher colleges and later regional state universities. The fourth tier consists of community colleges and junior colleges that provide the first two years of higher education locally at low cost while providing individuals a path to higher education at institutions higher up on the pyramid. Throughout its history, U.S. higher education has expanded by adding a layer to the bottom of the pyramid by creating new types of colleges, typically focused on vocational training. This occurred because expanding existing institutions into new markets was likely to erode the prestige of an established institution. The structure of the pyramid shows that older institutions tend to be further up the pyramid whether due to quality of education or simply the accumulation of resources that allow them to keep newcomers in check and lower on the pyramid. We have enough institutions. Instead, we need to find better ways to reach and assist underserved populations rather than adding another layer of institutions to serve them. Institutions need to partner with each other and with local communities to improve service to students and increase their likelihood of success. Fourth, we need to redefine notions of prestige and success for institutions, faculty members, and students. As noted in Poff’s (2022) introductory chapter, excellence is an oft-stated goal of institutions yet what excellence entails at a specific institution is ill-defined and typically defaults to performance on national and international ranking systems. As part of such rankings, institutional prestige has become linked with the type and proportion of applicants an institution can reject. We need to change our mindset regarding institutional prestige from selectivity to service. That is, who and how many people can an institution serve and provide social mobility? For faculty, we need to recalibrate factors used for performance evaluation. Current evaluation systems, especially those for tenure and promotion in the top two tiers, typically weigh research productivity and the securing of external grant money much more heavily, or often to the exclusion of, teaching ability. That is, faculty members who are highly ineffective teachers but who can garner grant funding often are granted tenure, promotions, and allowed to continue teaching while faculty members who are highly skilled at teaching but publish infrequently are neither promoted nor granted tenure. Also, faculty members who take active

70

J. L. Kisamore

roles in recruiting and mentoring individuals from underrepresented groups often receive little formal recognition and their efforts to advance representation of minority groups are not weighed adequately, if at all, in promotion and tenure decision. While these activities are important to ensure higher education fosters equity and access, such efforts typically reduce faculty time to engage in scholarship and thus can harm one’s likelihood of being granted tenure. Overall, higher education suffers from a lack of diversity at all levels; efforts to remediate these imbalances need to be formally recognized and rewarded. Additionally, at the graduate level, success is also often narrowly defined for students. For instance, Ph.D. programs are often geared more toward academic careers than those in applied practice thus, doctoral students who pursue academic career paths are typically viewed as more successful than those who go into applied work, at least in certain fields. Society and institutions need highly skilled talent in all realms, not a select few. Fifth, we need to do a better job of educating prospective students about their options. This includes having statements about how much debt they are likely to incur at each institution and in each degree program as well as information about degree completion rates and projected salary levels. Some institutions are already making this type of information more prominent due to pressure from accreditation agencies or in response to such efforts by competing institutions. Sixth, we need to bring tuition in line with field of study, benefit to society, and future career earnings. For instance, students who go into teaching are not going to benefit financially as much as someone who goes into a more technical career. The teacher, however, may have a greater impact on society than the other individual who ends up recruited by a private company that sells its goods to society at exorbitant prices. The current system has students who will incur more private benefits from their education paying similar tuition rates to those whose education will result in greater societal benefits. The current system harms not only students but also society by incentivizing top talent to go into fields that may be less consistent with the individual’s calling but more financially lucrative because the cost of education is otherwise too great to bear. It is certainly true that some students can afford to bear the costs of college more than others. That is to say, the model suggests costs should be balanced between stakeholders and thus, college students should pay rates that are in line with what they can afford at the time of college, their likely earnings resulting from that degree, and the extent to which their future career provides greater personal or public benefits. Seven, we need to use technology thoughtfully and in a manner that is founded on evidence-based practices. When used properly, technology can enhance the quality of education, but it is not a panacea. Just because technology allows us to reach more people, we cannot assume that the quality of the education is the same or better. Technology can enhance learning; online simulations, video recordings of classes, and course management programs that allow students to access course information as needed can all enhance the educational process when used well and in concert with topic experts (Ericsson et al., 2007; Leonard et al., 2015). It does not mean that more information yields more knowledge. It is easy to overwhelm students with information which thwarts learning rather than enhance it. We need to

3  Bending Without Breaking: The Role of Higher Education in a Changing Society

71

train faculty members on how to best use technology to teach. Have faculty members mentor others. Give them the tools and the time needed to use the technology well. Often these new tools and technologies are implemented but the people who are supposed to use them are not taught how to use them effectively. Frequently, technology implementation is reactive rather than proactive which can be overwhelming to faculty members who must use the technology but who are primarily evaluated by scholarly output, not the effective use of teaching technologies. Looking into the future, technology may provide even greater gains for expanding our reach, but we are not there yet. Artificial intelligence may help increase efficiency and effectiveness in learning just as computer-adaptive testing increases efficiency and effectiveness in testing. For now, much online education is not responsive to individual learner’s needs nor does it provide an experience on par with the immersive experience that students are more likely to get in a classroom environment. Eight, we need to create more partnerships. This includes partnerships between universities and between higher education and both public agencies and private organizations. Higher education institutions can partner to develop more defined educational pathways rather than leaving such navigation to students themselves. Additionally, institutions can partner and consolidate to maintain their geographic reach while saving some costs through economies of scale. Public agencies and private organizations can partner with higher education institutions to develop loan forgiveness programs. In such programs, besides paying employees a regular salary, the organization or agency pays a portion of the individual’s student loan debt for each year the individual works there after graduation. Such programs already exist but can be greatly expanded. Loan forgiveness programs can create mutual benefits in that individuals are able to obtain higher education without concerns about accruing crushing debt. Organizations and agencies benefit by being more attractive to recent graduates who have up-to-date skills that can help propel the organization or agency forward. Nine, institutions at all levels should include a mix of liberal education, specialized education, and applied learning. Labaree (2017) asserts that states are typically interested in job skills training while individuals are more interested in liberal education because it affords greater social advantage. Higher education should include not only applied training but also personal development that builds an individual’s general knowledge, skills, and abilities. These generalized skills will produce long-­ term benefits that cannot even be predicted. The famous Stanford commencement address Steve Jobs gave in 2005 illustrates this point (Jobs, 2005). Pure training is not long-lasting in the current society given the rapid rate of change; narrow skills and knowledge become obsolete quickly. Instead, institutions are developing the next generation of people who can use critical reasoning and learn independently to solve the new challenges they will face in a future they also will take part in creating. Thus, institutions need to marry liberal education to build generalized skills and character (see Brooks, 2015) and practical education that will enhance immediate employability. Finally, as a society we need to examine our tendency to invest in education primarily after major wars. Why were there fundamental public policy changes after

72

J. L. Kisamore

the Civil War, after World War II, and during the Cold War? Might society be better served by expanding education to prevent rather than react to such conflicts?

3.6  Conclusion This chapter has used trees as an analogy for higher education. Just as trees are crucial to the development and maintenance of a healthy ecosystem, higher education is vital to societal health and advancement. While some trees quickly succumb to inhospitable conditions, others adapt, growing around and coalescing with obstacles as part of their growth; they survive hundreds of years and positively influence their environment for generations. As such, not all institutions of higher education can be expected to survive the storms of increasing regulations, continuous pruning of relentless budget cuts, harsh winds of political extremism, and competition from invasive species that consume and destroy scarce resources. There are no easy answers as to how the forces affecting higher education can be reconciled. Nor is there one path that will best serve all higher education institutions or will serve higher education indefinitely. Higher education is a key aspect of society that influences and is influenced by all other parts of society. Like a tree, higher education is a system that must grow and respond to its surroundings while maintaining strong roots to anchor it in the past, nourish it in the present, and bolster it for the future. We cannot go back to the old way of doing things that perpetuate the status quo. Nor can the past waves of higher education be ignored. As Poff (2022) asserted universities have visions and goals from the past, present, and future. It is our job to determine how to best harness these tensions to create positive change.

References Barnshaw, J., & Dunietz, S. (2015). Busting the myths: The annual report on the economic status of the profession, 2014–2015. Academe, 101(2), 4–19. Baum, S., & Payea, K. (2011). Trends in for-profit postsecondary education: Enrollment, prices, student aid and outcomes. College Board. Retrieved from https://www.cgsnet.org/ckfinder/ userfiles/files/trends-­2011-­for-­profit-­postsecondary-­ed-­outcomes-­brief.pdf Baumol, W. J. (1967). Macroeconomics of unbalanced growth: The anatomy of urban crisis. The American Economic Review, 57(3), 415–426. Brooks, D. (2015). The road to character. Random House. Cassuto, L. (2015). The graduate school mess: What caused it and how we can fix it. Harvard University Press. Castagnera, J. O. (2018). Riding the fifth wave in higher education: A survival guide for the new normal. Peter Lang Inc. Christensen, C.  M. (1997). Chapter 1: How can great firms fail? Insights from the hard disk drive industry. In The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1b9c/8b37c8d2839f094582add71f65eec 1cad1d.pdf

3  Bending Without Breaking: The Role of Higher Education in a Changing Society

73

Colby, G.  T. (2020). The annual report on the economic status of the profession, 2019–20. Academe, 106, 21–49. Cox, G.  M. (2000). Why I left a university to join an internet education company. Change, 32(6), 12–18. Douglass, J. A. (2012). The rise of the for-profit sector in US higher education and the Brazilian effect. European Journal of Education, 47(2), 242–259. Ericsson, K. A., Prietula, M. J., & Cokely, E. T. (2007). The making of an expert. Harvard Business Review, 85(7/8), 115–121. Flaherty, C. (2014, April 9). So much to do, so little time. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/04/09/ research-­shows-­professors-­work-­long-­hours-­and-­spend-­much-­day-­meetings Helland, E., & Tabarrok, A. T. (2019). Why are the prices so damn high?: Health, education, and the Baumol effect. Mercatus Center, George Mason University, Arlington, VA. Retrieved from https://www.mercatus.org/publications/healthcare/why-­are-­prices-­so-­damn-­high Hess, A. (2018, April 6). New study finds that 36% of college students don’t have enough to eat. Make It [CNBC]. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/06/new-­study-­finds-­that-­36-­ percent-­of-­college-­students-­dont-­have-­enough-­to-­eat.html Jaschik, S. (2019, August 19). Has admissions changed since the scandal? Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2019/08/19/ has-­admissions-­changed-­scandal Jobs, S. (2005). Stanford commencement address. Retrieve from https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc Johns Hopkins University [JHU]. (2018). Fact book: Johns Hopkins. Retrieved from https://www. jhu.edu/assets/uploads/2018/12/johnshopkinsfactbook.pdf Krupnick, M., & Marcus, J. (2015, August 5). Think university administrators’ salaries are high? Critics say their benefits are lavish: Scandal in one state focuses attention of club memberships, free cars, housing allowances. The Hechinger Report. Retrieved from https://hechingerreport. org/think-­university-­administrators-­salaries-­are-­high-­critics-­say-­their-­benefits-­are-­lavish/ Labaree, D.  F. (2017). A perfect mess: The unlikely ascendency of American higher education. University of Chicago Press. Lee, R., Ahtone, T., Pearce, M., Goodluck, K., McGhee, G., Leff, C., Lanpher, K., & Salinas, T. (2020). Land-grab universities. High Country News. Retrieved from https://www.landgrabu.org/ Leonard, D., Swap, W., & Barton, G. (2015). Critical knowledge transfer: Tools for managing your company’s deep smarts. Harvard Business Review Press. Long, C. (2013). The changing face of higher education: The future of the traditional university experience. Kennedy School Review, 13, 58–62. Mangan, K. (2019, July 1). Unprecedented in our history: One state is on the verge of slashing higher-ed funding, leaving public colleges in a panic. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/Unprecedented-­in-­Our/246596 Moran, M. (2015, October 19). Study estimates cost of regulatory compliance at 13 colleges and universities. Vanderbilt News. Retrieved from https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2015/1019/ regulatory-­compliance/ Mortenson, T. G. (2012). State funding: A race to the bottom. The Presidency, 15(1), 1–3. Retrieved from https://acenet.edu/the-­presidency/columns-­and-­features/Pages/state-­funding-­a-­race-­to-­ the-­bottom.aspx Paloff, B. (2018, March 19). Populists and the perversion of academic expertise. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Poff, D. (2022). The complexity of the modern university and the emergence of issues related to corporate social responsibility. In D.  Poff’s (Ed.), Corporate Social Responsibility and University Governance. Springer. Ripley, A. (2018, September 11). Why is college in America so expensive? The outrageous price of a U.S. degree is unique in the world. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/ education/archive/2018/09/why-­is-­college-­so-­expensive-­in-­america/569884/

74

J. L. Kisamore

Sisodia, R., Sheth, J. N., & Wolfe, D. (2014). Firms of endearment: How world-class companies profit from passion and purpose (2nd ed.). Pearson. Stratford, M. (2015, October 19). Vandy takes on federal regs, redux. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://insidehighered.com/news/2015/10/19/ Vanderbilt-­study-­again-­highlights-­whatcolleges-­view-­burdensome-­federal-­regulations Tryon, C. A., Jr. (2012). Managing organizational knowledge: 3rd generation knowledge management…and beyond! CRC Press. Whitford, E. (2020, June 10). Will cuts give way to ‘Systemwide changes’ at University of Alaska? Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/06/10/ facing-­financial-­peril-­university-­alaska-­moves-­cut-­academic-­programs-­and Wyllie, J. (2018, February 5). How much do professors work? One researcher is trying to find out. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/ How-­Much-­Do-­Professors-­Work-­/242444 Jennifer L.  Kisamore (Ph.D., 2003, University of South Florida) is an Associate Professor of Psychology, Graduate Liaison for Organizational Dynamics, and Associate Dean of the Graduate College at the University of Oklahoma-Tulsa. She teaches courses in human resource management focusing on the interplay between employees, organizations, and larger society. In her administrative roles, Jennifer is involved in developing and implementing practices that enhance graduate student experiences and which highlight how academic programs impact the surrounding community. Her research focuses on organizational behavior including academic and workplace misconduct, as well as research and measurement methodologies. Jennifer has published more than 100 articles, book chapters, and conference presentations and has received awards for both her teaching and her research. She currently serves on the editorial boards of the Journal of Academic Ethics and Career Development International.  

Chapter 4

Corporate Social Responsibility in Universities and Sustainable Development Alex C. Michalos

Abstract Beginning with the evidence-based assumption that universities are multi-attributed, multi-aimed corporate entities, issues are reviewed concerning the monitoring and evaluation of the corporate social responsibilities (CSR) of such entities. Aims of education are examined first, followed by a definition of university CSR in terms of individual and social sustainable development. Following the tradition of the Brundtland Commission that posited a good quality of life as the aim of sustainable development, critical issues concerning the monitoring and evaluation of life’s qualities are presented. In the final substantive section, an analysis is given of the University of London’s CSR Statement with special attention paid to increasing its usefulness as a monitoring and evaluation instrument using more quantitative indicators. The brief conclusion offers some recommendations for further consideration. Keywords  Corporate social responsibility · sustainable development · Quality of life · University of London

4.1  Aims of Education That education is multi-aimed may be established by a cursory review of its history, beginning with ancient Greek philosophers. In the Phaedo, Socrates (469–399 BCE) expressed great disappointment in Anaxagoras’s (495–429 BCE) naturalistic explanations that “made no use of intelligence, and did not assign any real causes for the ordering of things, but mentioned as causes air and ether and water and many other absurdities” (Plato, 1914, p.  339). This complaint by Socrates is the first appearance of what we now regard as the debate between those who see education, science and knowledge generally speaking as a means to something else (e.g., a job, A. C. Michalos (*) University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 D. C. Poff (ed.), University Corporate Social Responsibility and University Governance, Advances in Business Ethics Research 8, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77532-2_4

75

76

A. C. Michalos

power, prestige) and those who see education, science and knowledge as ends in themselves. Anaxagoras knew that his astronomical investigations would not allow him to change the behaviour of heavenly bodies but he continued his research because he wanted to understand how things were made and how they worked. Socrates had no use for investigations and explanations that did not help people to use their intelligence to live better lives. In fact, the two men’s primary interests represented two fundamental features of human beings and the human condition. What, after all, better connects us to those who lived 2500 years ago than our common interests in understanding our world and improving our lives? Plato’s (427–347 BCE) student, Aristotle (384–322 BCE), was quite explicit about the diversity of views on the aims of education. Aristotle (1998, Book VII, pp. 227–228) wrote, It is evident, then, that there should be legislation regarding education, and that education should be communal. But the questions of what kind of education there should be and how it should be carried out should not be neglected. In fact, there is a dispute at present about what its tasks are. For not all consider that the young should learn the same things, whether to promote virtue or the best life; nor is it evident whether it is more appropriate for education to develop the mind or the soul’s character. Investigation of the education we see around us results in confusion, since it is not at all clear whether people should be trained in what is useful for life, in what conduces to virtue, or in something out of the ordinary. For all of these proposals have acquired some advocates. Besides, there is no agreement about what promotes virtue. For, in the first place, people do not all esteem the same virtue, so they quite understandably do not agree about the training needed for it. That children should be taught those useful things that are really necessary, however, is not unclear. But it is evident that they should not be taught all of them, since there is a difference between the tasks of the free and those of the unfree, and that they should share only in such useful things that will not turn them into vulgar craftsmen.

Fast-forwarding to the nineteenth century, John Henry Newman (1801–1890) wrote in his classic The Idea of a University (1852/1976, p. 102), All that I have been now saying is summed up in a few characteristic words of the great philosopher [Aristotle]. ‘Of possessions,’ he says, ‘those rather are useful, which bear fruit; those liberal, which tend to enjoyment. By fruitful, I mean, which yield revenue; by enjoyable, where nothing accrues of consequence beyond the using’.

For Newman (1852/1976, p. 105) and followers of this tradition, …cultivation of mind is surely worth seeking for its own sake, [and] …there is a knowledge, which is desirable, though nothing come of it, as being of itself a treasure, and a sufficient remuneration of years of labour.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, John Dewey (1859–1952) laboured long and hard against any separation of the liberal versus useful, practical, scientific-technological, vocational education. He advocated scientific-­technological training directed by liberating humane studies, and the latter informed by the former. In his view, pragmatism or instrumentalism was little more than the application of all contemporary learning (science, technology and the arts) to social problems in the interests of what he called “social betterment” and what we might call a good

4  Corporate Social Responsibility in Universities and Sustainable Development

77

quality of life (Michalos, 2017a). His philosophy of education flowed naturally from his philosophy of life, not in detail but in principle. Following Dewey’s (1958) lead, according to Lynn (1977, p. 152), the chair of the Report of the Committee on Evaluation of Engineering Education wrote a well-educated engineer…must be not only a competent professional engineer, but also an informed and participating citizen, and a person whose living expresses high cultural values and moral standards. Thus, the competent engineer needs understanding and appreciation in the humanities and in the social sciences as much as in his own field of engineering. He needs to be able to deal with the economics, human, and social factors of his professional problems. His facility with, and understanding of, ideas in the fields of humanities and social sciences not only provide an essential contribution to his professional engineering work, but also contribute to his success as a citizen and to the enrichment and meaning of his life as an individual.

There is a good reason to reject the practical-non-practical (or useful-non-useful) division of education, namely, nothing is practical or useful in the abstract. Nothing is practical or useful simpliciter. Things are only practical or useful for certain purposes in certain circumstances. The study of the sentential calculus, for example, may be useless and impractical from the point of view of making automobiles, but it is precisely to the point (not the only point, of course) from the point of view of inspecting and evaluating the structure of some arguments and patterns of inference. The study of automotive engineering may be useless and impractical from the point of view of a shipbuilder, but not from the point of view of a manufacturer in Detroit. To set up any educational curriculum and say that it is or say that it is not practical or useful in the abstract is to say both too little in one way and too much in another. It is to say too much insofar as circumstances and the aims of some people may falsify one’s claims immediately, and it is to say too little insofar as it is a logically incomplete, essentially relative remark. Following Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, in the twentieth century good character has been recommended as a central aim of education by many educators. For example, Robert Maynard Hutchins (1943, p. 104), former president of the University of Chicago, wrote that “Education is the deliberate attempt to form human character in terms of an ideal”. Dewey (1959, p. 2) wrote that “It is commonplace to say that the development of character is the end of all school work”. Nathan M. Pusey (1964, p. 204), former president of Harvard University, wrote that “What Harvard wants more than anything now to give to our country and the world is educated men-and-­ women-of character”. In the twenty-first century, the most inclusive account of the multiple aims of education was presented by LeoNora M. Cohen (1999) in the Aims of Education. Briefly, the eight certainly not exhaustive or exclusive aims in her list are as follows. Intellectual Achievement: To provide students with academic knowledge and skills in order to prepare them for post-secondary education or the workforce… Prosocial Values: To train students for responsible citizenship and prepare them for adulthood through socializing them in the norms and values of society… Economic Competitiveness (social efficiency): To provide students with skills and knowledge needed to be competitive in a global economy…

78

A. C. Michalos Personal Growth: To help students find self-fulfillment, personal relevance, clarification of personal values, communication and self-expression skills, and development of effective learning styles… Socialization and Culture: To impart culture to students through great ideas of western culture, such as works of art, literary classics, and basic skills so that they are literate and cultured citizens and can participate intelligently in American society… Social Change: To help students become productive students that are capable of changing the social order through emphasis on social issues and solving social problems… Equal Educational Opportunity: To ensure that all students have a free education, common curriculum, opportunities for diverse students to attend the same school, and equality of financial expenditure in a given locality… Problem Solving: To teach students how to learn through the development of thinking, research and study skills so that they become excellent problem solvers and creative thinkers who are capable of dealing with change.

4.2  Individual and Social Sustainable Development Granting some apparently persistent proposed aims of education from the ancients to today and the great diversity of aims of education expressed in contemporary institutions, now I want to propose a very brief, general definition of the corporate social responsibility of universities suitable for characterizing the multi-aimed universities in our near future. The definition is broad enough to capture salient features of some universities today, but it is intended primarily as a stipulative definition for present purposes rather than a descriptively accurate lexical definition covering all existing universities (Michalos, 1969, pp. 381–383). The corporate social responsibility of universities is to aim for and achieve individual and social sustainable development. Insofar as an institution reaches these goals it is bound to make a positive contribution to the quality of life of everyone affected by it. This definition includes the necessary but somewhat troublesome phrase ‘sustainable development’. Although none of the remarks above by earlier scholars used the term ‘sustainable’, after the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission, 1987) it is really unavoidable. The following passages of the report articulate its commitment to human well-being very broadly conceived across many dimensions and generations. Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The satisfaction of human needs and aspirations is the major objective of development. The essential needs of vast numbers of people in developing countries – for food, clothing, shelter, jobs – are not being met, and beyond their basic needs these people have legitimate aspirations for an improved quality of life. A world in which poverty and inequity are endemic will always be prone to ecological and other crises. Sustainable development requires meeting the basic needs of all and extending to all the opportunity to satisfy their aspirations for a better life (pp. 43–44).

4  Corporate Social Responsibility in Universities and Sustainable Development

79

All of the activities around the globe throughout the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO’s) Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) 2005–2014 may be regarded as corollaries of these basic propositions. (I had the opportunity and honour of serving as a member of UNESCO’s Monitoring and Evaluation Expert Group (MEEG) which produced three reports summarizing accomplishments of the decade (UNESCO, 2007, 2009a, 2012)). The thematic developmental aims of ESD provide an umbrella framework that connects a number of UN initiatives and types of education that are identical to aims mentioned in the previous section of this paper and briefly summarized in my definition of universities’ corporate social responsibility. Among other UN initiatives, the umbrella covers the Dakar commitments in 2000 to Education for All (EFA), the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) for universal primary education, the UN Literacy Decade 2003–2012, the UN Secretary General’s Global Education First Initiative (GEFI), the Tbilisi +35 Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education (2012), and the inclusion of ESD in the outcomes of the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio +20) (UNESCO, 2009a; GEFI, 2013; Tbilisi, 2012; UN, 2012). Articles 8 and 9 of the Bonn Declaration (UNESCO, 2009b), which was accepted by the delegates at the UNESCO World Conference on Education for Sustainable Development in Bonn, Germany (31 March–2 April, 2009) emphasize the richness of the ideas covered by the phrase ‘sustainable development’ and education for it, i.e., for ESD. 8. ESD is based on values of justice, equity, tolerance, sufficiency and responsibility. It promotes gender equality, social cohesion and poverty reduction and emphasizes care, integrity and honesty, as articulated in the Earth Charter. ESD is underpinned by principles that support sustainable living, democracy and human well-being. Environmental protection and restoration, natural resource conservation and sustainable use, addressing unsustainable production and consumption patterns, and the creation of just and peaceful societies are also important principles underpinning ESD. 9. ESD emphasizes creative and critical approaches, long term thinking, innovation and empowerment for dealing with uncertainty, and for solving complex problems. ESD highlights the interdependence of environment, economy, society, and cultural diversity from local to global levels, and takes account of past, present and future (UNESCO, 2009b).

Building upon the MDG, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) established 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) in January 2016 to guide development work to 2030 in 170 member states. The goals are labeled no poverty, zero hunger, good health and well-being, quality education, gender equality, clean water and sanitation, affordable and clean energy, decent work and economic growth, industry innovation and infrastructure, reduced inequalities, sustainable cities and communities, responsible consumption and production, climate action, life below water, life on land; peace, justice and strong institutions, and partnerships for the goals. Each of the goals has an array of indicators and targets (UNDP, 2016).

80

A. C. Michalos

4.3  Quality of Life If one thinks of the quality of life of individuals and societies that one would like to develop and sustain for future generations, it will include publicly observable phenomena as seen from the perspective of any independent, unbiased and well-­ informed person (e.g., clean water and energy, natural resources, shelter and food) and privately observable phenomena as seen from the perspective of some particular person (e.g., pains, pleasures, hopes, fears, attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, satisfaction and happiness). Researchers call measures of observable phenomena ‘objective social indicators’ and measures of subjective phenomena ‘subjective social indicators’. Both kinds of social indicators may be used separately or in combinations. Combinations may be mere lists or collections of indicators designed to provide a more or less comprehensive, multi-dimensional description of the quality of life of an individual or society, or they may be aggregations or composites that reduce multiple dimensions to a single index or unidimensional scale. The United Nations Development Programme published its first version of the Human Development Index in its Human Development Report (UNDP, 1990), combining measures of life expectancy, educational attainment and incomes into a unidimensional scale of human development. Because different individuals, institutions or communities may prioritize different developmental aims depending on their particular mandates, purposes, circumstances and resources, ‘sustainable development’ may be defined and measured in a variety of different but appropriate ways. While one cannot know apriori if one’s own perspective is appropriate for everyone, it is possible to list a set of critical issues that every designer of measures of sustainable development must address. Explicitly or implicitly, every indicator or index must be specified by considering the following issues.

4.3.1  Critical Issues 1. Individual, group or both bases: e.g., per capita incomes are inferred attributes applying to individuals, while unemployment rates are inferred attributes applying to groups. 2. Spatial coordinates: e.g., the best size to understand air pollution may be different from the best size to understand crime. 3. Temporal coordinates: e.g., the optimal duration to understand resource depletion may be different from the optimal duration to understand the impact of sanitation changes. 4. Population composition: e.g., analyses by language, sex, age, education, ethnic background, income, etc. may reveal or conceal different things. 5. Domains of life composition: e.g., different domains like health, job, family life, environment, natural resources, energy production and consumption, etc. provide different perspectives and suggest different agendas for action.

4  Corporate Social Responsibility in Universities and Sustainable Development

81

6. Objective versus subjective indicators: e.g., relatively subjective appraisals of housing and neighborhoods by actual dwellers may be very different from relatively objective appraisals by “experts”. 7. Positive versus negative indicators: negative indicators seem to be easier to craft for some domains, which may create a biased assessment, e.g., in the health domain measures of morbidity and mortality may crowd out positive measures of wellbeing. 8. Input versus output indicators: e.g., expenditures on teachers and school facilities may give a very different view of the quality of an education system from that based on student performance on standardized tests, and both may be very different from assessing whether the populace at large is becoming more literate, knowledgeable, educated, and wise. 9. Benefits and costs: different measures of value or worth yield different overall evaluations as well as different evaluations for different people, e.g., the market value of child care is far below the personal, social or human value of having children well cared for. 10. Recipient populations: Who should be included as a recipient for particular benefits and costs? 11. Measurement scales: e.g., different measures of well-being provide different views of people’s well-being and relate differently to other measures. 12. Research personnel: e.g., different stakeholders often have very different views about what is important to monitor and how to evaluate whatever is monitored. 13. Report readers: e.g., different target audiences need different reporting media and/or formats. 14. Aggregation function: e.g., once indicators are selected, they must be combined, integrated, or aggregated somehow in order to get a coherent story or view. 15. Distributions: e.g., because average figures can conceal extraordinary and perhaps unacceptable variation, choices must be made about appropriate representations of distributions. 16. Distance impacts: e.g., people living in one place may access facilities (hospitals, schools, theatres, museums, libraries) in many other places at varying distances from their place of residence. 17. Causal relations: Prior to intervention, one must know what causes what (interaction effects), which requires relatively mainstream scientific research, which may not be available yet. At a minimum, correlations among variables should be explored with a view to discovering possible evidence of dependence or independence, redundancy and double-counting. 18. Rates of change: How rapidly and how much do indicator values change? Sustainability assessment demands knowledge of the stocks of resources required for the production of the stocks of dependent quality of life features, and rates of change of each set of stocks that will provide continued outputs without completely depleting inputs. 19. Discount rates: How much should one discount costs and benefits delivered to generations sometime in the future compared to those delivered to people today?

82

A. C. Michalos

20. Nesting levels: Individuals tend to live in family dwellings that are located in towns or cities, located in metropolitan areas, located in states in diverse ecological sheds, located in countries, located in regions, located in the world community. Different levels have interactions with other levels leading to different causal effects. What levels and interactions should be examined? 21. Confidence levels: What levels of confidence should one require to accept any particular claim or measure? 22. Auditors: Who should decide if any assessments are adequate or appropriate? 23. Auditing criteria: What criteria should be used to assess the adequacy of auditors’ assessments, the adequacy of the procedures used for audits and even the adequacy of the answers to questions raised with the previous 20 issues? (Updated from Michalos et al., 2011). The last question reveals the threat of either an infinite regress, a circular argument or an arbitrary end to analysis. Clearly, none of these options is very attractive, but it is in the very nature of foundational work that such a point must be reached. In any event, supposing that one had only two alternatives for each of the 23 Critical Issues (an absurdly conservative supposition), at least 8,388,608 different sets of indicators might be constructed. If nothing else, this suggests the size of the working space for indicator and index development, and it helps explain why different individuals and groups might construct very different comprehensive sets of indicators and indexes (measures) of the corporate social responsibility of universities. More on social indicators of quality of life may be found in Michalos (2003, 2017a, b, c, d) and Michalos et al. (2011).

4.4  U  niversity of London Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Statement That universities are multi-attributed or multi-dimensional entities is obvious because anyone can see that, among other things, they have buildings, grounds, students, libraries, professors, and diverse curricula leading to different degrees. What is not as easy to see is the fact that universities are incorporated fictional persons, i.e., corporations, with , among other things, charters or constitutions of some sort, operational policies and programs, governance structures, governing boards with appointed and/or elected officers, administrative departments of human resources, finances, communications, facilities and student affairs. The implications of this fact about universities was perfectly expressed by Shek and Hollister (2017, p. v). “In the business sector,” they wrote, “the notion of ‘corporate social responsibility’ (CSR) has received growing attention in the past few decades … As universities are corporations, the notion of CSR is applicable to universities to some extent.” The most salient difference between corporate universities and typical commercial corporations, these authors noted, were that the “maximization of profit is not a common goal of universities and educational service is different from commercial activities”. To emphasize these differences, Shek and Hollister prefer the term

4  Corporate Social Responsibility in Universities and Sustainable Development

83

‘university social responsibility’ (USR) to CSR. While the focus of profit maximization is certainly not a “common goal of universities” and is even absent from Cohen’s (1999) long list of the aims of universities, there are for-profit universities that have introduced profit as a central aim and even traditional universities that would not explicitly adopt this aim often do implicitly include it in the array of their functional aims. In any case, here I use CSR instead of USR which seems to emphasize the similarities rather than the differences between universities and other corporate entities. (Shek et  al. (2017) describe the USR Network that is devoted to collaborative initiatives in the interest of this model.) The task before us now is to examine the construction of the corporate social responsibility of universities in the light of our sketches of their multiple attributes, aims, sustainable development and quality of life. Rather than attempt to construct a hypothetical model from the elements before us, I am going examine an extraordinary existing and fully functional model. If anyone produces a set of criteria for best practices today in the field of corporate social responsibilities for universities, the University of London’s (UoL) practices will surely obtain high scores. In the following paragraphs, the CSR Statement of the UoL will be examined, giving special attention to the measurability of aims, policies and programs. Measurability is our focus of attention because it is a particularly useful attribute for monitoring and evaluating the University’s status quo and levels of change over time. Precise measures of the latter features are essential for assessing progress and constructing appropriate intervention strategies for the future. Given the multi-dimensional space in which designers of the Statement had to work, their primary focus was probably on descriptive accuracy and completeness, i.e., more than anything else, they probably wanted to avoid omitting and/or inaccurately describing anything that reasonable stakeholders would regard as central to the University’s responsibilities. Hopefully, what we will add to this focus is some suggestions to increase the power of the Statement to monitor and evaluate the current status and levels of change over time of operations of the UoL. The University of London is a federation of 4 Central Academic Bodies and 18 Recognized Bodies, founded in 1836 as a degree-awarding examination board. In 2016/2017 it had 213,270 students, 161,270 internal and 52,000 external distributed across 180 countries. The Central Academic Bodies include the University of London International Academy (UoLIA), School of Advanced Study (SAS), Senate House Library and the University of London Institute in Paris (ULIP). The 18 Recognized Bodies are colleges or universities, operating largely independently and ranging in size from 37,905 students at the University College London to 275 at the Institute of Cancer Research. The School of Advanced Study contains 8 institutes, e.g., Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, Institute of Classical Studies and Institute of Philosophy (http://london.ac.uk) (Accessed July 3, 2019). The CSR Statement applies directly to the Central Academic Bodies and is shared with the Recognized Bodies of the University. It is designed “to ensure and reassure that [the University’s] activities are carried out ethically, sustainably and for the public benefit” under 6 broad headings, namely, London and the World, Access and Student Experience, Public Benefit, Collaboration, Environmental Sustainability, and Managing a High-Performing Organization. Each of these

84

A. C. Michalos

domains contains a list of more or less specific CSR “principles” that are largely descriptive propositions indicating activities and policies relevant to the domain. Each page of the Statement contains a column of “principles” beside a column of additional material that to some extent illustrates activities undertaken that are relevant to one or more “principles”. In general, “The Statement is used to inform University decision-making, provide information for partners to enable them to work with us successfully, and provide a framework to guide our work within which our services are delivered… [it is] updated annually and formally reviewed once every five years in line with Strategy development” (UoL, 2017). Below I present in smaller font the “principles” for each heading, followed by a discussion of the additional material.

4.4.1  London and the World Principle “(1.1) As a globally connected university … we welcome students, staff and visitors from the EU and beyond, to collaborate on research projects and to maintain our European academic networks. (1.2) We engage with our network of member institutions and the global community to develop our distance learning programmes delivered to 180 countries. (1.3) We undertake national and international research in collaboration with other institutions. (1.4) We are a major landlord, tenant and employer in the local community…We act as a custodian of many historic and heritage buildings. While ensuring the historic importance of the estate is protected, the University is also committed to maintaining, enhancing and acquiring its property to ensure that the environment is fit for the highest academic achievement, encourages public access and that developments meet our Sustainable Building Specification” (UoL, 2017, p. 2).

Additional material aligned with each of the “principles” asserts that SAS and ULIP will work with students to assure a smooth transition following Brexit and will collaborate with other institutions in finding and funding research projects. As well, students will be aided in finding suitable UoL Recognized Teaching Centres in 120 institutions around the world. Because most UoL programs are designed for independent study, it is relatively easy for them to access facilities, lectures, libraries and faculty at such Centres. While measurable performance indicators are not suggested for these activities, it is likely that administrative statistics will be available to monitor and track trends in numbers of students registering in different programs connected to different Centres. Regarding the fourth “principle”, there is a very detailed Estates Strategy 2015–2020 for the School of Asian, African, Near and Middle East Studies (SOAS), including 6 performance indicators, namely, space provision, functional suitability, bedspaces per student FTE [Full Time Equivalent], investment and condition, facilities and management costs, and environmental performance. Each indicator has its own target for development. For example, there are two environmental performance indicators, “energy emissions per student FTE” and “estimated mass of waste generated per student FTE”, and the target identified for both is simply “To reduce our current level of carbon emission and waste mass”.

4  Corporate Social Responsibility in Universities and Sustainable Development

85

4.4.2  Access and the Student Experience Principle “(2.1) Academic freedom is of paramount importance to the University. We encourage debate and discussion, and support the right of peaceful protest where this does not threaten the health and safety of staff, students or visitors, and does not infringe upon others’ rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association or any other legally-­ protected rights and freedoms. (2.2) We deliver programmes in a wide range of disciplines and subject areas … priced competitively to enable students, both in the UK and overseas, to widen their access to education. (2.3) We encourage access from students who have work or caring responsibilities by enabling our students to access course materials via a variety of modes … We also support students in developing their skills of independent research and online training … (2.4) We facilitate access to funding for SAS and ULIP postgraduate students … [and] International Programmes students … (2.5) We manage a range of trust funds and endowments which support fellowships and scholarships, prizes, chairs and lectureship funds … (2.6) We operate the largest University Careers Service in the UK… . (2.7) … We voluntarily adopt the Universities UK/Guild HE Code of Practice for the management of student accommodation. We work hard to provide a friendly environment in which our residents can live, study and socialise … Students are encouraged to participate in the community and learn to be self-directed and self-disciplined in behaviour … (2.8) We work toward improving and increasing access to secure, safe and affordable housing for students in London by actively engaging with public policy making bodies and by providing an accredited private housing advice service. (2.9) We ensure sustainable development and sustainable living is understood by students in our residential accommodation. (2.10) We encourage and support students who take part in fundraising or other charitable activities. (2.11) We provide a range of student recreational and support services … (2.12) We encourage students to have a voice through our student voice group in International Programmes, ULIP Student Union and SAS Staff Student Liaison Committees” (UoL, 2017, pp. 3–5).

There are at least 20 items in this set of student experiences that would be best monitored with subjective indicators using surveys with Likert-type questions. For example, with response categories running from strongly agree (5 points), agree (4), undecided (3), disagree (2), strongly disagree (1), student questionnaires would have statements like: Using a five-point response scale, indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following items. The University of London advocates (a) Academic freedom ____ (b) Peaceful protest ____ (c) Online training ____ (d) Community participation ____ Regarding additional material related to student experiences, “Principle” 2.5 could be monitored using administrative data on trust funds, fellowships, prizes, and so on. “Principles” 2.7 and 2.8 provide a number of measurable items related to student housing (again) and a rather difficult set of proposals around the duty to “prevent people from being drawn into terrorism”. The Counter Terrorism and Security Act 2015 places an obligation on SOAS UoL to comply with what is ambiguously referred to as the “Prevent Duty”, which

86

A. C. Michalos

someone unfamiliar with the law might think requires preventing duty of some sort rather than a duty to prevent something. The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) is charged with monitoring duty compliance as Relevant Higher Education Bodies’ (RHEB) “commitment to freedom of speech and the rationality underpinning the advancement of knowledge means that they represent one of our most important arenas for challenging extremist views and ideologies”. The HEFCE passed the operationalization of the tasks of compliance to the RHEB, one of which is UoL. Thus, UoL has to produce policies and procedures concerning public events and speakers that balance student, staff and visitors’ freedom of speech and academic freedom with their “prevent duty”, “put in place a system for assessing and rating risks associated with any planned events”, secure the “active engagement from senior management of the university…with other partners including police”, “carry out a risk assessment to look at institutional policies regarding the campus and student welfare, including equality and diversity and the safety and welfare of students and staff”, “develop a Prevent action plan to set out the actions they will take to mitigate this risk”, “demonstrate that it is willing to undertake Prevent awareness training”, provide “sufficient chaplaincy and pastoral support…for all students”, and finally, “The Secretary of State will appoint an appropriate body to assess the bodies’ compliance with the Prevent duty. A separate monitoring framework will be published setting out the details of how this body will undertake monitoring of the duty” (HEFCE, 2017). Exactly how the UoL or any of the RHEB will be able to design compliance-­ monitoring procedures without knowing “the details” of the “monitoring framework” that will be designed by the “appropriate body” to monitor compliance sometime in the future, is beyond me. The whole scheme around the “Prevent duty” reminds me of the remark Bernard Shaw often attributed to Shakespeare that “governments do such things that would make the angels weep”. “The Universities UK/Guild HE Code of Practice for the management of student accommodation” is one of a number of codes providing measurable criteria indicating compliance with “good practice principles” for “houses of multiple occupation” under the Housing Act 2004. Those managing and controlling such houses voluntarily agree to service their facilities according to the Code and receive formal accreditation for doing so. Failure to deliver appropriate services may lead to a loss of accreditation, but “does not create civil liability”. “Universities UK is the major representative body” whose “members are the executive heads of UK universities. Guild HE is a recognised representative organization” providing “a forum…to exchange useful practices and good ideas”…[The Code of Practice] assumes an establishment’s compliance with all statutory requirements as contained within housing, building, planning, disability discrimination, equal opportunities, data protection and other relevant legislation, as well as good practice principles such as the “Support and Guidance for Equality and Diversity’ published by the Equality Challenge Unit (ECU)” (Universities UK/Guild HE, 2018, pp. 3–7).

“Statutory requirements” of the Code are generally described as things that “must” be done while requirements of “good practice” are described as things that “should” be done. For example, higher education establishments “should ensure that staff are appropriately trained in order to deliver the standards required by the

4  Corporate Social Responsibility in Universities and Sustainable Development

87

code including equality and diversity” versus “All properties must be constructed, altered or refurbished, and maintained, in accordance with the appropriate building, planning and housing legislation”. Examination of the requirements expressed on pp. 7–20 of the Code reveals that more than 96 of them are statutory, with many individually numbered items containing more than one requirement. Individual “establishments themselves will be the primarily accountable bodies for the management and operation of the Code”, while a Governance Board and a Sector Advisory Group are appointed with independent terms of reference from the higher education sector to generally oversee the Code’s management. For our purposes, it is enough to suggest that, given the comprehensive nature of the Code’s requirements and the precision with which they are written, it would be relatively easy to select a sample set of them to include as objective or subjective measures of the university’s social responsibility. The Code’s most attractive features as a source of indicators create a danger of giving them a disproportionate weight in measuring overall social responsibility. With the exception of (2.9) on sustainable development and living, the remaining additional material provided for the section on Access and Student Experience is concerned with a variety of student activities and support services related to them. Since we are not given any information on how “sustainable development” and “sustainable living” are understood, we cannot craft any specific measurable indicators of achievement. Presumably, however, one would need some personal reports of some sort of students’ understanding in the form of subjective indicators. (2.10) has a couple brief supplements announcing the freezing of student fees for 2019/2020 and illustrating a student charitable activity at ULIP, the 2017 Tower to Tower Bike Ride Challenge. The aim of the latter was to raise ₺10,000 for a mental health charity called Mind. From the students’ point of view, frozen fees would probably be regarded as an objective positive indicator, but from the university’s point of view increased fees or at least increased government contributions would be preferable. So, it is unclear if such figures should be used as positive or negative indicators, or used at all for measuring achievement of social responsibility goals. Amount of funds raised for charities would be a clear objective and positive indicator. The School of Advanced Study’s Disability Policy is included as a major support document. “The Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful to discriminate against disabled people and places a positive duty to promote disability equality.” Accordingly, SAS’s Policy is designed “to take into account individual need and to work with disabled students to find appropriate and practical solutions to problems that might arise”. A Disability Advisor will contact any student who has identified herself or himself as disabled, and the Advisor will work with the student to construct a support plan that might involve, for example, “arranging for non-medical help (i.e., specialist tutors, mentors, note takers, transcription support), … examination arrangements… extensions and deferrals… physical access to courses, advice to staff regarding disability awareness, advice about the Disabled Students Allowance”. Measurable indicators might include numbers of students requiring support, types of support required, costs of support, and student perceptions of helpfulness of supports (SAS, 2017).

88

A. C. Michalos

Other documents describing diverse student supports include information on The Careers Group that is “the largest higher education careers and employability service in Europe, with over 200 staff members in a range of roles relating to careers”; Citizens Advice that undertakes research and offers policy advice on things like welfare, housing, work, energy, debt and money, domestic abuse and public services; National Homelessness Advice Service Website; and Student Central that provides a single source of information about the London Student Community and a broad array of student clubs and activities, e.g., regarding dance, sports, martial arts, music, religion, culture and water-based activities (UoL, 2017). It is unclear to me why services publicly available to any resident of the UK should be counted as part of the social responsibilities of the University of London. Regarding services provided through if not by Student Central, there would be opportunities for crafting objective indicators of numbers and types of services provided, and subjective indicators of students’ satisfaction with what is provided.

4.4.3  Public Benefit Principle “(3.1) The University is an exempt charity under terms of the Charities Act 2011 and is required to clearly identify benefits related to our charitable aims. As well as making a significant contribution to the advancement of education, the University, on behalf of the federation, manages a range of trust funds and endowments. Some of the trust funds are used to fund an ongoing series of public lectures, recitals and readings generally in areas connected with the arts and humanities. (3.2) The University ensures that donations received are recognised and expended in line with the intentions of the donor and the University Donor Charter. (3.3) Our ambition is to position the University as a leading centre of excellence for public engagement and we have developed a public engagement strategy to realise this. (3.4) We encourage public engagement and local community involvement through: Opening up events and facilities to the public, participation in specific community engagement projects, access and enhancement to University buildings, an innovators scheme which offers small grants for researchers to engage with non-academic audiences. (3.5) The School of Advanced Study, ULIP, UoLIA and Senate House Library deliver a wide range of academic engagement including seminars, workshops, lectures, and conferences. The majority of events are free and open to the public… (3.6) We also undertake engagement with the UoL community, alumni and friends. (3.7) We encourage staff to engage in activities that benefit the wider community and society such as payroll giving and engaging in charitable activities … time off for civic and public duties” (UoL, 2017, pp. 5–6).

The phrase “public benefit” appeared earlier, but this section and its additional material provide a more thorough description of the meaning of the phrase according to the Charities Act 2011. As explained by the Charities Commission, “there must be clearly identified benefits related to the aims of the charity; that the benefits must be to the public, or to a section of the public …”. In the case of the UoL, generally speaking, it should “promote education of a university standard and the advancement of knowledge and learning by teaching and research; and … encourage the achievement and maintenance of the highest academic standards”. Regarding its most salient public benefit, the UoL’s Statement notes that the names of many of its

4  Corporate Social Responsibility in Universities and Sustainable Development

89

courses reveal the benefit, e.g., courses in “Poverty Reduction, Applied Educational Leadership and Management, Environmental Management, Livestock Health and Production, Clinical Trials, Epidemiology and Infectious Diseases”. Annual financial statements for all the colleges and administrative units of the University are required as part of the Public Benefit Statements given to the HEFCE, which include information on trust funds, scholarships, prizes and so on (http://www.london. ac.uk/charitable-­status.html) (Accessed July 12, 2019). Presumably, objective indicators of social responsibility (3.1) could be drawn from the extensive public benefits. The UoL publishes a Donor Charter that describes its responsibilities to donors, donors’ rights, uses of donations, data protection, complaints procedure and the university’s freedom of information policy. Periodic surveys of current and past donors are often taken by universities as part of in-house evaluation of the management of development offices. So, subjective indicators from such surveys could be added to objective administrative data to construct a comprehensive account of development offices’ social responsibility (http://www.london.ac.uk/donor-­charter. html) (Accessed July 16, 2019). Public Engagement (3.3–3.7) is highly developed in the UK. In 2008, a National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE) and 6 collaborative centres were founded and funded by the HEFCE. After 2011, the latter’s funding has been supplemented by other sources. “Public engagement”, according to NCCPE, “describes the myriad of ways in which the activity and benefits of higher education and research can be shared with the public. Engagement is by definition a two-way process, involving interaction and listening, with the goal of generating mutual benefit”. In the view of the Centre’s operators, a great variety of terms are supposed to be synonymous with ‘public engagement’, namely, “outreach, patient-involvement, collaborative research, citizen science, participatory arts, lifelong learning, community engagement, and engagement with partners”. What these terms have in common “is describing an aspiration to better connect the work of universities and research institutes with society”. If the NCCPE definition of ‘public engagement’ and the assumption of the broad array of synonyms are accepted, the world is awash in publicly engaged universities. The Manifesto for Public Engagement that NCCPE produced and SAS signed (3.5) commits the 8 institutes to the following statements: We believe that universities and research institutes have a major responsibility to contribute to society through their public engagement, and that they have much to gain in return. We are committed to sharing our knowledge, resources and skills with the public, and to listening to and learning from the expertise and insight of the different communities with which we engage. We are committed to developing our approach to managing, supporting and delivering public engagement for the benefit of staff, students and the public, and to sharing what we learn about effective practice (https://www.publicengagement.ac.uk) (Accessed July 2, 2019).

NCCPE believes that “There is compelling evidence that public engagement is critical to a healthy higher order education institution…Research funders expect

90

A. C. Michalos

universities to support public engagement… [and] you [signatories] can access help to develop your work in this area”. The UoL provides several detailed reviews of activities and events undertaken in the interest of public engagement, e.g., see http:// www.london.ac.uk/open_house__london_senate_house.html, http://www.sas. ac.uk/public-­engagement, and http://www/londoninternational.ac.uk/community/ events#,WLA5yl_XKc0 (Accessed July l14, 2019). A variety of objective and subjective indicators could be constructed from the material in these reviews, e.g., numbers of events/activities, numbers of participants, expenditures and/or revenues, personal reports of participants’ experiences obtained from surveys. As well, indicators related to staff engagement in “civic and public duties” (3.7) could be constructed (http://www.london.ac.uk/4150.html) (Accessed July 15, 2019).

4.4.4  Collaboration Principle “(4.1) The relationship between the central University and the Member Institutions of the University is fundamental to our success and the federation is a focal point for networking, knowledge sharing and collaboration… (4.2) We promote Senate House as an academic hub by hosting regular meetings for the Member Institutions, sharing best practice and encourage collaboration in academic and other areas. (4.3) We work with Member Institutions to deliver and develop flexible and distance learning programmes in 180 countries. (4.4) We partner with Member Institutions of the University to deliver taught academic programmes and research. (4.5) We work with other organisations to facilitate public engagement with humanities. (4.6) We are using Heritage Lottery Funding to work with volunteers, local history societies, schools, borough archives and community groups to reach out to the wider public. (4.7) SAS and Senate House Library are increasing access through a sustained programme of digitisation in collaboration with other organisations. (4.8) We are members of and actively engage with a wide range of higher education collaborative groups” (UoL, 2017, pp. 7–8).

The principle of distinction between public engagement and collaboration is difficult to discern. It looks as if the aim is to separate cooperative activities and events between members of the UoL and outsiders (public engagement) versus activities and events involving cooperation among members of UoL (collaboration). The problem is that the focus of attention in the CSR Statement treats many of the activities and events that involve insider and outsider cooperation as evidence of both public engagement and collaboration. Thus, “principles” 4.1–4.4 seem to be strictly speaking matters of collaboration, while “principles” 4.5–4.8 are matters of public engagement. I will comment on the additional material presented for all “principles” in this section without further discussion of this problem because the problem can be easily solved by moving some “principles” to the third section and perhaps sharpening the principle of distinction among them. Regarding (4.1), we have already seen evidence of collaboration among all members of the UoL in (1.1–1.4), (2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5–2.9, 2.11, 2.12) and (3.1, 3.2, 3.6). Senate House Library (4.2, 4.7) received its first collection in 1871 and opened as the central library of the UoL in 1877. Its collection is focused on arts, humanities

4  Corporate Social Responsibility in Universities and Sustainable Development

91

and social sciences, and its links with the M25 Consortium of Academic Libraries and other groups makes millions of books, journals and digital resources through the Humanities Digital Library available to members of the university community and others. Besides its holdings, the Senate House Library participates in all the activities of modern libraries, e.g., lectures, seminars, visits, special exhibits and rental space (http://www.senatehouselibrary.ac.uk/our-­collections/databases-­and-­ ersources) (Accessed August 3, 2019). All of the UoL member institutions offer distance learning involving 180 countries (4.3–4.4), with the University of London Institute in Paris (ULIP) in partnership with Queen Mary University of London offering unique programmes with students immersed in the daily life and culture of Paris. The Paris operation offers “a small friendly academic community”, “internationally excellent research”, “high level of academic, pastoral and financial support”, with all student services provided with a fully bilingual staff. Studies are taught in French and English, with “minors and majors in International Politics, Business, and all … postgraduate courses taught in English”. At the end, students have a “prestigious University of London degree” and access to the career placement University of London Careers Group (http://www.ulip.london.ac.uk/why-­study-­here/10-­reasons-­study-­us) (Accessed August 2, 2019). At a minimum, the library and the ULIP programmes would certainly have standard administrative data that could be drawn upon for objective indicators measuring performance over time. Besides all the cooperative activities mentioned for (3.3–3.5, 3.7), as indicated above, various members of the UoL participate in public engagement for (4.5–4.8). For example, the School of Advanced Study (SAS) is cooperating with “nine other UK universities, several non-UK universities, city councils, the Royal Opera House, Tyneside Cinema, political think tank Chatham House, and a sixth-form college” in a ₺3.9 million research project aimed “to demonstrate the UK’s critical need for modern languages research and teaching”. Primarily involving Arabic, Spanish and Russian, “the project will incorporate perspectives from literary, media and cultural studies, international relations, the arts (music, film and theatre), linguistics and visual anthropology”. “In 2014–15, SAS: welcomed 805 research fellows and associates; held 2,073 research dissemination events; received 23.1 million visits to its digital research resources and platforms; and received 213,456 visits to its specialist libraries” (http://www.sas.ac.uk/about-­us/news/school-­advanced-­study-­helps-­launch-­ %C2%A339-­million-­modern-­languages-­research-­project) (Accessed August 2, 2019). This sort of numerical data provides a fine basis for measuring development of SAS over time, as well as building strategic plans for the future. UoL’s CSR Statement also mentions the university’s cooperation with Layers of London and the annual Bloomsbury Festival as part of its social responsibility activity. Layers of London is a “map-based history website developed by the Institute of Historical Research” (one of SAS’s nine member institutions). It has partnerships with the British Library, the National Archives and other public institutions as well as people “at the borough level and city-wide, through crowd-sourcing, volunteer, schools and internship programmes”. The layers of historical material include “historic maps, old pictures of buildings, films, recordings, as well as stories about

92

A. C. Michalos

people who have lived and worked in London over the centuries” (http://www. alpha.layersoflondon.org) (Accessed August 5, 2019). The annual Bloomsbury Festival was initiated in 2006 covering 5 days each October in which “the streets, parks, museums, galleries, laboratories and public and private buildings … play host to up to 130 events which attract a significant audience from across London and beyond … Outside the Festival period, Bloomsbury Festival delivers community engagement and arts projects across the year” (http://www.bloomsburyfestival.org. uk) (Accessed August 5, 2019). Measurable indicators of the contribution to UoL’s social responsibility portfolio might include typical organizational/administrative data like revenues and expenditures, participants (employers, employees, volunteers, visitors) and possibly some survey research data indicating participant perceptions of the Festival events. The UoL CSR Statement includes reference to the Cardinal Hume Centre that provides “homeless young people, families in need and local people the support they need to realise their full potential. The Centre focuses on four areas of need: employment … housing … education and skills … and legal status”. The Institute of Commonwealth Studies “delivered mini lectures on Shakespeare to homeless young people” through the Centre (http://www.cardinalhumecentre.org.uk/2016/02/ academics-­learn-­from-­centres-­students) (Accessed August 2, 2019). This activity seems to have been a one-off contribution. The next two items of the additional material under the heading “Collaboration” in the Statement are produced by Universities UK (UUK). UUK (4.8) is already familiar to us. Besides this organization of university executives from across UK, there are similar organizations for directors of finance, estates, human resources and legal practitioners. All of these organizations publish many descriptive documents for their particular members. For our purposes, there are four documents produced and/or funded by UUK that should be mentioned from which important objective and subjective indicators may be taken. The data presented in the documents are aggregated for all universities, sampled students and/or sampled adult populations, but for most if not all university and student data it is possible to freely access raw data by university and student groups. Of course, no individuals are revealed in any of the raw data and I have not drilled down to the level of UoL for any information. Higher Education in Facts and Figures 2018 (Universities UK, 2018a) contains administrative statistics mostly for the years 2015–2017 on students by country (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland) of institution, level and mode of study, 18-year-old entry rates, entry rates for most disadvantaged 18-year-olds (2009–2018), sex, subject area, age and ethnicity, domicile and level of study, top ten domiciles for non-UK students, non-continuation rates of UK-domiciled full-time, first degree entrants after their first year (2006–2016), qualifications awarded by mode of study, destinations of UK and other EU-domiciled leavers by activity, unemployment rates and median salaries in England. Staff figures are also available by nationality and employment function, academic staff by nationality and cost centre, academic staff by sex, mode of employment and age, academic professorial staff by sex and ethnicity (2012–2017). Clearly, a wide variety of objective indicators can be taken or built from this great array of statistics. One could select UoL students and staff, and compare groups by age, ethnicity, sex, etc., compare UoL data with country and UK

4  Corporate Social Responsibility in Universities and Sustainable Development

93

data, explore strengths and weaknesses in performance, and designate targeted groups for special attention. Patterns and Trends in UK Higher Education 2018 (Universities UK, 2018b) contains trends in administrative statistics on students, staff and finances mostly from 2007 to 2017. Some trend data are available for most of the indicators mentioned in the previous paragraph, providing many opportunities to examine changes over time. The introduction of trend data on finances allows one to treat some indicators as outputs and relate them to some financial indicators as inputs. Financial indicators include total income to UK higher education, teaching income by source, research income by source, income from knowledge-exchange activities by partner, and operating expenditures by area of activity. Two trends regarding students from areas of low university participation across the UK stand out immediately as candidates for a social responsibility report, if relevant UoL data are available. In the period from 2008 to 2017, “18-year-old, full-time, undergraduate acceptances from low participation areas” across the UK increased from about 7% to 10%, while one year after entry in the period 2006–2007 to 2015–2016 there was practically no change in the percentage (8%) of those students who were “no longer in higher education” (Universities UK, 2018b, p.  18). It is also worth noting that for the 2016–2017 academic year, the “Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education … survey showed that six months after completing their courses, 91% of respondents were in work or further study” (Universities UK, 2018b, p. 21). Public Perceptions of UK Universities (Universities UK, 2018c) is a report of results of part of a random sample survey of adults 18 years old or older, by the consultancy firm BritainThinks, taken in May 2018  in 8 cities of the UK.  The reported total sample size for most items of the questionnaire is 2063. Universities UK commissioned the research to see “what the public thinks of universities”, to “benchmark public sentiment towards UK universities, and level of awareness of the public benefit of universities”, to provide “qualitative insight on the drivers behind the views the public hold [and] identify the message and themes that will resonate most with the public”. Since there do not appear to have been any questions specifically connected to any identifiable universities, the data cannot be attributed to UoL or any other university. However, the survey is being mentioned here because it provides questions that would be useful for UoL’s social responsibility report if there were interest in undertaking a similar survey to obtain public perceptions of UoL and perhaps compare results with those of the national survey. It is also useful in providing some information on issues of general interest for our purposes. For example, 61% of respondents agreed that “a university degree is only worth it if it will help you get a better job”, 58% agreed that “universities do not equip graduates with the skills they need to be successful in the workplace”, 48% agreed that “the expense of going to university outweighs the benefits of doing so”, “55% agreed that “people who go to universities can get better jobs than those who don’t”, 70% agreed that “knowing that 725,000 students volunteered in their local area in 2014 makes them more positive about universities”, “research is seen as the single biggest benefit of universities”, and “ 78% say they are positive or neutral toward universities” (Universities UK, 2018c). Regarding jobs-related opinions, it is worth noting that in fact “In 2017, median graduate salaries [in England] were ₺10,000

94

A. C. Michalos

higher than non-graduate salaries. The high-skill employment rate was 56% higher for postgraduates than non-graduates” (Universities UK, 2018a, p. 13). National Student Survey – NSS (Office for Students, 2019) is an annual survey “managed by the OfS [Office of Students, formerly HEFCE] on behalf of the UK funding and regulatory bodies … [providing] students’ opinions on the quality of their courses… Every university in the UK takes part in the NSS, as do many colleges and alternative providers”. In the context of the survey, the word ‘course’ designates what students in North America would regard as a full course of study or program of study, i.e., a set of individual courses devoted to diverse subjects leading to diverse degrees, e.g., individual courses like Introduction to Philosophy, Organic Chemistry or Shakespeare’s Comedies. In many universities, students also have evaluation surveys for specific teachers and/or courses in contrast to full programs or courses of study. In 2019, the online survey had essentially a convenience sample of 330,035 respondents from 403 universities, colleges and alternative providers, with a response rate of 72%. Because all data are available online, it would be possible to extract results for UoL and many results have direct relevance to issues of the University’s social responsibility. The core of the questionnaire contains 28 statements formulated for five Lykert-type responses: “definitely agree, mostly agree, neither agree nor disagree, mostly disagree, definitely disagree”, and one off-­ scale response “not applicable”. The 28 statements are divided in to 8 categories, with one statement saying “Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of the course”. Eighty-four percent of respondents checked “definitely agree” or “mostly agree” to this statement. The percentages of respondents checking these responses for the 8 categories are as follows. (1) The teaching on my course: 84%. (2) Learning opportunities: 83%. (3) Assessment and feedback: 73%. (4) Academic support: 80%. (5) Organisation and management: 75%. (6) Learning resources: 86%. (7) Learning community: 76%. (8) Student voice: 74%. A researcher could use these total sample scores or scores on some or all of the 27 specific statements spread across the categories as benchmarks to assess the UoL scores, or craft a unique set of statements to capture more precisely the UoL circumstances and purposes. At the University of Northern British Columbia, in the period from 1998 to 2005 we built our own questionnaires with a set of core items used every year and additional items each year addressing relatively transient issues. Among other things, we learned that higher percentages of first year than fourth year students tended to respond to the survey, most students used the positive parts of the Lykert-type scale, and fourth year students tended to be more critical than first year students (Michalos & Orlando, 2006). Currently, Canada and the USA sponsor a National Survey of Student Engagement focused on “the amount of time and effort students put into their studies and other educationally purposeful activities”. Questionnaire items are organized under four broad headings that yield a number of indicators that might be of use for the UoL CSR Statement. The four headings are Academic Challenge, Learning with Peers, Experiences with Faculty and Campus Environment. (http://NSSEindiana.edu/2019_Institutional_Report) Accessed October 3, 2019).

4  Corporate Social Responsibility in Universities and Sustainable Development

95

4.4.5  Environmental Sustainability Principle “(5.1) We manage the estate to comply with all relevant UK and EU legislative requirements and obligations, and maintain achievement of ISO14001 as the minimum standard for environmental management. (5.2) We recognise environmental sustainability as one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century and commit to ensuring that all the University strategies and operations consider the environmental aspects and impacts. As part of this commitment we are implementing carbon management projects and practices to achieve carbon savings of 43% by 2020 and 80% by 2050 (in each case, from the 2010 benchmark). (5.3) We are committed to ensuring staff understand sustainable development and sustainable living. We encourage staff to use sustainable forms of transport through the promotion of cycling, walking and public transport. (5.4) We developed and implemented a total waste management strategy to reduce waste and increase recycling. (5.5) We take action to improve the biodiversity of the surrounding area of the University. (5.6) We encourage healthy and sustainable food options for staff, students and the public by developing a Sustainable Food and Fairtrade Policy and providing sustainable food and beverage options in the University’s catering and hospitality services. (5.7) We are committed to continual improvement of the environmental management system to enhance our environmental performance and we encourage sustainability collaboration through publicising our annual sustainability report, sharing best practice and offering support to the University’s member institutions and the wider higher education community” (UoL, 2017, pp. 9–10).

The ISO 14001 standard for environmental management (5.1) is described as an “international standard that specifies requirements for an effective environmental management system” by its developers, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)”. “Rather than establishing environmental performance requirements … [it is] part of the management system used to manage environmental aspects, fulfil compliance obligations, and address risks and opportunities”. Once an organization has constructed its own environmental policies, ISO14001 can be used to craft a sustainable management system or strategy for managing the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the policies. Conformity with the ISO standard can be assessed in-house or by external certification. ISO 14001 is one of a family of management standards including, for example, environmental performance evaluation, environmental communication, and life cycle assessment (ISO, 2015). The total set of proposed sustainability issues covered in this section of the UoL CSR Statement (5.1–5.7) is considerably broader than that covered in the Bonn Declaration articles 8 and 9. As well, there are many more issues concerning the environment and resources in the CSR Statement and more social justice issues in the Bonn Declaration and the 17 SDG. In fact, one of the disappointing observations made by the Monitoring and Evaluation Expert Group was that there was a deep division in UNESCO’s members between those who conceptualized the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development as primarily about environmental issues and those who conceptualized it as about the interactions among environmental and social justice issues (UNESCO, 2007). Additional material for the Environmental Sustainability section of the UoL CSR Statement is drawn primarily from its Sustainability Report 2016, a graphical summary of which is available online (UoL, 2016). I had no response to my request for

96

A. C. Michalos

a copy of the full report and I believe the online graphical summary is a poor substitute. The summary illustrates the 9 categories of the Report and mentions some salient features of it. Here is a brief review. (1) Energy: 100% of the university’s electricity comes from renewable resources. There is smart meter coverage across the whole estate. Energy performance brought a 50% CO2 saving over 2010. (2) Carbon Emissions: There has been a 40% carbon reduction since 2010. The target for 2020 is 43%. The strategy includes less carbon intensive fuels, more efficient heating and cooling policies, increased staff and student engagement and behaviour change, space optimization and sustainable building specification. (3) Estates: The core of the Masterplan is sustainability. Senate House lower ground floor was refurbished with 100% joinery timber, insulation, LED lighting and cyclist showers. Two and a half tonnes of construction waste was removed from construction sites and 100% was recycled. There was a 77% improvement in carbon emissions by recycling versus landfill. (4) Waste: The UoL 50% recycling rate for 2016 was not as good as the 65% rate for 2015, due to extending service to new buildings with relatively poor recycling rates. The 2020 target is 80% recycling. (5) People: Sustainability champions recycled jewellery for charity and saved 57,000 disposable cups since 2015. University charity partners raised money through raffles, bake sales, choir events. UoL was a member of the Environmental Association of Universities and Colleges. A sustainable food and fairtrade policy places sustainability into catering services. There is a Wellbeing Week, and clubs for mental and physical health for staff and students. (6) Students: There is a student sustainability engagement and waste awareness raising programs. (7) Biodiversity: There are bee hives and new composters. (8) Procurement: Policies are in line with ISO 14001:2015 for making sustainable purchases. Facilities management weights sustainability heavily in all new contracts. New paper is made from waste straw. (9) Future: UoL is a sector leader in sustainability. Regarding food and fairtrade policy (5.6), UoL’s catering contractor, Aramark, is a company with over 270,000 employees spread across 22 countries, servicing millions of customers. Aramark’s “mission is to enrich and nourish lives” by weaving sustainability considerations into all of their operations. In broad strokes, they serve their customers through responsible sourcing of products that are “local, seasonal and responsibly raised and grown”, through “reducing, recycling, reusing and composting” waste, “saving water and energy”, reducing “fuel usage and emissions”, helping customers make “healthy food, nutrition and lifestyles choices”, serving “community needs”, and engaging in philanthropic activities (Aramark, 2016). This section of the CSR Statement seems to have many more opportunities for rigorous measurement than other sections and more opportunities to connect resource and environmental issues to a variety of social issues. Categories 5. People and 6. Students could be more thoroughly integrated with other categories and material from other sections so that sustainable social development is more clearly the focus of the document rather than environmental sustainability and other facets of the corporation’s activities.

4  Corporate Social Responsibility in Universities and Sustainable Development

97

4.4.6  High Performing Organisation Principle “(6.1) We are committed to being a good employer with a representative and inclusive workforce who contribute positively to the local community, the education sector in the UK and the global community. (6.2) We are committed to ensuring that all staff are fully supported in their work, have a good working environment, are fairly rewarded and are able to maintain a good work-life balance. This is achieved by putting in place good employment policies, offering competitive terms and conditions to directly employed staff, ensuring contractors do the same for their workforce and enabling new ways of working to allow staff to achieve a better work-life balance. We conduct and respond to a biennial staff survey. We also engage positively with recognized Trade Unions that represent and protect the interests of their members. (6.3) the University offers a confidential employee assistance programme which offers telephone based support and advice and face to face counselling when needed. (6.4) We are also committed to ensuring staff achieve their full potential through training, mentoring and other staff development activities. (6.5) We are fully committed to embedding considerations of equality, diversity and inclusion in what we do. (6.6) We ensure the financial sustainability of all our operations and endeavour to conduct our business in accordance with the seven Nolan principles on Standards in Public Life. We follow a fair and ethical financial practice with a commitment to responsible procurement and ethical investment. (6.7) We aim to deal with business partners with transparency and fairness and to be compliant with our obligations under all relevant legal, regulatory and tax requirements in all of the jurisdictions that the University and its subsidiaries operate in. (6.8) The University’s investment policy takes account of the level of investment from expendable and permanent endowments, and the perpetual need of these endowments to maintain capital and achieve a return to fund expenditure on activities in line with the purpose of the endowment. It also manages its investments in line with its own ethical investment policy. (6.9) The University’s financial activity is undertaken with reference to agreed guidance and policies. As part of their conditions of employment all staff are required to follow such policies to ensure the University conducts its activity in an appropriate fashion.(6.10) We are committed to responsible and sustainable procurement through our procurement policy and have developed a toolkit to help buyers in the University purchase in a sustainable way. This includes challenging our suppliers to provide the University with sustainable products and services. (6.11). We are proactively examining supply chain transparency with respect to the Modern Slavery Act 2015, for example in relation to our Collection Management Policy in the Senate House Library (UoL, 2017, pp. 11–12).

The fit between the list of “Principles” and the supporting material is a bit loose, but some very important documents appear in the latter. The most notable omission is the absence of any measure of success obtaining good work-life balance. “Principle” (6.6) makes an explicit commitment to “conduct our business in accordance with the seven Nolan principles on Standards in Public Life”. In October 1994, the Prime Minister established a standing Committee on Standards in Public Life “to examine current concerns about standards of conduct of all holders of public office, including arrangements relating to financial and commercial activities, and make recommendations as to any changes in present arrangements which might be required to ensure the highest standards of propriety in public life”. In February 2013, the House of Lords explained that the remit of the Committee was broader than some had understood it. In the Lords’ view, the Committee “can examine issues relating to the ethical standards of the delivery of public services by private and voluntary sector organisations, paid for by public funds, even where those

98

A. C. Michalos

delivering the services have not been appointed or elected to public office”. Given this interpretation, employees of higher education institutions should adhere to the Committee’s standards as articulated in what came to be identified by the name of the Committee’s Chair, Lord Nolan’s seven Principles in Public Life. Briefly, the principles require: Selflessness: Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest … Integrity: … should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in performance of their official duties. Objectivity: … in carrying out public business … should make choices on merit. Accountability: … are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office. Openness: … should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions … Honesty: … have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to resolve any conflicts … Leadership: … should promote and support these principles by leadership and example (http://www.assets.publishing.service. gov.UK/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment-­d ata/file/679416/code-­o f-­ practice.pdf) (Accessed August 15, 2019).

One can certainly agree or promise to conduct one’s affairs according to these principles but it is far from clear how one could measure compliance in the seven dimensions. Nevertheless, it is important to notice that the government Committee and its seven principles were established several years before the UoL CSR Statement, and provide some guidance to designers of the Statement. The UoL has had a Strategy for Diversity and Inclusion since at least May 2016. The purpose of the Strategy is to explain “how the University will go beyond the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 … to ensuring equality of opportunity for all, including our current, past and potential staff, students, external business partners and academic stakeholders, and the general public in London and beyond”. Section 149 of the Equality Act presents the Public Sector Equality Duty that came into force in 2011. The duty requires higher education institutions to “eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Act, advance equality of opportunity between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and people who do not share it, and foster good relations between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and people who do not share it”. Protected characteristics under the Act are “age, disability, gender, reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief (including lack of belief), sex and sexual orientation”. Most importantly for present purposes, the Equality Duty requires institutions to “Publish relevant, proportionate information demonstrating compliance with the Equality Duty. Set themselves specific, measurable equality objectives. [and] Publish relevant equality information in an accessible format”. As we will see below, these specific Duties provide some excellent candidate measures for a CSR Statement (https://london.ac.uk/sites/default/files/uploads/Diversity-­Strategy-­2016-­19.pdf) (Accessed September 4, 2019). Another general interpretive document that is relevant to the Statement is the March 2018 UoL Dignity and Respect Policy. This is an update of an earlier document but the date of the initial version is not in this one. The purpose of the Policy

4  Corporate Social Responsibility in Universities and Sustainable Development

99

is practically the same as (6.1), i.e., “The purpose of this policy is to promote a respectful and inclusive workplace culture at the University of London. It sets out the standards of behaviour that are expected of our staff in carrying out their employment in order to foster a positive working and studying environment”. The Policy provides “an informal route to dispute resolution … based on good-will”. If disputes are not resolvable using the procedures in the Policy, there is still a formal Grievance Procedure. While “no formal record is kept on any staff file”, the university does keep “a central record of incidents to identify trends and monitor the effectiveness of measures taken”. The latter record would be a fine candidate CSR measure along with records of formal grievances (http://www.london.ac.uk/files/ atoms/files/dignity-­and-­respect-­policy.pdf) (Accessed September 4, 2019). In 2017, the UoL sketched a broad statement of its “strategic vision for 2014–19” regarding financial statements and annual reports. The University promised to “Invest in our academic excellence to widen student access through flexible learning and to fulfil an ambitious programme of research promotion and facilitation in the humanities … Develop, augment and commercialise our portfolio of services … with the aim to be the ‘go to’ provider of student and academic support services … Create a vibrant academic hub, through a property portfolio which balances the needs of the University’s members with maximising income opportunities … [and] Increase our investment in staff development, encourage a common purpose across our diverse activities and enhance our capacity where gaps exist, in order to deliver our plans” (https://london.ac.uk/about-­us/how-­university-­run/central-­university-­ governance/university-­strategy-­annual-­reports.pdf) (Accessed September 9, 2019). Skipping most of the financial parts of the annual financial statements, here the focus will be on annual equality and diversity, Gender Pay Gap and Equal Pay Audit reports that are most relevant for CSR Statements. Protected characteristics according to the UoL Statutes are not exactly the same as those listed above for the Equality Act 2010. The Statutes list “race, nationality, ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, age, religion, social background or political belief”. The UoL relies on staff self-identifications to determine the percentage of personnel with various protected characteristics and typically apart from age, disability, ethnicity and gender, staff members use the option “Prefer not to say” for the other characteristics. For the illustrative purposes of our account, we will only remark on gender and ethnicity. The total number of staff in UoL (central academic bodies) in March 2018 was 989, up from 706  in 2015, with 58% women and 42% men. The proportion of women was up from 55.5% in 2015. Of the 10 pay grades available to staff members, usually women have greater representation at the lower grades (clerical and support grades) and men have greater representation at the higher grades (managerial and professorial grades). In 2018, the representation of men and women at G8 and G9 were similar, leaving only G10 with a majority of men. About 60% of new appointments in 2018 went to women. The gender pay gap measures the difference between average male and female salaries taking “no account of the roles or work involved”, while equal pay assessments “identify differentials in the rates paid to women and men for the same or

100

A. C. Michalos

comparable work”. The relatively lower representation of women in the higher pay grades accounts for much of the gender pay gap. In March 2018, the mean gender pay gap was 13.89% and the median was 11.69%, both favouring men. The median pay gap for the UK workforce as a whole as of April 2016 was 18.1%. Regarding ethicity, the usual practice in the Uk is to combine figures for Black and Minority Ethnic groups (BME) to represent all “people of non-white descent”. The BME staff was very stable over the period from 2015 to 2018, i.e., 2015=23.3%, 2016=22.3%, 2017=22.6%, 2018=22.2%. These figures are roughly double the percentages (11%) for the higher education sector nationally, although the percentages of BME staff at G9 and G10 for UoL are slightly below the average for higher education institutions in London. Across that period, the clerical, technical and support group had the highest average percentage at nearly 30%, the administration, management and professional group and manual and skilled trades group averaged about 20%, and the academic, research and teaching group averaged about 11% (http://London.ac.uk/sites/default/files/governance/UOL-­Annual-­Equality-­and-­ Diversity-­Report-­2017-­18_0.pdf) (Accessed September 9, 2019). The Annual Equality and Diversity Report 2016/17 includes a two-sentence paragraph referring to a staff survey from November 2016 showing that there was “lower satisfaction in a number of identified groups. Notably: disabled, BME, LGB, Non-christian staff with faith and those with caring responsibilities for elderly relatives”. No other details are given on this survey. However, the University College London (UCL), a member institution of UoL, has its staff survey from 2013 on the web and it reveals a wonderful set of 69 items in 11 factors revealing salient features of staff life that would provide fine candidate indicators for the UoL CSR Statement if included in a staff survey. Here is a list of the 11 factors with examples of statements presented for 5 standard Lykert-type responses. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Employee Engagement: I would recommend UCL as a good place to work. My manager: I am supported by my manager during times of change. Management and Leadership: Senior management provides effective leadership. UCL Values and Goals: UCL is committed to working in an environmentally sustainable way. 5. My Work: My work gives me a sense of personal accomplishment. 6. Pay: I feel my pay is fair in comparison to people working in similar roles within UCL. 7. Equal Opportunities: I think UCL respects individual differences (e.g., cultures, working styles, backgrounds, ideas). 8. Resources and Conditions: Where I work we have the resources and equipment we need to work effectively. 9. Working Hours: My working time can be flexible. 10. Benefits: I am satisfied with UCL’s range of benefits for its staff. 11. Development: There are sufficient opportunities for me to receive training and development to improve my skills in my current job.

(https://www.studylib.net/doc/11982610/university-­c ollege-­l ondon-­s taff-­ survey-­2013-­results-­presentation) (Accessed September 8, 2019). The final additional document named in the UoL CSR Statement (6.11) concerns the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The Anti-Slavery and Human Trafficking Statement 2017–2018 is designed to show what the UoL Procurement Team did as of July

4  Corporate Social Responsibility in Universities and Sustainable Development

101

2018 “to ensure transparency in our supply chain and prevent modern slavery and human trafficking within the business activities or supply chain of the University of London and its subsidiaries”. According to the Statement, “Modern slavery encompasses slavery, servitude, forced or compulsory labour and human trafficking. Traffickers and slave drivers coerce, deceive and force individuals against their will into a life of abuse, servitude and inhumane treatment”. Through the “development of responsible purchasing policies, carrying out due diligence and risk assessments in purchasing and contract management”, the University and its subsidiaries helps to reduce modern slavery with all of its suppliers. “All suppliers who are seeking to do business with the university must agree to our Corporate Social Responsibility Statement.” For relatively “lower value contracts” suppliers may self-certify their agreement with the Statement and for contracts where the University perceives greater risk of non-compliance with the Statement, “on-site inspections” or other special certification arrangements may be made. In principle, one could measure the number of commitments to the Statement and the types of certification employed, in order to obtain some estimates of compliance versus non-compliance with the Statement (https://www.levc.com/corporate/slavery-­human-­trafffciking-­statement) (Accessed August 6, 2019).

4.5  Conclusion Having studied the UoL CSR Statement and its supplemental material, the question is: What can we make of it? First, it is impressive. More precisely, it is overwhelming. My guess is that few people would want to read the whole document, going back and forth between the “principles” and the supporting material, mainly because it is not clear exactly how readers are supposed to relate the latter to the former. Some of the material seems to be merely illustrative, some seems to be offered as evidence for the achievement of some of the “principles” and some seems to be providing reasons for the existence of some “principle”. Some of the illustrative material is based on some institutional member of UoL. Clearly, readers must take seriously the fact that institutional members are very autonomous. Members of the federation co-operate in many ways, but operate largely as independent institutions. So when one learns that this or that member does this or that, it is impossible to know what to make of it from the point of view of the four Central Academic Bodies, and when one learns that these Bodies do this or that, it is impossible to know which, if any, members also do it. So, my first recommendation would be to clarify exactly the role or function of each item from the additional material list with respect to any ‘Principle”. Is it illustrative, evidentially supportive or historically informative? How exactly is it to be used? Second, I suspect that the parallel track format is probably dysfunctional and some thought should be given to replacing it with a single track in which each “principle” has its own supporting evidence of achievement. In the present format, it is unclear how a statement of the “principles” can “ensure and reassure that [the

102

A. C. Michalos

University’s] activities are carried out ethically, sustainably and for the public benefit”. Since they are not self-certifying, readers need some evidence that things are as the “principles” say they are or should be. Third, it might be useful to think of specific achievement indicators for each “principle” that might or might not be used to build a composite index of CSR achievement. I find composites attractive, but different people find different arguments for or against building them (Michalos et al. 2011). If one asks of the current UoL Statement, ‘All things considered, has there been a net increase in the achievement of the goals implied or explicitly stated in its “principles”?’ Or, ‘Was there a net increase in individual or social sustainable development?’, what would be an appropriate response? I do not see any plausible way to make an overall assessment from the Statement. The format of the Statement does not lend itself to answering such questions. There is no common temporal baseline or common set of measures. There are simply a great variety of events, activities and statistics beginning and/or ending at different times. From information like this, all one can do is note some indicators showing progress, possibly some showing regress and some giving no clear indication at all. All readers can do is read the various texts the way one reads a newspaper, gathering whatever seems useful and ignoring the rest. No doubt this can be a worthwhile exercise, but I have tried to suggest how a more robust model might be constructed.

References Aramark. (2016). Enriching and nourishing lives is our mission and responsibility. http://www. aramark.com/responsibility. Accessed 3 Sept 2019. Aristotle. (c.330 BCE/1998). Politics (C. D. C. Reeve, Trans.). Hackett Publishing Co. Cohen, L. M. (1999). Aims of education. Oregon State University. Dewey, J. (1958). Philosophy of education. Littlefield, Adams and Co. Dewey, J. (1959). Moral principles in education. Philosophical Library. Global Education First Initiative (GEFI). (2013). Http://www.globaleducationfirst.org. Accessed 13 Aug 2014. Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). (2017). Prevent duty guidance: For higher education institutions in england and wales. https://www.gov.uk/government/organization/higher-­education-­funding-­council-­for-­England. Accessed 28 Aug 2019. Hutchins, R. M. (1943). Education for freedom. Louisiana State University Press. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2015). What is ISO 14001:2015  – Environmental management systems? https://www.asq.org/quality-­resources/ISO-­14001. Accessed 5 Sept 2019. Lynn, W. R. (1977). Engineering and society programs in engineering education. Science, 195, 150–155. Michalos, A. C. (1969). Principles of logic. Prentice-Hall. Michalos, A. C. (2003). Essays on the quality of life. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Michalos, A. C. (2017a). Philosophical foundations of quality of life: The selected works of Alex C. Michalos. Springer. Michalos, A. C. (2017b). How good policies and business ethics enhance good quality of life: The selected works of Alex C. Michalos. Springer.

4  Corporate Social Responsibility in Universities and Sustainable Development

103

Michalos, A. C. (2017c). Development of quality of life theory and its instruments: The selected works of Alex C. Michalos. Springer. Michalos, A. C. (2017d). Connecting quality of life theory to health, well-being and education: The selected works of Alex C. Michalos. Springer. Michalos, A.  C., & Orlando, J.  A. (2006). A note on student quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 79, 51–59. Reprinted in Michalos 2017d. Michalos, A.  C., Small, B., Labonté, R., Muharjarine, N., Scott, K., Moore, K., Swystun, L., Holden, B., Bernardin, H., Dunning, B., Graham, P., Guhn, M., Gadermann, A. M., Zumbo, B.  D., Morgan, A., Brooker, A.-S., & Hyman, I. (2011). The Canadian index of wellbeing (Technical Report 1.0). Canadian Index of Wellbeing and University of Waterloo. Newman, J. H. (1852/1976). The idea of a university. Clarendon Press. Office for Students (OfS). (2019). National student survey  – NSS. https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/advice-­and-­guidance/student-­information-­and-­data/national-­student-­survey-­ NSS. Accessed 29 Aug 2019. Plato. (1914). Euthyphro, apology, crito, phaedo, phaedrus (H. N. Fowler, Trans.). Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press. Pusey, N. M. (1964). The age of the scholar. Harvard University Press. School of Advanced Study (SAS). (2017). Disability policy. http://www.sas.ac.uk/current-­students/ student-­services/disability-­support. Accessed 12 Aug 2019. Shek, D.  T. L., & Hollister, R.  M. (2017). Preface. In D.  T. L.  Shek & R.  M. Hollister (Eds.), University social responsibility and quality of life (pp. v–vii). Springer. Shek, D. T. L., Yuen-Tsang, A. W. K., & Ng, E. C. W. (2017). USR network: A platform to promote university social responsibility. In D. T. L. Shek & R. M. Hollister (Eds.), University social responsibility and quality of life (pp. 11–21). Springer. Tbilisi +35. (2012). Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education and Sustainable Development. Tbilisi Communiqué: Educate today for a sustainable future. https://cmsdata. iucn.org/downloads/tbilisi_story_komunike_small.pdf. Accessed 13 Aug 2014. United Nations (UN). (2012). The future we want: Outcome document. http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/futurewewant.html. Accessed 13 Aug 2014. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (1990). Human development report. Oxford University Press. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2016). Sustainable development goals. https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-­development-­goals.html. Accessed 24 Aug 2019. UNESCO. (2007). The UN decade of education for sustainable development (DESD 2005–2014): The first two years. UNESCO. UNESCO. (2009a). Review of contexts and structures for education for sustainable development 2009. UNESCO. UNESCO. (2009b). Bonn declaration. UNESCO world conference on education for sustainable development. Bonn, Germany. http://www.esd-­world-­conference-­2009.org/fileadmin/download/esd2009_bonn_declaration080409.pdf. Accessed 5 Aug 2014. UNESCO. (2012). Shaping the education of tomorrow: 2012 report on the UN decade of education for sustainable development, Abridged. UNESCO. Universities UK. (2018a). Higher education in facts and figures 2018. http://www.universitiesUK. ac.uk/data-­and-­analysis/Pages/Facts-­and-­Figures-­2018.aspx. Accessed 7 Sept 2019. Universities UK. (2018b). Patterns and trends in UK higher education 2018. http://www.universitiesUK.ac.uk/data-­and-­analysis/Pages/Patterns-­and-­Trends-­in-­UK-­Higher-­Education-­2018. aspx. Accessed 7 Sept 2019. Universities UK. (2018c). Public perceptions of UK universities: A report prepared by Britain thinks. https://www.universitiesUK.ac.uk/facts-­and-­stats/impact-­higher-­education/Documents/ public-­perceptions-­UK-­universities-­nov18.pdf. Accessed 12 Sept 2019. Universities UK/Guild HE. (2018). Code of practice for the management of student housing. GuildHE (British Membership Organization). Accessed 29 Aug 2019.

104

A. C. Michalos

University of London (UoL). (2016). Sustainability report 2016. https://prezi.com/b3miiydshjcg/sustainability-­report2016/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy. Accessed 10 Sept 2019. University of London (UoL). (2017). Corporate social responsibility statement. https://www.london.ac.uk/about-­us/how-­university-­run/policies/corporate-­social-­responsibility. Accessed 29 Aug 2019. World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press. Alex C.  Michalos is Emeritus Professor in Political Science from the University of Northern British Columbia, where he taught from 1994 to 2001 and served a term as Chancellor (2007–2010). He was Professor of Philosophy at the University of Guelph (Ontario) (1966–1994). His Ph.D. was earned at the University of Chicago (1965) specializing in Philosophy of Science, B.D. and M.A. from University of Chicago (1961) specializing in history of religions and logic, respectively. His B.A. came from Western Reserve University (1957) with specialization in history, philosophy and religion. He has written and published 22 books, edited or co-edited 11 anthologies, wrote or co-wrote over 130 refereed articles, and founded or co-founded 7 scholarly journals. Among the 7, he was the Editor in Chief of the Journal of Business Ethics, the most frequently cited journal in the world devoted to business ethics, and Social Indicators Research, the first scholarly journal (1974) devoted to quality of life/human well-being research. The other journals include Teaching Business Ethics, Journal of Happiness Studies, Journal of Academic Ethics, Applied Research on Quality of Life, and Asian Journal of Business Ethics. He is General Editor and Founder of the Social Indicators Research Book Series (82 vols.), Co-Editor of Quality of Life In Asia Book Series (10 vols.) and of Advances in Business Ethics Research Book Series (7 vols.). He edited the 12 volume Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research (Springer, 2014). He has won several awards of distinction, including the: Gold Medal for Achievement in Research (2004) from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (the Council’s highest honour), Member of the Order of Canada, C.M. (2010) Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal (2012) Award for the Betterment of the Human Condition (2003) from the International Society for Quality of Life Studies, Vincentian Ethics Scholar Award (2002) by the Vincentian Universities of the USA, Secretary of State’s Prize for Excellence in Interdisciplinary Research in Canadian Studies (1984) for his 5 volume treatise North American Social Report: A Comparative Study of the Quality of Life in Canada and the USA from 1964 to 1974, British Columbia Political Science Association Lifetime Achievement Award (2005), Honorary Doctor of Letters from Thompson Rivers University, B.C. (2005), Deryck Thompson Award for Community Social Planning (2006) from the Social Planning and Research Council of B.C.  

Chapter 5

Service Leadership as the Backbone of University Social Responsibility Daniel T. L. Shek, Po Chung, and Xiaoqin Zhu

Abstract  With the emergence of many new universities and the influence of globalization, traditional roles and responsibilities of universities have been transformed. In this paper, four criticisms about contemporary university education are outlined. These include: (a) increased marketization and commercialization which have distorted university vision, mission and operation; (b) ranking system has put research above holistic student development; (c) negligence of holistic student development, particularly soft skills, in university education; and (d) potential employers are not satisfied with the qualities of university graduates. In response to these criticisms, it is argued that the primary university responsibility is to nurture young people to be leaders in the emergent service economies. Based on the Service Leadership Theory, it is proposed that university education should help to nurture generic leadership competencies (such as resilience, emotional management, and spirituality), character and caring dispositions in students. Keywords  University social responsibility · Service leadership theory · Ranking systems · Competence · Character and Care

This work is financially supported by the Li and Fung Endowed Professorship in Service Leadership Education. D. T. L. Shek (*) · X. Zhu Department of Applied Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China e-mail: [email protected] P. Chung Hong Kong Institute of Service Leadership & Management, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 D. C. Poff (ed.), University Corporate Social Responsibility and University Governance, Advances in Business Ethics Research 8, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77532-2_5

105

106

D. T. L. Shek et al.

5.1  Criticisms of Contemporary University Education For many centuries, universities were regarded as “knowledge producers” with the prime responsibilities of focusing on teaching and research. Universities were regarded as places of learning and where communities of “educated people” were devoted to “the pursuit of intellectual truth as an end in itself; and fulfilling of a central and ethical role for society through the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge” (Meyer, 2012, pp. 208–209). However, with the establishment of many new universities in different parts of the world and reduced funding for universities in the past decades, the production and dissemination of knowledge have gradually been replaced by preparation for careers in universities, where the production of “useful’ and “applied” knowledge and “employability” of graduates are emphasized (O’Connell, 2016). There are several criticisms of contemporary universities regarding changes in their cardinal roles and responsibilities. First, in response to the increased commercialization and marketization, economic considerations have distorted the development of universities. Second, ranking systems have created many undesirable impacts on the priorities of university education. Third, holistic youth development, particularly the nurturance of soft skills, has been overlooked in university education. Finally, employers are not satisfied with the qualities of university graduates, such as in the areas of intrapersonal qualities and interpersonal competence. The first criticism is concerned about economic considerations in driving the development of universities. With heated competition in the higher education sector, university education is increasingly driven by market forces, and this has led to distorted academic visions and values. As pointed out by Bok (2003), “under the new customer-oriented logic, the school’s job is to please its student consumers… These infiltrations of commerce into academia have caused widespread concern among those who worry that selfish corporate interests backed by the financial clout of generous monetary inducements may come to violate academic values by constraining free inquiry, by influencing intellectual priorities, or by distorting research findings” (pp. 68–69). Furthermore, intellectual curiosity has been compromised by economic considerations that focus on the commercial value of research and knowledge (i.e., producing knowledge based primarily on whether it can generate income). As argued by Hazelkorn (2011), with the influence of commercialization, the ability of knowledge to be applied in services and development of new products is regarded as an important consideration to evaluate the “usefulness” of generated knowledge. Owing to the drive for revenue generation, the roles of teachers and students have been transformed where educators become “sellers” of knowledge and students become “buyers” of academic qualifications. Just as Turk (2017) put it, “academic staff are no longer the academic governors, but rather sellers of services in a competitive academic marketplace” (p. 4). As a result, the focus of universities is devoted more to the instrumental needs of the consumers (i.e., getting a degree) instead of looking at the desired development of students based on sound education philosophies. Besides, the responsibilities of universities to promote social justice, fairness,

5  Service Leadership as the Backbone of University Social Responsibility

107

sustainability, and positive social development have been given a lower priority (de Maret, 2007). Finally, there is a tendency to lower academic standards as a response to commercialization and marketization (Knight, 2013). The second area of criticisms of contemporary universities is related to ranking systems. As a result of strong competition for students and funding, there are attempts to rank universities. This process is similar to ranking commercial products, such as the comparison of different brands of cars. Some prominent global ranking schemes, including the Times Higher Education (THE), the Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) ranking system, and the Shanghai Jiaotong University ranking, use different criteria to compare universities. Since ranking affects revenue generation, such as donation and student admissions, the ranking exercises provide a strong incentive for universities to play the ranking game without much critical reflection. In this regard, there are several criticisms of the university ranking systems. First, although ranking appears to provide objective pictures of the strengths of different universities, the ranking criteria appear to be developed in an arbitrary manner. Bergseth et  al. (2014) doubted the credibility of the ranking systems because they are not really comparable. Myers and Robe (2009) also criticized the ranking systems for giving a false sense of precision because there was “a lack of consensus on the exact definition of academic quality, every ranking system makes a subjective value judgment about which criteria represent “quality” in higher education” (pp. 22–23). Second, the ranking practice creates a narrow vision about university education by the over-emphasis on narrow aspects of research, such as the amount of research grants and citations which are primary metrics in the natural sciences, biomedical and engineering fields. Marginson (2011) pointed out that over-emphasis on ranking reduces the diversity of knowledge that “global rankings have caught all universities, all over the world, in the same status-incentive trap… It ranks them vertically on the world scale and confirms the dominance of the comprehensive Anglo-­ American science university… It also narrows the diversity of knowledge that secures global value, through which public goods are created” (p. 429). By focusing on research topics which can generate higher citations (such as genes, cellular functions, and big data), topics such as student development and nurturance of character are regarded as “less important” research topics. One major reason is that the latter topics usually produce papers published in journals in education or youth development, which have lower impact factors as compared to those in the biomedical fields. In short, the ranking system promotes an instrumental mentality about research development. Finally, as the quality of teaching is not included in different ranking systems, excessive focus on university ranking basically implies that teaching does not receive much attention as it should deserve. As pointed out by Bekhradnia (2016), “the only way of improving performance in the international rankings is to improve research performance. This drives universities around the world, at the expense of a focus on teaching, on widening participation and on outreach” (p. 12). As a result of ranking, the quality of education provided to students is compromised.

108

D. T. L. Shek et al.

The third problem of contemporary university education is its neglect of holistic youth development. The lack of focus on teaching, the over-emphasis on economic considerations (such as generating research leading to financial reward), and ranking have jointly led to a weakened focus on holistic student development. According to Kuhnen (1978), in addition to teaching and research, universities should also promote the development of “personality” in students (p. 78). Obviously, contemporary universities do not pay much attention to this responsibility. Lewis (2007) plainly pointed out that “over the decades I have heard many academic discussions about teaching, about the curriculum, about grading, about athletics, and about responding to student misdeeds. I have almost never heard discussions among professors about making students better people” (p. xv). Furthermore, with the transformation of global economies from manufacturing to service economies, there is a growing emphasis on the importance of soft skills. Roughly speaking, hard skills are competencies acquired through formal education or training that are formally assessed in obtaining some certification. By contrast, soft skills are not formally assessed but are very important building blocks for intrapersonal development (such as emotional quotient) and interpersonal development (such as social competence and conflict resolution). Although there are different conceptualizations of soft skills, they usually include critical thinking, problem-­ solving, emotional management, interpersonal skills, and communication skills. According to Hairi et al. (2011), there are five basic soft skills with the following order of priority: communication, working with others, decision making and solving problems, creative and critical thinking, and management skills in program and projects. Schulz (2008) pointed out that while educators regarded hard skills to be more important than soft skills in the past, the reverse pattern has emerged in recent time (Schulz, 2008, p. 151). Interestingly, while contemporary universities have tried to transform and fit the needs of employers, employers are not satisfied with university graduates, particularly in the area of soft skills. Hairi et al. (2011) pointed out that human resource practitioners perceived that soft skills of graduates did not meet those required at work settings. Similarly, Zorina et al. (2018) also pointed out that there was growing dissatisfaction among prospective employers regarding the “lack of communication and leadership skills in future employees” (p. 272). Employers also criticized that although university graduates were academically fine, they were not proficient in communication and analytical skills (Shakir, 2009). As the “products” (i.e., graduates) of universities cannot meet the requirements of employers, some argue that we should step up soft skills nurturance and holistic youth development for university students. Schulz (2008) argued that “educators have a special responsibility regarding soft skills because during students’ school and university time they have a major impact on the development of their students’ soft skills. Besides raising awareness regarding the importance of soft skills and encouraging students to improve their skills, lecturers should actively practice soft skills with their students” (p. 153). In short, universities should take their cardinal social responsibility in nurturing students to be better persons who develop in a

5  Service Leadership as the Backbone of University Social Responsibility

109

holistic manner. In this regard, the Service Leadership Model can be regarded as a useful conceptual model to accomplish this goal.

5.2  The Service Leadership Model The world economy is transforming from manufacturing economy (characterized by the first and second Industrial Revolution) to service economy (characterized by digitization and artificial intelligence in the third and fourth Industrial Revolution, respectively). Shek et al. (2015d) highlighted the differences between the two economies in terms of the tangibility of production inputs and outputs, the variability of the production process, production process, as well as the consumption process. For example, while inputs and outputs in the manufacturing economy are tangible, they are less tangible in the service economy. As a result, the organizational structures in the manufacturing economy and service economy are also different. For example, while workers in the manufacturing economy are expected to follow orders strictly on the assembly line, workers in the service economy are expected to be innovative and creative. Finally, the desired leadership attributes in these two economies are also different. For instance, while leadership is relatively more autocratic under manufacturing economy, successful service leadership is relatively more distributed in nature. Leadership is more transactional and directive under the manufacturing economy, compared to the transformational and flexible characteristics of effective leadership in the service economy (Shek et al., 2015c). As desired leadership qualities under the service economy are different from those under the manufacturing economy, traditional leadership models may not be entirely appropriate to conceptualize and understand leadership in the contemporary world. As such, Po Chung proposed the Service Leadership Model focusing on the essential qualities of successful leaders under the service economy (Shek et al., 2018b). Po Chung founded DHL International Limited in 1972 and is currently Chairman Emeritus of DHL Express (Hong Kong) Limited. Chung and Bell (2015) proposed 25 principles of service leadership which include: 15 min of leadership, self-leadership, people leadership, the server, the three Cs (competence, character, and care), co-created service leadership, who you are, personal ethics, who you hire, authoritarian leadership and distributed leadership, trust, fairness, respect and care, POS (Personal Operating System), personal brand, relationship, service, mentor-­ follower, historical service development, non-tradable service, service mindset, transformation and inspiration, global extension of relationships, habitat management, maritime mindset, and Anna Karenina principle. Furthermore, Chung (2016) conceived personal leadership quality or personal brand in terms of 12 dimensions including the doing dimension (functional, visual and physical dimensions), thinking dimension (mental, emotional and economic dimensions), growing dimension (social, leadership and lifelong learning dimensions) and being dimension (spiritual, moral and care dimensions).

110

D. T. L. Shek et al.

Notably, there are 12 attributes of the Service Leadership Model (Shek et  al., 2015c). The first unique feature is service to oneself and others where “true leadership is a service aimed at ethically satisfying the needs of one’s self, others, groups, communities, systems, and environments” (Shek et al., 2015c, p. 217). Second, the model adopts a system orientation where the leaders should take care of the habitat of the organization. Third, effective service leadership depends on leadership competence such as using knowledge and skills to accomplish the goals of the organization. Fourth, character is strongly emphasized in the Service Leadership Model where the leaders know the distinction between “do things right” (i.e., simply following procedures) versus “do the right things” (i.e., cherishing integrity and keeping a distance from moral viruses). The fifth feature is the emphasis on caring disposition which means that a successful service leader should care about others, particularly the followers, service recipients and the people within the larger system. Sixth, the focus of service leadership is the person, as exemplified by the saying of “the server is the service” where the personal qualities of the leaders are of paramount importance. Seventh, it is maintained that everyone has leadership potential (i.e., everybody can be a leader). This humanistic orientation is empowering for the followers which can unleash their potentials. The eighth unique feature is the importance put on self-leadership which reflects the belief that one should lead oneself before leading others. Ninth, service leaders are expected to reflect on one’s leadership qualities and seek to continuously improve one’s leadership qualities. The tenth attribute is the emphasis on the mentor-apprentice model where leaders nurture followers by helping them to learn and build up their self-confidence. The eleventh unique feature is the emphasis on Chinese cultural values with reference to Buddhist, Confucian and Taoist thoughts on virtues such as self-control and taking care of others. Finally, the model is comprehensive as it includes 12 dimensions of leadership qualities (such as emotional and spiritual dimensions) and leadership concepts from different disciplines are intrinsic to the Service Leadership Model (Shek et al., 2015a, b, 2018d). According to the Service Leadership Model, there are three fundamental attributes of effective service leaders, including competence, character, and care (3Cs). It is suggested that these traits are not inborn. Instead, they could be nurtured and malleable through appropriate training and nurturance. This belief is very important because leadership models in university settings commonly focus on nurturing those with high achievement (i.e., elitist leadership). By proposing that leadership qualities are malleable, it upholds a belief that every person can be (and is) a leader (Shek & Lin, 2015; Shek et al., 2018c). This is empowering for young people as they may have low self-esteem about themselves. For competence, it includes leaders’ knowledge and the abilities to accomplish the goals that the group or organization is trying to achieve. Within the context of the Service Leadership Model, competence is defined in relation to service, leadership, and tasks. Service competence refers to the ability to offer the best service, including sensitivity to the needs of service recipients and care about the well-being of people in the system. Leadership competence refers to the ability to lead oneself and the group to achieve group goals. In particular, the leader serves as a good role

5  Service Leadership as the Backbone of University Social Responsibility

111

model for the followers to imitate. Finally, task competence refers to the possession of knowledge, attitude, and skills to execute the required tasks. To build up such multidimensional competence, an effective service leader should possess both intrapersonal and interpersonal competencies. For intrapersonal competence, it refers to the abilities of the person to analyze and solve problems (i.e., intelligence), manage one’s emotions (i.e., emotional quotient), face adversity (i.e., adversity quotient) and have a sense of life meaning (i.e., spiritual quotient). For interpersonal competence, it refers to the capabilities of an individual to realize personal goals in interacting with others. These interpersonal abilities include building and maintaining good social relationships, being assertive, having self-disclosure, providing emotional support and dealing with interpersonal conflicts. In fact, many other leadership models also focus on the paramount importance of competence. However, in the Service Leadership Model, it is stressed that having competence alone is insufficient because a leader only with excellent competence may have “viruses” (i.e., the dark side of leadership). Hence, the second important quality of an effective service leader is “character”. Character is important because it provides the “moral” compass for the leader. In Western contexts, there are many models on understanding character. However, while Western models are relevant in the Service Leadership Model, it pays particular attention to the Chinese conceptualizations of character, including Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism. In Confucian thoughts, several virtues such as benevolence and integrity are emphasized. In the Buddhist model, there is a focus on self-restraint and a caring heart. In Taoism, maintaining harmony and integration with different domains are upheld. In their discussion of virtues, Shek et  al. (2018a) highlighted 13 Confucian virtues, including kindness (Ren), righteousness (Yi), respectfulness (Li), wisdom (Zhi), trustworthiness (Xin), loyalty (Zhong), courageousness (Yong), incorruptibility (Lian), having a sense of shame (Chi), filial piety (Xiao), brotherly love (Ti), self-­ correction (Gai) and forgiveness (Shu). On the other hand, the corresponding “dark side” of these virtues constitutes viruses of service leadership, which include unkindness, unrighteousness, disrespectfulness, being unwise, untrustworthiness, disloyalty, cowardice, corruptibility, shamelessness, being unfilial, having no brotherly love, no self-correction and unforgiving. Finally, caring disposition is another important quality of an effective service leader. Theoretically, a caring disposition is not strongly emphasized in different leadership models. Even if it is mentioned, caring for others such as the service recipients is regarded as an instrumental act because it enriches the brand of the organization rather than having a genuine concern for other people. In the Service Leadership Model, it is argued that caring for oneself, others, and society at large is an inborn capacity in human beings. As an effective service leader, one has to attend to the well-being of the followers as well as the service recipients. According to Shek and Li (2015), there are three intrinsic elements of caring disposition. The first element is awareness. Through active listening, an effective service leader is aware of the needs and emotions of other people and considers ways to satisfy their needs. The second element is love which refers to unconditional and genuine care for other people. Instead of primarily focusing on maximization of profit, a service leader

112

D. T. L. Shek et al.

shows concern about other people and attaches high importance to the interest of other people in a non-instrumental manner. The third element is nurturance of other people, particularly the followers. In addition to understanding the needs of the followers, service leaders also provide opportunities for the followers to grow and achieve their ideals. In other words, a leader does not only lead but also nurtures those who work together. The service leader also leads with a “human face”. This notion of leadership is different from the common conception that leaders are high above and the followers are at the mercy of the leaders.

5.3  I mportance of Service Leadership Qualities for University Students It is argued in this chapter that the cardinal social responsibility of universities is to nurture students to be better persons and the Service Leadership Model can be used as a conceptual model to accomplish this university responsibility. In this section, we will argue why the three Cs in the Service Leadership Model are important for the holistic development of university students and what factors might facilitate or impede the development of these qualities. Regarding the first C of competence, it is obvious that university education should groom students to be the skilled future pillars of society. As such, competence in terms of service, leadership and task-related skills, such as communication, problem-solving, analysis, planning, and management skills, are fundamental. Without these skills, the leader and followers have difficulties in attaining the goals of the group. For example, to organize a function successfully, a leader has to plan and work out a contingency plan. Competence is particularly important for different professions where professional skills are emphasized. Generally speaking, scholastic competence and academic competence are commonly emphasized and can be nurtured through academic programs within the university. That said, only having high academic competence is not enough. With the changing economy where intrapersonal and interpersonal competencies are emphasized, there is an appeal to nurture the non-academic skills of young people such as emotional management and other “soft skills”. Besides intelligence quotient (IQ), many theorists now stress the importance of adversity quotient (AQ), emotional quotient (EQ), and spiritual quotient (SQ). AQ is important because the world has become more volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous. EQ is important because depression is a growing global epidemic and the mental well-being of university students is a growing concern. SQ is important because life meaning and transpersonal beliefs are important life anchors for university students. Unfortunately, although these soft skills are important in the development of adolescents and emerging adults, they have not been adequately covered in contemporary university education. In fact, many employer surveys showed that employers are not satisfied with university graduates’ levels of soft skills, such as collaboration with others and

5  Service Leadership as the Backbone of University Social Responsibility

113

communication skills. Shek and Chung (2018) also highlighted the importance of a service-oriented “STEM” (Soft skills, Trust, Empathy, and Moral character). As such, universities should reflect on the question of whether they have provided adequate opportunities for university students to develop and improve intrapersonal and interpersonal competencies as well as moral character. For the second C of character, several points should be noted. Primarily, compared to competence, character is less emphasized in leadership training. In a world that emphasizes achievement, essential leadership qualities are commonly conceived as the competencies that lead to success. Moreover, while educators talk about moral education in primary and high schools, they normally do not consider character-building an element of university education. Furthermore, several issues hinder the development of character in young people. These obstacles include a strong emphasis on materialism and achievement in modern societies, over-­ emphasis on scholastic achievement relative to character development in education, assessment of young people in terms of scholastic achievement rather than character attainment, and the claim that there is no difference between right and wrong under post-modern and social constructionist thoughts. Interestingly, despite the lack of an explicit emphasis on character in modern university education, character is, in fact, emphasized in different contexts. Primarily, character is emphasized in different cultures. For example, character is highlighted in Western cultures under Catholic and Christian influences. In Chinese culture, Confucian thoughts highlight the importance of virtues in human development (e.g., Shek et al., 2013). Character is also emphasized in different professions, although most of which are presented in a pragmatic manner only (such as “do no harm” and professional integrity of professionals, such as in the legal profession). In terms of hiring, many employers are now saying that they would like to hire employees for character and to train their skills later (i.e., hire character, train skills). University graduates are expected not just to do things right (manufacturing economy mindset) but also to do the right things (service economy mindset). Character is also emphasized in different youth development models. In the youth development model proposed by the Search Institute, character is regarded as an important development asset which includes traits such as “integrity”, “honesty”, “responsibility”, and “restraint” (Benson, 1997). In the 5C/6C model proposed by Richard Lerner and collaborators, character is a central ingredient of youth development (Lerner et  al., 2005). In the model proposed by Park and Peterson (2006), different domains of character are identified. There are also findings showing that character is related to not only one’s leadership qualities but also one’s well-being (Lin & Shek, 2018). Finally, care is the third C emphasized in the Service Leadership Model. To become a successful service leader, one needs to have a caring heart and care for the followers, service recipients, and oneself. It is particularly important to develop care among university students because research findings show that there is a drop in empathy and a rise in egocentrism among this population (the “Me” generation). By caring and serving others, young people can strengthen their intrapersonal and

114

D. T. L. Shek et al.

interpersonal competencies. For example, through caring, young people develop empathy in understanding the problems of deprived people. In serving others, students have to collaborate with different people, thus strengthening their interpersonal skills. Unfortunately, not many leadership models talk about care. Furthermore, several factors reduce the opportunities for young people to develop care, including the drop of the number of children in a family, the difficulty of keeping pets in an urbanized area, and upholding the principle of “survival of the fitness” in modern capitalist societies. Similar to character, care is not specifically emphasized in university education but is valued in different cultures and religions. Catholic and Protestant traditions focus on care for people (love God and love others). In Confucian thoughts, caring for others (i.e., benevolence and affection) is a cardinal virtue. Care is also intrinsic to different developmental models focusing on youth. In Benson’s (1997) model of developmental assets, caring is subsumed under positive values. Similarly, caring and compassion are key attributes of holistic youth development in Lerner et al.’s (2005) 5C/6C model.

5.4  N  urturing Effective Service Leaders as a Core University Social Responsibility It is obvious that the notion of three Cs under the Service Leadership Model is important for the holistic development of university students in the contemporary world. The next question is how universities can nurture these service leadership qualities among university students. Conventionally, leadership training, normally conducted through the work of Student Affairs Office, has been regarded as non-­ credit-­bearing subjects which are outside of the formal curriculum. While informal leadership education is good, it does not ensure that every student has the opportunity to be nurtured. In fact, from a public health perspective, it would be helpful to provide every student with the opportunity so that no student is left behind. Hence, another possibility is to have credit-bearing subjects to promote service leadership qualities among university students. Based on our experience at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, this approach is promising in nurturing effective service leaders. Specifically, we have developed two credit-bearing subjects to promote university students’ service leadership attributes. The first one is entitled “Service Leadership” which is a classroom-based and intensive knowledge subject. Despite the employment of classroom-based teaching, this subject strongly emphasizes experiential learning instead of one-way lecturing. Interactive in-class activities were designed to facilitate student learning and students were encouraged to engage in reflective learning and collaborative learning. Regarding the effectiveness of this subject, findings of a series of evaluation studies consistently showed that the

5  Service Leadership as the Backbone of University Social Responsibility

115

subject was able to promote service leadership qualities and well-being in students (Shek & Lin, 2016; Lin & Shek, 2018). For example, in a study adopting a quasi-­ experimental design (Lin & Shek, 2018), it was found that the students taking the subject showed positive changes as compared to the control group who did not take the subject. This subject was awarded the Bronze Award (Ethical Leadership) in the 2016 QS Reimagine Education Awards and the University Grants Committee Teaching Award in Hong Kong in 2018. The second subject is a service-learning subject entitled “Service Leadership through Servicing Children and Families with Special Needs”. In this subject, we expect students to understand the needs of deprived people and develop their empathy and psychosocial competence through serving those children and families, which would eventually promote service leadership qualities of the students. We have offered this subject in Xi’an and Chengdu, China where students served children of migrant workers. In Hong Kong, we have been serving students in schools admitting students with greater psychosocial needs through the Project WeCan. Through this project, we promoted not only the development of the students but also the competence and well-being of other stakeholders. As Shek et al. (2019) pointed out, the subject was able to promote the civic-mindedness, positive youth development and life satisfaction attributes of the students. The subject was awarded the Bronze Award in the 2016 QS Reimagine Education Awards, showing a popular recognition of its positive social impact. It was also awarded the University Grants Committee Teaching Award in Hong Kong in 2018.

5.5  Conclusion In view of the criticisms of contemporary universities in over-emphasizing on ranking, funding, and academic achievements while undermining the importance of character and holistic development of students, it is high time to reflect on the social responsibility of universities in nurturing the holistic development of their students. It is argued that universities should nurture effective service leaders in the service economies and provide enough opportunities for every student to develop and improve essential leadership qualities including the service leadership competence, character, and care needed to succeed in the current service economies. It is also argued that the Service Leadership Model constitutes a good framework of leadership education through which service leadership qualities can be nurtured. In the future, there is a need to further refine the Service Leadership Model within different societal and cultural contexts. It is also necessary to rigorously evaluate the impact of service leadership education on the holistic development of university students to better fulfill the fundamental responsibility of every university.

116

D. T. L. Shek et al.

References Bekhradnia, B. (2016). International university rankings: For good or ill? Higher Education Policy Institute. Benson, P. L. (1997). All kids are our kids: What communities must do to raise caring and responsible children and adolescents (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/ record/2006-­13341-­000 Bergseth, B., Petocz, P., & Dahlgren, M. A. (2014). Ranking quality in higher education: Guiding or misleading? Quality in Higher Education, 20(3), 330–347. Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton University Press. Chung, P. (2016). 12 dimensions of a service leader. Lexingford Publishing. Chung, P., & Bell, A. H. (2015). 25 principles of service leadership. Lexingford Publishing. de Maret, P. (2007). The changing role of universities in our societies: A European perspective. China-Europa Forum. Retrieved from http://docs.china-­europa-­forum.net/ws14-­ universitaires.pdf Hairi, F. B., Ahmad Toee, M. N., & Razzaly, W. (2011). Employers’ perception on soft skills of graduates: A study of Intel elite soft skill training. International Conference on Teaching & Learning in Higher Education (ICTLHE 2011). Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/ pdf/12007206.pdf Hazelkorn, E. (2011). Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: The battle for world-class excellence. Palgrave Macmillan. Knight, J. (2013). The changing landscape of higher education internationalization – For better or worse? Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 17(3), 84–90. Kuhnen, F. (1978). The role of agricultural colleges in modern society  – The university as an instrument in social and economic development. Zeitschrift für ausländische Landwirtschaft, 17(2), 77–88. Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdottir, S., Naudeau, S., Jelicic, H., Alberts, A., Ma, L., Smith, L. M., Bobek, D. L., Richman-Raphael, D., Simpson, I., Christiansen, E. D. D., & Eye, A. (2005). Positive youth development, participation in community youth development programs, and community contributions of fifth-grade adolescents: Findings from the first wave of the 4-H study of positive youth development. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 17–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431604272461 Lewis, H. R. (2007). Excellence without a soul: Does liberal education have a future? PublicAffairs. Lin, L., & Shek, D. T. L. (2018). Does service leadership education contribute to student well-­ being? A quasi-experimental study based on Hong Kong university students. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 15, 1147–1163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-­018-­9644-­x Marginson, S. (2011). Higher education and public good. Higher Education Quarterly, 65(4), 411–433. Meyer, L. H. (2012). Negotiating academic values, professorial responsibilities and expectations for accountability in today’s university. Higher Education Quarterly, 66(2), 207–217. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-­2273.2012.00516.x Myers, L., & Robe, J. (2009). College rankings: History, criticism and reform. Center for College Affordability and Productivity. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/71342638.pdf O’Connell, M. (2016). What role should universities play in today’s society? The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/what-­role-­should-­universities-­ play-­in-­todays-­society-­63515 Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2006). Moral competence and character strengths among adolescents: The development and validation of the values in action inventory of strengths for youth. Journal of Adolescence, 29(6), 891–909. Schulz, B. (2008). The importance of soft skills: Education beyond academic knowledge. Journal of Language and Communication, 2(1), 146–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-­3207(93)90452-­7

5  Service Leadership as the Backbone of University Social Responsibility

117

Shakir, R. (2009). Soft skills at the Malaysian institutes of higher learning. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10(3), 309–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-­009-­9038-­8 Shek, D. T. L., & Chung, P. Y. (2018). The quest for an alternative paradigm of STEM education for young people. International Journal of Child and Adolescent Health, 11(3), 259–270. Shek, D. T. L., & Li, X. (2015). The role of a caring disposition in service leadership. International Journal on Disability and Human Development, 14(4), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1515/ ijdhd-­2015-­0453 Shek, D. T. L., & Lin, L. (2015). Core beliefs in the service leadership model proposed by the Hong Kong Institute of Service Leadership and Management. International Journal on Disability and Human Development, 14(3), 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijdhd-­2015-­0404 Shek, D. T. L., & Lin, L. (2016). Changes in university students after joining a service leadership program in China. Journal of Leadership Education, 15(1), 96–109. https://doi.org/10.12806/ V15/I1/A2 Shek, D. T. L., Yu, L., & Fu, X. (2013). Confucian virtues and Chinese adolescent development: A conceptual review. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 25(4), 335–344. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijamh-­2013-­0031 Shek, D. T. L., Chung, P. P. Y., Yu, L., & Merrick, J. (2015a). Editorial: Service leadership curriculum and higher education reform in Hong Kong. International Journal on Disability and Human Development, 14(4), 297–298. Shek, D. T. L., Chung, P. P. Y., Yu, L., & Merrick, J. (2015b). Editorial: Service leadership education for university students: The Hong Kong experience. International Journal on Disability and Human Development, 14(3), 203–204. Shek, D. T. L., Chung, P. P. Y., & Leung, H. (2015c). How unique is the service leadership model? A comparison with contemporary leadership approaches. International Journal on Disability and Human Development, 14(3), 217–231. Shek, D. T. L., Chung, P. P. Y., & Leung, H. (2015d). Manufacturing economy vs. service economy: Implications for service leadership. International Journal on Disability and Human Development, 14(3), 205–215. Shek, D.  T. L., Chung, P.  P. Y., & Dou, D. (2018a). The dark side of service leaders. In M. F. Brandebo & A. Alvinius (Eds.), Dark sides of organizational behavior and leadership (pp. 125–145). IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75086 Shek, D. T. L., Chung, P. P. Y., Lin, L., Leung, H., & Ng, E. (2018b). Service leadership under the service economy. In J. L. Chin, J. E. Trimble, & J. E. Garcia (Eds.), Global and culturally diverse leaders and leadership: New dimensions and challenges for business, education and society (pp. 143–161). Emerald Publication. Shek, D. T. L., Chung, P., Lin, L., & Merrick, J. (2018c). Service leadership education for university students. International Journal on Disability and Human Development, 17(1), 119–124. Shek, D. T. L., Chung, P. P. Y., & Zhu, X. (2018d). Service leadership in the service era. In D. C. Poff & A. C. Michalos (Eds.), Encyclopedia of business and professional ethics. Springer. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­23514-­1_367-­1 Shek, D. T. L., Ma, C. M. S., & Yang, Z. (2019). Transformation and development of university students through service-learning: A corporate-community-university partnership initiative in Hong Kong (Project WeCan). Applied Research in Quality of Life, 15, 1375–1393. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11482-­019-­09738-­9 Turk, J. (2017). The Landscape of the contemporary university. Canadian Journal of Communication, 42, 3–12. Zorina, A.  V., Yarullina, A.  S., Akhmetova, L.  A., Shaimardanova, M.  R., Nikishina, S.  R., & Garipova, A. A. (2018). Leadership in the university student environment: How to become a person-oriented leader. International Journal of Instruction, 11(4), 271–286. Daniel T. L. Shek is Associate Vice President (Undergraduate Programme), Chair Professor of Applied Social Sciences, and Li and Fung Professor in Service Leadership Education, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, PRC.  He is also Advisory Professor of East China  

118

D. T. L. Shek et al.

Normal University, Honorary Professor of Kiang Wu Nursing College of Macau and Changjiang Scholar (Changjiang Chair Professor). Po Chung is Co-founder of DHL International and Chairman Emeritus of DHL Express (Hong Kong) Ltd. He is passionate about the nature and value of superior service required for the success of global centres of commerce as most developed communities have shifted from manufacturing to service economy. His professional life has been dedicated in large part to understanding how to provide superb service, how to educate others as superior service leaders, and how to design and operate service sector organizations. Dr. Chung is author of the Service Masters Editions: The First Ten Yards, Service Reborn, The 12 Dimensions of a Service Leader and 25 Principles of Service Leadership.  

Xiaoqin Zhu is Assistant Professor in the Department of Applied Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, PRC. Her research interests lie in the areas of child and adolescent development and leadership education, such as parent-child relationship, adolescent risk behavior, positive youth development program and its evaluation, service leadership education and evaluation.  

Chapter 6

Mission-Oriented Values as the Bedrock of University Social Responsibility Loreta Tauginienė

Abstract  This chapter aims to identify current mission-oriented values in the academic setting and their potential impression upon university social responsibility through organisational culture. To achieve this, strategies of Lithuanian public universities were analysed using the manifest coding of qualitative content analysis. Overall, 80 institutional values were identified, refined, grouped, and aligned with types of organisational culture, such as collegiate, bureaucratic, corporate and enterprise. Research findings show that values of competence, the main characteristic of enterprise culture, prevail in strategies of Lithuanian public universities. This implies that it refers to a university’s desire to become, rather than genuinely to be. Furthermore, the impression of institutional values, as an anchor of organisational culture, might affect the way universities perceive their social responsibility, what activities feed into this and what stakeholders are prominent in them. Keywords  University social responsibility · Mission-oriented values · Academic values · Institutional values · Strategy · Mission statement

6.1  Introduction In the 1980s Bruce Wilshire, in his paper, called for the defence of values that a university stands upon (1985). With this call, the author aligned a university’s values with its identity and educational impact, and emphasised such values as truth, accountability, and responsibility. By defining university values, he supported the argument of Jacques Maritain about the university being a moral entity (Maritain, 1942 as quoted in Wilshire, 1985). In the same vein, other researchers asserted the L. Tauginienė (*) Department of Management and Organisation, Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland Kaunas Faculty, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 D. C. Poff (ed.), University Corporate Social Responsibility and University Governance, Advances in Business Ethics Research 8, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77532-2_6

119

120

L. Tauginienė

moral character of a university (e.g., Bok, 1982; Golubavičiūtė & Guzavičius, 2009; Goodpaster & Mathews Jr., 1982; Morgan, 2006). Such an avenue explicitly points to classic understanding of a university, the so-called Humboldtian model, where teaching staff and scientists played a preponderant role in safeguarding values in teaching and research through academic freedom and professional autonomy. However, once the era of neoliberal understanding penetrated worldwide, and market values and the new managerialism impinged upon universities, values tended to shift and even compete (Lynch & Ivancheva, 2015). Alongside this, in neoliberal societies, university responsibility towards society, deriving from a university’s moral reasoning (e.g., its mission statement) and acting, relates to how academic quality and outcomes (impact) are produced and their recognition is achieved (Paradeise & Thoenig, 2013). This linkage implies effects of the impact on both university and its stakeholders, such as market position and shaping image through behaviour, identity, and attitude (Kosmützky, 2012). This led to new emerging terms that latently embellished the new happening within universities, such as ‘neoliberal’ or ‘entrepreneurial’ or ‘enterprising’ university (Aavik, 2019; Clark, 1998; Marginson, 2013). Meanwhile, values become suborned, more inconsistent and conflicting over the time, resulting in antagonism and schizophrenia of universities (Levin et al., 2020; Shore, 2010). Undoubtedly, revisiting academic values in the twenty-first century is still of relevance due to the fierce conflict between market values and fundamental values (Chan, 2011) and the need to stabilise the ‘mental health’ of universities that values implicate. Wieland (2014) states that main functions of values are framing, orienting actions, and creating a sense of identity. Therefore, values facilitate attempts to stabilise university challenges of the twenty-first century at least to some extent. However, as Corlett (see Chap. 14 in this book) articulates, the twenty-first century brought to universities a fatigue from pursuing professional (academic) values in teaching and research due to the overwhelming onus on the university as multiuniversity. Although academic values are broadly perceived, this chapter focuses on mission-­oriented values that are laid out in institutional strategies and are of particular interest as strategic mirrors. The following explanations elucidate this. First, core values remain immutable, but universities have to adapt to changes deriving from outside and inside (Johnson, 2002; Massy, 2009; Morris, 2001; Rosenzweig, 1999–2000; Ward, 2007). Therefore, universities are obliged to balance market demands, performance effectiveness and holding onto values (e.g., value-based leadership). For this reason, a clash of values emerges (Chan, 2011; Gburi, 2015, 2016; Martusevičienė, 2015; McNay, 2007; Rinne & Koivula, 2005). Second, a university is interconnected with multiple stakeholders that are directly or indirectly affected (Henkel, 1997) and, conversely, stakeholders affect university management (Ceulemans et al., 2015; Jongbloed et al., 2008). Assumably, institutional standards responding to the interests of stakeholders ought to embody institutional values, particularly (social) responsibility and (public) accountability. It is argued that academics encounter difficulties in adhering to institutional values due, for instance, to their specialisation and institutional governance that consequently

6  Mission-Oriented Values as the Bedrock of University Social Responsibility

121

are associated with their identity and professionalism (Clark, 1983; Henkel, 1997; Johnson, 2002; Morris, 2001; Seeber et  al., 2019; Whitley, 2000). Consequently, either a new university culture begins to arise with regard to the combination of market values and traditional values, or university culture begins to shift with regard to whatever values prevail, traditional or market (Massy, 2009; Rinne & Koivula, 2005). Third, universities express their social responsibility through the operationalisation of institutional values (Tauginienė & Urbanovič, 2018). This linkage results in the definition of university social responsibility – “a commitment towards performance based on ethical and other conventional principles that are respectively substantiated in the mission, values and related activities in the interplay with all possible stakeholders in order to create social value foremost” (Tauginienė & Urbanovič, 2018, p. 159). It is admitted that despite the values espoused in a university strategy (notably mission statement), universities fulfil their social responsibility (Meyer, 2012; Nowotny et al., 2001) described interchangeably in organisation studies as, for example, business ethics, virtuousness (Cameron, 2011) or engaged university (Benneworth, 2013), sustainable university (Van Weenen, 2000), or ethical university (Chan, 2011). To some extent, “socially responsible university” overlaps with these terms, but it is also distinct due to a particular line of scholarly thought. Moreover, social responsibility is aligned with social innovation (Turker, 2018a) as implementation of university social responsibility induces social changes. Within these grounds, this chapter aims to identify current mission-oriented values in the academic setting (namely, public universities) and their potential impression upon university social responsibility through organisational culture. This chapter is organised in four sections. The first section discusses the need for understanding the relationship between universities and social responsibility, while the next section revises the literature on mission-oriented values in terms of university social responsibility. The third section describes the methodological approach, while the fourth section presents research findings, followed by discussion and conclusions.

6.2  U  nderstanding the Relationship Between University and Social Responsibility Universities as key drivers for knowledge creation suffer from isomorphic institutional pressures (Alzyoud & Bani-Hani, 2015; Geppert & Hollinshead, 2017) which, in turn, question what universities are for (Collini, 2012; Perry, 2006); how they respond to societal needs in line with their context and identity (e.g. Albert & Whetten, 1985; Herrera & Sánchez, 2017; Kosmützky, 2012; Winter & O’Donohue, 2012); contribute to societal development (e.g. Maassen, 2019; Păunescu et  al., 2017; Ramos-Monge et  al., 2017); and remain accountable and open to related stakeholders (e.g., Amaral & Magalhães, 2002; Ercsey, 2017; Păunescu et al., 2017;

122

L. Tauginienė

Pociūtė, 2005). In addressing these questions, universities carry out diverse activities through their mission – teaching, research, and community development (e.g., De Boer et al., 2007; Jongbloed et al., 2008). Teaching is implemented in such ways as delivering corporate social responsibility (CSR) courses for students (e.g., Herrera & Sánchez, 2017) or raising students’ awareness of social responsibility in general (e.g., Ilgin et al., 2017). From this it is expected that students will be prone to export knowledge on CSR gained at a university afterwards into their workplace. Research mainly covers investigations of CSR and reporting their results, while community development refers to the promotion of sustainable development (e.g., Linares et al., 2012), making citizen science (e.g., Bonney, 1996) or delivering education for socially excluded communities (e.g., Benneworth, 2013; Brodsky, 2017). All these mission-oriented activities are usually embodied in university strategic management (Ramos-Monge et al., 2017; Tauginienė, 2015). However, it seems that universities abandoned their mission due to disfigurement of these activities (Lustig, 2005). Samson and Daft (2015) claim that institutional values, being part of organisational culture, interrelate with decisions regarding social responsibility towards external stakeholders. On the one hand, the focus on stakeholders implies the presence of a commitment to social responsibility due to a university’s aim to meet societal expectations (the so-called stakeholder-driven motive) (Groza et al., 2011; Stanaland et  al., 2011). On the other hand, universities usually provide a public service: their ostensible motive for engaging in socially responsible activities is intrinsic and values-driven (Groza et al., 2011). All these motives allow universities to seek competitive advantage, such as to shape their image, establish a better reputation and gain stakeholders’ trust (De Jong & van der Meer, 2017). Furthermore, university social responsibility is a part of internal management systems, as it focuses on internal practices and cross-functional linkages by addressing externalities (De Jong & van der Meer, 2017; Sheehy, 2015; Turker, 2018b). Given the facets of university social responsibility, universities can apparently benefit from a commitment to social responsibility, such as improving performance quality (Moneva Abadía & Vallespin, 2012), quality of stakeholders’ experience (Esfijani & Chang, 2012; Rodríguez & Hernández, 2017) or by contrast cannot realise its benefits due to the lack of awareness, leadership, and other determinants (Moneva Abadía & Vallespin, 2012). Given these linkages described, it becomes apparent that university fulfils social responsibility towards diverse – internal and external – stakeholders. However, it is not always distinct how a university comes up with the commitment to social responsibility, subconsciously or purposely, and what role its institutional values play in pursuing this.

6  Mission-Oriented Values as the Bedrock of University Social Responsibility

123

6.3  A  ligning Mission-Oriented Values with University Social Responsibility Values play an identity role in organisations  – equally in universities (Albert & Whetten, 1985; Winter & O’Donohue, 2012). Yet, there is no consensus as to what values specify the identity and image of a university from stakeholders’ perspective and how these values are used in practice under external power. In terms of university social responsibility, a university decides what values to espouse and translate into daily activities in such a way as to achieve its desired identity, image, and impact. The study by Noguera et al. (2014) shows that as part of the evaluation of university social responsibility human values are one of the measures under consideration. This research demonstrates that a university opts for values as a part of its corporate governance, though these values are not necessarily homogeneous among universities; so, the operationalisation of values differs as well. Nevertheless, university social responsibility is one outcome (impact) of how values are operationalised (Giuffré & Ratto, 2014). Another study by Loi and Di Guardo (2015) analysed the values espoused by a university in line with its third mission in order to define the university’s orientation towards diverse stakeholders, i.e., social values resulting from a university’s social responsibility (Moosmayer, 2012). Loi and Di Guardo (2015) stated that “some universities have interpreted their role as contributors to society’s innovative process” (p. 865) while other universities sought social responsibility based on their historical values, so did not go beyond their espoused values. Similar observations are traced in subsequent studies too (e.g., Jungblut & Jungblut, 2017). More broadly, universities which refer to one or other value echo their organisational culture. McNay (2007) explained this through predominant values in universities. First, the value of freedom aligned with Humboldtian concepts (such as academic freedom, autonomy, pursuit of knowledge, unity in teaching and research) in a collegiate culture. Second, the values of equity and social justice aligned with inclusiveness in democracy and co-decision making in a bureaucratic culture. Additionally, Wieland (2001) assigns justice in general to a set of moral values. Third, the value of loyalty aligned with centre-based decisions and as a control function in a corporate culture. Again, Wieland (2001) ascribes loyalty as interaction values. Fourth, the value of competence aligned with creativity and innovation, and linked to external stakeholders as clients in an enterprise culture. Wieland (2001) asserts that competence is a part of performance values. All these types of organisational culture are developed by the degree of policy development and policy delivery. Hence, university social responsibility is a part of the entire university governance policy, most likely to be based on mission-oriented values.

124

L. Tauginienė

6.4  Methodological Approach The espoused values depict university culture (Bourne & Jenkins, 2013), while part of university formal structure interconnects with rationalised institutional rules (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Meyerson & Martin, 1987). The espoused values, being highly institutionalised through mission statements, often neglect individuals and sometimes organisations due to externalities. Nevertheless, following legitimacy theory, these values become legitimate and get a rule form when evaluating performance effects, competitive advantages, societal relations, and other relational networks (Deegan, 2002; Meyer & Rowan, 1977). According to Deegan (2002), on the one hand, the espoused values are bound to the social contract (e.g., stakeholders interact with a university and affect each other). On the other hand, under the institutional theory, the espoused values are not immune to legitimate changes. Due to external expectations, changes in university formal structure provoke changes in the espoused values. Given this, the espoused values allow understanding the pathway towards university social responsibility which, in turn, might be of a different kind. Lantos (2001) distinguished ethical, altruistic, and strategic social responsibility. To identify current mission-oriented values in public universities and their potential impression upon university social responsibility through organisational culture, this chapter focuses on strategic social responsibility. Hence, to have a clear understanding of strategic social responsibility, this research draws on the analysis of universities’ strategies that represent the official position on corporate governance (Jungblut & Jungblut, 2017; Kabanoff et al., 1995). It focuses on a single-­case study related to universities from one North European post-socialist country – Lithuanian public universities, which are obliged to make strategies publicly available on their website according to the requirements of national legal regulation. From these strategies mission-oriented values were identified. The sample consisted of 15 strategies from all Lithuanian public universities, but only 14 strategies clearly defined institutional values in a mission statement. Most of these strategies are long-term (11 of 15) and nominate a variety of mission-oriented values, ranging from two to nine (five on average). Codes of mission-oriented values are of the manifest character, so they comprise the visible and obvious content of the text (Bengtsson, 2016; Cho & Lee, 2014). There were 80 mentions of mission-oriented values, over 60 identified as unique. To analyse the data on mission-oriented values, three research questions were formulated: (1) What are mission-oriented values prevalent in universities’ strategies? (2) What organisational culture do these values predefine? and (3) What impression upon university social responsibility do values-­driven organisational cultures imply? To address these research questions, a bound model network of mission-oriented values inherent to Lithuanian public universities was developed using Gephi Graph 0.9.2 visualisation and manipulation software (Fig.  6.1). This model contains 43 nodes and 90 edges (average weighted degree 2.256), but is not dynamic. It is based on a small dataset that consists of refined institutional values (n = 30). Refinement procedure allowed distilling the core values (Table 6.1).

6  Mission-Oriented Values as the Bedrock of University Social Responsibility

125

Fig. 6.1  A bound model network of mission-oriented values inherent to public universities

Then, mission-oriented values were grouped in four main values-driven organisational cultures described by McNay (2007). To enhance the reliability of data analysis, two coders independently assigned a type of organisational culture to each value. Krippendorff’s alpha coefficient (α) was calculated to show inter-coder agreement for qualitative items (Krippendorff, 2004). The inter-coder agreement after an initial coding was fair (α = 0.3657); therefore, values with disagreement on a code were discussed to avoid discrepancies. To ensure a consistent coding procedure consensus was reached (Denzin, 1970). The inter-coder agreement after a final coding was almost perfect (α  =  0.9881). Thereafter the inter-coder disagreement remained for one value that was assigned with a double code (e.g., enterprise/ collegiate). This study has a few limitations: first, mission-oriented values espoused in strategies are supposedly pivotal; however, values inherent in university sub-cultures are not considered. Second, the profiling of each university based on these organisational cultures was beyond the scope of this research. Therefore, further research is

126

L. Tauginienė

Table 6.1  An example of refined mission-oriented values Core value Community spirit

Innovativeness

Professionalism

Respect

Mission-oriented values Academy Community Strong community Spirit and tradition of Lithuanian university Creativeness Creativity Dynamism Innovativeness Academic excellence Improvement of university performance as a long-lasting process Lifelong learning Lifelong improvement Lifelong improvement of research performance, higher education, and governance Professionalism Mutual respect Particular respect for teaching and learning of a student Respect for a cognition Respect for each university community member and his/her initiative Respect for a student as a core participant of university academic process

needed to ascertain what dominant mission-oriented values (organisational cultures) conflict within a university or a field of research and how these might affect the pathways taken towards university social responsibility. Third, to better understand university social responsibility, two other dimensions of social responsibility (Lantos, 2001) – ethical and altruistic – need to be further investigated.

6.5  Research Findings 6.5.1  Mission-Oriented Values in Universities’ Strategies A bound model network of mission-oriented values shows that Lithuanian public universities embody several prevalent mission-oriented values in their strategies, such as professionalism (V22), innovativeness (V16), respect (V23), and community spirit (V6) (Fig. 6.1). One mission-oriented value – professionalism – greatly manifests in public universities. Mission-oriented values nominated in university strategies are directly and indirectly linked to McNay’s values-driven organisational cultures (see Table 6.2). Values indirectly linked to McNay’s values-driven organisational cultures serve as a continuation of other values. For example, tolerance is a determinant for academic freedom that encourages critical consideration of others’ thoughts, ideas, and arguments; healthy life promotion is a determinant to build bonds with an organisation (community spirit) and in this way to strengthen loyalty.

6  Mission-Oriented Values as the Bedrock of University Social Responsibility

127

Table 6.2  Mission-oriented values by values-driven organisational culture Collegiate culture Autonomy Community spirit Duty Freedom Humanism Respect Responsibility Tolerance

Bureaucratic culture Accountability Ethics and integrity Gender equality Justice Legitimacy Transparency

Corporate culture Collaboration Commitment Community spirit Healthy life promotion Identity Solidarity Trust

Enterprise culture Collaboration Diversity Initiative Innovativeness Internationality Openness Professionalism Respect Responsibility Responsiveness Sustainability

Furthermore, some values appear under more than one organisational culture. For example, “collaboration” appears under corporate and enterprise cultures. Linguistically, collaboration in Lithuanian language has two connotations and they depend on the context in which it is used; it connotes both the process (collaborating) and the output (collaborated). Mission-oriented values related to enterprise culture were the most numerous. They encompassed those derivative values of competence that envisage professionalism, innovativeness, responsibility, and others. These values demonstrate a university’s ability to transcend the boundaries of the ivory tower. To explain further how these derivative values are pertinent to the value of competence, the value of professionalism will serve as an illustration. The essential point is that universities put different content into professionalism. On the one hand, strategies underline professionalism as an outcome and interlink it with social responsibility, such as highly-skilled specialists to benefit individuals, society and animal welfare. On the other hand, strategies emphasise professionalism as process, such as responsible, effective, and efficient performance. Yet, in some strategies, professionalism embraces both process and outcome. Mission-oriented values related to collegiate culture have also been abundantly identified. These values are essentially associated with academic freedom, freedom for the personality and autonomy that obviously fall under the value of freedom. Collegiate culture, meanwhile, is conceptually characterised as the Humboldtian university, where traditional values prevail. Regardless of warnings about the gradual loss of power of this culture (e.g., due to globalisation, higher education Mcdonaldisation, decrease of funding and other pressures), it seems that the sense of freedom is profoundly entrenched in Lithuanian public universities up to now. Corporate culture and bureaucratic culture list a similar number of mission-­ oriented values. The core values related to corporate culture are community spirit and identity. The latter serves as the basis for building and achieving loyalty. As an expression of loyalty, identity has multidirectional ties, e.g., devotion and belonging to a country and recognition of one's characteristics, especially in relation to social context. Identity consists then of patriotism, nationality, and self-identity.

128

L. Tauginienė

Bureaucratic culture has a clear focus on values of equity and social justice. Derivative values were attributed such as transparency, integrity, legitimacy, gender equality and others. By their inner characteristics, these derivative values cover particular aspects of the values of equity and social justice. For example, the mission-­ oriented value of gender equality is an apparent example of bureaucratic culture as in general sense it is a part of equity.

6.6  Discussion At strategic level, each organisational culture has been identified with a set of mission-­oriented values. These values mirror the social contract in which a university is eager to engage. This engagement suggests potential stakeholders towards whom university social responsibility would be expressed. A collegiate culture, aligning the value of freedom with Humboldtian concepts, draws a vector towards academia (internal stakeholders) foremost. Meanwhile, universities with an enterprise culture will stay more focused on clients (external stakeholders) (McNay, 2007). However, these espoused values do not necessarily make a greater impact on a university’s behaviour or a university’s stakeholders in comparison with what values and norms embedded in organisational culture would do (Irgens & Ness, 2007). When defining impression upon university social responsibility, the role of activities should be considered. The combination of diverse activities facilitates creating ties inside and outside a university. The variety of activities does also channel dimensions of university social responsibility (e.g., environmental, ethical, economic, educational). These indicate the boundaries of the social contract within which university social responsibility manifests (Deegan, 2002). Taking worldwide neoliberalisation in consideration, shifting activities not only alter the espoused values, but might also change the dimensions of university social responsibility and their subject matter. Notwithstanding the foregoing about the social contract, the present-day universities seek competitive advantage. As a result, to evidence this they take part in university rankings. As an example, the Times Higher Education World University Rankings refer to 11 out of 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals which also substantiate university social responsibility (e.g., reduced inequalities, responsible consumption, and production). This is a positive aspect that such a ranking implicitly pays attention to university social responsibility. However, we need to believe that university social responsibility will not become a neoliberal stunt, but will remain the “purport and expression of university real-life performance driven by the values-­ and-­stakeholder rationale” (Tauginienė & Pučėtaitė, 2021, p. 32). Additionally, it is important to stress an educational side when teaching students about values. While the locus of mission-oriented values should be defined, as a component of strategy and organisational culture, it is more important to coherently couple the espoused values with all managerial processes and link them to the

6  Mission-Oriented Values as the Bedrock of University Social Responsibility

129

impression upon institutional (university) social responsibility. This would show how the espoused values should become and remain a legitimate organisational asset.

6.7  Conclusions Values of competence, such as professionalism, openness and responsibility and others, are dominant in university strategies. This allows the conclusion that enterprise culture is mostly inherent to Lithuanian public universities. However, in general, mission-oriented values point to how universities want to be seen, what ambition they have, but not what they in fact are. To counter this, the implementation scale of university social responsibility and its affected stakeholders could ostensibly be assumed, though mission-oriented values have legitimacy to serve as the bedrock of university social responsibility. Acknowledgement  For taking the role of the second coder, I thank Raminta Pučėtaitė, Associate Professor at Vilnius University and Kaunas University of Technology (Lithuania) and Adjunct Professor at University of Jyväskylä (Finland). Also, a special thanks goes to Frank den Hond, Ehrnrooth Professor in Management and Organisation at Hanken School of Economics (Finland), for his helpful comments on an early chapter draft. Portion of this chapter was presented at the 34th EGOS colloquium “Surprise in and around Organizations: Journeys to the Unexpected”, Tallinn, Estonia, 2018.

References Aavik, K. (2019). Crafting neoliberal futures in the strategic plans of Estonian universities. Futures, 111, 148–158. Albert, S., & Whetten, D. (1985). Organizational identity. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour (Vol. 7, pp. 263–295). JAI Press. Alzyoud, S.  A., & Bani-Hani, K. (2015). Social responsibility in higher education institutions: Application case from the Middle East. European Scientific Journal, 11(8), 122–129. Amaral, A., & Magalhães, A. (2002). The emergent role of external stakeholders in European higher education governance. In A.  Amaral, G.  A. Jones, & B.  Karseth (Eds.), Governing higher education: National perspectives on institutional governance (Higher Education Dynamics series) (Vol. 2, pp. 1–21). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­94-­015-­9946-­7_1 Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. Nursing Plus Open, 2, 8–14. Benneworth, P. (Ed.). (2013). University engagement with socially excluded communities. Springer. Bok, D. (1982). Beyond the Ivory tower: Social responsibilities of the modern university. Harvard University Press. Bonney, R. (1996). Citizen science: A lab tradition. Living Bird, 15(4), 7–15. Bourne, H., & Jenkins, M. (2013). Organizational values: A dynamic perspective. Organization Studies, 34(4), 495–514. Brodsky, J. M. (2017). College education and the elite of knowledge: Towards an exercise of university social responsibility. Academia, 15(29), 15–30.

130

L. Tauginienė

Cameron, K. (2011). Responsible leadership as virtuous leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 25–35. Ceulemans, K., Molderez, I., & Van Liedekerke, L. (2015). Sustainability reporting in higher education: A comprehensive review of the recent literature and paths for further research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106(1), 127–143. Chan, D. K. K. (2011). In search of an ethical university: A proposed East-West integrative vision. Ethics and Education, 6(3), 267–278. Cho, Y. J., & Lee, E.-H. (2014). Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: Similarities and differences. The Qualitative Report, 19(64), 1–20. Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system. Academic organization in cross-national perspective. University of California Press. Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Pergamon. Collini, S. (2012). What are universities for? Penguin. De Boer, H. F., Enders, J., & Leisyte, L. (2007). Public sector reform in Dutch higher education: The organizational transformation of the university. Public Administration, 85(1), 27–46. De Jong, M. D. T., & van der Meer, M. (2017). How does it fit? Exploring the congruence between organizations and their corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities. Journal of Business Ethics, 143, 71–83. Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures – A theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282–311. Denzin, N. K. (1970). The research act in sociology. Aldine. Ercsey, I. (2017). The role of customers’ involvement in value co-creation behaviour. Is value co-­ creation the source of competitive advantage? Journal of Competitiveness, 9(3), 51–66. Esfijani, A., & Chang, E. (2012, December 3–5). A fuzzy logic based approach for measuring virtual university social responsibility. In Proceedings of the 2nd world conference on soft computing (pp. 149–154), Baku, Azerbaijan. Gburi, I. (2015). The university and market value(s). Our Schools/Our Selves, 25(1), 149–157. Gburi, I. (2016). Clash inside the academy: The market and the strife for the democratic values of the Western University. International Education Studies, 9(2), 32–41. Geppert, M., & Hollinshead, G. (2017). Signs of dystopia and democratization in global academia: Reflections on the precarious and destructive effects of the colonization of the Lebenswelt. Critical perspectives on international business, 13(2), 136–150. Giuffré, L., & Ratto, S. E. (2014). A new paradigm in higher education: University social responsibility (USR). Journal of Education & Human Development, 3(1), 231–238. Golubavičiūtė, R., & Guzavičius, A. (2009). Universitetas kaip socialiai atsakinga organizacija. Ekonomika ir vadyba, 14, 246–250. Goodpaster, K. E., & Mathews, B. J. Jr. (1982). Can a corporation have a conscience? Harvard Business Review, Jan–Feb: 32–41. Groza, M.  D., Pronschinske, M.  R., & Walker, M. (2011). Perceived organizational motives and consumer responses to proactive and reactive CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(4), 639–652. Henkel, M. (1997). Academic values and the university as corporate enterprise. Higher Education Quarterly, 51(2), 134–143. Herrera, M. E., & Sánchez, Y. (2017). La responsabilidad social universitaria: un enfoque desde los diplomados del decanato de ciencias económicas y empresariales de la Universidad Centroccidental Lisandro Alvarado. Gestión y Gerencia, 11(1), 1–25. Ilgin, H. Ö., Ertekin, İ., & Yengin, D. A. (2017). Social responsibility cognition in higher education. The Turkish Online Journal of Design, Art and Communication, 7(4), 686–696. Irgens, E.  J., & Ness, H. (2007). Exporting knowledge and values: A discussion of managerial challenges when attempting to diffuse CSR across company and national borders (Chapter 8). In F. den Hond, F. G. A. de Bakker, & P. Neergaard (Eds.), Managing corporate social responsibility in action: Talking, doing and measuring (pp. 127–145). Ashgate.

6  Mission-Oriented Values as the Bedrock of University Social Responsibility

131

Johnson, H. (2002). The marketing orientation in higher education: The perspectives of academics about its impact on their role. In G. Williams (Ed.), The enterprising university. Reform, excellence and equity (pp. 142–153). SRHE and Open University Press. Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56(3), 303–324. Jungblut, J., & Jungblut, M. (2017). All different? All equal? Differentiation of universities’ mission statements and excellence initiatives in Germany. Science and Public Policy, 44(4), 535–545. Kabanoff, B., Waldersee, R., & Cohen, M. (1995). Espoused values and organizational change themes. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1075–1104. Kosmützky, A. (2012). Between mission and market position: Empirical findings on mission statements of German higher education institutions. Tertiary Education and Management, 18(1), 57–77. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage. Lantos, G.  P. (2001). The boundaries of strategic corporate social responsibility. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(2), 595–630. Levin, J. S., Martin, M. C., & López Damián, A. I. (2020). University management, the academic profession, and neoliberalism. SUNY Press. Linares, Y., Godoy, M. R., & Sáez, B. (2012). La responsabilidad social universitaria: una contribución al desarollo de las comunidades. Academia, 11(23), 215–223. Loi, M., & Di Guardo, M. C. (2015). The third mission of universities: An investigation of the espoused values. Science and Public Policy, 42, 855–870. Lustig, J. (2005). The university revisioned: An alternative to corporate mis-education. The Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 27(1), 17–52. Lynch, K., & Ivancheva, M. (2015). Academic freedom and the commercialisation of universities: A critical ethical analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 15, 71–85. Maassen, P. (2019). New demands to universities and their impact on the place of universities in society (Chapter 1). In P. Maassen, Z. Andreadakis, M. Gulbrandsen, & B. Stensaker (Eds.), The place of universities in society (pp. 14–25). Körber-Stiftung. Marginson, S. (2013). The impossibility of capitalist markets in higher education. Journal of Education Policy, 28(3), 353–370. Maritain, J. (1942). The end of Machiavellianism. The Review of Politics (excerpted in Leland E. Wilshire, “The Three Eyes”, unpublished syllabus, Biola University, 1983). Martusevičienė, L. (2015). Universiteto vertybės XXI a. iššūkių kontekste. Studies in Modern Society, 6(1), 48–54. Massy, W.  F. (2009). Academic values in the marketplace. Higher Education Management and Policy, 21(3), 59–74. McNay, I. (2007). Values, principles and integrity: Academic and professional standards in UK higher education. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19(3), 43–66. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. Meyer, L. H. (2012). Negotiating academic values, professorial responsibilities and expectations for accountability in today’s university. Higher Education Quarterly, 66(2), 207–217. Meyerson, D., & Martin, J. (1987). Cultural change: An integration of three different views. Journal of Management Studies, 24(6), 623–647. Moneva Abadía, J. M., & Vallespin, E.  M. (2012). Universidad y desarollo sostenible: análysis de la rendición de cuentas de las universidades públicas desde un enfoque de responsabilidad social. RIGC, X(19), 1–18. Moosmayer, D.  C. (2012). A model of management academics’ intentions to influence values. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(2), 155–173. Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Sage. Morris, R. W. (2001). The mythic horizon of the university: Problems and possibilities for value-­ based leadership. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 18(4), 277–290.

132

L. Tauginienė

Noguera, J. J. M., Martí-Vilar, M., & Almerich, G. (2014). Responsabilidad social universitaria: influencia de valores y empatía en la autoatribución de comportamientos socialmente responsables. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 46(3), 160–168. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press. Paradeise, C., & Thoenig, J.-C. (2013). Academic institutions in search of quality: Local orders and global standards. Organization Studies, 34(2), 189–218. Păunescu, C., Drăgan (Gilmeanu), D, & Găucă, O. (2017). Examining obligations to society for QS stars best ranked universities in social responsibility. Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 12(4), 551–570. Perry, B. (2006). Science, society and the university: A paradox of values. Social Epistemology, 20(3-4), 201–219. Pociūtė, B. (2005). Pagrindinė akademinės bendruomenės vertybė  – kokybės kultūra. Acta Paedagogica Vilnensia, 15, 188–196. Ramos-Monge, E.  L., Audet, X.  L., & Barrena-Martínez, J. (2017). Universities as corporate entities: The role of social responsibility in their strategic management (chapter 10). In O. L. Emeagwali (Ed.), Corporate governance and strategic decision making (pp. 196–215). IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.69931 Rinne, R., & Koivula, J. (2005). The changing place of the university and a clash of values. The entrepreneurial university in the European knowledge society. A Review of the Literature. Higher Education Management and Policy, 17(3), 91–123. Rodríguez, N. A., & Hernández, B. (2017). Responsabilidad social universitaria un actor ignorado: el personal no docente. Eureka, 14(2), 240–254. Rosenzweig, R. M. (1999–2000). Universities change, core values should not. Issues in Science & Technology, 16(2), 59–64. Samson, D., & Daft, R.  L. (2015). Management. Cengage Learning Australia. 5th Asia-Pacific Edition. Seeber, M., Barberio, V., Huisman, J., & Mampaey, J. (2019). Factors affecting the content of universities’ mission statements: An analysis of the United Kingdom higher education system. Studies in Higher Education, 44(2), 230–244. Sheehy, B. (2015). Defining CSR: Problems and solutions. Journal of Business Ethics, 131, 625–648. Shore, C. (2010). Beyond the multiversity: Neoliberalism and the rise of the schizophrenic university. Social Anthropology, 18(1), 15–29. Stanaland, A. J., Lwin, M. O., & Murphy, P. E. (2011). Consumer perceptions of the antecedents and consequences of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 47–55. Tauginienė, L. (2015). Socialiai atsakingas universitetas. In S. Žičkienė (Ed.), Socialinė atsakomybė verslo ir viešajame sektoriuje (pp. 253–274). Šiaulių universiteto bibliotekos Leidybos skyrius. Tauginienė, L., & Pučėtaitė, R. (2021). (Re-)constructing measurement of university social responsibility (chapter 3). In L. Tauginienė & R. Pučėtaitė (Eds.), Managing social responsibility in universities: Organisational responses to sustainability (pp. 27–48). Palgrave Macmillan. Tauginienė, L., & Urbanovič, J. (2018). Social responsibility in transition of stakeholders – From the school to the university (Chapter 7). In S.  Seifi & D.  Crowther (Eds.), Stakeholders: Governance and responsibility (Developments in corporate governance and responsibility) (Vol. 14, pp. 143–163). Emerald Group Publishing. Turker, D. (2018a). CSR as a social innovation (Chapter 1.1). In Managing social responsibility: Functional strategies, decisions and practices (pp. 4–6). Springer. Turker, D. (2018b). Strategy and social responsibility (Chapter 3). In Managing social responsibility: Functional strategies, decisions and practices (pp. 43–58). Springer. Van Weenen, H. (2000). Towards a vision of sustainable university. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 1(1), 20–34. Ward, D. (2007). Academic values, institutional management and public policies. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19(2), 9–20.

6  Mission-Oriented Values as the Bedrock of University Social Responsibility

133

Whitley, R. (2000). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford University Press. Wieland, J. (2001). The ethics of governance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(1), 73–87. Wieland, J. (2014). Governance ethics: Global value creation, economic organization and normativity (Studies in economic ethics and philosophy). Springer. Wilshire, B. (1985). Can the university defend the values upon which it stands? Human Studies, 8, 377–388. Winter, R. P., & O’Donohue, W. (2012). Academic identity tensions in the public university: Which values really matter? Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(6), 565–573. Dr. Loreta Tauginienė is an academic professional, lately Associated Researcher at Hanken School of Economics, Finland and formerly Researcher at Vilnius University, Kaunas  Faculty, Institute for Social Sciences and Applied Informatics. She has published over 20 publications related to social responsibility, stakeholder engagement, science in society and integrity. Her research interests are academic/research integrity, social responsibility of higher education institutions, public engagement, citizen science and responsible research and innovation.  

Chapter 7

Dominance Encounters in University Management Scott Grills

Abstract Athens (Domination and subjugation in everyday life. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, 2015a) challenges those working within the extended symbolic interactionist tradition to attend to dominance practices in everyday life (Athens (Domination and subjugation in everyday life. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, 2015a) advances an argument for radical interactionism, which I include under the extended symbolic interactionist tradition). While dominance may be associated with various negative connotations such as control, oppression, and subjugation, dominance itself may be best understood in process terms. In this paper I examine dominance as accomplished action. Dominance (and conflict and subjugation) may be framed as generic social processes which are aspects of social life that play themselves out trans-historically, trans-contextually and trans-situationally. This paper examines some of the central themes that arise in attending to dominance processes in the context of university management and specifically examines the process of dominatization in management contexts. Keywords  Dominance · Social processes · Subordinate and superordinate roles · Management

7.1  In Context This chapter contributes to the extended examination of the complexity of the modern university. The argument that I advance herein attends to the prevalence of domination and dominative encounters in university settings. While the rhetoric of the modern university may embrace the notion of collegial self-governance, this phrase in some ways masks the negotiated, conflictual, and at times highly problematic processes that accompany making one’s life and work within a university context. It S. Grills (*) Department of Sociology, Brandon University, Brandon, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 D. C. Poff (ed.), University Corporate Social Responsibility and University Governance, Advances in Business Ethics Research 8, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77532-2_7

135

136

S. Grills

is an understatement to say that as a modifier of self-governance, collegial in this sense does not mean “friendly.” Rather, acts of domination are such a routine feature of university life that those who are in and of the setting are unlikely to recognize them as such. I would encourage the framing of domination as an intersubjective accomplishment, realized by people doing everyday acts of subordination together. Relationships of superordination and subordination are lived out in the routine activities of setting agendas, regulating access, course approval processes, and sabbatical applications. All of these can be profitably understood as dominance encounters. An appreciation of the routine and pervasive qualities of dominative practices in post-secondary educational settings is a helpful lens for framing management in a university context.

7.2  Generic Social Processes: An Analytical Frame By way of contrast with those who adopt more deterministic or moralistic agendas within the social sciences, the study of social process emphasizes the practical accomplishment of everyday life. By encouraging theorists to attend to social action, researchers within this tradition emphasize the practical accomplishment of any aspect of social life. Mead (1934) and Blumer (1969) have been central figures in emphasizing: (1) that human group life is most profitably understood in terms of joint action (i.e., two or more people doing things together); (2) the inter-relatedness of the concepts of “society”, “self”, and “mind”; and (3) that the social world is experienced intersubjectively—marked by socially constructed shared meanings. As Blumer (1969:71) writes, “the essence of society lies in an ongoing process of action—not in the posited structure of relations. Without action, any structure of relations between people is meaningless. To be understood, a society must be seen and grasped in terms of the action that comprises it” (emphasis added).1 By way of contrast to those researchers who envision their concepts and descriptions of the social world as situationally located, generic social process theorists emphasize the importance of generating concepts that will allow for a comparative analysis of the human condition across situations and contexts. As Prus (1997:251) stresses, generic social processes may be profitably understood as “denoting parallel sequences of activity across diverse contexts.” By focusing on the practical accomplishment of management activities in university settings, we are well positioned analytically to attend to the emergent, trans-situational features of human lived experience found therein.2 1  The theoretical framework for this paper draws centrally upon Mead (1934, 1938) and Blumer (1969), but is also indebted to the work of Alfred Schütz (1962, 1964), Wilhelm Dilthey (Ermarth 1978), and Anselm Strauss (1993). For an extended discussion of the foundational premises of symbolic interaction see Grills and Prus (2019:43–78). 2  While this paper attends to dominance encounters as a generic social process, related processes include: (a) acquiring perspectives; (b) achieving identity; (c) doing activity (performing activities, influencing others, making commitments); (d) developing relationships; (e) experiencing emotionality; (f) achieving linguistic fluency; and (g) participating in collective events (Grills & Prus, 2019).

7  Dominance Encounters in University Management

137

This requires being open to management as an enacted, realized and practically accomplished aspect of human group life. While this paper focuses on management practices in university settings, it is rather central that analysts attend to the trans-­ contextual and trans-situational aspects of management and their analysis be informed by the same. To do so is to invite unconventional comparisons and attend to the human experience of management in the making. For example, we might profitably ask what parallel processes are found within management and dominative practices in motorcycle gangs and in universities.3 Universities recruit prospective permanent members and evaluate these members for tenure (permanent status) on the basis of established and agreed upon standards. Motorcycle gangs also recruit potential permanent members and evaluate those members by club standards. Both organizations give full members the power to vote on the transition from probationary member to permanent member. The superordinate–subordinate relationship is codified in both settings. In Canadian universities, the voting process for tenure is typically found in the collective agreement between the university and its faculty association/union. In the case of motorcycle gangs this process is found within the organization’s constitution. For example, The Devil’s Breed MC (2000) of Honolulu, Hawaii affirms that “every patch holder on Island must vote for prospect to make center patch. Vote must be unanimous.” Both organizations are marked by offices and office holders with clearly defined roles and duties. While office holders may enact considerable latitude in the scope of office, both the Vice-President (Academic) and the Sergeant at Arms may have clearly defined and functionally alike roles in discipline, dispute settlement and the dismissal of troublesome members. The theoretical foundation for the study of generic social processes draws from a series of premises that are consistent with the extended symbolic interactionist tradition. Drawing on Mead (1934), Blumer (1969), Couch (1984), Prus (1996), and Grills and Prus (2019) these premises view human group life as: (1) perspectival (people act towards the world on the basis of the meaning it holds for them); (2) intersubjective (marked by shared meanings and worldviews); (3) object attentive (social objects indicate all that may be signified, named and made socially available); (4) multi-perspectival (reality is socially constructed and varies across subcultures); (5) reflective (people possess selves and become objects of their own actions); (6) activity-based (attending to human agency is central to understanding the accomplishment of everyday life); (7) negotiable (people can and do act on the basis of cooperation, conflict, and with sincere or cynical agendas, but also influence others and resist the influences of others); (8) relational (people form particularistic bonds with each other over time and these bonds are highly consequential); (9) processual (human group life is emergent as people select from various lines of action).4

3  For an extended discussion of management in the context of generic social process theory see Grills (2020). 4  This is a considerably condensed adaptation of material presented in Grills and Prus (2019:45–52).

138

S. Grills

7.3  Dominance in an Interactionist Context The preceding premises provide an exceptionally rich and vibrant theoretical framework for engaging and developing an understanding of the human condition. They are foundational to a symbolic interactionist approach to understanding the social world and form the basis for this examination of management activities in university settings. In particular, this paper takes up Athens’ (2015a) challenge to symbolic interactionists to radicalize their theorizing by being as open and attentive to conflict as they are to consensus in their work. Rather than viewing management activates in more structured and deterministic ways, the emphasis herein is on people “doing things with each other, creating what we like to call, not realizing we’re speaking metaphorically, “social structure” and “organization,” though what they are really doing is finding ways to collaborate in the day-to-day here-and-now” (Becker, 2014:187). This paper extends this project by examining the practical accomplishment of dominance in university settings. By framing dominative practices in process terms, we gain a fuller appreciation of the enactment of this generic social process in the setting at hand. As used herein dominance refers to the everyday processes by which actors attempt (with varying degrees of success) to have their definitions of the situation prevail within any given interaction sequence. Such interaction sequences may be relatively fleeting or more sustained over time. Relatedly, this approach to examining dominance does not assume that people will define these activities as necessarily unwelcome or that dominance processes are by definition conflictual ones. Office holders, by virtue of occupying office, may experience considerable latitude with respect to dominative practices in various settings. For example, Deans and Directors in university settings may have substantial leeway with respect to establishing priorities for the allocation of more discretionary financial resources. However, it is useful to attend to the ways in which such acts have an underlying exercise of influence and organizational control associated with them—as some missions are more fully resourced and various priorities and agendas are correspondingly resource enhanced. Dominance is a form of influence work within joint acts where subordinate and superordinate roles are established, maintained, challenged, or overturned. Like other encounters, dominance is to be found within the interactional sequences in which it occurs. Dominance is accomplished action, and as such researchers would benefit greatly from attending to the full range of activities that may accompany doing dominance in everyday life. While the term may be associated with elements of the ‘deviant mystique’ (Prus & Grills, 2003), I would encourage readers to attend to the exercise of dominance in interactional encounters as a pervasive and enduring feature of group life. As Athens (2015a:157) argues, “Since all conflict among human beings or human groups ultimately boils down to who should display the dominant and submissive attitudes … they always (manifest) themselves as dominative encounters” (emphasis in the original).

7  Dominance Encounters in University Management

139

Simmel (1904:490) writes, “That conflict has sociological significance, inasmuch as it either produces or modifies communities of interest, unifications, organizations, is in principle never contested.” Athens (2015a) shares with Simmel an interest in the generic forms of social life. For Simmel (1904) conflict is a process through which tensions may be resolved between “contraries”.5 As such, conflict is as fundamental to the understanding of the human condition as is consensus and unity. There are shared elements here with Mead’s (1934) understanding of conflict as a social process that reflects the ability of people to adopt the attitude of the generalized other via perspectives, symbols, roles, and by so doing engage in hostile and/or provocative acts. Drawing on this tradition of viewing conflict and consensus as generic forms of human engagement, Athens (2015a) argues for the distinction between dominative tiffs, skirmishes and engagements as variants of simple dominative encounters. This stands in contrast to complex dominative encounters which include dominative battles, campaigns and wars. In all cases roles are at stake (to a greater or lesser extent). At the simplest level, the dominative encounter involves role-claiming—the processes by which one or more parties seek to occupy dominant roles and thereby cast others into comparatively subordinate roles. These are everyday encounters in university management. For example, the simple act of office holders calling meetings to order affirms their superordinate status and (to the extent that others recognize and affirm this act) the part played by others to subordinate themselves to the call of the Chair (e.g., ending prior conversations, becoming subject to an agenda, forgoing preferred lines of action). Even here though, participants may engage in resistive acts, either passive or aggressive. For example, engaging in ‘elsewhereism’ (e.g., daydreaming, doodling, and texting) is but one strategy that others may use to resist superordinate’s attempts to frame the interaction sequences at hand. While there is a taken-for-grantedness to everyday dominative practices, dominance encounters can involve considerably more sustained conflict between parties. As such, dominance encounters lack the complexity of role campaigns. Here office holders assemble teams and engage in missions of sorts where they “fight successively, simultaneously, or partly both, for control over collective acts” (Athens, 2015a:191). What is at stake here is “control” and the resources that actors may be willing (and able) to deploy to gain, sustain, defend, or seize control may be considerable. University administrators may find themselves in something of a “running battle” to maintain or enhance their unit’s position within the university. Internal and external others may engage in the coordinated work of role campaigning and by so doing attempt to make ‘progress’ while doing perceived harm to the other. In such circumstances, office holders may find that their own agendas and missions are a challenge to implement as they are engaged in an ongoing process of responding to the ‘attacks’ mounted by others engaged in targeted campaigns that may be the 5  Note the emphasis in this sentence. That the tensions between contrarians are resolved via conflict is but one possible outcome. As such Simmel’s approach is more attentive to the various contingencies in everyday life than the more dialectical framing of conflict offered by Marx.

140

S. Grills

outcome of considered planning and effort. For example, when provincial/state funders come to define universities as places that ‘lack efficiencies’, are not delivering ‘value added benefits’ or are seen as ‘stranded assets’, office holders may find that they are drawn into conflicts that they never anticipated when entering administrate roles. For university administrators matters related to ‘maintaining control’ may be quite consequential for their ability to effectively perform in office and to see themselves and be defined by others as successful in the role. Dominance campaigns therefore, may be directed towards aspects of control on a variety of fronts. Members of Senate may attempt to seek some control over the Board’s jurisdiction in the appointment and review of Presidents, Deans may engage in dominance campaigns to limit the control of the Vice-President Academic’s office, the State may seek control over the collective bargaining process by mandating (formally or less publically) parameters of wage settlements, and Unions may seek control over decision-­ making processes by negotiating “consolation and consent” language into their collective agreements. Importantly, the administrative terrain of universities is marked by dominance campaigns that have run their course. Take for example the composition of the Senate in universities that function under a bicameral system of governance. The composition of Senate can be highly contested ground, as the formal authority of Senate is considerable under the various acts that create and enable Senates.6 While it is generally currently fairly common practice that students have both voice and vote on the floor of Senate, this was not historically the case. Rather the considerable conflict that occurred during the 1960s and the accompanying student advocacy movements saw dominance campaigns directed at affording student leadership access to the structures of control. The organizational structures on contemporary campuses were realized, in part, through negotiated, conflict-marked processes with uncertain outcomes. While it is vital to attend to organizational life in-the-making, it is also important to attend to how the products of human endeavors restrict, constrain and otherwise limit available lines of action for office holders. Dingwall and Strong (1985:218) reinforce this theme, “there is an enormous difference between saying that (the legal form of organizations) are, in principle, indefinitely negotiable and recognizing that they are in practice, determinate. Our argument is for the study of the ways in which that actual determinateness is accomplished.” One way such determinateness is accomplished is via dominative campaigning and our universities are shaped by the outcomes of these tensions and conflicts.

6  For example, the mandate of the Senate of Queen’s University in 1968 was to “to determine all matters of an academic character which affect the University as a whole, and to be concerned with all matters which affect the welfare of the University” (Hooey, 1996).

7  Dominance Encounters in University Management

141

7.4  Dominative Encounters While this chapter is particularly attentive to dominative encounters in management settings, it is important to place these practices in their larger managing contexts. Office holders may employ dominance strategies, yet these are just one aspect of doing management in everyday life. While a more complete examination of these processes is well beyond the scope of the task at hand, of particular consequence for understanding management activities and dominance are the related but distinct practices of negotiation and persuasion. Persuasion in the context of management and office holders refers to the processes by which actors advance worldviews and attempt (albeit with various levels of success) to establish shared worldviews with others. Persuasion therefore is contingent upon socially constructed conventions of claims and evidence making. As Becker (2017) notes, whether the move from data to evidence is legitimated is in many ways audience dependent. This is particularly crucial for evidence-based decision making. Where office holders are attempting to advance evidence-based claims, a fundamental issue for the persuasiveness of arguments rests on the extent to which the claims-makers successfully transform discrete data points into evidence that supports a given desired outcome. For office holders, the everyday work of convincing others that this or that line of action is meritorious is particularly consequential for establishing missions and generating a sense of teamness (e.g., commitments, shared goals, desired outcomes) around such endeavors. Persuasion is profitably framed as a form of influence work. Persuasion does not rely on the aura or authority of office. Rather, persuasion rests on establishing worldviews and the influence of perspectives. For office holders there is the ongoing practical problem of the potential disjunction between persuasive encounters and counterfeit persuasion—those who adopt an attitude of persuasion yet nevertheless harbor resentments, uncertainties, and some underlying lack of commitment and conviction. Despite office holders ‘best efforts’, the evidence or moral claims upon which persuasive efforts rely may be seen as unwelcome, flawed, or unwarranted by some audiences. Others may opt to ‘go along’ as an interactional strategy, potentially attentive to the resources of office that may be deployed to enforce or compel compliance. Office holders may interpret acquiescence as indicative of successful persuasion, yet subordinates may be far less convinced of the general merits or appropriateness of the course being charted. Negotiation refers to the processes by which order is achieved (Strauss, 1978). While the parties to any negotiation may have competing interests and may adopt more conflict-oriented framings of the other, negotiation rests upon a shared understanding of the ‘game’ all parties are playing (Lyman & Scott, 1970). Therefore there is an enduring consensus in the process of negotiation. Even the most tension-­ wrought negotiations, to some extent, demonstrate a shared consensus as to the rules of the game. Negotiation therefore does not rely on dominative practices to come to a resolution. Though we would stray from the lived experience of office to suggest that

142

S. Grills

negotiations are free from such practices, any of the parties may enact dominative strategies to achieve some perceived advantage in processes of negotiation. However negotiation and dominance are distinct social processes. It is through negotiation that various rules, policies and collective agreements are established. As such these are subject to ongoing interpretation and re-negotiation in the everyday practice of doing and holding office. It is this sense then that Strauss (1978) refers to the negotiated order. For Strauss, organizational life like that lived out in universities, reflects an ongoing negotiation or working out of formalized structures (e.g., collective agreements, senates, policies and by-laws) on a day-to-day and somewhat ad hoced way. Office holders are engaged in the ongoing process of sorting out how they will undertake the work and life of the organization in the context of ongoing, emergent and contingent joint acts with others. Doing university administration is ‘messy’ and can never be adequately addressed by flow charts and job descriptions. It is accomplished by people doing things, with others, in the context of an order that is subject to ongoing assessment, revision, interpretation and review. In this context I would encourage an attentiveness to dominative processes in university settings as but one interactional strategy that office holders may employ as they undertake the everyday work of doing management. While persuasion and negotiation represent alternate strategies, they are not mutually exclusive ones. Clearly those engaged in negotiation may attempt to persuade others as to the merits of their position. Likewise, office holders may be well aware of the dominative resources (e.g., formal authority of office) that may be applied to cases at hand if persuasion and/or negotiation fail. A more focused examination of dominance in university setting is the focus of the remainder of this chapter.

7.5  Dominance as Joint Action Universities are comprised of a variety of offices and the various roles that accompany them. While local argots vary, some office titles are meaningful enough to have a shared understanding across settings—provost, president, dean, and department chair. While the practical and everyday enactment of these roles may vary greatly between institutions (e.g., the responsibilities of department chairs in some universities are more comparable to decanal responsibilities in others), office holders in every case are expected to do something. While members of the larger university community may have only the vaguest of notions of what the V.P. (External) actually does (or should do), offices are much more defined by what is done therein than by position descriptions, mission statements, or organizational charts. It is through office as an enacted, experienced, engaged and lived aspect of organizational life that office holders accomplish the everyday work of office. For example, consider the markedly distinct ways in which presidents of universities may engage the role—as the chief academic officer, as the lead fund-raiser, as the public face of the university, as the champion of ‘right-sizing’ and fiscal accountability.

7  Dominance Encounters in University Management

143

This diversity may be accomplished under the very same governance structures, position descriptions and provincial/state acts. My point here is not that presidents differ, but that we cannot account for such differences on the basis of structural or organizational determinants. It is more profitable to understand university administration in process terms—in the context of people doing things together. But at the very same time, office holders do not act with an entirely free hand; they are constrained by the structures and processes that have been constructed by those who have come before. Organizational life is a mixture of innovation and constraint—it cannot be otherwise. However it would be unwise to attribute deterministic qualities to organizational ‘structures’. Office holders may quite selectively attend to policies and procedures, be unaware of some, use some strategically, and actively resist others.7 Therefore it is profitable to attend to dominative practices within office as an extension of the exercise of power more generally. As Prus (1999:152) writes, “power implies an intent and a capacity on the part of a person or collectivity to influence, control, dominate, persuade, manipulate or otherwise affect the behaviours, experience, or situation of some target.” In this rather sweeping definition of power, we see a move away from treating power as objectively given (i.e., inherent in particular structures or roles) in favor of attending to the subjectively problematic qualities of power as an enacted feature of human group life. Power therefore is always contingent on human definition and human action for its realization. In this way power is enacted through joint action—even if these joint actions (Blumer, 1969; Couch, 1984) are defined in the most negative and unwelcome ways by the targets of control. It was Goffman (1968) who undertook an examination of total institutions, their essential qualities, and the moral careers of those therein.8 Read in light of processual research on the accomplishment of power (e.g., Athens, 2015a; Prus, 1999), it is striking how routinized dominative encounters become in total institutions. One might argue that everyday life in such settings is contingent, in part, on routinized dominance and its successful enactment. For example, the maintenance of order in a prison mess hall is contingent upon forms of social control that are, in the last instance, contingent on the maintenance of various relations of superordination and subordination (e.g., between management and correctional officers, between correctional officers and incarcerates, and between residents/inmates). Therefore, the exercise of dominance may be understood as cooperative and to some extent agreed upon action. Unlike more conflict oriented theorists who tend to

7  For example, it is hard to imagine that those who created the construct of the Presidential pardon in the United States of America imagined that a sitting President would affirm “… I have the absolute right to PARDON myself” (emphasis in the original, @realdonanldtrump June 04, 2018) and thereby set themselves above the rule of law. 8  Goffman’s (1968) Asylums moves beyond the specifics of the “mental hospital” under study to attend to the ideal typical features of total institutions more generically and by so doing draws out some of the parallels between monasteries, prisons, hospitals, long term care facilities and universities.

144

S. Grills

view all human action as based upon manifest or latent conflicts (based somehow on determinates such as class, gender, or virtually any other form of group affiliation or quality of the self), I would suggest that analysts would benefit greatly from attending to how dominance is accomplished in specific settings and reflects the local cultures found within. Therefore we would be quite remiss to not attend to the cooperative, emergent, routinized, and everyday qualities of dominance in university settings. Processes associated with course outlines, vacation approvals, sabbaticals, tenure, promotion, workloads, hiring, plagiarism, or grade appeals often have embedded within them relations of subordination and superordination. Consider this clause from a collective agreement pertaining to hiring, “the Dean/Director may offer an appointment only to an individual recommended by the Committee. If the Dean/Director does not accept the Committee’s recommendation, he or she will provide the Committee with reasons and the process will be repeated.”9 In this case, Deans are in the superordinate positon—no hiring can proceed without their consent—they hold a functional veto. This is the formal case in university settings whenever an individual or collective makes recommends to office holders who must consent for the process to continue. While this may seem routine, in everyday life it is anything but. Office holders may withhold approval(s) as an interactional strategy—to affirm the authority of office, to advantage one mission over another, as a form of social control, or out of uncertainties about which lines of action to pursue. At the very same time, subordinate units or persons may look to office holders’ superordinate position as a means to resolve or at least address issues at hand that members of the teams were less willing to resolve on their own terms. For example, internal skirmishes within departments may persist in recommendations forwarded to office holders (e.g., unworkable workload recommendations, ‘lukewarm’ tenure recommendations, and resource heavy staffing plans). Team members may be attentive to the partial, flawed and challenging aspects in such recommendations (as well as the underlying disputes within) but may perceive various advantages in appealing to or invoking the authority of office. Prompting or provoking (directly or indirectly) office holders to do the ‘dirty work’ may be seen as a more welcome alternative to doing such tasks at the team level (e.g., denying tenure, rejecting teaching workloads, undertaking reprimands). In such cases, rejecting recommendations and invoking the dominance of office may in fact involve more cooperative action from some perspectives, than those with less familiarity with the setting might attribute to the apparently conflictual exchange at hand. Hughes (1962) pointedly discusses the role of those who do the ‘dirty work’ on behalf of others in various settings. While his analysis was directed to the dehumanization of others during WWII, his more generic theme is applicable to the experience of office in university settings. There are various occasions where actors within

9  From the Collective Agreement between Brandon University and the Brandon University Faculty Association 2015–19, Article 7.1(a), page 14.

7  Dominance Encounters in University Management

145

the setting may come to define the exercise of dominative authority by office holders as welcome in various ways. Junior members of hiring committees may welcome a Dean’s rejection of a hiring recommendation they did not support and department Chairs may support the decision of a V.P. (Academic) in rejecting the tenure application of a member of their department. Even where the dirty work of office holders are challenged by some (e.g., faculty associations, the targets of the work), researchers would be well served by attending to the joint and cooperative acts that accompany invoking the authority and dominance of office. Via a world of shared symbols, people develop the capacity to take the viewpoint of the other (e.g., Dewey, 1896; James, 1890; Mead, 1934). This learned capacity is essential for the development of the perspectives for making sense of social objects including ourselves and related identities. Our imaginative, creative and passion-­ filled lives are grounded in the world of signs and symbols (Wiley, 1994). The self is best understood in process terms as an emergent, socially constructed, ongoing process of developing self/other identities (Côté, 2015; Mead, 1925). As Mead (1934) notes, the development of the self is seen in the capacity of human actors to take on the perspective of the generalized other. While most certainly developed in the context of primary associations and supported by the childhood activities of playing (simple role taking) and gaming (more complex, multi-faceted role taking), for our purposes we are most concerned with Mead’s interest in the ability of actors to “take their attitudes toward the various phases or aspects of the common social activity … in which, as members of an organized society of social group they are all engaged” (Mead, 1934:155). The process of engaging in self-management is inextricably linked with such an understanding of the self. As Mead states, “only insofar as (the person) takes the attitudes of the organized social group to which (the individual) belongs towards the organized, cooperative social activity or set of such activities in which that group is engaged does (the individual) develop a complete self” (Mead, 1934:155). The internalization of the generalized other is essential to the processes that accompany self-management and the ability to engage office.10 Grills and Prus (2019:198–200) examine the obligated self in the context of doing management and experiencing office. As used herein the obligated self refers to the various responsibilities, duties, commitments, and onuses that office holders may attribute to offices held. Symbolic interactionists have long attended to the interplay between the various parts we play in the social world and related definitions of how we define ourselves and others.11 Rather than viewing obligation in more moralistic terms (e.g., as a positive duty held towards another), my interest here is in how office holders come to develop a sense of responsibility, ownership, and various commitments to offices held. In these ways obligation is best understood in enacted terms and realized in the context of doing office in everyday life.

 For a further discussion of these themes see the chapter “Being Managed and Managing Self: Processes and Problematics of Self-regulation” in Grills and Prus (2019). 11  See for example, Cooley (1902), Mead (1934), Schütz (1962), Stebbins (1969), and Stryker (1980). 10

146

S. Grills

Obligation then, is not a product of merely holding office, but reflects definitions of self in office and accompanying notions of what it means to hold office, how office holders view themselves in such contexts and their perceived commitments and various responsibilities towards others (Stebbins, 2000). Therefore, attending to the obligated self in the context of university management does not involve an attempt to articulate the various manifest functions of administrative roles in university settings, rather the emphasis is on how specific office holders come to define and interact in the context of their understandings of the obligations of office. Given that office holders engage office over time (e.g., anticipating office, engaging office, managing and interpreting roles, experiencing disinvolvement), understandings of the ‘necessary’ qualities of office will also develop as incumbents develop more varied, nuanced and critical understandings of roles at hand.12 Specifically, the extent to which office holders come to view the dominative processes as a duty of office is of particular interest here. For to understand the lived experience of dominance practices in university management it is essential to attend to how office holders may come to define dominative practices as an obligation held to one’s performance of specific administrative positions.

7.6  Management and the Process of Dominatization The process through which office holders come to view domination as not only a viable but necessary aspect of the discharge of office may be framed as dominatization. In framing dominatization, I am very much indebted to Lemert’s (1962) work on the processes of exclusion, Emerson and Messinger’s (1977) research on the micro-politics of trouble, Prus’ (1996) work on intersubjectivity and social processes, and Athen’s (1980) research on homicide and violence and his (2015a) examination of conflict in everyday life. Dominatization is best framed in process terms, and attends to the related themes of: (1) experiencing role and status challenges, (2) developing commitments to dominative practices, (3) displaying dominance, (4) developing dominative fluency, and (5) managing and sustaining a dominative identity.

 For example, anticipating taking on the role of university president may be quite distinct from the ‘on the ground’ lived realities of the experience—the image of the institution portrayed by those recruiting a new president may differ meaningfully from the initial experience of office.

12

7  Dominance Encounters in University Management

147

7.6.1  Experiencing Role and Status Challenges While members of university communities may trade upon the ‘good offices’ of those in management positions, office holders may, under a wide variety of circumstances come to define relationships to office in more negative or troublesome terms. Specifically office holders may view their claim to office or the various ‘authorities’ or jurisdictions thereof as being challenged, eroded, or more openly and directly under some form of challenge or attack. There is considerable variability in play here. Office holders may be attending to perceived challenges to role legitimacy (e.g., the overall appropriateness of the person towards the office held— “He is not fit to be President, he has never even been a real Dean”), role performance (e.g., the specific skills and competencies of the incumbent in the office—“She has no head for numbers”), and challenges to office that are independent of the incumbent (e.g., “The President of a university should have no say in tenure decisions”). The way in which particular office holders come to define these definitions of trouble and the various challenges that accompany them will vary. For office holders, specific instances of trouble may be defined as ‘part of the job’ or as routine instances of labor/management relations. In such cases, while the encounters may not be particularly welcome, they are nevertheless not defined as status threatening. However, in other circumstances, even relatively minor skirmishes may be defined by office holders as intolerable challenges to the office held and/or their performance of the same. In these cases administrators may employ various strategies to reaffirm their office and their place within it. Therefore, the experience of role challenge and perceived status loss or the potential thereof may be an important precursor to engaging in dominative acts. The theme of status loss, self-other identities, stigmatization, marginalization and labeling are well established themes in the literature on deviance, violence, and organizational conflict.13 They are also quite helpful concepts for understanding management processes and office holders’ experiences of internal and external challenges to valued (cherished) identities.

7.6.2  Developing Commitments to Dominative Practices In his examination of the process of violentization, Athens (1980, 2015b) discusses how, in the face of prior brutalization, people may come to view violence as an available resource in various interactional sequences and commit to the subsequent use of violence. This is social action that is reasoned, intentional and intended. It does not occur in the passion of the moment, but the actor places themselves in an

 Readers are particularly directed to Lemert’s (1962) classic Paranoia and the Dynamics of Exclusion for a foundational essay in this tradition.

13

148

S. Grills

anticipated future (the next time my father beats my mother) and anticipates a line of action that they intend to carry out (I will use violence to defend her). Those in management positions similarly may attend to threats, challenges to status, resources lost, and belligerent or disrespectful others. In this context managers may develop various plans of action that take into account the challenges at hand and formulate strategies to maintain or reclaim the superordinate positon within the interaction sequence. However unlike those who are the targets of violence (for whom there is little ambiguity surrounding the beating received), in university settings office holders are faced with the pragmatic problem that those who may be seeking to challenge various aspects of the incumbent’s superordinate status may be less readily discernable than one might imagine. In some instances those in opposition are clearly identifiable others who are publically associated with dominance campaigning. In others however, people may act as double-agents of sorts—occupying supposedly loyal subordinate roles in some settings while undermining and subverting the superordinate status of office holders in others. For office holders this potential ambiguity can be highly problematic as a feature of management in the making. In such contexts, office holders may develop various commitments to assert their superordinate status through various displays of dominance. This is a key piece in the process of dominatization: the definition of an interaction sequence or series of interactions as constituting a perceived challenge and committing to resist the issues at hand through adopting the superordinate role in anticipated encounters.

7.6.3  Displaying Dominance The move from a commitment to dominative practice to enacting dominance in administrate settings is realized in the doing—in the everyday, routine and at times exceptional displays of dominance. As an aspect of the processes of dominatization, displays of dominance are strategies that office holders may employ in attempts to affirm office and/or to resist challenges to offices held. It is helpful to view dominance displays within the subcultural context within which they occur. Those experiencing challenges to status may be particularly attentive to processes and their anticipated role within the everyday life of an institution. This may be considerably more salient than particular outcomes per se. For example, those holding the office of academic Dean may accept that certain categories of decision making “belong” to the individual holding the office of Vice-­ President (Academic). However, the legitimate exercise of that decision-making authority may be contingent upon meaningful consultation with the academic dean(s). An absence of such consultation may be defined as status challenging and in this context Deans may employ dominance displays as resistance strategies, quite apart from any disagreement about outcomes. Put simply, social statuses are enacted via social process. How things are done are highly consequential for people’s

7  Dominance Encounters in University Management

149

ongoing framings of self/other identities and the pursuit of dominance displays to address perceived challenges to self and others. I would encourage readers to attend to the micro-politics of doing dominance— paying particular attention to the routinized and even mundane ways in which office holders engage in dominative presentations of self. Some such strategies include: invoking title and rank (e,g., Dr., Professor, Chair), space claiming strategies (e.g., office holders forcing subordinates into undesirable spaces), withholding or delaying approvals (e.g., not acting on a file as a form of social control or disciple), credentialing (e.g., proclaiming past accomplishments in interaction sequences), displays of embodied dominance (e.g., encroaching on personal space), exclusionary tactics (e.g., strategically removing others from decision-making processes), conversational dominance (e.g., talking over, purposive inattention, belittling), concealment and deception (e.g., strategically misinforming or concealing salient information from others). Of course, dominance displays may be considerably more directed, pronounced and intensely confrontational than the examples above. Office holders can and do “have it out” with others. Such displays (given that they tend to be more exceptional events in university settings) may become a part of the shared oral history of the institution. While such exceptionalities are important considerations and may be highly consequential for all involved, dominance displays tend to be found in the everyday, working-things-out-together world of the university. As such, people may develop considerable acumen in deploying dominance strategies and it is to these strategies I now turn.

7.6.4  Developing Dominative Fluency While audiences may define success in office in a variety of ways, rather fundamentally we tend to expect office holders to do something. Not simply to occupy office, but to realize, in various ways, the parameters of office. While office holders may benefit from the mystique that audiences may attribute to offices held (e.g., the esteem afforded the office of university president by members of community), success in office is very much contingent on developing various competencies and getting things done in the here-and-now. And in university settings, all of this requires doing so in such a way that subordinates are supportive of the process by which missions are undertaken and the various outcomes arising from the endeavors. As such, developing dominative fluency may be profitably understood as a central feature of effectively accomplishing office. I turn to an everyday experience of university life to illustrate this point—the faculty meeting. Dominative practices in such settings include such processes as: (1) the strategic setting of agendas, (2) recognizing/silencing speakers, (3) maintaining and sustaining interaction sequences, (4) negotiating order, (5) selective attention to process rules (e.g., Rules of Order), (6) making rulings, (7) managing disruptive actors, (8) employing humor as a form of social control, (9) managing emotions, (10) creating a sense of teamness, (11)

150

S. Grills

exercising latitude from the Chair, (12) managing dissent, (13) confronting status challenges. We see similar strategies in play in sex work. Prus and Irini (1980) discuss how, for female prostitutes, continuing involvements in the hotel community are contingent, in part, on developing strategies for effectively managing and directing interactions with customers. Colosi’s (2012) research with female lap dancers makes a similar point—the dancers develop various strategies for controlling the interaction sequence with marks/customers to maximize personal economic benefit. Ongoing involvement in sex work involves, in part, leaning strategies to effectively manage and to a greater or less extent control the commercialized sexual encounter. Office holders in university setting are in a similar social position. Learning how to ensure that one’s definition of the situation prevails in an interaction sequence may be central to subcultural success in the setting and continuing involvement in the role. Those who do not develop dominative fluency may find their effectiveness in the role meaningfully compromised. Returning to the illustrative example of the faculty meeting, Deans who do not enact office in such settings may be defined by others in more negative terms as meetings may: (1) lack a semblance of order, (2) be marked by successful status challenges by subordinates, (3) fail to bring resolution to matters at hand, (4) undermine the authority of office holders, (5) tarnish the reputation and identity of office holders, (6) undermine or discourage a sense of mutual interest. While dominative fluency may be an asset in various administrative roles, some office holders pursue identities that trade centrally on dominative practice. It is to this last stage in the process of dominatization that I now turn.

7.6.5  Managing and Sustaining a Dominative Identity While most certainly not wishing to lose sight of the multiple ways in which office holders can anticipate and engage in office related activities, I would be remiss in any discussion of the process of dominatization to fail to attend to how office holders may come to develop, garner and sustain dominative identities. Office holders may perceive considerable interactional advantages to developing and sustaining subculturally-based reputations and identities as actors who effectively employ dominative practices and who will do so with the intent of realizing considerable strategic advantages. By viewing office holders as tacticians of sorts, we recognize that they may adopt various strategies that are particularly attentive to managing reputations and identities. It may not be ‘enough’ in a given subcultural context to develop dominative fluency. Office holders may come to view maintaining their reputation as someone who is willing to utilize dominative strategies in a variety of settings as an advantage. In a university context such reputations and identities are often associated with those university administrators who are not conflict adverse and who trade, in part, on dominative displays as a potential and available interactional resource. Strategies

7  Dominance Encounters in University Management

151

such as displaying conversational dominance (e.g., shouting, talking over others), discrediting others (e.g., attributing stigmas of character to targets), embodied dominative strategies (e.g., table pounding, aggressive pointing), issuing threats (e.g., withholding tenure and/or promotion support), displaying emotive dominance (e.g., showing anger), excluding and marginalizing targets (e.g., meeting with sub-groups of subordinates as a means of strategic exclusion), and terminating or constraining collegial processes (e.g., suspending the authority of a faculty council) may serve to enhance and maintain office holders reputations as someone who employs dominative strategies. Self-other identities are audience dependent. Therefore, it is not so much that dominative identities require office holders to be engaged in pronounced dominance displays on an ongoing basis. Rather, one of the strategic benefits of maintaining dominative identities is that others view the office holder as one who will in various circumstances and settings do so. In contrast to those who some may describe as “too nice to be in administration”, university administrators may find that there are certain positive consequences of trading on stigmatized identities.14 Definitions applied by others as being a “street fighter”, ruthless, or someone who “never forgets being wronged” may be perceived by office holders as considerably more pragmatically useful than those who applied these labels ever intended. And indicators of the potential for dominative engagement may be none too subtle—as in the case of the former administrator who had their internal phone extension changed to 666 upon return to faculty, a not too subtle reminder that the person on the end of the line remained one not to be underestimated. The pursuit and maintenance of dominative identities is complex social action in its own right. While people may pursue dominative identities, there certainly is no assurance in an organizational setting that subordinates or superordinates will afford office holders the reputations pursued or desired. For example, senior female administrators may find that employing dominance strategies is viewed by some audiences quite differently than male counterparts—she is defined as the “shrew” while he is defined as “strategic.”15 For the “lesser Deans”—those with smaller faculties, limited fiscal heft, those in acting positions—access to dominative identities may also be somewhat organizationally limited. While office holders may be very much aware of some of the tactical advantages of trading on stigmatized identities, the pragmatic ability to do so is audience dependent.

 See Herman and Miall’s (1990) discussion of the positive consequences of stigma relative to people’s experiences with mental illness and voluntary childless ness. For a more detailed examination of the self in management contexts see “Being Managed and Managing Self” in Grills and Prus (2019). 15  A discussion of gender and organizational life is far beyond the scope of this paper. Readers are directed to Dorothy Smith’s (1987, 1990) work on women’s voices in institutional life for a fuller examination of these themes. 14

152

S. Grills

7.7  In Sum Athens (2015a:145) writes, “Domination always springs from a person or group swaying the formation of a collective act’s goal … in the direction that some group or individual prefers….Domination always displays the same basic form: a certain person or group performing the superordinate role in the construction of a collective act.” It is important that domination not be understood in exceptional or extraordinary terms. Rather, domination occurs as people go about the everyday work of sustaining various lines of action and coordinating acts with one another. However, the actual performance of the superordinate role is socially constructed and interactionally realized. Those in university management positions may operate in the context of collegial governance structures. But these settings, quite apart from their aspirational naming, are not free from dominative practices. As the Canadian Association of University Teachers (2010) states “Collegiality refers to the participation of academic staff in academic governance structures. Collegiality does not mean congeniality or civility.” That is most certainly the case—collegial governance practices are dominative ones. In many respects, initial involvements in university administration involve the practical work of anticipating and subsequently engaging office. And engaging office involves a wide range of activities such as providing direction, seeking cooperation, encountering the influence work of others, managing external relations, and allocating resources. It also involves developing the interactional resources to effectively accomplish joint acts and manage the obligations of office. In addition to being places of cooperation, negotiation, and exchange, universities are subcultural settings marked by intersubjectively accomplished relations of domination and subordination. In such contexts, the processes of dominatization may be particular salient. By attending to the role and status challenges, commitments to dominative practices, dominance displays, dominative fluency, and dominative identity we gain a fuller understanding of the practical accomplishment of management in university settings.

References Athens, L. H. (1980). Violent criminal acts and actors: A symbolic interactionist study. Routledge & Kegan Paul. Athens, L. (2015a). Domination and subjugation in everyday life. Transaction Publishers. Athens, L. (2015b). Violentization: A relatively singular theory of violent crime. Deviant Behavior, 36(8), 625–639. Becker, H. (2014). What about Mozart? What about murder?: Reasoning from cases. University of Chicago Press. Becker, H. (2017). Evidence. University of Chicago Press. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interaction. University of California Press. Brandon University & Brandon University Faculty Association. (2015). Collective Agreement 2015–2019. Retrieved August 03, 2019, from https://www.brandonu.ca/hr/files/BUFA-­2015-­19-­ FINAL-­AGREEMENT2.pdf

7  Dominance Encounters in University Management

153

Canadian Association of University Teachers. (2010). Collegiality: CAUT Policy Statement. Retrieved September 15, 2019, from https://www.caut.ca/about-­us/caut-­policy/lists/ caut-­policy-­statements/policy-­statement-­on-­collegiality Colosi, R. (2012). Dirty dancing?: An ethnography of lap-dancing. Routledge. Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. Scribner’s. Côté, J. F. (2015). George Herbert Mead’s concept of society: A critical reconstruction. Routledge. Couch, C. (1984). Symbolic interaction and generic sociological principles. Symbolic Interaction, 7(1), 1–13. Devils Breed, M. C. (2000). Devils Breed Club Constitution. Retrieved July 16, 2019, from http:// www.rcvsmc.net/id6.html Dewey, J. (1896). The reflex arc concept in psychology. Psychological Review, 3(4), 357–370. Dingwall, R., & Strong, P.  M. (1985). The interactional study of organizations: A critique and reformulation. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 14(2), 205–231. Emerson, R. M., & Messinger, S. L. (1977). The micro-politics of trouble. Social Problems, 25(2), 121–134. Ermarth, M. (1978). Wilhelm Dilthey: The critique of historical reason. University of Chicago Press. Goffman, E. (1968). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. AldineTransaction. Grills, S. (2020). Understanding everyday life: Generic social processes and the pursuit of Transcontextuality. Symbolic Interaction, 43(4), 615–636. Grills, S., & Prus, R. (2019). Management motifs: An interactionist approach for the study of organizational interchange. Springer. Herman, N. J., & Miall, C. E. (1990). The positive consequences of stigma: Two case studies in mental and physical disability. Qualitative Sociology, 13(3), 251–269. Hooey, M. (1996). The Queen’s University senate evolution of composition and function 1842–1995. Queen’s University. Retrieved August 22, 2019, from https://www.queensu.ca/ secretariat/senate/history/evolution-­1842-­1995 Hughes, E. C. (1962). Good people and dirty work. Social Problems, 10(1), 3–11. James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology (Vol. 2). H. Holt. Lemert, E. (1962). Paranoia and the dynamics of exclusion. Sociometry, 25(1), 2–20. Lyman, S., & Scott, M. (1970). A sociology of the absurd. Goodyear Pub. Co. Mead, G. H. (1925). The genesis of the self and social control. The International Journal of Ethics, 35(3), 251–277. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. C. W. Morris (Ed.), University of Chicago Press. Mead, G. H. (1938). The philosophy of the act. University of Chicago Press. Prus, R. (1996). Symbolic interaction and ethnographic research: Intersubjectivity and the study of human lived experience. SUNY Press. Prus, R. (1997). Subcultural mosaics and intersubjective realities: An ethnographic research agenda for pragmatizing the social sciences. State University of New York Press. Prus, R. (1999). Beyond the power mystique: Power as intersubjective accomplishment. State University of New York Press. Prus, R., & Grills, S. (2003). The deviant mystique: Involvements, realities, and regulation. Greenwood Publishing Group. Prus, R., & Irini, S. (1980). Hookers, rounders, and desk clerks: The social organization of the hotel community. Sheffield. Schütz, A. (1962). Collected papers I: The problem of social reality. Martinus Nijhoff. Schütz, A. (1964). Collected papers II: Studies in social theory. Martinus Nijhoff. Simmel, G. (1904). The sociology of conflict. I. American Journal of Sociology, 9(4), 490–525. Smith, D. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. University of Toronto Press. Smith, D. (1990). The conceptual practices of power: A feminist sociology of knowledge. University of Toronto Press.

154

S. Grills

Stebbins, R.  A. (1969). Role distance, role distance behaviour and jazz musicians. The British Journal of Sociology, 20(4), 406–415. Stebbins, R. A. (2000). Obligation as an aspect of leisure experience. Journal of Leisure Research, 32(1), 152–155. Strauss, A. (1978). Negotiations: Varieties, contexts, processes, and social order. Jossey-Bass. Strauss, A. (1993). Continual permutations of action. Aldine de Gruyter. Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Company. Wiley, N. (1994). The semiotic self. University of Chicago Press. Dr. Scott Grills, Professor, is a sociologist at Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada. His research attends to generic social processes from a symbolic interactionist perspective. His published research has included work in the substantive areas of administration, deviance, education, health and illness, music, political life, and research methods. He has held management positions in multiple settings including faculty associations (at the local and provincial level), the performing arts, academic associations and university administration (at decanal and vice-­ presidential levels). He has served as the president of four organizations, one of which was the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction.  

Chapter 8

The University and Social Justice Frank Cunningham

Abstract  One criterion for an institution being socially responsible is that it comports itself in accord with justice. On the assumption that ascertaining what justice demands requires identifying the paramount function of an institution, this paper applies John Dewey’s theories to universities to argue that their primary function is the development of students’ potentials to the fullest. From this point of view recommendations for justice are made regarding targeted hiring, reserved admission places, differential student fees or faculty workloads, student financial aid, and obligations to communities beyond the academy. Keywords  Social justice · Dewey · Social responsibility · Aristotle · Equals and unequals

The notion of social responsibility is an unavoidably morally normative one. Legal responsibilities suppose some ultimately moral bases for laws. Prudential responsibilities, that is, responsibilities to the well being of oneself, cannot escape the need for adjudication when these come into potential conflict with obligations to others, and unless this adjudication is to be forgone in favour of accepting the outcome of competition among self interested bodies or left to dictatorship (as in Thomas Hobbes’ solution to a “war of all against all”) ethically-based priorities need to be appealed to. This contribution focusses on one often-cited norm, namely social justice. While agreeing that this has to do with equitable distribution of benefits and burdens, the paper contends that concrete standards to apply this standard are needed, and these Earlier versions of this contribution are in the Journal of Academic Ethics, vol. 5 (2007) 153-162 and in Frank Cunningham, Ideas in Context (Edmonton: Society for Socialist Studies Publication, 2020). A French translation is in Penser les institutions, Patrick Turmel, et. al., dirs. (Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 2012) F. Cunningham (*) Department of Philosophy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 D. C. Poff (ed.), University Corporate Social Responsibility and University Governance, Advances in Business Ethics Research 8, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77532-2_8

155

156

F. Cunningham

cannot be derived just from a general idea of justice. This contention is applied to the case of the justice of universities, both with respect to their internal constituents (mainly students and teachers) and to the broader communities in which they are located. It should be noted in the first place that universities are ambiguous places with respect to social justice. On the one hand, the idea of the public university was to make higher education available to a society’s population as a whole. On the other hand, public universities, like their private counterparts, are elite institutions, admission to which is still limited to a minority, and a university degree affords one a privileged vantage point for future status and income. This Janus-faced feature of universities makes it difficult to determine what justice requires with respect to them. A thesis of this contribution is that there is no unique answer to this question. Instead, positions on a variety of issues related to justice are generated by interrogation of what is taken as the paramount goal of the modern university.

8.1  Justice & University Disputes “Justice” is taken in an Aristotelian sense: treat equals equally and unequals unequally in proportion to their relevant differences.1 Though such a concept is broad enough to apply to any specific interpretation of justice, the concern here is with justice in the distribution of university-related benefits. The challenge to a theorist of justice is to specify with respect to such benefits what constitutes equal or unequal treatment and to justify claims about relevant differences. For example, justice in university admission might be said to require that anyone with a specified secondary school grade-point average or university entrance test score merits admission. In this case equal treatment means attending only to academic ability measured in these ways, and failure to meet the measures constitutes a difference sufficient to deny this benefit. A justification for this principle is that only those with strong enough academic backgrounds as evidenced by the grades or test scores have the ability fully to profit from a university education. The principle itself might be challenged by those who maintain that a just admission policy must include reserved places or differential entry requirements for people from groups traditionally underrepresented in universities. Controversies over justice with respect to universities may, then, be categorized by identifying contests over whether some difference is appropriate for justifying unequal treatment. In addition to the controversy over admissions, other contests concern: • Targeted hiring (should the demographic background of job applicants make a difference in their prospect for university employment from the point of view of justice?); 1  This formulation (sufficient for present purposes) is a gloss commonly given by Aristotle commentators of his more extensive treatments as in the Nichomachean Ethics, Book V, see 1131a.

8  The University and Social Justice

157

• Differential fees as between students from a university’s home province, state, or country and students from other jurisdictions; • Different salary levels depending upon academic fields (humanities, sciences, professional faculties); • Differences of faculty salaries and work loads between high-profile scholars and others; • Distinctions regarding financial support, for example, provision of grants or low tuition, on the one hand, or loans, on the other. Examination of disputes over admission policies highlights some complexities common to all such controversies. The justification for the grades/exam score criterion admits of two interpretations, normative and pragmatic. The latter supposes that it is a waste of resources to admit students who are unlikely to take full advantage of a university education. This interpretation looks at the justice of admissions from the point of view of the institution. Looked at from the point of view of the student, by contrast, a normative argument might be sought in a principle of merit: those who succeed in pre-­ university academic work or on admission examinations are meritorious in the academic achievements for which these are evidence and deserve admission to university in recognition thereof. An alternative normative appeal is to the principle of equality of opportunity that those from groups traditionally excluded from higher education ought to have access to the opportunities afforded by it. Deciding what justice requires in this case, then, involves adjudication among: different principles of justice; normative versus pragmatic justifications; and alternative interpretations of principles. In addition, the scope of justice is sometimes limited to the university as in one of the defenses of grade-based admission, or the scope may be broadened to pertain to the society in which the university finds itself, as in the defense of privileged admission. Similar adjudication is required regarding all of the other debates over differential distribution listed above, though those who engage in the debates do not always make clear what combinations of principles, interpretations of principles, and scope are being employed. To take another example, proponents of targeted hiring sometimes base their recommendations on equality of opportunity to rectify the under representation of women or racial minorities in the academy. This is a society-wide, normative justification. An alternative justification may be made on the university-specific and pragmatic grounds that a better job of education will be performed when a university’s professoriate demographically mirrors its student body. One counter argument appeals, again, to merit. Another common counter is that being hired under an affirmative action program casts a pall over those hired. From the point of view of justice this argument against targeted hiring is an appeal to society-wide equality to suggest that affirmative action raises doubts about the ability of people who profit from it to succeed on their own thus reflecting badly on their entire group. Policies that have aims unrelated to justice are sometimes accompanied by (cynics say masked by) appeals to justice. One example is differential fees for local students and others. Though almost always prompted as a way of raising revenue, it

158

F. Cunningham

is sometimes maintained as a matter of principle that it is unfair to the taxpayers of a province or country that students from other jurisdictions should pay the same levels of tuition as those from their own. In debates over whether need-based financial aid should be in the form of loans, it is argued that in addition to these being less costly to the university, students individually profit from their education so they ought to pay for them as a matter of fairness. Differential teaching loads or salary levels as between staff from professional schools or high-profile scholars have as one aim to attract and retain professors from these groups, but they are sometimes also justified in terms of merit.

8.2  The Function of a University It is not necessary to treat all these objects of controversy in detail to illustrate that determining what justice demands of a university will always be complex, appealing to contested principles often involving cross-purpose argumentation. One response is to adopt a general theory of justice, say that of John Rawls, and to draw criteria for justification among conflicting principles and interpretations from it. I suspect that in such an undertaking the same sorts of contested alternatives would reappear (and certainly in the case of Rawls)2 but the effort may be worth undertaking. The tack taken in this paper is different. It begins by sketching a viewpoint on the central function or goal of a public university and then applying it to justice-­ related policy alternatives. Whether the resulting prescriptions articulate a unique theory of justice in general is taken as secondary to whether it motivates defensible stances on university policy alternatives. In this exercise no claims are made about the intent of those who founded public universities. Instead a viewpoint about what overriding goal a university ought to serve is prescribed. Any such viewpoint will be no less contestable than a general theory of justice, but, it is maintained, the resulting perspective will provide a focused basis for motivating stances on justice-related issues and framing debates about them. Also, it is recognized that there may be times and places other than contemporary North America where some other function might plausibly be seen as the most important. Thus qualified, the paramount function of the university prescribed in this paper is that most famously proposed by John Dewey, who saw universities along with other educational institutions as playing a crucial role in enabling individuals to develop their talents to the fullest.3 The following specifications will help to

2  As in debates over whether Rawls’s “difference principle” most conveniently justifies trickledown economics or affirmative action. 3  Set down, among other places, in Democracy and education, John Dewey: The middle works, vol. 9 (Carbondale, Ill.: Southern University Press, 1980 [1916]) see chap. 7. There he describes what is here called developmentalism as “the growth of experience.”

8  The University and Social Justice

159

explicate this viewpoint, which will be designated “developmentalist” as this term is employed, with reference to Dewey, by C.B. Macpherson.4 1. Contrary to a negative image of Dewey’s educational theory, it does not ignore or denigrate training in basic life and professional skills (literacy, numeracy, technological aptitude, etc.) or highly specialized training in the natural and social sciences. Rather it insists that talents in these domains not be developed in isolation from one another and from literature, history, philosophy, and the arts. Dewey’s curriculum bias is in favour of a liberal-arts education, including the teaching of broad and transferable skills in the approach to every discipline. This is crucial both to assist students in discovering their talents and to guard against the one-sidedness entrenched in isolated disciplines. 2. The theory presupposes a view on the development of potentials with pedagogical implications. Consistently with Dewey’s appropriation of aspects of Hegelian dialectics, means and ends for him interact in such a way that whether skills and knowledge are empowering depends on how they are acquired. It is not that first these are imparted and then put to use. Educational empowerment requires active engagement with a subject matter from the start. This means relating even very abstract material to current life problems and involving students in practical exercises in and out of the classroom. 3. Dewey’s educational theory is thoroughly integrated by him with his defense of a strong theory of democracy, that is, a theory which sees democracy as more than just a method for making collective decisions, but as a way of life appropriate to all venues where people interact in ongoing ways. Education for him is a life-long project undertaken in both formal and informal settings with the overarching aim of facilitating people’s development of their potentials in a spirit of cooperation.5 One consequence of this perspective is that the talent-developing mandate is viewed as a society-wide injunction within which universities are important moments. Universities are not the only places where the development of talents is nurtured, and some people’s talents are best developed in institutions other than universities, such as trade schools. A university that takes the role ascribed to it seriously will not be indifferent to extra-university venues, which it will play active roles in encouraging and in facilitating the right kind of pre- and post-­ university education in both formal and informal venues. 4. The normative underpinnings of Dewey’s educational theory are broadly Aristotelian where a meaningful life is seen as happiness or the development of one’s proper potentials in a balanced way, involving the whole of a person’s life

4  As in his Democratic Theory: Essays in Retrieval (Don Mills, Ont. Oxford University Press, 2012 [1973]) essay I and passim. Macpherson shares Dewey’s view in this matter and often credits him. 5  Dewey’s theory of democracy is elaborated in The Public and its Problems, in John Dewey: the later works, 1925–1953, vol. 2 (Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press, 1984 [1927]) 235–371. I summarize his theory of democracy in Theories of Democracy: A critical introduction (London: Routledge, 2002), chap. 8.

160

F. Cunningham

and his or her relations with others.6 It is thus a species of what is sometimes called a perfectionist approach to ethics focused on the characteristics of a good life; though in Dewey’s case the term is misleading. Like Aristotle, the perspective recognizes differences among people’s potential talents, but unlike Aristotle he does not see people as locked into a narrow a range of talents. These differences are important for the democratic dimension of Dewey’s view. While for Aristotle democracy was the least objectionable alternative from among a flawed lot of realistic forms of governance, for Dewey democracy is a valued goal to be approximated. This means that universities should be training grounds for the skills of collective self government. Short of explicating a general, neo-Aristotelian ethical theory, philosophically defending it against critics, and deriving the developmentalist prescription about the function of a university from it, arguments for this orientation are inductive and intuitive by drawing out implications of a developmentalist perspective and contrasting them with those of alternative orientations. As I see it the dominant alternative viewpoint on the goal of the University is, within the peer institutions where a university locates itself, “to be the best.” This means to hire and retain star scholars, to be comprised of departments and faculties that place highly in educational reviews and media evaluations of universities, and to attract students with high grade-point averages from top-ranked secondary schools. This view is obviously incomplete unless conjoined with a specification of what the best universities are supposed to be best at, and in their vision statements all the universities do produce appropriate rhetoric. In varying language the most common goal is to produce knowledge (through research) and pass it on to future generations (in teaching and publishing). Now these are clearly important goals and ones that all universities do in fact pursue. The question to ask is whether they can serve as a satisfactory paramount aim of higher education. Articulation of such an aim is meant to provide an orientation for unifying the various activities of a university and general criteria to guide the ways they are undertaken. Many institutions pursue research in a variety of ways, and there are many venues for passing on knowledge. Yet in official university literature more developed visions are hard to find. Instead, this literature reiterates the point about being excellent. No doubt major impetuses for this are to attract money from private donors and to make cases for special treatment by governments, which is why statements of universities’ aims are increasingly prepared by their public relations or fundraising organs rather than issuing from more than perfunctory campus-wide deliberation. Without a more robust articulation of the goal of a university the excellence-­ achieving goal, ultimately measured by success in fund-attracting efforts, becomes the de facto paramount one.

6  Explication of this concept of “happiness” is the main undertaking of Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics. The relevant principle of Dewey’s ethics is in his Ethics, in The Later Works, vol. 7 [1932], see 348–350.

8  The University and Social Justice

161

8.3  Application to the Disputes Teaching and Research  As between teaching and research, on the developmentalist perspective, teaching is dominant, since it is primarily by teaching that potential-­ developing skills and knowledge are imparted. This does not mean that creative research ought not to be pursued. Rather, it means that teaching should not be sacrificed for research and that researchers should all be active teachers at all levels and show evidence of ability and enthusiasm for teaching as criteria for being hired and promoted. Provided teaching is undertaken in accord with the pedagogical orientation referred to above this will bring the fruits of research to the classroom in a way that makes them meaningful and useful to students and, at the very least, it will foster excitement about and skill in research itself. A striving-to-be-best orientation is biased toward research over teaching. One reason for this is that the research abilities of a professor or job applicant and the research output of an academic unit are easier to measure and publicize than teaching ability. Also, private donor funding sources are usually more impressed by high-­ profile research than by teaching skills. Universities informed by an elite-aspiration perspective are prone to favour research over teaching by reducing undergraduate teaching loads and placing greater weight in hiring and promotion on research than on undergraduate teaching, often delegating a large proportion of teaching to staff specifically employed for this purpose and in categories less well remunerated, secure, or respected than that of professors pursuing research. Differential Treatment of Scholars  Applied to justice-related issues, the considerations above recommend against differential salary levels or work loads for high profile scholars. Put in terms of proportional justice, the developmentalist perspective denies that being a high-profile scholar marks a relevant difference in terms of the distribution of salaries and work loads. If teaching-only staff are to be employed, they should receive the same remuneration and be accorded the same status as those also expected to pursue research. On the assumption that teaching and research are potentially mutually reinforcing, a better general policy is to avoid creation of teaching-only streams. This calls for hiring only faculty who have proven themselves or demonstrate clear promise of being outstanding teachers. Perhaps there are people who lack an aptitude for teaching but are possessed of extraordinary research skills; ought they to be shut out of university employment? My intuition in this score is in the affirmative and alternative venues for such researchers’ talents should be sought, for example, national research institutions such as France’s Centre National de Recherche Scientifique. Admissions  Those informed by a developmentalist orientation will not be troubled, as the elitists are, by the prospect of admitting applicants from other than top secondary schools or lacking very high marks. As noted earlier, they see universities as part of a society-wide project to develop everyone’s potentials, and reserving places for people who might otherwise not gain university admission is one way to contrib-

162

F. Cunningham

ute to this effort. Coming from an educationally deprived background thus does not constitute a difference that justifies exclusion from university. As to the problem of admitting people who, in virtue of prior educational deficiencies, are not equipped to succeed this perspective suggests putting in place special programs of the sort some universities now have and could expand to compensate for the deficiencies by developing learning capacities.7 Hiring  Both the pragmatic and the normative considerations in support of affirmative action in hiring are pertinent to a positive stance toward this policy from a developmentalist point of view. A teaching staff including people from backgrounds reflecting those of a student body provides students with role models and with the confidence that their professors understand their backgrounds. When the aim of education is taken to be the full development of students’ talents these features are, arguably, more important than when the only aim of university education is to transmit knowledge (though even in this case they might help to inspire trust in a professor regarded as an authority). From the point of view of a university’s place within society, affirmative action is important for the development of those hired from groups traditionally underrepresented in educational and other professions and for inspiring confidence and encouragement for people in the same groups outside of the university as well. From the point of view of justice, demographic background is relevant to hiring policies. Student Support  The tendency of many universities to shift the balance of student support from scholarships and tuition reduction to loans must be looked on with suspicion from a developmentalist point of view even when conjoined with “income contingent loan repayment” provisions. These schemes are always coupled with a policy of raising tuition for most students to market levels and is out of keeping with a Deweyan perspective, which sees higher education as a social investment: people in one generation subsidize the education of the following one through taxation. If the tax system is progressive, justice is served, since affluent families put more into a tax pool, as do those who subsequently economically profit from their education.8 Differential Treatment Among Disciplines  The usual justification given for paying higher salaries to faculty in professional schools or in certain science disciplines is the pragmatic one that this is the only way to attract them away from employment

7  An example is the University of Toronto’s Transitional Year Program. See Access & Equity in the University, Keren S. Brathwaite, ed. (Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press, 2003). 8  A major section of the proceedings of a conference at the University of Toronto is devoted to papers defending income contingent loan repayment: Taking public universities seriously (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005). The dissenting voice at the conference was my own. My contribution was not included in the proceeding’s publication but is available on the conference’s website: http://www.utoronto.ca/04 conference, then Conference Agenda and Presentations, Session 6, Frank Cunningham.

8  The University and Social Justice

163

in the private sector, and the same justification is often given for lower teaching loads. A developmental orientation prescribes against seeing skills suitable to these schools and disciplines as relevant to salary and workload allocations. Just as in hiring faculty a university informed by this orientation will search until it finds ­applicants who are both productive scholars and enthusiastic teachers so should it look to employ staff into its professional schools who are similarly motivated and who are more concerned to participate with other teachers and researchers in university life and work than to reap private-sector levels of remuneration. This prescription is based on the democratic dimension of Deweyan developmentalism. Democracy functions best in a culture where people respect one another’s contributions to their common community. Higher salaries and lower work loads for some simply in virtue of being able (or claiming to be able) to attract these elsewhere strains this culture. Similarly to be resisted is the practice in many North American universities where faculty negotiate special arrangements for themselves by threatening to leave for better deals in other universities. While such behavior is sanctioned on the elitist viewpoint, on a developmentalist one, it should be resisted for undermining the community spirit essential to the aims it favours. Jurisdictional Fee Differentiation  One can imagine a developmentalist holding that the aim of institutions of higher education is to contribute to the development just of those in its national (or subnational) jurisdiction. Denial that this difference is relevant might start from the egalitarianism of developmentalism: its claim is that the potentials of all individuals are to be equally developed.9 The question to ask is whether, regarding higher education, individuals being from outside the nation, state, or province of a university constitutes a relevant difference such that the university’s obligations toward them are diminished. A consideration that sways cash-­ hungry administrators is that many out of jurisdiction applicants are willing and able to pay high fees. But this is not relevant to the question at hand, since there is no shortage of other out of jurisdiction applicants who lack this ability, such as from the majority in the developing world. A more pertinent difference is that in the case of public universities, higher education is subsidized by the taxpayers of their jurisdictions. This situation invites deliberation by these taxpayers about the role of local universities in country-wide and global contexts. An approach supportive of equal fees for students from no matter what jurisdiction would be for governments to undertake negotiations for reciprocity among public educational jurisdictions (in Canada, provinces) and on the part of countries from relatively affluent parts of the world, to include access to higher education in foreign aid programs for the less affluence countries.

9  Dewey’s egalitarian approach to education is explicit in Democracy and Education (op. cit.) chap. 8, section 1. Similarly, Aristotle insisted that for those eligible for formal education (thus, alas, excluding girls and slaves for him) “there must be one and the same education for all citizens, and that care of this must be public and not private.” Politics, 1337a.

164

F. Cunningham

To summarize, the social responsibility of universities has been ascertained by reference to social justice, which calls for defensible principles of distribution. Recommendations for university distributive policies have been advanced from a viewpoint of the most important function of the university as explicated by John Dewey with overtones of Aristotelian ethics. One way to challenge the paper’s recommendations is to accept its endorsement of a developmentalist goal of universities but deny that the recommendations follow from it. Another, of course, is to defend an alternative guiding purpose. These challenges would be within the spirit of the contribution. A third sort of challenge is to shun (non-perfunctory) attempts to formulate and defend normative principles of social responsibility for universities. This stance – unfortunately not a merely hypothetical one today – constitutes rejection of a role for ethics in general and justice in particular with respect to the universities. Frank Cunningham  is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and Political Science, University of Toronto, and Adjunct Professor of Urban Studies, Simon Fraser University. He served as Chair of the Philosophy Department at the University of Toronto and as President of the Canadian Philosophical Association.

Part II

The Role of Spirituality in the University and Students, Faculty and Research in the Twenty-First Century

Chapter 9

The Catholic University—Identity, Mission, and Responsibilities Domènec Melé

Abstract  Catholic Universities, present in the twenty-first century in many countries, has its roots in the first universities in Europe in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, although its modern form dates back to the nineteenth century, after which it expanded globally. Catholic University is a community of scholars from various branches of human knowledge dedicated to research, to teaching, and to various kinds of service in accordance with its cultural mission. This is mainly distinguished by a free search for the whole truth about nature, the human being and God from a Catholic perspective. Their responsibilities include carrying out teaching and research with a coherent world vision, providing a real service to the Church and society, and developing a university community with Catholic values. Teaching and research should done by those with competence in each specific discipline, but also by pursuing the integration of various branches of knowledge, seeking the connection between knowledge—culture, science and technology—and Catholic faith and ethics, and promoting dialogue between faith and reason, Gospel and culture, and Catholic teaching and those of other Christian confessions. Respect of human dignity and rights, including religious freedom, and contributing to an integral human development are primordial. Keywords  Faith and reason · Science and ethics · Catholic University · University · Sense of service

9.1  Introduction A reflection on the University in the twenty-first century must not forget its historical roots, even in its current multiversity, with many component schools, colleges, or divisions and widely diverse functions and very large universities with several campuses, sometimes located in different countries. D. Melé (*) Business Ethics, IESE Business School, University of Navarra, Barcelona, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 D. C. Poff (ed.), University Corporate Social Responsibility and University Governance, Advances in Business Ethics Research 8, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77532-2_9

167

168

D. Melé

The historical roots of the University are present in many aspects in Catholic universities of the twenty-first century, which, after a set of historical vicissitudes, are now present in many countries. These higher education institutions conserve, among others, two key features of the primitive university. One is the genuine meaning of “university”, coined in the University of Bologna—the oldest university in the world, created in 1088—which express a sense of community between teachers and students—universitas magistrorum et scholarium, in Latin, was its complete name (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1991). A community to teach, to do research, and to confer high degree-awarding. Another significant characteristic was a unitary and harmonious conception of the universe, whose center is God-Creator, so that, within diversity, there is a “unifying spirit” among the various disciplines taught (law, medicine, theology and the arts), with theology at the head of all of them. This chapter will discuss the identity, mission, main characteristics and responsibilities of the Catholic University. This, muntatis muntandis, can be extended to Catholic-inspired universities, although without formally using the title Catholic. To this end, we begin by presenting a brief historical evolution of Catholic University (CU) from Medieval times to the present day.

9.2  T  he Catholic University: From Medieval to Modern Times In the Middle Ages, ancient culture and knowledge was consecrated, accreted and transmitted in abbeys and monasteries. In the eleventh century Aristotelianism came to Europe through the Arabs, and had a specific influence on the cultural renewal of Christian world (currently Europe) (D’Irsay, 1933). Some universities, such as Bologna (1088), Paris (c.1150, later associated with the Sorbonne) and Oxford (1167), began from schools in abbeys and monasteries, others from the separation of existing universities. That was the case of Cambridge, from the origin of which is in Oxford. Finally other universities, such as Naples and Toulouse, were established by the Pope or by the imperator (Verger, 1973). It is worth noting some key elements of this period (Latorre, 1964): Being born under the impulse of the Church did not prevent universities from having autonomy in their management and independence from both civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions. Latin was the common language, which allowed a constant transfer of students between universities. The method used was based, above all, on lectio and disputatio (propositions and discussions), but always within the spiritual and cultural unity of Christianity, proper to this period. Political and social questions were not absent from the university’s work. As noted, a significant characteristic was a unitary and harmonious conception of the universe. This includes a serious dialogue between faith and reason seeking ways of harmonizing both perspectives in the culture atmosphere of Europe of the Low Middle Age.

9  The Catholic University—Identity, Mission, and Responsibilities

169

In the sixteenth century, with the Protestant Reformation, the religious-cultural harmony of Europe disappeared. Some universities—Basilea and Erfurt for example—were linked to the Reform by local political authorities. Since then, only those universities which remained linked to the Papacy could be considered Catholic universities. The decisive blow to the medieval university came with the French Revolution and the fall of the Ancient Regime. With Napoleon Bonaparte, and the creation of the “Imperial University” in 1806, the State would have a monopoly on university education, leaving no room for private initiative or universities promoted by the Church. This was in the context of Modernity, a philosophical movement focused exclusively on reason and science with the subsequent rejection of faith as a source of knowledge. Furthermore, the progressive division among disciplines brought about an increasing fragmentation of knowledge and a poor connection of particular perspectives in a global view of the world. The model of national university spread throughout Europe, although in the shape of autonomic institutions, often closely associated with national aspirations. In practice these universities developed a great variety of knowledge with studies focused on producing highly-qualified professionals. While this gave university students practical training to, the harmony between faith and other knowledge was completely lost and, furthermore the Church was often attacked by hostile ideologies and philosophies. Thus, a radical separation between faith and reason and ethics and science—as well as the Church and culture—was a quite common ethos. The Church reacted by defending her right to teach against ideologies or political streams that denied these, but She also needed an intellectual reinforcement facing streams of thought difficult to difficult to reconcile with Christian faith, and the answer would come from Catholic universities. This situation made quite difficult to recover the primitive dialogue between Christian faith and reason, as in the primitive university, and even the development of theology (rational understanding of the divine Revelation) in the university context. However, throughout the nineteenth century, with the advent of the liberal State, new opportunities for social initiative on university activities arose. It was then when the modern conception of the Catholic university was forged, first, with the creation of Catholic University of Louvain (1834) in Belgian and later with the Institut Catholique de Paris, founded in 1875, under the name of the Université Catholique de Paris. The University of the Sacro Coure in Milano began in 1920, and later some others. Pope Pius XII formally established the International Federation of Catholic Universities in 1949,1 and a considerable number of CUs were established throughout the twentieth century. Currently, there will be more than 1000 of Catholic Universities, Colleges and other higher education institutions worldwide, including 260  in the USA, serving to 950,000 students.2 There is

 Pius XII, Apostolic Brief of July 27, 1949. Available at Vatican.va  https://www.accunet.org/Catholic-Higher-Ed-FAQs#HowMany

1 2

170

D. Melé

probably no institution in the world with a greater dedication to higher education than the Catholic Church. As other universities can do, Catholic universities take seriously science and reason but also promotes the dialogue between faith and reason and try to overcome the current fragmentation of knowledge favoring humanism. Thus, Catholic University assumes the task of “uniting existentially by intellectual effort two orders of reality that too frequently tend to be placed in opposition as though they were antithetical: the search for truth, and the certainty of already knowing the fount of truth.” (John Paul II, 1980, cf. 1990, 1).

9.3  The Catholic University: Identity and Mission The Vatican Council II, a very important even in the Catholic Church, devoted a part of a document on education to Catholic Universities (Vatican Council II, 1965b, no. 10) and recommended that these be conveniently located in different parts of the world. They should be outstanding not for their numbers but for their pursuit of knowledge, to be readily available to students of real promise, and with a special concern for students from the newly emerging nations. Pope John Paul II, former member of a University Faculty, paid great attention to Catholic Universities (Cuartas, 2003). Particularly relevant is the Apostolic Constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae (ECE) (John Paul II, 1990), which is a real “magna carta” for these Catholic institutions (ECE 8). The document not only deals with regulatory norms for CU, as noted above, but also with their identity and mission, detailing their nature and objectives; the role of the university community, and the connection of the institution with the Church. ECE also analyzes the CU’s mission of service to society and to the Church, the university pastoral ministry, and cultural dialogue, among other topics. The current Code of Canon Law (CIC)3 (Catholic Church, 1983) formally recognizes Catholic universities as being integrated in de the Catholic Church: “A Catholic school is understood as the one leaded by the competent ecclesiastical authority, or a public ecclesiastical legal person, or which the ecclesiastical authority recognizes as such by a written document.” (CIC 803 §1). Their most relevant regulation for CUs is the above-mentioned Apostolic Constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae (ECE), especially in its Part II on General Norms. Some of these universities especially tied to the Holy See are termed “Pontifical Universities”. In addition, there are higher education institutions that, without being formally “Catholic”, take Christian humanism and teachings of the Church as their 3  Generally abbreviated as CIC from its Latin title Codex Iuris Canonici). The current version is from 1983. The number included in the CIC reference is the “canon number” (The CIC is structured in canons or articles). This Codex is the fundamental body of ecclesiastical laws for Roman Catholic Church (also known as the Latin Church or Western Church). The Western Church legislation is different from the Eastern Catholic Church, which includes a minority of Catholics.

9  The Catholic University—Identity, Mission, and Responsibilities

171

fundamental source of inspiration, but “even if it really be Catholic, no school [or university] may bear the title Catholic school without the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority.” (CIC 803 §3). Apart from CUs, there are “Ecclesiastical universities” devoted to Sacra Doctrina (theology, cannon law, biblical studies, and so on) and also ecclesiastical faculties integrated in CUs and with the same end.4 Catholic universities are not homogeneous, each one comes from a country, a region, a certain culture, and each has its own rootedness. However, they share a common identity, mission and basic characteristics. The Church finds her duty and right to teach at all levels in Christ’s command to teach the whole world (Bible, Marc 16: 15–20) and, from a different perspective, in the right of educational freedom. This right was defended by the Church historically, and the same is true today. Currently, the Code of the Canon Law states that “The Church has the right to establish and supervise schools of any discipline, type, and grade whatever.” (CIC 800). This right is recognized in the civil legislation of most countries, although with notable exceptions such as China, where there are CUs only in the former European colonies of Hong Kong and Macau. University has been defined by the Magna Charta (great charter) of European University Manifesto which many universities worldwide adhered—as “an autonomous institution at the heart of societies differently organised because of geography and historical heritage; it produces, examines, appraises, and hands down culture by research and teaching.”5 The Catholic University, is first of all, a university. Like all universities, a CU tries to confront the great problems of society and culture6 (ECE 13) through research, education and professional training (ECE 10) and like other universities, a CU tries to produce, examine, appraise, and hand down culture by research and teaching, but in its own way, trying to work with a Christian mindset in the search for the whole truth. In a sense, “without in any way neglecting the acquisition of useful knowledge, a Catholic University is distinguished by its free search for the whole truth about nature, man and God.” (ECE 4) Popes insist that a Christian mind can give a particular fecundity in university work. Thus, and echoing several visits to Catholic universities, John Paul II affirmed: “They are for me a lively and promising sign of the fecundity of the Christian mind in the heart of every culture” (ECE 2).

4  The regulation of Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties is by Apostolic Constitution ‘Sapientia Christiana’ (John Paul II, 1979a) and the updated Apostolic Constitution “Veritatis Gaudium’ (Francis, 2017a). 5  Magna Charta Universitatum, Fundamental Principles, n. 1. http://www.ehea.info/cid101830/ magna-charta.html. The Magna Charta was first signed by 388 rectors in Bologna in September 1988, to commemorate the 900th anniversary of the founding of the University of Bologna. It has since been signed by 889 universities from 88 countries (http://www.magna-charta.org/magnacharta-universitatum/signatory-universities). 6  Culture in ECE is understood to have a twofold meaning. One “humanistic” –understood as all those factors by which man refines and unfolds his manifold spiritual and bodily qualities, and another which is socio-cultural, which humans throughout the course of time, express, communicate, and conserve in their works (ECE note 16; cf. Vatican Council II, 1965a, no. 53).

172

D. Melé

Expressed in synthetic terms, the aim of Catholic higher education is that “the Christian mind may achieve, as it were, a public, persistent and universal presence in the whole enterprise of advancing higher culture and that the students of these institutions become people outstanding in learning, ready to shoulder society’s heavier burdens and to witness the faith to the world” (ECE 9; cf. Vatican Council II, 1965b, no. 10). Ex corde Ecclesiae defines Catholic University as “an academic community which, in a rigorous and critical fashion, assists in the protection and advancement of human dignity and of a cultural heritage through research, teaching and various services offered to the local, national and international communities” (ECE 12). Each Catholic university possesses institutional autonomy (ECE 12) in its governance and in performing its functions effectively. Because of this, universities are not uniform; each has its particular features and objectives and is embedded in a particular culture. However, a common goal of Catholic universities is that “the Christian outlook should acquire a public, stable and universal influence in the whole process of the promotion of higher culture.” (Vatican Council II, 1965b, no. 10) In a Catholic University, Catholic ideals, attitudes and principles penetrate and inform university activities in accordance with the proper nature and autonomy of these activities.” (ECE 14) More specifically, Catholic universities share four essential characteristics (ECE 13): • Shared Christian vision and goals, in both individuals and the university community as such. • Reflection in the light of faith, added to rational knowledge a continuing reflection by the light of the Catholic faith. • Fidelity to the Christian message presented by the Church. • Commitment to Service of the people of God and the human family. In summary, being both a University and a Catholic institution, the CU “must be both a community of scholars representing various branches of human knowledge, and an academic institution in which Catholicism is vitally present and operative.” (ECE 14). Consequently, the responsibilities of the CU are in part common with and in part different from other universities. We will review some of these responsibilities next.

9.4  Responsibilities in Teaching and in Research Without doubt, teaching and research are primordial responsibilities for every university, and CU is no exception, although some particular responsibilities, not applicable to a standard university, can be mentioned. (a) Improving teaching and research with a coherent world vision Those who teach or undertake research should seek to continuously improve their competence and endeavor to set the content, objectives, methods, and results

9  The Catholic University—Identity, Mission, and Responsibilities

173

of research in any matter or individual discipline within the framework of a coherent world vision Specialized professional training should combine technical aspects with humanism and culture (ECE 22–23). A coherent world vision should be accompanied by a seriously committed in the rational search of the truth. According to John Paul II, “the basic mission of a University is a continuous quest for truth through its research, and the preservation and communication of knowledge for the good of society. A Catholic University participates in this mission with its own specific characteristics and purposes.” (ECE 30) At this point, a short discussion on the Catholic Church teaching on the role of reason in teaching and research may be useful. The Catholic Church affirms that human intelligence “is not confined to observable data alone, but can with genuine certitude attain to reality itself as knowable, though partly obscured and weakened (Vatican Council II, 1965a, no. 15). In this line of thought, John Paul II encourages philosophers—be they Christian or not—“to trust in the power of human reason and not to set themselves goals that are too modest in their philosophizing.” (1998, no. 56) Adding, a lesson of history in the twentieth century, applicable to the university: “it is necessary not to abandon the passion for ultimate truth, the eagerness to search for it or the audacity to forge new paths in the search” (1998, no. 56). On his part, Benedict XVI encourages broadening the scope of reason and making it capable of knowing and directing these [global] powerful new forces, animating them within the perspective of that ‘civilization of love’ whose seed God has planted in every people, in every culture” (2009, no. 33. Emphasis in original). (b) Seeking the integration of knowledge In the spirit of the primitive university, the CU seeks to integrate knowledge. Integration of knowledge seems particularly useful to face the current fragmentation of knowledge and rigid compartmentalization of individual disciplines, with only a limited interdisciplinary dialogue among the subjects. The problem is even greater with the current proliferation of research, potentiated by powerful technologies and with fierce competition among universities and research centers. The integration of knowledge is a challenge, but it seems more necessary than never. The integration of knowledge should be a permanent concern, since it is a process which will always remain incomplete. This integration is a responsibility, especially for a Catholic University, which “has to be a ‘living union’ of individual organisms dedicated to the search for truth ... It is necessary to work towards a higher synthesis of knowledge, in which alone lies the possibility of satisfying that thirst for truth which is profoundly inscribed on the heart of the human person” (ECE 16). This integration of knowledge of natural and social sciences, as well as arts and technical achievements, should be illuminated by philosophical reflection and integrated in a worldview with the help of theology. Thus, “university scholars will be engaged in a constant effort to determine the relative place and meaning of each of the various disciplines within the context of a vision of the human person and the world that is enlightened by the Gospel” (ECE 16).

174

D. Melé

In contrast with this perspective, Benedict XVI draws attention to the rationality of a self-centered use of technology, which proves to be irrational because it implies a decisive rejection of meaning and value (2009, no. 74). On his part, Pope Francis warns us about the dominant technological paradigm and its internal logics, in which everything is ordered to efficiency. He regrets that “the idea of promoting a different cultural paradigm and employing technology as a mere instrument is nowadays inconceivable” (Francis, 2015, no. 108). Seeking the integration of knowledge does not prevent each discipline employing its own methods in teaching and research, but the communication of knowledge should be accompanied by certain reflection, which can open the student minds to increasingly broader questions, showing how the complete answer to them can only come from above through faith. Interdisciplinary studies, assisted by a careful and thorough study of philosophy and theology, can foster the integration of knowledge enabling students to acquire an organic vision of reality and to develop a continuing desire for intellectual progress (ECE 20). (c) Promoting dialogue between faith and reason and between Gospel and culture Pope Francis affirms that “Catholic universities have always sought to harmonize scientific with theological research, placing reason and faith in dialogue.” (Francis, 2017b) Actually, in promoting the integration of knowledge, “a specific part of a Catholic University’s task is to promote dialogue between faith and reason, so that it can be seen more profoundly how faith and reason bear harmonious witness to the unity of all truth” (ECE 17). One might think that faith belongs to the world of beliefs, something real—many people have religious beliefs—but irrational, related with individual or collective feelings of behaviors rather than rationality. Of course, people’s beliefs can be object of empirical research, but religious beliefs should be beyond the mission of the university in terms of dialogue between faith and reason. However, this is not the view of the Catholic Church nor, probably, of many other people. A dialogue between faith and reason can have a place in the university if faith is not irrational, that is, without logical reasons or clear thinking, but supra-rational, since faith transcends the rational, involving factors not to be comprehended by reason alone. Faith—founded on divine Revelation—is a trust-based knowledge (John Paul II, 1998, no. 32) and there are solid reason for trust in the divine Revelation. Furthermore, faith involves intelligence. For ages, theologians have been reflected on faith and developed it in logical terms. They followed the St. Augustin’s celebrated motto: Credo ut intelligam et intelligo ut credam (we believe in order to understand and we understand in order to believe). Faith does not suppress reason but give answers to crucial vital human questions beyond reason’s scope. “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.” (John Paul II, 1998, prelims). In Benedict XVI’s words, “It is at the same time the truth of faith and of reason, both in the distinction and also in the convergence of those two cognitive fields” (2009, no. 5). In addition, through faith, reason is stirred to explore paths which of itself it would not even have suspected it could take, and in this way reason discovers new and unsuspected horizons. In turn, reason helps to develop the contents of the faith

9  The Catholic University—Identity, Mission, and Responsibilities

175

(John Paul II, 1998, no. 73). Pope Benedict XVI, also emphasizes that reason—with its technological findings—and faith can come to each other’s assistance. “Entranced by an exclusive reliance on technology, reason without faith is doomed to flounder in an illusion of its own omnipotence. Faith without reason risks being cut off from everyday life” (2009, no. 74). Theology—the logical development of divine Revelation—should have a great relevance within CU, since it “plays a particularly important role in the search for a synthesis of knowledge as well as in the dialogue between faith and reason.” (ECE 19). There is a certain “circularity” between theology and other disciplines. The former helps the latter to find a full meaning in a transcendent perspective, while the interaction between theology and other disciplines and their discoveries enriches theology, offering it a better understanding of the world today, and making theological research more relevant to current needs. The relevance of theology has led to the prescription for CUs to have a school of theology or, at least, a chair of theology (ECE 19). Obviously, this is not a guarantee of integration but it does become an instrumental element to this end. The Christian researcher has the challenge to demonstrate the way in which human intelligence is enriched by the higher truth that comes from the Gospel. In this regard Pope Paul VI affirmed: “The intelligence is never diminished, rather, it is stimulated and reinforced by that interior fount of deep understanding that is the Word of God, and by the hierarchy of values that results from it” (Address to the Delegates of The International Federation of Catholic Universities, 27 November 1972; mentioned by ECE 46). Another aspect regarding dialogue is that between Gospel and culture. A CU, like any other institution of higher learning, develops its own culture, and this should be embedded with a sense of Christianity. However, Christian faith can inform different cultures and the CU has to be ready to dialogue with different cultures and with all human experience and to learn from any culture. At the same time, a CU offers the rich experience of the Church’s own culture. In this sense, the CU is a privileged place for a fruitful dialogue between the Gospel and culture. Besides cultural dialogue, a CU can offer a contribution to ecumenical dialogue (ECE 43–47). (d) Awareness and priority of ethics Science and technology are important areas in teaching and research in many universities and, like knowledge in other disciplines, these can contribute to social welfare and serve people in different ways. There may be ethical questions regarding the ends pursued or the means employed, however. It is required to consider the ethical dimension of science, technology, and other knowledge and, related with this, the human and social implications of science, technology and any other matter. “Because knowledge is meant to serve the human person, research in a Catholic University is always carried out with a concern for the ethical and moral implications both of its methods and of its discoveries. This concern, while it must be present in all research, is particularly important in the areas of science and technology” (ECE 18).

176

D. Melé

Another point is respecting the right order of priorities. This “consists in the priority of ethics over technology, in the primacy of the person over things, and in the superiority of spirit over matter.” (John Paul II, 1979b, no. 16) and this applies also to CUs (ECE 18). He adds that “Men and women of science will truly aid humanity only if they preserve ‘the sense of the transcendence of the human person over the world and of God over the human person” (ECE 18). Regarding the integration of ethics and science, a problem is “scientism”, an ideological position which claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality, also reduces ethics to subjective irrational values. As Benedict XVI (2006) pointed out, “if science as a whole is this [empirical facts and mathematics] and this alone, then it is man himself who ends up being reduced, for the specifically human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religion and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by ‘science’, so understood, and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjective.” From a practical perspective, the education of students should combine academic and professional development with formation in moral and religious principles and the social teachings of the Church; the program of studies for each of the various professions is to include an appropriate ethical formation in that profession. In addition, courses in Catholic doctrine are to be made available to all students (ECE General Norms, art, 4 § 5). Beyond courses of ethics in professions—managerial ethics, medical ethics, business ethics, etc.—ethics should be integrated in all areas: “the moral implications that are present in each discipline are examined as an integral part of the teaching of that discipline, so that the entire educative process be directed towards the whole development of the person (ECE 20). This is understandable, since from Catholic teaching, ethics is not something added to human activity but inherent to it. Benedict XVI made this explicit regarding economic activity: “justice must be applied to every phase of economic activity, because this is always concerned with man and his needs. Locating resources, financing, production, consumption and all the other phases in the economic cycle inevitably have moral implications. Thus every economic decision has a moral consequence” (Benedict XVI,  2009, n. 35. Emphasis in the original).

9.5  Responsibility in Service to the Church and Society As noted above, one of the characteristics of the CU is a commitment to service to society and to the Church, so a mission of service is at the core of any CU. Echoing this, the International Federation of Catholic Universities chose as a motto Sciat ut Serviat, which can be loosely translated into English as “how to know to serve”. Pope Francis, in an address to this organization, praised its motto, adding that an essential aspect of formation of universities involved, “aspires to promote social responsibility, for the building of a more just and more humane world”. He congratulated their scientific, theological and pedagogical reflection deeply rooted in

9  The Catholic University—Identity, Mission, and Responsibilities

177

the Social Doctrine of the Church, pointing out “the need for your contribution in three areas that are within your competence: those of research, teaching, and social promotion.” (Francis, 2017b) Indeed, the Christian spirit of service to others for the promotion of social justice is of particular importance for each Catholic University, to be shared by its teachers and developed in its students (ECE 34). One particular way to serve, quite proper of university, is to study serious contemporary problems, paying special attention to their ethical and religious dimensions, and seeking solutions. These include areas such as the dignity of human life, the promotion of justice for all, the quality of personal and family life, the protection of nature, the search for peace and political stability, a more just sharing in the world’s resources, and a new economic and political order that will better serve the human community at a national and international level (ECE 32). Another important service is “to examine and evaluate the predominant values and norms of modern society and culture from a Christian perspective, and the responsibility to try to communicate to society those ethical and religious principles which give full meaning to human life” (ECE 33). Additionally, service to society is expressed in many ways which, in a certain sense are common with other universities, but also can entail aspects inherent in the Christian identity. To mention a few, a CU might offer programs of continuing education to the wider community, consultancy services, courses online, contribute to a communication media, including social networks, and promote programs of cooperation. In these ways, “a Catholic University can assist in making the growing body of human knowledge and a developing understanding of the faith available to a wider public, thus expanding university services beyond its own academic community”(ECE 36). An activity, currently incorporated into many CUs, and which is, at the same time, service and training for students, is volunteering. Assistance to developing countries, support for initiatives in economically depressed areas or collaborations with NGOs are some of these activities, consistent with the Christian sense of solidarity and concern for the poor. Service of CU to the Church is also expressed in different ways. One is its contribution to the Church’s work of evangelization by being a living institutional witness to Christ and His message. Another is related with preparing young people with knowledge inspired by Christian principles. Finally, CU offers the results of its scientific research to the pastors of the Church, helping them to respond to the problems and needs of the age (ECE 31, 48, 49).

9.6  R  esponsibility and Accountability in Building the University Community A Catholic university is not only an institution but also a community of persons shaped up by teachers, students and all those who work at the university. As with its other aspects, this is aligned with the spirit of the primitive universities in Europe where they talked of Universities magistrorum and scholarium, as noted above.

178

D. Melé

Like them, the CU is, by vocation, “dedicated to research, to teaching and to the education of students who freely associate with their teachers in a common love of knowledge” (ECE 1). Catholic teaching gives a great importance to the person with his or her incommensurable dignity and the calling to an integral human development (John Paul II, 1991, no. 11; Benedict XVI,  2009, 11, 16–18). Consequently, the consideration of each person and should be particularly emphasized in the CU, as well as any help which can contribute to an integral development. Unequivocally, “a Catholic University pursues its objectives through its formation of an authentic human community animated by the spirit of Christ.” The idea of community entails a lasting unity of people with shared vision, values and goals, with links that give them cohesion and willingness to cooperate and dedicate themselves to tasks for common goods. Among these elements, a common dedication to the truth, a common vision of the wholeness of the human person with dignity and, ultimately, the person and message of Christ, are mentioned (ECE 21) and this gives the CU a distinctive character. People within CU are encouraged—each according to his or her role and capacity— to promote unity—which is not uniformity— by acting with a spirit of freedom and charity, with mutual respect, sincere dialogue, protection of the rights of individuals, and mutual help in the achievement of wholeness as human persons (ECE 21). Labor rights, especially emphasized by Catholic social teaching, and particularly by John Paul II  (1981, 1991, Chapter IV), regarding staff and other personal within the CU should, of course, be particularly respected. Closely related with unity, cooperation is also required; cooperation among the different academic disciplines and in undertaking common projects. This sense of cooperation is similarly extended among Catholic universities and with other private and governmental institutions, including participation in common research projects (ECE 35). Unity also requires maintaining and strengthening the distinctive Catholic character of the Institution and acting in accordance with the regulations of the Catholic Church in the particular mission of each university and their subsequent strategies and policies. Beyond regulations, the CU should show institutional fidelity to the Christian message, which includes a recognition of and adherence to the teaching authority of the Church in matters of faith and morals (ECE 21). Fidelity to the Christian message provides a humanistic guideline for teaching and research, like a wide framework for developing culture and science with autonomy. The Church recognizes such autonomy but also its dependence on moral order: “if methodical investigation within every branch of learning is carried out in a genuinely scientific manner and in accord with moral norms, it never truly conflicts with faith, for earthly matters and the concerns of faith derive from the same God” (Vatican Council II, 1965a, no. 36). Along with “the legitimate autonomy of human culture and especially of the sciences”, the Church recognizes “the academic freedom of scholars in each discipline in accordance with its own principles and proper methods, and within the confines of the truth and the common good” (ECE 29).

9  The Catholic University—Identity, Mission, and Responsibilities

179

Members of CU faculty may include some clergy or members of Catholic religious congregations, but the vast majority are lay Catholic people and also non-­ Catholics. Catholics, who are members of the university community are also called to a personal fidelity to the Church with all that this implies. Non-Catholic members are required to respect the Catholic character of the University, while the University in turn respects their religious liberty (ECE 27). Similarly, students at the CU can be Catholics, Christians of different denominations or non-Christian. CUs apply the teaching of the Church regarding religious freedom, according to which the human person has a right to religious freedom foundered in the very dignity of the human person (Vatican Council, 1965c, no. 2).7 From a spiritual perspective, the CU has pastoral ministry to provide religious assistance and encourage all members of university community by offering opportunities to pray and worship, spiritual retreats and other means to assimilate Catholic teaching and practice into their lives, while always respecting religious freedom. When the academic community includes members of other Churches, ecclesial communities or religions, their initiatives for reflection and prayer in accordance with their own beliefs are to be respected. Teachers and students are also encouraged to become more aware of their responsibility towards the poorest and those who are suffering physically or spiritually (ECE 39). The increasing development of ecological ethics in Catholic teaching, particularly with Francis (2015), suggests the need to introduce reasonable ecological measures at the Catholic university. This can include measures to promote water and energy savings, issues related with animal experimentation, keeping facilities in harmony with nature, among others. The responsibility for maintaining and strengthening the Catholic identity of the University rests primarily with the University itself. This responsibility is entrusted principally to university authorities (including, when the positions exist, the Chancellor and/or a Board of Trustees or equivalent body. However, responsibility is also shared by those who teach and do research, as well as the non-academic staff, whose dedication and witness are vital for the identity and life of the University. Students are a crucial part of university community and should assume their responsibility as students and as future professionals by taking advantage of this time of preparation. Directors and administrators in a CU bear a particular responsibility in promoting the constant growth of the University and its community through a leadership of service. This is especially so regarding to the recruitment of adequate university personnel, above all teachers and administrators who are both willing and able to promote Catholic identity (ECE 22–24, General Norms, art. 4 § 1). Accountability is also desirable, since students who go to a CU, the donors who support it, and the Church Itself have the right to know how this corporate responsibility is effected, and therefore the CU should be accountable for its activities. 7  Religious freedom “means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.” (Vatican Council, 1965c, no. 2)

180

D. Melé

However, there is no any especial requirement on this point in ECE The specific way of carrying out accountability is at the discretion of each university in its field of autonomy.

9.7  Conclusion In short, “a Catholic University, like every university, is a community of scholars representing various branches of human knowledge. It is dedicated to research, to teaching, and to various kinds of service in accordance with its cultural mission in a such way that Catholic ideals, principles and attitudes should inform and carry out its research, teaching, and all other activities with Catholic” (ECE General Norms, art. 1 § 1 and § 2) In this chapter we have tried to describe and comment on what in our view are relevant aspects of the identity, mission and main responsibilities of the Catholic university, drawing from key documents of the Catholic Church. Our aim, therefore, was not to discuss how these guidelines are implemented nor—even less—the consistency between the ideals of the Catholic University and reality. No doubt some CUs live the identity and mission better than others. This could be an area for further research, as an analysis of how accountable they are and of the content of their accountability reports.

References Benedict XVI. (2006). Faith, reason and the university  – Memories and reflections: Lecture addressed to representatives of science at the Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg, 12 September. Available at: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/ september/documents/hf_ben-­xvi_spe_20060912_university-­regensburg_en.html Benedict XVI. (2009). Encyclical Letter ‘Caritas in veritate’. Available at: h t t p : / / w w w. va t i c a n . va / h o l y _ fa t h e r / b e n e d i c t _ x v i / e n cy c l i c a l s / d o c u m e n t s / h f _ ben-­xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-­in-­veritate_en.html Catholic Church. (1983). Code of Canon Law. Latin-English Edition. Canon Law Society of America. Cuartas, C.  J. (2003). La idea de universidad en Juan Pablo II. Theologica Xaveriana, 146, 163–190. d’Irsay, S. (1933). Histoire des universités françaises et étrangères, des origines à nos jours. Tome I: Moyen Âge et Renaissance. Picard. Encyclopædia Britannica. (1991). Universities (11th ed.). Available at: https://en.wikisource.org/ wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Universities#cite_note-­1 Francis (2015). Encyclical Letter 'Laudato si'' on the Christian sense of ecology. Available at https:// www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-­francesco_20150524_ enciclica-­laudatosi.html Francis. (2017a). Apostolic Constitution ‘Veritatis Gaudium’ on Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties. Available at: http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_constitutions/documents/papa-­francesco_costituzione-­ap_20171208_veritatis-­gaudium.html

9  The Catholic University—Identity, Mission, and Responsibilities

181

Francis. (2017b). Address to Members of the International Federation of Catholic Universities, 4 November. Available at: https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2017/november/ documents/papa-­francesco_20171104_federazione-­universita-­cattoliche.html John Paul II. (1979a). Apostolic Constitution ‘Sapientia Christiana’ on Ecclesiatical Universities and Facuties. Avaliable at http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-­paul-­ii/en/apost_constitutions/ documents/hf_jp-­ii_apc_15041979_sapientia-­christiana.html John Paul II. (1979b). Encyclical Letter ‘Redemptor Hominis’ on Christ, the Redemptor.Available at http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-­paul-­ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-­ii_enc_04031979_ redemptor-­hominis.html John Paul II. (1980). Discourse to the ‘Institute Catholique de Paris’, 1 June. Available at https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/fr/speeches/1980/june/documents/hf_jp-ii_ spe_19800601_institutcatholique.html (in French). John Paul II. (1981). Encyclical Letter ‘Laborem exercerns’ on human work. Available at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-­i i_enc_ 14091981_laborem-­exercens_en.html John Paul II. (1990). Apostolic Constitution ‘Ex corde Eclesiae’ on Catholic Universities. Available at http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-­paul-­ii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-­ ii_apc_15081990_ex-­corde-­ecclesiae.html John Paul II. (1991). Encyclical Letter ‘Centesimus annus’ on the socio-economic order. Available at http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-­paul-­ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-­ii_ enc_01051991_centesimus-­annus.html John Paul II. (1998). Encyclical Letter ‘Fides et ratio’, on the relationship between faith and reason. Available at http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-­paul-­ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-­ ii_enc_14091998_fides-­et-­ratio.html Latorre, Á. (1964). Universidad y sociedad. Ariel. Vatican Council II. (1965a). Pastoral Constitution ‘Gaudium et Spes’ on the Church in the modern world. Available at http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/ documents/vat-­ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-­et-­spes_en.html Vatican Council II. (1965b). Declaration on Christian education ‘Gravissimum Educationis’. Available at http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-­ii_ decl_19651028_gravissimum-­educationis_en.html Vatican Council II. (1965c). Declaration ‘Dignitatis Humanae’ on the right of the person and of communities to social and civil freedom in matters religious. Available at http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-­i i_decl_ 19651207_dignitatis-­humanae_en.html Verger, J. (1973). Les universités au moyen âge. P.U.F. Domènec Melé is Emeritus Professor and Chair of Business Ethics at IESE Business School, University of Navarra, Spain. He earned a doctorate degree in Industrial Engineering from the Polytechnic University of Catalonia, Spain (1975), and another PhD in Theology from the University of Navarra (1983). Professor Melé has chaired the biennial International Symposium on Ethics, Business and Society led by IESE from 1991 to 2014 (18 editions). He he has served as section editor of the Journal of Business Ethics for ten years. He is author of Management Ethics (Palgrave, 2012), and Business Ethics in Action: Managing Human Excellence in Organizations, 2nd ed. (Red Globe Press, 2019). He also co-authored Human Foundations of Management. Understanding the ‘homo humanus’ (Palgrave, 2014). He co-edited Human Development in Business. Values and Humanistic Management in the in the Encyclical «Caritas in Veritate» (Palgrave, 2012), Humanism in Economics and Business. Perspectives of the Catholic Social Tradition (Springer, 2015) and A Catholic Spirituality for Business. The Logic of Gift (The Catholic University of America Press, 2019).  

Chapter 10

Preparing Future Citizens: Global Warming, the Social Good, and the Critical Role of University Teaching Judith C. Lapadat

Abstract  We live at a time in history when global environmental issues have become so urgent that the future of humanity as a species is at risk. Universities are social institutions that hold responsibility for creating and applying new knowledge, providing scientific and social leadership, and teaching generations of future citizens. Yet just as the goods of universities have become critical to our survival, public regard for academic expertise has declined; our most educated members of society, professors and researchers, often are notably absent from public discourse and global action, and young people are turning to the internet for self-education and engagement in global issues. I am deeply concerned about the future of universities, how they are fulfilling their role in society, and the consequences of acquiescence to corporatization. This chapter presents a dissenting view on the concept of corporate social responsibility, and points to the responsibility of universities to prepare future citizens, foster democratic discourse, achieve social justice aims, and shift our trajectory away from environmental collapse. Our hope for the future rests in our students. Keywords  Social justice · Global environmental crisis · Corporatization of universities · Public good · Academic freedom We live at a time of global warming, radical climate change, and loss of biodiversity, challenges that have become so urgent that the future of humanity as a species is at risk (Franzen, 2019). As social institutions, universities have a responsibility to discover new knowledge, to apply scientific and other scholarly findings to enhance the public good, and to teach generations of future citizens. Yet in this historical moment when the goods of universities have become critical to human survival, public regard for academic expertise has declined (Denzin & Giardina, 2018; Krimsky, J. C. Lapadat (*) Faculty of Education, University of Lethbridge, University Drive, Lethbridge, AB, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 D. C. Poff (ed.), University Corporate Social Responsibility and University Governance, Advances in Business Ethics Research 8, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77532-2_10

183

184

J. C. Lapadat

2014); our most educated members of society, professors and researchers, often are notably absent from public discourse and global action (Brownlee, 2015); and the general public, especially young people, are turning to the internet for self-­education and engagement in global issues. I am deeply concerned about the future of universities, how they are fulfilling their role in society, and the erosion of their autonomy as public institutions. This chapter addresses the responsibility of universities to prepare future citizens, foster democratic discourse, strive toward social justice, and shift our trajectory away from environmental collapse. Just as academic administrators, faculty, government bodies, and the public must resist ceding academic freedom and institutional autonomy to powerful private interests who are more than willing to use financial leverage to shift the focus of university research to further their own corporate agendas (Krimsky, 2014; Lieberwitz, 2014; Taft, 2017; Turk, 2014b), a sea change is required in our approach to teaching to enable universities to close the gap between aspirational vision statements and a status quo in which breadth and quality of student learning becomes secondary to promoting disciplines and programs that can attract industry funding. In the American context, since 1980 there has been a dramatic increase in industry funding of research and “academic programs in fields with the greatest commercial potential  – medicine, biology, chemistry, engineering, economics, business, and agriculture” (Lieberwitz, 2014, p. 258). Taft’s (2017) examples of the oil industry’s engagement with universities in Alberta suggest a similar pattern is developing in Canada. In this chapter, I offer a dissenting voice to the thesis of the book that, as corporate entities, universities ought to borrow the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a guiding aim. Instead, I argue that large transnational corporations are largely responsible for the most serious problems in the world today, in particular, the climate emergency. Functioning outside of community (that is, outside of the control of state and international regulatory bodies), corporations have pillaged the earth for profit, diverted capital from the public purse to enhance their own private interests, and left governments and public institutions such as education, health care, and social services underfunded. Corporate social responsibility is the notion that companies will voluntarily choose to behave in an ethical or socially responsible way (if their profit bottom line is not affected). CSR is second to profit, voluntary, and unenforceable, and it has been used by corporate interests primarily for marketing themselves and perception management, rather than for the betterment of people or the planet. The discourse of CSR is a distraction from taking necessary societal actions to curtail the excessive power corporations enjoy. Our future citizens are the world’s best hope for an effective response to the climate crisis and preserving a future for humanity, and therefore universities must take their responsibilities to students seriously and resist further entrenchment of corporate values and practices into institutional practices. In building this argument about the critical role of university teaching, I draw on my personal, academic, and administrative experience, including time spent as a Canadian professor of education and later as a university associate vice-president with responsibility for the student portfolio. I also write as a parent and grandparent

10  Preparing Future Citizens: Global Warming, the Social Good, and the Critical Role… 185

who would like to leave behind ecological abundance in a democratic and equitable world in which my grandchildren and everyone’s grandchildren can thrive.

10.1  Universities as Corporate Entities Although the primary functions of universities are academic – to educate students and to discover and disseminate new knowledge – universities also are organized as and function as corporate entities. Similar to the corporate boards of companies, a university board of governors has authority over the university’s business affairs, whereas academic matters are decided under the authority of the senate or equivalent body in the model of bicameral governance typical in Canadian universities (MacKinnon, 2018). The leadership hierarchy and management practices within universities are patterned after a corporate business model (Turk, 2014a, b). Senior university leaders’ daily decision-making focuses not only on, nor even primarily on, students’ learning and wellbeing and support for faculty research and teaching. Rather, much of their time is devoted to acquiring and allocating financial resources; financing, building, supplying, and managing classrooms, labs, offices, housing, recreational facilities, and the rest of the physical plant; marketing and promoting their institution; and managing university personnel, which involves oversight of hiring systems, evaluation processes, compensation, and pension funds. In short, universities function as corporations that accumulate and manage financial assets, real estate, people, and services, and they compete with each other to attract students, employees, financial and physical resources, and prestige. This corporate side of universities, organized in accordance with the values and practices of business corporations, often manifests itself as functioning in opposition to rather than in support of the social, educational, and knowledge-creating visions of institutional leadership that are enshrined in university mission and value statements (Steck, 2003). Although universities set out intentions of fostering an inclusive learning environment that will nurture tomorrow’s leaders and thinkers, this vision is all too often undermined by their own competing corporate agendas and by the hidden agendas of industries that have gained an inside voice in the governance of universities through partnerships or other funding arrangements.

10.2  The Corporatization of Universities Over the last three decades, academics have expressed increasing concern about the corporatization of universities, especially in the United States, but also in Canada. Corporatization does not refer only to universities’ legal status or adoption of more business-oriented models of management and accountability, but, as many scholars have argued, to rapid and sweeping changes that have altered the fundamental nature of universities, and that affect academic work, the dissemination of

186

J. C. Lapadat

knowledge, faculty employment conditions, academic integrity, how students and teaching are valued, university governance, and institutional autonomy (Brownlee, 2015; Denzin & Giardina, 2018; Krimsky, 2014; Lieberwitz, 2014; Lincoln, 2018; Spooner, 2018; Steck, 2003; Turk, 2014b). Universities have been commercialized and marketized, reshaping their focus to conform to the priorities of private profit-­ making corporations. Norman Denzin and Michael Giardina write that “the neoliberal marketization of higher education [is] itself an outgrowth of the accelerated marketization of everyday life” (2018, p. 3) where, for example, citizens have been reframed as consumers, malls have become our town squares, and shopping is a leisure activity. These pressures have “fundamentally transformed the public sphere of higher education from one of rational public discourse by and for the public good to one of private market relations” (p. 3). Corporatization of Canadian universities can be seen in a number of internal and external forces that threaten academic integrity. For example, Turk (2014b) points to corporate sponsorship as a threat to academic freedom and therefore to academic integrity. Universities have been infiltrated by right-wing think tanks such as the Fraser Institute and the Manning Centre (see Corporate Mapping Project (n.d.)) that seek to promote neoliberal policies, and are partnering with external special interest groups such as the petroleum industry (Taft, 2017). Sheldon Krimsky (2014), recounting the caution stated by Nobel Laureate Philip Sharpe, says that by shifting their focus to commercial wealth, universities lose their unique position. “They are no longer viewed as ivory towers of intellectual pursuits and truthful thoughts, but rather as enterprises driven by arrogant individuals out to capture as much money and influence as possible” (p.  232). Public trust in universities declines as does respect for faculty and their work. The academy’s struggle for credibility is further fueled by internal conflicts that arise from the inherent incompatibility of universities’ corporate management practices and their educational and research mandates. Jamie Brownlee (2015) identifies a number of conceptual dichotomies that have undermined the aims of higher education as universities have corporatized. Liberal education values have given way to the expectation that postsecondary institutions will provide corporate job training; public service takes second place to profit making; and funding is diverted from basic and critical research to commercial invention and application. As public funding for universities declines, every university aspires to have a privately funded research park sitting on its grounds. As budgets get tighter, tenure-track and tenured faculty are replaced by poorly-paid adjunct teaching faculty who lack job security. More dollars flow to development and recruitment offices because domestic tuition fees, per-head grants, and international student fees have become essential to balancing the budget. Students are reframed as consumers, universities seek competitive advantage in the marketplace by selling “the university experience,” and preservation of the status quo takes precedence over pro-social aims like redressing the faculty gender imbalance in rank and compensation, where progress has stagnated over the last 25 years (Vettese, 2019). Marc Spooner (2018) warns academics about the “Triple M” Crisis”  – market (where universities become places of consumption and entrepreneurial training grounds), managerialism (“the imposition of private-sector derived accounting, management,

10  Preparing Future Citizens: Global Warming, the Social Good, and the Critical Role… 187

and production technologies” (p. 28)), and measurement (the use of rigid external benchmarks to evaluate and judge scholars and the legitimacy of their work). The sweeping changes to the academy that have occurred with the erosion of public funding for higher education in the United States, our neighbour to the south, serve as a cautionary tale. In contrast with Turk (2014b) and Brownlee (2015), who write about corporatization of the Canadian university system as a relatively recent shift, Catherine Chaput (2002) argues that American public research universities always have been thoroughly integrated into a capitalist political economy. She suggests that longstanding policies in higher education in the United States, although couched in a rhetoric of egalitarianism, have been designed to create a professional class in order to serve the interests of corporations and a capitalist economic system. An educated professional class at work within the economy yields surplus value, which has supported the global expansion of American corporations. Henry Steck (2003) concurs that American universities always have been entangled with the business sector and had a utilitarian commitment; there never was a golden age when the university was “pure” and apart from commercial and political influences. But he argues that in recent years corporatization has altered universities fundamentally so as to threaten their core mission. He defines a corporatized university as one “characterized by processes, decisional criteria, expectations, organizational culture, and operating practices that are taken from, and have their origins in, the modern business corporation” (p. 74), and where the university uses corporate language and strategies for making decisions, and enters into market relationships. This transformation challenges the priorities and integrity of academic research, and: the credibility of universities, … the integrity of … curricula, … the integrity of academic work itself, … the autonomy of academic workers, … university employment, … tenure criteria, … peer and public access to research findings, … the sanctity of campus space, …priorities for decisions about allocation of public monies, … and the language used to characterize academic life (pp. 80–81).

Many academics have called attention to the myriad of ways in which corporatization of universities and the imposition of an audit culture have resulted in less secure employment for faculty members and degradation of their work and lives. Yvonna Lincoln (2018) writes about how the academic publishing industry has privatized and marketized scholarly work through an extractive, profit-seeking process she calls the “fracking” of faculty: “Having marketized everything on the planet… the capitalist concern turned to finding new material that might be commodified and hence marketized… What better than the steady, rich outflow of information, data, knowledge, and proposed applications (or technology transfer) from elite scholarly knowledge workers” (p. 17)? Lincoln explains that the knowledge generated by university scholars is “being sequestered into increasingly expensive journals, books, and monographs” (2018, p. 17) by publishing companies, who then sell access to the digitized and print publications back to university libraries and individual scholars at high prices. This puts access to scholarly knowledge out of reach for less well-funded institutions,

188

J. C. Lapadat

developing countries, and independent scholars: “Knowledge production and scientific discovery are perverted from their original purpose of improving the lot of humankind, and turned instead to yet another marketable commodity” (p. 17). In this process, “faculty become the new ‘natural resource’ to be mined” (p. 19), with attendant consequences for the quality of their personal and academic lives, along with loss of collegiality, underfunding of the arts and humanities, and the erosion of core values of the university. Decreased public funding for higher education and academic research has pushed American university administrators to seek research funding from private corporations that are not at arms-length and that are eager to commodify and take ownership of the products of university research. Universities correspondingly have prioritized program development in disciplinary areas that can attract funding over those that cannot. Not surprisingly, science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) fields, that offer much to further corporate agendas, are well funded, whereas areas of study within the social sciences, arts, and humanities, seen as being of little economic value to corporations and as promoting critical thought, are not (Lincoln, 2018). The cost of tuition puts higher education out of the reach of many, while at the same time, public perception of the value of getting a post-secondary degree has declined (Denzin & Giardina, 2018). Private non-profit American universities funded by corporations, wealthy alumni, and high tuition fees have continued a tradition of catering to the elite, and the country also has seen the rise of corporate universities (e.g., McDonald’s Hamburger University) and for-­ profit universities. Risa Lieberwitz (2014) provides a chilling account of the extent to which industry funding of and influence over American university research and decision processes has expanded since the late 1970s, and the impact on academic values and autonomy. She describes how burgeoning science and technology discoveries, along with a government push toward privatization to increase global competitiveness and legislation to streamline patenting of university inventions rather than placing the knowledge in the public domain, “created a fertile ground for university policies and practices favouring commercialization of university research” (p. 257). Through university-industry partnerships, “corporations have inserted themselves into the core research functions of the university by deciding what sorts of academic research they wish to fund, having access to academic researchers, and contracting for rights of pre-publication review and licensing rights” (p. 261). Although the values of universities, which include serving the public good (Poff, 2003), are not the values of corporations, which always must be driven by profit, there are more and more instances where the university or a substantial segment of it has merged into or been subsumed by corporate interests. Lieberwitz (2014) presents the example of the development of the Cornell NYC Tech entrepreneurial campus in New  York City, which is substantially funded and steered by technology corporations, and where the university has given up key aspects of academic freedom such as publication rights, curriculum design, teaching roles (e.g., corporate employees sit on graduate committees), and the right to use academic research

10  Preparing Future Citizens: Global Warming, the Social Good, and the Critical Role… 189

findings for the public good (e.g., corporate executives steer the commercialization of discoveries). The partnership model embodied in the Cornell NYC Tech entrepreneurial campus is not an anomaly but rather reflects a trend at American and other Western universities, such as the close relationship between Stanford University and the Silicon Valley technology industry (Lieberwitz, 2014). In a similar vein, Denzin and Giardina (2018) point to UCL Innovation and Enterprise at University College London, Oxford University Innovation at Oxford University, and the EnterpriseWorks Incubator at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. In Canada, Kevin Taft (2017) describes how under the Harper government, Canada’s largest petroleum corporations formed a group called the Energy Policy Institute of Canada with the aim of laying out the framework of Canada’s energy policy and promoting it to the public and to top government officials (p. 30). To bring university researchers on board and lend legitimacy to their cause, they funded the Canada School of Energy and Environment, an online research network intended to link energy scholars worldwide, supported by the University of Calgary, the University of Alberta, the University of Lethbridge, and the University of Saskatchewan.

10.3  Corporate Social Responsibility I will return to the topic of the effect of corporatization, marketization, and an audit culture on universities, faculty, and more specifically, students and teaching later in this chapter. But first, let’s consider how corporations might contribute positively to society, the environment, and by extension, to universities as a social institution. There is little doubt that profit-motivated corporate research and development has led to the availability of a plethora of material goods and technology, and a comfortable lifestyle that is enjoyed by the majority of people in wealthy nations like Canada, while also providing employment throughout the world. However, this consumer choice has come with increased income inequality in Canada and in other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries over the past 35 years, with the incomes of the top one percent in Canada surging from the early 1980s to 2011, and “the share of the top 0.1%… went from 20 times average income to 50 times average income over this time period” (Green et al., 2017, p.  10). The question is, is it possible for corporations to pursue a private profit-­ oriented approach while also behaving in an ethical manner that enhances society’s interests and maintains a healthy planetary ecology? Corporate social responsibility refers to the idea that corporations may incorporate an ethical approach within their business practices so as to contribute to the social good. Paulina Ksiezak and Barbara Fischbach (2017) state that CSR theories are based on the idea of the triple bottom line – profit, people, and planet – and suggest that sustainable companies attend to all three, which benefits not only the company but also its employees, the community where it is located, and the natural environment. Wayne Visser (2006) adopts a definition of CSR that emphasizes

190

J. C. Lapadat

conducting business in a way that obeys the law, is ethical, and is socially supportive while pursuing economic profitability as the primary aim (p. 32). Deborah Doane and Naomi Abasta-Vilaplana (2005) state that CSR “can be defined broadly as the efforts corporations make above and beyond regulations to balance the needs of stakeholders with the need to make profit” (para. 2). Subhabrata Bobby Banerjee provides several definitions such as this one: “a mechanism to voluntarily integrate social and environmental concerns into their operations and their interactions with stakeholders, which are over and above the entities’ legal responsibilities” (Australia Standards Association (2003), as cited by Banerjee, 2008, p. 60). All of the definitions include the points that CSR is voluntary, and that it involves business actions beyond the legal requirements. The construct has many nuances and is contested. The notion of corporate social responsibility puts a positive gloss on capitalism and is “premised on the notion that companies can ‘do well’ and ‘do good’ at the same time – both saving the world and making a decent profit too” (Doane & Abasta-Vilaplana, 2005, para. 5). However, corporate social responsibility has serious limitations in practice. These two researchers say that the CSR movement is based on four myths, that: “1. The market can deliver both short-term financial returns and long-term social benefits. 2. The ethical consumer will drive change. 3. There will he (sic) a competitive ‘race to the top’ over ethics amongst businesses. 4. In the global economy, countries will compete to have the best ethical practices” (abstract). Yet the fundamental responsibility of corporations is to maximize the profits of their shareholders. Unless required by law or other regulatory bodies, profit taking will always supersede any other considerations (Williams, 2019). Doane and Abasta-Vilaplana (2005) debunk each of the four myths in turn, pointing out that profitability overrides voluntary social commitments, especially given that the stock market with its short-term horizon serves as a disincentive. With respect to consumer influence, less than five percent of people consistently make purchasing choices that are based on ethical and green principles. Businesses are happy to represent their practices to the public, their “consumers,” as ethical, socially conscious, and environmentally sustainable, but their public relations and marketing claims often do not represent any actual change in socially or environmentally destructive business practices. This behaviour is known as “greenwashing.” As an example, petroleum companies operating in Alberta refer to fossil fuels as “clean energy” in lobbying efforts and media reports (Taft, 2017, p. 38). Rather than competing to be ethical in business, corporations compete to be perceived as ethical, and direct their efforts to “hiding socially irresponsible behavior, such as lobbying activities or tax avoidance measures” (Doane & Abasta-Vilaplana, 2005, Myth #3, para. 4). In the global arena, there are few constraints on transnational corporations. They are self-governing and have tremendous power to influence political processes in Western countries, local governments in developing countries, as well as agendas of organizations like the United Nations, World Bank, and World Health Organization. Although public outcry about environmental disasters and social impacts in developing countries has forced some corporations at fault to adopt codes of

10  Preparing Future Citizens: Global Warming, the Social Good, and the Critical Role… 191

conduct, such codes are voluntary and cannot be legally enforced. In fact, “there are no legislative requirements that corporations serve the public interest” (Banerjee, 2008, p. 63). Instead, he says, the thrust of legislation in the U. S. has been “designed to protect private interests, often at the expense of the public” (p. 55) – specifically, to protect the rights of corporations to accumulate private wealth, and to shift the responsibility for addressing any social and environmental costs from corporations to governments (p. 56). The discourse of sustainable development also has been corporatized. Markets do not reflect the true costs of doing business, such as the loss of old-growth forests, the death of coral reefs, or the health consequences of tobacco use. Instead, corporations make a show of being green or socially progressive in order to avoid the imposition of regulatory control, and shift the thrust of sustainability initiatives “from global planetary sustainability to sustaining the corporation through ‘growth opportunities’” (Banerjee, 2008, p. 66). There are several inherent problems with the incrementalistic approach of corporate social responsibility as a means of redressing the social and environmental harms that have been perpetrated by corporations, or as a guide to corporate behaviour in the future. Even if corporations can reach agreement with various stakeholders on what approach is right or just (which itself is difficult, as corporations are self-serving and have the power to shift the discourse), corporations have no legal obligation to comply with any course of action that is decided upon. Their CSR involvement is voluntary, and history shows that most approaches to corporate self-­ governance with respect to ethical, social, or environmental aims best serve the corporations themselves. It has been well-documented that corporations cause social and environmental harms (Alcadipani & de Oliveira Medeiros, 2019), but they are not held responsible under the law for most of them; their only responsibility is to their shareholders (Banerjee, 2008). Doane and Abasta-Vilaplana (2005) say that direct regulation that imposes mandatory rules on corporations has been more effective in changing corporate behaviour than CSR initiatives. Williams (2019) also argues that regulation is a route to elicit pro-social behaviour from corporations. Specifically, he says: “If well designed and fairly enforced, regulations can enable companies to do what they generally say they want to do: to operate in ways that are acceptable to society as a whole” (para. 2). However, he then identifies a large number of challenges in establishing and enforcing standards given that corporations resist constraints and their financial resources and reach exceed that of regulatory bodies, where they exist, and that in pursuit of their bottom line, many companies refuse to comply or fake compliance. But both CSR and regulation ultimately fall short in ensuring that corporations contribute to the social good, or, at the very least, repair the harms they cause, because they fail to address the ways in which the purposes of corporations, their nature as a legal entity, and the way they function are in opposition to fundamental social justice and environmental values. Corporate practice rests on capitalist assumptions that: it is acceptable for corporations and the private individuals behind them to amass and hoard capital; that they can take whatever they want for private gain (e.g., trees, water, minerals, labour) for the least amount they can get away with

192

J. C. Lapadat

paying (i.e., surplus value is what yields their profits); that they have no responsibility to pay for the true costs of their actions; that they have no responsibility to share their gains (e.g., as seen in corporate tax evasion and demands for corporate subsidies); that everything on the planet and its ecosystems are merely “resources” for them to use; that people are merely “consumers” that they have the right to dupe into buying back what the corporation has taken from them; and that the principle of “do no harm” does not apply to them. Poff (2010) says that “globalized, multinational corporations have… escaped community and communities have historically been where individuals have been held to be morally and legally accountable” (p.  12). Although there certainly are examples of some corporations that have engaged in socially responsible acts, such as Volvo’s release of patent for the three-­ point seat belt (England, 2013), the concept of corporate social responsibility is faulty because it does not challenge the basic precepts that underlie exploitative market practices, or address the ways in which a corporate business approach is not a good communal model for the humans living together on this earth. Unlike business corporations, universities are socially responsible institutions that serve the public good. This is a core principle and purpose of universities (Denzin & Giardina, 2018; Poff, 2003), and therefore we do not need to borrow the suspect notion of CSR to define our aims. It behooves us to be deeply suspicious of business corporations claiming to be socially responsible except as understood in a narrow, partial sense, where it is to their own economic advantage. Rather, the construct appears to be primarily utilized as yet another public relations ploy. As Alcadipani and de Oliveira Medeiros (2019) say, “CSR initiatives are seen as a cynical discourse and instruments of power that attempt to hide the essence of what corporations do to attempt to legitimize them in society” (Critical Management Studies, para. 5). This ploy is one that is particularly effective with academics because it echoes one of our core beliefs. In making the claim that they are socially responsible, corporations take the wind out of the sails of scholars who have criticized the neoliberal marketization project on humanity by appropriating one of academics’ dearest values and feeding it back to us.

10.4  Corporations and Global Warming The key corporate drivers are money, power, prestige, and maintenance of the status quo. To the extent that these aims drive the day-to-day priorities of a university, the goals articulated in a vision statement – such as educating future leaders, generating new knowledge in order to address pressing global problems, honouring Indigenous ways of knowing, and promoting social justice through collaborative community engagement – are merely lip service. In reinventing themselves as corporatized entities, universities have emulated corporate values, belief systems, and practices. A prominent corporate business model is found in the rapacious resource-grabbing and wealth-hoarding approach used by powerful multinational corporations such as the “Big Oil” companies that

10  Preparing Future Citizens: Global Warming, the Social Good, and the Critical Role… 193

have brought humanity to the brink of self-destruction (Franzen, 2019; Taft, 2017). For huge multinationals, their right to take profit and amass power knows no restraints. They take what they want: bitumen, fracked gas, water, trees, air, people’s homelands, personal data, and cheap labour (Chaput, 2018). They skip out of paying taxes, dissolve companies leaving behind poisoned ecosystems and uncapped gas wells, destroy irreplaceable spawning rivers and coastlines with oil spills, manipulate political processes with the threat of job loss, and invest heavily in marketing their products so we’ll buy them regardless of the carbon dioxide (CO2) being released into the air and the plastic garbage filling the oceans. Because of global warming, we are in a climate crisis and time is running out. Our survival as a species, along with that of many other animals and plants, depends on humans rapidly taking worldwide action to change our ways (Bush & Lemmen, 2019; Hawken, 2017; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2018). Universities should be taking a leadership role to prevent or delay the climate crisis tipping point, mitigate the consequences of climate change, and help communities adapt. But universities are hampered by having invested in an organizational model that replicates the same corporate beliefs and values of the multinationals who have brought us to the brink: money, power, prestige, and preservation of the status quo. Although academics care deeply about making a difference through their teaching and research, many have found themselves isolated, their time hijacked, and their voices smothered by the bureaucratic processes of their university’s corporate agenda (Lincoln, 2018; Spooner, 2018).

10.5  Universities and the Social Good Deborah Poff (2003) writes about the vision of the ideal university, describing it as “a safe haven for the articulation of all ideas, where tenure was created to protect intellectual integrity… and where intellectual leadership and vision could be imparted from one generation to the next” (p. 6). An ideal university protects the intellectual autonomy of scholars as “knowledge of the truth is not just good for some purpose but good in itself” (p. 6). Creating the conditions of academic freedom and institutional autonomy in universities is foundational because, as a society, we expect institutions of higher education to prepare educated citizens and critical thinkers who will engage in and contribute to a democratic state. We value education as a means of individual betterment and social mobility, and also as a means of improving society for all. Since the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, education has been recognized as a universal human right (United Nations, 1948). As democratic institutions animated by the core principle of contributing to the social good, as the engines of knowledge discovery, and as the world repositories of knowledge, universities have a critical role to play in enhancing democratic practices and promoting a more sustainable global future. One way they can support these aims is through their teaching role. But if universities prioritize corporate

194

J. C. Lapadat

values and practices over their educational and research aims  – if they continue corporatizing in a direction antithetical to their core mandate – they will contribute to the problems facing humanity rather than offering an intellectual resource and space for the development of strategies to address the serious consequences of unfettered capitalism that now bedevil us. By allowing their foundational elements of institutional autonomy and academic freedom to be eroded, universities lose their capacity to act for the social good. They cannot go back to the way they were fifty years ago. They can be slow to change. Yet unless universities adjust course, humanity loses its best means of tackling the climate crisis, and universities risk becoming fully co-opted by industry, or becoming irrelevant. Unchecked global warming and the pending global environmental collapse provide stark evidence that our current worldwide capitalist political economy, as operationalized in the form of corporate business practices, does not work. It is not sustainable. It has led us to the edge of destroying the complex interlinked ecosystems within which we live and that are necessary to sustain human life. The problem we have created is global in scope, complex, multi-faceted, and urgent. Changing how much CO2 and other greenhouse gases we pump into the air requires changing our energy sources, agricultural practices, transportation, education, family planning, business practices, lifestyles, and more (Hawken, 2017). Limiting global warming to no more than an increase of 2.0 °C requires people around the world to address social, political, cultural, religious, ethical, and behavioural elements that have to work in tandem with scientific, technical, and economic solutions. It is daunting, and many scientists and other thinkers have argued that it is too late to avert the climate catastrophe; the best we can hope for is to slow it down, find strategies to mitigate some of the effects, and adapt (Franzen, 2019). Universities are uniquely placed in their role as cross-disciplinary knowledge-­ creating and teaching institutions. Young people, students and future students, are aware of the threat to their future and already are leading the world in climate awareness and action, such as, for example, Greta Thunberg’s initiation of a worldwide student movement on climate change (Thunberg, 2018). By supporting collegial and autonomous university governance, by protecting academic freedom and thus scholarly integrity and knowledge dissemination, by living our commitment to the social good, and by responsibly embracing the sacred trust of teaching, we can prepare future citizens and support them in making a difference and creating a better future.

10.6  Students and the Critical Role of Teaching Students of today are our world citizens of tomorrow. They are the people who will have to live on the overheated earth, and experience extreme climate events, sea level rise, climate migration, the sixth great extinction, and the political, social, and economic unrest that will ensue as global warming makes our planet less hospitable to human life. Young people, and especially our university students, also are our

10  Preparing Future Citizens: Global Warming, the Social Good, and the Critical Role… 195

greatest hope for future. As professors who care about making a positive difference in the world, as university administrators who are doing our best to do our best, and as citizens who are hanging our heads in shame that we have not done enough to intervene sooner in the predatory corporate practices that have brought us so close to an environmental tipping point that will have lethal consequences for many forms of life on this planet, we can take action now by investing in our students. Many scholars have written about the deleterious effects of corporatization on faculty work life and employment conditions, and on the decline in collegiality and collegial decision-making as faculty compete against each other and clash with administrators under the rise in managerialism and the imposition of an audit culture. The risks to academic freedom and institutional autonomy as universities slide from their moral centre to align with corporate profit-making agendas have been well documented. But what of our students? How has corporatization of the university affected them? Students and potential students have been negatively affected academically, in campus life, financially, in access to university studies, and also in less tangible ways relating to the nature of university and perceived purpose of education. My comments here refer specifically to the Canadian university experience. Although Canadian universities have suffered from corporatization, the effects have not yet been as extreme as those experienced by our American counterparts (Brownlee, 2015). I believe that most professors take their role as educators very seriously, and have protected the learning trust in their classrooms by teaching disciplinary content and using instructional approaches that, in their professional judgment, are best. Although many collegial discussions occur and bitter departmental wars may be waged over what the curriculum should consist of, this is an area that professors still firmly control, with a few exceptions. Nevertheless, there are a number of ways in which a corporatized university affects students academically. One is through the inequitable distribution of resources. As money and space are diverted toward science, technology, business, and professional programs that align with the interests of corporations, they correspondingly are shifted away from arts, humanities, and social science programs. Over time, vacant faculty positions in areas like classics, women’s studies, fine arts, or sociology are not filled and these departments become smaller, less diverse, offer fewer courses, and are less able to adapt to encompass the moral and social issues of our time. This gives students fewer choices to study in disciplinary areas that promote critical reflection, writing, creative expression, and social action. Lack of or small research grants and few other sources of funding negatively affect faculty members’ ability to provide support for graduate students. As these programs, the number of faculty and students in them, and their space on campus shrinks, the concerns and discourse at the university become dominated by the more entrepreneurial, science and technology based, and career-oriented disciplines and fields. This shift may foreclose students’ opportunity to learn critical thinking and cultural competencies, or to democratically engage in communities and social action. Corporatization also can have indirect negative effects on students through the negative effects on faculty. When proportionately more of the teaching faculty are

196

J. C. Lapadat

adjuncts rather than tenured or tenure-track, students lose the benefits of learning from active researchers and having the opportunity to do research themselves. A contingent teaching force offers less continuity for students, less likelihood of engaging in mentoring relationships with their professors, and fewer faculty to supervise honours theses or graduate work. Adjuncts typically have little input into the curriculum, and might agree to teach courses outside of their specialization in order to make ends meet financially. In well-funded disciplines, tenured professors with research grants receive teaching releases, or take up funded chair-ships that have no teaching requirement, thereby diverting experienced faculty from the classroom. As faculty compete for research grants, contracts, and publications and are rewarded by promotions, the prestige of research chair positions, or the lead academic role in corporate partnership initiatives, teaching falls by the wayside. It is not valued or perceived to be valued. Faculty working in a competitive rather than collegial work environment, coping with the surveillance and paperwork imposed by an audit culture in the name of accountability, and working long hours might be struggling to survive (Denzin & Giardina, 2018). All of these conflicts and imposed tasks take time and energy away from teaching. Professors who are overworked, discouraged, cynical, and disempowered are unlikely to deliver their best teaching, and serve as poor role models for their students. When they resist, they are seen as troublemakers and their careers suffer. To the extent that they exempt themselves from governance issues, not questioning the direction taken by the corporatized university, and complying with its demands, they will be prone to indoctrinate their students to become docile subjects like themselves (Brownlee, 2015). Similarly, pro-marketization faculty who have bought into the corporate ideals of competition, privatization, and accumulation of individual wealth will feel entitled to take whatever plums fall into their laps and will socialize their students to do the same, thus perpetuating the problem for the university and for society. Corporatization has also an impact on students’ experiences of campus life. One obvious example is the corporate stranglehold on food services and vending machines on Canadian campuses. Cash-starved universities help to cover their budgets by granting exclusive rights to provide food on campus to the highest bidder. Often the food contracts go to corporations owning popular restaurant chains, and the vending machine contracts to large corporations like PepsiCo. As a result, food options for students might be limited and expensive, a problem that is exacerbated when residence students are required to pay for and eat in residence cafeterias and do not have a kitchen in their accommodation. Once cafeterias close in the evening, students’ only option for accessing food on campus might be vending machine junk food. Ethnic foods, organic foods, or locally grown foods may be unavailable. Even the provision of Indigenous foods in the campus First Nations Centre, which is integral to creating a welcoming environment and supporting cultural values, might be explicitly disallowed by the university’s contract with its corporate food provider. Education is a human right, and providing access to post-secondary education is good for individuals and for society. But tuition fees and other educational expenses

10  Preparing Future Citizens: Global Warming, the Social Good, and the Critical Role… 197

serve as a barrier to many students. Among all Canadian students graduating in 2015 who responded to the Canadian University Survey Consortium (CUSC) survey, 50% had educational debt, and those students’ average debt load was $26,819 (CUSC, 2015, p. 47). The need to repay their loans ups the ante for graduates to seek well-paying corporate or professional jobs. International students, including those from developing countries who can least afford it, pay tuition fees that are two to five times as much as those paid by domestic students. University budgets depend on the income from tuition and student fees. In a just society, business corporations would pay their fair share of taxes to the various levels of government, and governments then could afford to fund universities sufficiently so that university learning would be tuition-free, enhancing access for all. But because they need the funds from tuition, student fees, and per-head grants in order to meet payroll, universities are pushed into shamelessly wooing students to their institutions. I myself have spent hundreds of hours leading campus discussions on strategic enrolment management and developing a multiyear plan to attract and retain students. This was unnecessary work engendered by the privatization of capital which diverts it away from public interests and by universities’ attempts to function more like business corporations, competing for money and market share. As Canadian universities have moved towards a more corporatized approach, simultaneously the popular media have focused on the career benefits of obtaining a university degree over other reasons for attending. For example, statistics on the impact on earnings potential (Statistics Canada, 2017), have been widely cited as the business case for obtaining a degree. This discourse emphasizing job outcomes and earnings has influenced what students consider to be the purpose of a university education and how they see themselves as students. More students now report that getting a good job is one of their primary motivations for attending university. The popular media has been quick to pick up on this theme, berating universities for hoodwinking students into pursuing degrees that do not immediately result in career-relevant jobs, and for producing graduates who are not “jobready.” There is a current of anti-intellectualism sweeping through the media. Universities are more likely to be seen as out of touch, and trade or technical diplomas are touted over university degrees. Although overall Canadian university attendance has risen dramatically in the past 45 years, some young people opt out of pursuing university educations because of this rhetoric and because the digital and creative skills they need to survive in the gig economy are available for free on the Internet. In taking a corporatized approach, universities have adopted not only corporate goals and managerial approaches, but also corporate language. In this new world, students are not learners but consumers or even customers. Taking up this mindset, students are quick to complain if faculty or staff don’t satisfy their expectations; after all they’re paying for their degree. Rather than a degree being valued for the knowledge it represents, it is seen as a return on investment (ROI). The best ROI is to be hired into a career job and remunerated with a high salary.

198

J. C. Lapadat

10.7  Hope for a Better Future Corporatization is not a problem that resides only in universities. It is a human problem that is global in scope: “a world in which there is an unprecedented convergence of resources – financial, cultural, political, economic, scientific, military, and technological – increasingly used to exercise powerful and diverse forms of control and domination” (Giroux, 2018, p. 211). The core problem is unfettered capitalism. We have allowed corporations to privatize capital to the detriment of the public good, and in the process of letting them commodify and monetize everything that they could grab, we allowed them degrade the Earth’s ecosystems, take fossil fuels out of the ground and burn them, and thereby create spiralling global warming and the climate crisis. The climate crisis is not only a scientific problem, but one intertwined with social, cultural, behavioural, political, and economic complexities (Hawken, 2017). We cannot go back to a pre-industrial, pre-global, pre-digital era. We are on the verge of the sixth great extinction and have already spoiled our nest. Universities cannot solve climate change alone, but as the multidisciplinary home of knowledge generation and as the institution that teaches young adults and prepares future citizens, universities are positioned to be a key contributor to changing our trajectory. Ironically, the impending disaster of global warming may serve as the initiating event that kickstarts universities to refocus on their core purposes of research, education, and contributing to the social good. Repeatedly, polls show that the majority of Canadians are concerned about climate change, support government funding of universities, and want scientists and governments to lead proactively on climate change (Brownlee, 2015). Young people, who are engaging in worldwide climate strikes, want international bodies, governments, social institutions, and individual adults to act now. I believe that universities that mobilize to form effective cross-disciplinary research programs, academic learning programs, cross-­ institutional consortiums, and community coalitions focused on finding collaborative solutions to climate change will garner broad support from the public and students will flock to them. Positive public support is necessary if universities are to shake off their dependence on corporate dollars. Although academic freedom means there always will be a plurality of perspectives in a democratic institution like a university, universities have the ability to set their mission and prioritize goals. There is no more important mission than ensuring the survival of our human species. Recent models of the consequences of climate change suggest that we have a narrow window of time left to make changes before human civilization becomes threatened, and perhaps even our biological survival. By turning away from corporately inspired surveillance and dog-eat-dog competitiveness toward cross-disciplinary collaboration, collegial governance, partnerships across institutions, and ethical action, we will work together on a common problem that has ignited the passion of our students and future students. Students will be educated “to be critically engaged agents, attentive to addressing vital social issues, and alert to the possibility of deepening and expanding the meaning and practices of a vibrant democracy” (Giroux, 2018, p. 211). Faculty will be relieved

10  Preparing Future Citizens: Global Warming, the Social Good, and the Critical Role… 199

of the pointlessness of demonizing university administrators as they jointly refocus on developing research and teaching on the challenge of climate change, mitigating its effects, and helping people adapt, thus making a positive difference in the world. No longer will private publishing houses be able to lock the findings of scholars away for their own private gain, but rather we will find a way for information to flow to other scholars, governments, journalists, and the public, making use of all media including open source, publicly accessible online means.

10.8  Conclusion Our global slide toward environmental collapse, which is accelerating year by year, is a consequence of our capitalist model and the assumptions that underpin it (Alcadipani & de Oliveira Medeiros, 2019; Giroux, 2018; Lincoln, 2018; Phillips, 2019). Global warming and the climate crisis are evidence that unrestrained capitalism as a system has failed. The consequences of its failure now threaten the survival of our species. In acquiescing to a slide into corporatization, Canadian universities have been subjected to the power wielded by multinational corporations, conservative political forces in our country that are aligned with corporate agendas, capitalist rhetoric, and post-secondary trends in our neighbour to the south. That academic researchers have been slow to respond to the climate crisis, and that for more than 50 years academic findings on global warming have been narrowly disseminated, suppressed, undermined, mistranslated, or ignored, points to the immense power wielded by huge petroleum, coal, and other multinational corporations to shape government policies (Banerjee, 2008; Taft, 2017), alter university research foci (Lieberwitz, 2014; Taft, 2017), and suppress and distort communication of scientific findings (Lincoln, 2018; Taft, 2017). Corporations have vast amounts of capital because they have not paid the true cost for “resources” they have taken, nor paid their share of taxes which has starved public institutions of funding. Hawken (2017) and the more than 200 researchers and advisors working with him on Project Drawdown have shown that many of the solutions to global warming are less costly financially than our current practices. Although the effects of corporate social responsibility have thus far proven to be rhetorical, one can hope that some wealthy CEOs will awaken to the consequences of their corporate activities – after all, their descendants too will suffer – and choose to use their money and power ethically to reverse global warming. Public scrutiny, democratic action, and policy and regulatory changes can help their ethical transformation along. Universities are autonomous public institutions charged with serving the public good through open pursuit of knowledge and the education of future citizens. Now is the time for universities to turn off of the path of corporatization, fulfill their research and teaching mandate, and, for the benefit of society and future citizens, take a leadership role in addressing climate change. We owe it to our students.

200

J. C. Lapadat

References Alcadipani, R., & de Oliveira Medeiros, C.  R. (2019). When corporations cause harm: A critical view of corporate social irresponsibility and corporate crimes. Journal of Business Ethics. [First Online 10 April 2019]. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-­019-­04157-­0 Banerjee, S. B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Critical Sociology, 34, 51–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920507084623 Brownlee, J. (2015). Academia Inc.: How corporatization is transforming Canadian universities. Fernwood Publishing. Bush, E., & Lemmen, D. S. (Eds.). (2019). Canada’s Changing Climate Report. Government of Canada, 444 pp. Retrieved from https://changingclimate.ca/CCCR2019/ Canadian University Survey Consortium. (2015, July). Canadian University Survey Consortium: 2015 Graduating University Student Survey – Master Report. Retrieved from http://www.cusc-­ ccreu.ca/CUSC_2015_Graduating_Master%20Report_English.pdf Chaput, C. (2002). Inside the teaching machine: The united states public research university, surplus value, and the political economy of globalization (Order No. 3073206). Available from ABI/INFORM Collection; ABI/INFORM Global; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A & I. (304807653). Retrieved from https://search-­proquest-­com.ezproxy.uleth.ca/docvie w/304807653?accountid=12063 Chaput, C. (2018). Trumponomics, Neoliberal branding, and the rhetorical circulation of affect. Advances in the History of Rhetoric, 21, 194–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/1536242 6.2018.1474051 Corporate Mapping Project. (n.d.). Corporate Mapping Project [website], University of Victoria, BC/Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, BC & SK/Parkland Institute. Retrieved from https://www.corporatemapping.ca Denzin, N. K., & Giardina, M. D. (2018). Introduction. In N. K. Denzin & M. D. Giardina (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in the public sphere (pp. 1–14). Routledge. Doane, D., & Abasta-Vilaplana, N. (2005). The myth of CSR. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 3(3), 22–29. England, S. (2013, August). Why Volvo gave away the patent for their most important invention. Arnold Clark. Retrieved from https://www.arnoldclark.com/ newsroom/265-­why-­volvo-­gave-­away-­the-­patent-­for-­their-­most-­important-­invention Franzen, J. (2019, September). What if we stopped pretending? The New Yorker. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-­comment/what-­if-­we-­stopped-­pretending Giroux, H. (2018). Pedagogy, civil rights, and the project of insurrectional democracy. In N. K. Denzin & M. D. Giardina (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in the public sphere (pp. 211–215). Routledge. Green, D. A., Riddell, W. C., & St-Hilaire, F. (2017). Income inequality in Canada: Driving forces, outcomes and policy. In D.  A. Green, W.  C. Riddell, & F.  St-Hilaire (Eds.), The art of the state: Vol. 5. Income inequality: The Canadian story (Electronic version: 77 pp.). Institute for Research on Public Policy. Retrieved from https://irpp.org/wp-­content/uploads/2017/02/ aots5-­intro.pdf Hawken, P. (Ed.). (2017). Drawdown: The most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse global warming. Penguin. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2018, October). Global Warming of 1.5oC: Special Report. United Nations: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved from https:// www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ Krimsky, S. (2014). Academic freedom, conflicts of interest, and the growth of university-industry collaborations. In J. L. Turk (Ed.), Academic freedom in conflict: The struggle over free speech rights in the university (pp. 231–249). James Lorimer & Company, Ltd., Publishers. Ksiezak, P., & Fischbach, B. (2017). Triple bottom line: The pillars of CSR. Journal of Corporate Responsibility and Leadership, 4(3), 95–110. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.12775/ JCRL.2017.018

10  Preparing Future Citizens: Global Warming, the Social Good, and the Critical Role… 201 Lieberwitz, R. L. (2014). University-industry relations in the United States: Serving private interests. In J. L. Turk (Ed.), Academic freedom in conflict: The struggle over free speech rights in the university (pp. 250–271). James Lorimer & Company, Ltd., Publishers. Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). Fracking the faculty: The privatization of public knowledge, the erosion of faculty worklife quality, the diminution of the liberal arts. In N. K. Denzin & M. D. Giardina (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in the public sphere (pp. 17–24). Routledge. MacKinnon, P. (2018). University commons divided: Exploring debate and dissent on campus. University of Toronto Press. Phillips, M.  J. (2019). “Daring to care:” Challenging corporate environmentalism. Journal of Business Ethics, 156, 1151–1164. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-­017-­3589-­0 Poff, D. C. (2003). The duty to protect: Privacy and the public university. Journal of Academic Ethics, 1, 3–10. Poff, D. C. (2010). Ethical leadership and global citizenship: Considerations for a just and sustainable future. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 9–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-­010-­0623-­x Spooner, M. (2018). Pushing boundaries: Academic de-institutionalization and our radical imagination vs. ourselves and audit culture. In N. K. Denzin & M. D. Giardina (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in the public sphere (pp. 25–37). Routledge. Statistics Canada. (2017, November). Census in brief: Does education pay? A comparison of earnings by level of education in Canada and its provinces and territories. Retrieved from https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-­recensement/2016/as-­sa/98-­200-­x/2016024/98-­200-­ x2016024-­eng.cfm Steck, H. (2003). Corporatization of the university: Seeking conceptual clarity. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 585, 66–83. Retrieved from https://doi. org/10.1177/0002716202238567 Taft, K. (2017). Oil’s deep state: How the petroleum industry undermines democracy and stops action on global warming  – In Alberta, and in Ottawa. James Lorimer & Company, Ltd., Publishers. Thunberg, G. (2018, November). The disarming case to act right now on climate change. TED Talk. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/greta_thunberg_the_ disarming_case_to_act_right_now_on_climate Turk, J. L. (2014a). Introduction. In J. L. Turk (Ed.), Academic freedom in conflict: The struggle over free speech rights in the university (pp.  11–20). James Lorimer & Company, Ltd., Publishers. Turk, J.  L. (2014b). Protecting the integrity of academic work in corporate collaborations. In J.  L. Turk (Ed.), Academic freedom in conflict: The struggle over free speech rights in the university (pp. 272–283). James Lorimer & Company, Ltd., Publishers. United Nations. (1948). Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations. Retrieved from https:// www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf Vettese, T. (2019). Sexism in the academy: Women’s narrowing path to tenure. n+1 magazine, Issue 34: Head Case. Retrieved from https://nplusonemag.com/issue-­34/essays/sexism-­in-­the-­ academy/?fbclid=IwAR0AbDbspfl-­BmZfDG3EaPsdFC8mHIUJZtlmPP4WDGY7F7fkjxH8R U5zswY Visser, W. (2006). Revisiting Carroll’s CSR pyramid: An African perspective. In M. Huniche & E. R. Pedersen (Eds.), Corporate citizenship in developing countries: New partnership perspectives (pp. 29–56). Copenhagen Business School Press. Williams, G.  J. (2019). Regulation enables: Corporate agency and practices of responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 154, 989–1002. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10551-­018-­3896-­0 Judith C.  Lapadat is Professor Emeritus in the Faculty of Education at the University of Lethbridge, and a former academic administrator. She served as the inaugural Associate VicePresident (Students) at the University of Lethbridge, providing leadership to the Registrar’s Office,  

202

J. C. Lapadat

Enrolment Services, Student Services, and the First Nations, Metis and Inuit Centre. Previously, she served as Regional Chair for the University of Northern British Columbia, where she was a founding faculty member. She has authored/co-authored three books and more than 60 peer-­ reviewed articles, chapters, and literary works. Her scholarly focus includes technologically mediated teaching and learning, qualitative research methods, language, writing, and literacy. Her recent publications are in the areas of digital identity, collaborative autoethnography, and ethics in qualitative research.

Chapter 11

The Duty to Protect: Privacy and the Public University Deborah C. Poff

Abstract  This article addresses the tensions between the sense of responsibility that university administrators feel to protect student privacy with the requirement to be accountable and transparent to the public. This discussion is placed in the context of the history and purpose of post-secondary education. Keywords  Education and ethics · Student privacy and ethics · Universities and student privacy

In his book Academic Duty, former university President Donald Kennedy describes how controversy at Stanford University gained press notoriety which ultimately led to his resignation. While the matter in question was particular to the circumstances at Stanford at the time, the experience of Stanford with the press is one which many institutions have faced. To quote from Kennedy (1997), The political climate in which the university had to sail for the next months was thus established not by the major issues surrounding indirect cost policy but the carefully crafted public impression that at Stanford we were living high at public expense. Such impressions are difficult to reverse; once newspapers have learned something, they can’t unlearn it. It is as though a computer virus lives in their word processors, seeking out the name of a particular person or institution and then attaching its own boiler-plate (p. 172).

Kennedy came to the conclusion,“ ... that the furor had made me more of a lightning rod than my university needed” and he consequently tendered his resignation. As he states with hindsight, There are lessons on both sides of this unfortunate episode. I learned – the hard way that universities have to earn public trust and not simply count on it because they are doing good things for society. We let the important matter of how public research funds are accounted for slip into a swamp of obscurity. By failing in our duty to explain what we were doing and why, we left ourselves open to a painful trial-by-media (pp. 174–175). D. C. Poff (*) Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 D. C. Poff (ed.), University Corporate Social Responsibility and University Governance, Advances in Business Ethics Research 8, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77532-2_11

203

204

D. C. Poff

In this article, I will share my own painful lessons of dealing with the press during the loss of a student through suicide. The press coverage which we received surrounding this event still strikes me as remarkable. Not only were the events surrounding the disappearance and subsequent death of this student covered in the local papers, but the university was featured on provincial television, national radio, national television, open phone-in radio shows and received half-page coverage in one of Canada’s national newspapers with a bold headline indicating the loss of innocence for our young university. In outlining the challenges which these events held for the administration of the university, I would like to frame the discussion in the context of an understanding of the purpose of a university and the vocation of university professors. Donald Kennedy references both the notion of public trust and the fact that universities do good things for society. As many note, the university is one of the few organizational structures (the church being another) which has survived since medieval times. Although universities are currently in a sea change with private, for profit companies entering the domain of university education, public universities and private non-profit universities still exist with much of the idealism of the idea of university, to use the title of Newman’s famous tract, intact. I would like briefly to reference the ideal purpose of education, the professoriate, and of universities because it is partially that historical trust and idealized notion of vocation and public good that drives universities and university administrators to assume a special sense of duty both to protect the institution and to protect those who study within the traditional academy.

11.1  The Purpose of Education One of the first philosophers to articulate explicitly the importance and purpose of education was Socrates, at least as he is presented to us in the writings of Plato. For Socrates, the purpose of education was to discover the truth, not as an end in itself, but as a means to living a virtuous life. In the Republic, Plato presents us with the first treatise on education, a treatise which advocated compulsory, universal education, as necessary both for the good of the individual and the good of the state. In the period starting with the transitional era between ancient Greece and up to and including the medieval period, education focused primarily on knowing man’s relationship to God. From the seventeenth century forward, there is greater continuity with the ancient Greeks in linking the purpose of education to the good of society and the state. Locke believed that the purpose of education was to create citizens who would improve society. By the eighteenth century, Immanuel Kant was to devote a treatise to education in which he argued that education was a necessary condition for the furthering and betterment of the human condition. Another eighteenth century philosopher, James Mill stated that “if education cannot do everything, there is hardly anything that it cannot do.” His son, the prolific

11  The Duty to Protect: Privacy and the Public University

205

nineteenth century utilitarian philosopher and suffragist, John Stuart Mill, argued that education was necessary for full participation in the state and that, further, on utilitarian grounds, public education for all would improve the quality of everyone’s life. In the twentieth century, one of the leading philosophers of education, John Dewey, wrote extensively of the purpose of education as a prerequisite for serving the public good. Education, for Dewey, was basic to human rights and to the role of the individual in building and sustaining a democratic state. Throughout the history of education and of treatises on the purpose of education, the expectation for education has generally been high. The aspirations and promises concerning what education could deliver in any period of history have variously ranged from educating each generation of elite for her or his role in leading the state or leading commerce in the state to raising the commoner to be able to participate actively in improving the general human condition through a better understanding of that condition and of her or his role as citizen. The expectations have included the role of education in providing the necessary prerequisites for the upward economic and social mobility of the individual as well as the betterment of society as a whole. This utopic vision of education cannot but influence our understanding of the role of teachers within universities and the role of the professor to which I will now briefly turn.

11.2  The Professoriate As most individuals in this profession know, the definition of professors has the same root, etymologically, as the word profession. Both carry with them their ecclesiastical origins. Both carry that original understanding of vocation or calling. The original meaning of professor is “one who has made profession … one who makes open declaration of his sentiments or belief, or his allegiance to some principle.” Currently, the title professor is defined variously as one holding the most senior rank in a university or as one who teaches and carries out research in a university.1 However, I would argue that the contemporary definition and understanding of professor still carries with it the older notion of vocation, translated in its modern sense as a profession with the sacred trust of seeking after and disseminating the truth. The notion of a vocation carries with it at least four ideal characteristics; calling, competence, character and courage. The professor then is a seeker of truth or knowledge (even if only metaphorically for those who are epistemological relativists), who has devoted her or his life to becoming an expert in the respective field, and who manifests character through integrity in research and conscientious instruction and exemplary behaviour towards students. Finally, the fourth

 As defined in The Oxford English Reference Dictionary (Pearsall & Trumsle, 1995), for example.

1

206

D. C. Poff

characteristic, courage, involves having the strength to advocate the truth even when the truth is neither popular nor expedient in terms of one’s own well-being. While most of us fall far short of these idealized characteristics, they are frequently part of the values to which we aspire and part of the public idealized myth of what professors should be. During the twentieth century, universities expanded in a manner unprecedented in the previous history of these ancient institutions. While the charters, mandates, legislation and governance structures of universities vary from nation to nation, the pattern of growth and expansion, at least in industrialized countries, has been similar. For the past twenty years, there has been a heated debate about whether the ideal university ever existed, whether the lofty purpose, mission and mandates of universities have been eroded by the admission of special interest groups to the academy (both as students and as professors) and whether universities are in crisis or merely irrelevant, antiquarian curiosities whose value and purpose has been surpassed. But the vision of the ideal corporate body, the university, is one which most academics have no difficulty in portraying. As Emberley (1996) puts it, The university is an institution formed to cultivate intellectual and spiritual passion, discerning moral judgment, imagination and the methodic discipline associated with scientific research. In its capacity to question prevailing social practices and to stimulate intellectual knowing and moral doing that transcend the immediate practicalities of the world, the university serves society by offering it a higher idea of itself and endowing it with decency and grace (p. 14).

This ideal university is a safe haven for the articulation of all ideas, where tenure was created to protect intellectual integrity so that unpopular challenges to politically expedient opinion could not be silenced and where intellectual leadership and vision could be imparted from one generation to the next. This ideal university is also the safeguard of intellectual autonomy with respect to research. This is the idea that knowledge of the truth is not just good for some purpose but good in itself. The university is thus the public safe ground of intellectual integrity, both in the creation and the transmission of knowledge. Those who graduate from its hallowed halls are supposed to have been tested according to standards that the discipline sets and that the institution protects.

11.3  The Impact of the Context on Institutional Behaviour The complementary forces of the idealized understanding of the purpose of education, the role of professors and the goals of universities create as a corollary an unusual sense of obligation to students. The unusual nature of this obligation is that individuals who are legally adults are frequently treated more like children. University administrators frequently discuss the nature of the relationship of the student to the institution and while it is often noted that the university is not the

11  The Duty to Protect: Privacy and the Public University

207

absent parent of the student, nonetheless, many administrators and faculty assume a quasi-parental ambivalence toward young adults studying at their institution.

11.4  A Young University Loses Its Innocence This was the headline of an article about the University of Northern British Columbia that appeared in a national newspaper in the winter of the year 2000. Briefly, a young graduate student on exchange to the University disappeared and was found some time later (approximately one month) to have killed herself. I will not discuss the details of the matter, with some general exceptions. She had completed all of her work and handed it in, and she was returning to her home country. Classes were over, exams were on and students who did not have exams had left the university for the holidays. While private and confidential matters were ultimately discussed in the media, it is sufficient to know that her disappearance was not immediately noticed. This ultimately caused guilt and consternation among many. The university was not aware that she was absent until authorities contacted the institution. While the university then set about looking for her, there was not a great deal of alarm immediately. (I’m not sure if this is accurate because I am assessing this with the mixed emotions of someone deeply involved and affected by this matter.) Later, the university significantly increased national search activities for the student. We subsequently had her death placed on the night of her disappearance so that all of our activity, whether sufficient or not, was irrelevant. As noted at the beginning of this paper, the publicity surrounding this student’s disappearance and death was unusual. Further, some of the publicity was highly irresponsible. One of the papers speculated that there was a serial killer in the area. This prompted phone calls from concerned parents from different locations. No apology ever appeared for this unwarranted speculation. The newspapers and television media speculated on how much the university had or had not done to find the student. One provincial television station went into student residences under false pretences (that is, students reported that a television reporter told them that the President of the university had approved the visit) and knocked on the doors of the student’s roommates asking them how they felt. The university provided counseling services to these and other confused and upset students and staff. A phone-in radio show asked the public whether they thought the university had done enough. The stance of the university was to protect the student’s privacy when we believed that she was alive and to continue to respect that privacy after we knew that she was dead. Personal and private information about the student was somehow leaked to the media by persons unknown. The university administration refused to comment on any private information about the student. This was perceived by some media commentators as evasive and not forthcoming.

208

D. C. Poff

11.5  Conclusion I am a Philosophy professor who has specialized in ethics in my research and teaching. I love universities and had no difficulty summarizing the characteristics of the ideal professor, the ideal university and the purpose of education. These are characteristics that I hold dear to my heart and head. I am also a senior academic administrator. It is personally and professionally very important to me to be a person of integrity who holds ethics as central to the core of who I am and what I do. In this time of change for universities, the unique characteristics of the public and private not-for-profit universities are, I believe, those ideal traits. When we are our better personal, professional and institutional selves we approximate those ideals. Unlike the for-profit competitors, we are not in it for a buck and we are not just job trainers although we do provide highly specialized skills that position individuals well to compete in the marketplace. Such characteristics do place us in a public trust where more is expected of us. While I personally found my experience in dealing with this student’s death profoundly devastating, I think that the public profile we received was justifiable, given our public role. This does not mean that everything that was said was reasonable or fair. Part of what was most distressing was the exposure I felt on behalf of a dead student who could not defend herself. With respect to my own relationship with the media, I accept the public role that we play in our community, our province, our nation and the world. There will probably never be identical circumstances for my university and even if there were I am not sure that lessons can easily be applied to other situations. Fundamentally, I believe that we all acted with integrity, with respect for the student and her family (who were far away and probably would never see any of the coverage). It was correct to say that we were not forthcoming to the media but any suggestion that we were evasive was absolutely false. When I teach ethics to students, as all Philosophy professors do who teach in this subject area, I spend considerable time on the relationship between rights on the one side and duty and obligations on the other. There is a large literature on whether the dead have rights. Those that say no argue that the dead are no longer persons and that only persons have rights. The logical neatness and nicety of the argument ceased to be persuasive to me while I was experiencing the loss of this student. And, equally importantly, many living persons needed us to do the right thing. I came out of this experience humbled, shaken and more aware than ever that universities are unique learning and living communities. It is a lesson not to take lightly and not to be forgotten. While I stated that probably any lessons learned might serve no purpose in other circumstances involving tragedy and dealing with the media, I will share some tentative insights that may prove useful. When I was a young undergraduate student in the early 1970s, I remember being stopped in my tracks by the title of a book while I was browsing in a bookstore. It was called something like Don’t push the river, it flows by itself. I think the title caught my attention because, even then, and more so

11  The Duty to Protect: Privacy and the Public University

209

now, this is just the kind of thing that I am inclined to attempt (at least, metaphorically speaking). Those of us who assume leadership roles in academic administration are generally speaking not laid back and easy going by disposition. Add to this, the peculiar culture of the collegially-managed university and you have a complex organizational structure where accountability, control and authority are ambiguously shared at various levels of decision-making. This can have interesting consequences but frequently seems to result in leadership not knowing appropriate boundaries and authorities. This becomes most evident in times of crisis. With the situation we faced, we were held accountable in circumstances where our control over the situation was seriously compromised. One individual left a long and painful diatribe on voice-mail holding the “highest levels of senior administration” personally responsible for this death and anything else bad that ever did or would happen to anyone in the institution. There is a sense in which this is true and a further sense in which this is just a silly and irresponsible allegation. The key here is accepting the responsibility of leadership with as much grace as one can muster while acceding the need to control that which you cannot control and not assuming and manifesting the very human inclination to become defensive. The other key lesson learned by me, and it took some months and is still not fully assimilated, is that I am a limited, mortal being with more frailty than I care to acknowledge. This situation left me sleepless and stressed to the point that it probably compromised my health. Not this incident solely but as part of the cumulative stress that I carry with me in a job that I truly enjoy but which frequently involves difficult decisions and responsibility in many contexts in which the circumstances are complex and some variables are out of my control. Lesson learned but not fully integrated; people in these jobs should take better care of themselves. Lastly, an old one but a good one, to thine own self be true. At the end of every difficult encounter, to the extent that we can say that we operated in a manner consistent with our own sense of integrity and values, we can live with our decisions, even when they are flawed and even when we get it wrong. It is critical to be as competent an administrator as one can be but to do so by compromising one’s ethical values is a cost that certainly for me, is unsustainable. My comfort in reflecting back on this difficult time is that I and all of my colleagues acted with concern, care and the appropriate level of circumspection.

References Emberley, P. (1996). Zero tolerance: Hot button politics in Canada’s universities. Penguin Books. Kennedy, D. (1997). Academic duty. Harvard University Press. Pearsall, J., & Trumsle, B. (Eds.). (1995). The Oxford English reference dictionary. Oxford University Press.

210

D. C. Poff

Deborah C. Poff is a retired Professor of Philosophy and Senior Academic Administrator. She holds four degrees from three universities in Canada (University of Guelph, Queen’s University, Carleton University). Her PhD was in Philosophy of Science. During Deborah’s career, she was variously the Director of a Research Institute; a Dean of Arts of Science; a Vice-President Academic and Provost and a President and Vice-Chancellor at various Canadian Universities. During her career, she has also been an active researcher, teacher and editor and currently edits the Journal of Academic Ethics. Her research areas are: Applied Ethics, including Business and Professional Ethics; Research Ethics, Publication Ethics and Feminist Studies. She is Editor in Chief of the Encyclopedia of Business and Professional Ethics and a book series entitled Advances in Business Ethics Research. In 1995, she was awarded a lifetime honorary membership by the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women in the category of “Outstanding Contribution to Feminist Scholarship”. In 2016, Deborah Poff was awarded the Order of Canada through the Office of the Governor General of Canada. For many years, Deborah Poff has been a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics Council and Trustee Board where she was Chair from 2019 to 2021.  

Chapter 12

Academic Freedom and the Good Professor J. Angelo Corlett

Abstract  This paper provides a philosophical discussion of many of the features of an excellent and well-balanced professor, professionally speaking. What makes for excellence in research, teaching and service is explored in some detail, with attention paid to the contexts of four-year colleges and comprehensive universities. Special attention is paid to what a good professor ought to think about her professional life and how she ought to behave with regard to matters of academic freedom, especially within the context of the ever-changing multi-university. Keywords  Academic freedom · Collegiality · Ethics · Freedom of expression · Professor · Research · Service · Teaching · Tenure

12.1  Introduction This essay is a statement and defense of the normative case for academic freedom in terms of what a dutiful professor ought to strive to become, and why. But it is, admittedly, articulated in the context of the current “shifting perspective on the purpose of university education” according to various stakeholders: students, taxpayers, higher educational administrators, faculty, corporate interests, governmental interests, etc., as articulated in Professor Deborah C.  Poff’s Introduction to this section of this volume. Assumed herein is an idea of personal autonomy, dignity, Forthcoming in Deborah C.  Poff, Editor, Corporate Social Responsibility and University Governance (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2019). Many thanks to Deborah C.  Poff and Loreta Tauginiene for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. This article is a revised and expanded version of J.  Angelo Corlett, “The Good Professor,” Journal of Academic Ethics, 3 (2005), pp. 27–54. J. A. Corlett (*) Professor of Philosophy & Ethics, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 D. C. Poff (ed.), University Corporate Social Responsibility and University Governance, Advances in Business Ethics Research 8, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77532-2_12

211

212

J. A. Corlett

self-respect and respect for others in terms of reasonable pluralism as it is argued in the works of Professor John Rawls1 as these and other related concepts are what ground the significance of academic freedom without which academic freedom would lack the status of being a fundamental right in such societal contexts. In the United States context of higher education, rights to academic freedom are a species of the more general established First Amendment rights to freedom of expression as the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts have defined such freedoms over the past several decades. The institution of tenure was created primarily to protect such freedoms, though of course rights to academic freedom are not absolute.2 They provide for a rather wide set of liberties generally correlated with the duty of others to not interfere with the exercise and enjoyment of said rights in the wide context of higher education. While college and university students enjoy many academic freedom rights, I shall focus on the rights to academic freedom possessed by faculty, in particular, rights pertaining to research, teaching and service: As researchers, for instance, faculty must have the unencumbered right to investigate topics and problems as they chose, regardless of the subject area and or the position adopted as the result of such investigation. …they must have the unencumbered freedom to express themselves, however offensively at times, in the classroom for the sake of the quality of student learning (presumably, so long as they do not, for instance, target a particular student [or group of them] with genuine animus). And in service to their profession, college, university or communities, faculty must be at liberty to express themselves so long as they are careful not to attempt to “speak in the name” of anyone [except themselves] or anything else.3

But with the reconsideration of the general aim of higher education comes challenges to the importance of academic freedom in said institutions. It is the position of this paper that the nature and value of the rights to academic freedom do not change with the mutability of the multiversity, though they might require a bold re-­ statement in order to remind various stakeholders of its significance as stated above. If anything, the rights to academic freedom in higher educational contexts require broadening to meet new circumstances, not delimiting due to misunderstandings of considerations or trendy devaluation of the importance of personal autonomy, human dignity, self-respect and respect for others.4 For private corporate and individual interests ever-increasingly seek to fill the gap of public funding of higher educational institutions pose threats to academic freedom on numerous fronts. In the meantime, higher educational budgets often seek to replace permanent faculty with lower paid contingent faculty. Since contingent faculty effectively lack the rights to academic freedom normally said to be possessed by tenured faculty, the

 John Rawls, Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990); John Rawls, A Theory f Justice, Revised Edition (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999); John Rawls, The Law of Peoples (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999). 2   Established U.S. law has defined the parameters of freedom of expression, noted in J. Angelo Corlett, “Offensiphobia,” The Journal of Ethics, 22 (2018), pp. 113–146. These limitations apply to U.S. higher educational institutions as well as to life in general. 3  Corlett, “Offensiphobia,”p. 119. 4  Corlett, “Offensiphobia.” 1

12  Academic Freedom and the Good Professor

213

erosion of academic freedom ensues, often unchecked. One general result is “a growing division and distrust between university administrators and university faculty and the emergence of governance issues in light of all of the aforementioned changes listed here.”5 In the United States, it is widely believed by taxpayers that rights to academic freedom are to be subsumed under various other values as decreasing numbers of U.S. citizens value even First Amendment rights to freedom of expression in general. Hence most in the U.S. have views of freedom of expression that are incongruent with what is stated by many to constitute a fundamental value. This places in jeopardy academic freedom rights to freely pursue research, teaching and service as faculty see best to do so conscientiously. Students are treated by administrators as customers, so much so that federal laws are often weaponized in order to harass faculty and students who offend students and complain about such offensiveness— no matter how pedagogically important the alleged offensiveness is.6 Simply put, the university “brand” must be protected much like a corporate brand. And much that obscures or challenges the corporatization of the university must be dealt with accordingly, academic freedom be damned! It is a perfect storm of, among other things, student ignorance of such matters of the quality of their education, along with student apathy largely the result of the fact that students remain in universities for only 4–6 years and thus generally lack a long-term concern about such institutions, faculty apathy, and the recent decades of corporatization of higher education. So from a typical students’ perspective, there is no incentive to be seriously concerned about the administrative harassment or wrongful termination of an offensive faculty member so long as student customers graduate at a reasonable rate and are (if possible) not overly offended while learning. Most colleges and universities employ hundreds, if not thousands, of faculty whose professional lives are largely unknown to the public—at times even misunderstood by it. Perhaps this is in part due to the fact that a paucity of citizens experience and participate in higher education as students, and a miniscule percentage become faculty and administrators themselves. Thus the misunderstanding of what faculty work entails pervades many societies, especially among working class folk and the poor. Indeed, it might well be the case that even many faculty themselves misunderstand at least some of their own role responsibilities as they often mimic more senior faculty in the academy. Even more misunderstood is the nature and value of academic freedom. It forms a central feature of the nature and function of a good professor, yet many higher educational faculty misunderstand it. What is academic freedom and why is it so vital to good professorship? Rarely, however, do we as faculty ask what constitutes an excellent faculty member. Perhaps this is in part why academic freedom, being so essential to the good professor, is misunderstood or at least underappreciated by so many faculty. Indeed,

 See Poff’s Introduction to this section.  J.  Angelo Corlett and Akacia Brillon, “The Title IX Industrial Complex and the Rape of Due Process and Academic Freedom,” Sexuality and Culture, 24 (2020), pp. 1687–1703. 5 6

214

J. A. Corlett

we might ask such questions when we are engaged in faculty searches. But even then we ask questions of excellence that are skewed toward particular needs that our respective departments or other academic units perceive that they have at particular times and in specific circumstances. Or, perhaps equally frequently, faculty tend to express ungrounded biases regarding what constitutes an excellent faculty member, whether or not such notions are self-serving and overly biased. For instance, when searching for a particular specialist in this or that area of academic study, most faculty focus most, if not all, of their attention on how well the candidates for that position know the relevant area of specialization, often construed rather narrowly. But even if a candidate is selected and hired according to this kind of criterion, this would hardly show that we have hired an excellent faculty member—a good professor. What is academic freedom and what are some of the sorts of features that indicate that one is a good professor? By “good” I do not mean merely “above average.” Rather, by “good” I mean excellent. By “professor” I mean to include full-time teaching, research and service faculty in the context of a four-year college or comprehensive university without prejudice with regard to rank.7 I do not include those who are hired by universities to conduct research or write grants and not to teach or perform other service activities, or those teaching faculty who are not tenure-track. Nor do I include the thousands of dedicated teaching faculty at community colleges in that their respective college missions and budgets do not, so far as I know, permit the kinds of resources that would permit and encourage their faculty to make research a top priority. Of course, one way to analyze philosophically the nature and function of the good professor is to articulate the category in terms of the moral virtues: courage, honesty, loyalty, patience, etc. As helpful as this might be, it would then be the case that our depiction of the good professor would amount to a morally virtuous person. And while this might be helpful, it might also be somewhat vague. I will discuss some of the specific features that constitute academic freedom and the good professor, normatively speaking. In turn, the nature of academic freedom and an image of what we as faculty ought to be like will emerge, and of course conduct becoming of the bad professor will become clear as well. And one ought to be mindful that being a good professor (on the one hand) and being a bad one (on the other hand) are matters of degree. Rarely, if ever, would we find a good professor in the perfectly good sense. And as counter-intuitive as it may seem, it is difficult, if 7  I assume throughout that under discussion are faculty who are not experiencing serious life crises, or some other condition, cognitive or otherwise, that would significantly impair their performance as faculty. In such cases, what is typically required, I believe, is compassionate and sometimes creative ways in which to deal with such circumstances. So while I believe that universities and colleges are institutions that ought always to strive for excellence in the ways I discuss below, I am also committed to the position that excellence does not preclude genuine compassion for those who are unable, for various understandable reasons, to perform at their otherwise best. On the contrary, excellence involves moral virtues that would entail the active assistance to those in need, including our colleagues who are experiencing some of life’s most challenging moments. We would, I hope, think the same way of those in other chosen professions outside of the academy.

12  Academic Freedom and the Good Professor

215

not impossible, to find examples of purely bad professors. Most, if not all, of us lie somewhere between these two extremes. But the goal, one hopes, is to constantly strive to become the fully good professor. But what does it mean to have academic freedom and become and remain a good professor? Is it to be able to say or do whatever one wants qua faculty member? Hardly. And is it to become and remain morally virtuous in all that one does qua professor? But what does that mean? It means in part that one ought to become and remain morally virtuous in all that one does as a professional academician. Now this is a normative claim in that it insists that there are certain things that constitute individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions of one’s becoming and remaining a good professor. And it might well turn out that what many think is a virtue of the good professor is indeed not one at all, or perhaps not one to the extent that that certain feature is present in one’s professorial conduct. Specifically, I shall discuss the nature and function of the good professor in terms of the three primary areas of professional academic evaluation: research, teaching, and service. I shall assume that whatever we as faculty do can be categorized under one or more of these areas of contribution. And while it is certainly true that these categories are somewhat misleading in that they overlap one with another, they are sufficiently separable for us to gain an adequate grasp of them in terms of what excellence in each area requires of the good professor. As I articulate the nature and importance of each of the traditional areas of faculty life, I shall argue that an integrated balance of all three areas is essential to one’s becoming and remaining a good professor. To the extent that one is lacking in either of the three areas, one is not a perfectly good professor.8 And this argument is meant to apply in any legitimate college or university context: from Princeton to Howard and Harvard universities; from the University of California to the California State University to private four-year colleges.9 The good professor is basically the same in either context, and though professional responsibilities peculiar to one context might dictate that some degree of imbalance might be part and parcel of faculty life therein, that is more a statement of how that institution is out of line with what being a good professor

8  It is noteworthy that the good administration of a college or university will be one that seeks to do all that it can to achieve and maintain support services for its faculty to become and remain good professors. So while it may well be a legitimate role for administrators to evaluate faculty in terms of the good professor standard, it is an equally legitimate role for faculty and others to evaluate administrators in terms of how well they performed in securing and maintaining (indeed, increasing!) the professional needs of excellent faculty—especially with regard to the protection of academic freedom. When faculty are not good ones in the requisite sense indicated throughout this paper, then it is either because the faculty themselves are to blame for a variety of possible reasons (some exculpatory, others not), or their administrations are to blame in some instances because they simply lack sufficient resources to support faculty research, teaching and services, or perhaps because they are poor administrators in terms of the management of resources, or for some other reason(s). In still other cases, both some faculty and administrators are to blame, and even some politicians and the voters who installed them by irresponsible decision-making. 9  For purposes of this discussion, I do not count departmental chairpersons as full-time faculty in the requisite sense.

216

J. A. Corlett

requires than a statement of how different the good professor ought to be in that particular higher educational context. Rather than revising the conception of the good professor to fit the level of support that administrations are willing or able to provide for faculty support services, the concept of the good professor is meant to serve as a reasonable guide to both how faulty ought to conduct themselves, and how administrators ought to do all they can to provide contexts in which faculty can reasonably be expected to conduct themselves.10 Most faculty in United States colleges or universities seem to believe that either top-level researchers make for poor teachers, or that excellent teachers make for poor researchers. And there is some prima facie evidence in favor of these positions. To be sure, becoming an excellent researcher involves a tremendous amount of time, perhaps taking away from time that could be spent preparing for classroom teaching and with students during office hours. Conversely, spending so much time with students makes it difficult, if not impossible (practically speaking) to become an excellent researcher. The problem with these views is that they commit a fallacy of bifurcation. They do so by assuming without adequate argument that excellence in either research or teaching cannot involve both, but only either research or teaching. However, I shall argue, the good professor must be both a fine researcher and a fine teacher.11 Moreover, she must also serve the academy very well. Along the way, I shall discuss some of the key components of the nature of academic freedom.

12.2  Research and the Good Professor It is difficult to imagine an excellent teacher who is not passionate about her research, and it is even more difficult to imagine an excellent teacher who is not passionately dedicated to obtaining as much knowledge as she can about her field(s) of expertise, and who also wants to share and sharpen through the quality control of the peer-review process her knowledge with others for the sake of the joint pursuit  While the basic requirements of a good professor ought to be (ideally) implementable in every higher educational context (including community colleges), practically speaking it seems unfair to hold community college faculty to the same standards as others due to the past, present and future disparity of resources when compared to four-year colleges and universities. However, community college faculty have a duty to engage in research as much as their teaching loads permit, and good administrators must understand this and not place such stringent course loads on community college faculty that the quality of education therein is severely delimited due to the inability of such faculty to engage in research. Of course, part-time faculty in any higher educational context are exempted from this analysis, as their employment status hardly affords them ample opportunity to satisfy the three categories of contribution. Perhaps, then, one main difference between community college faculty and other higher educational faculty is the extent of their course loads, which then affects the extent to which they are expected, in order to become and remain good professors, to engage in research and service. 11  “Perpetuating the artificial animosity between teaching and scholarship is perhaps the least imaginative and least useful thing we could do” [James Axtell, “Twenty-Five Reasons to Publish,” Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 29 (1997), pp. 16]. 10

12  Academic Freedom and the Good Professor

217

of knowledge more generally.12 And it would appear that the latter is what would drive the former. So paramount is research for the good professor that scholars are aptly referred to as our “invaluable guides to the monuments of the life of the mind.”13 And Deborah C. Poff notes: The professor then is a seeker of truth and knowledge…who has devoted her or his life to becoming an expert…and who manifests character through integrity in research and conscientious instruction and exemplary behavior towards students…having the strength to advocate the truth even when the truth is neither popular nor expedient in terms of one’s own well-being.14

Although it is a stretch to argue that it is logically impossible for an excellent teacher to not be an active and superb researcher, it is practically speaking, highly unlikely. For how can the good professor as teacher be negligent in keeping pace with her colleagues15 in research? In fact, engaging in research would appear to be part of the good professor’s epistemic responsibility for which she has a moral responsibility.16 Simply reading up on one’s field(s) of specialization is not sufficient, as without the arduous task of writing and peer review17 of one’s carefully articulated ideas, the “well-read” teacher quite often becomes simply another intellectual who presumes to know this or that, without testing her ideas for the sake of quality control. This is especially the case in light of vast research on the problems associated with explicit and implicit biases that are prevalent generally throughout humans. How arrogantly irresponsible can a faculty member be to not even want or attempt to “check” the plausibility or accuracy of her ideas with other experts in her field? How pretentious can a professor be to think that she is beyond the pale of often constructive and humbling criticism by her peers? What would distinguish this person from one of Socrates’ many interlocutors, some of whom were so self-assured of their “knowledge” about this or that, yet in the end found that they were ignorant about what they presumed to know?18 It is no wonder that most citizens outside of the academy (and  This is consistent with our epistemic duty to seek truth and avoid error, as articulated in Keith Lehrer, Theory of Knowledge (Boulder: Westview Press, 2000). 13  A. D. Nuttall, “Why Scholarship Matters,” Wilson Quarterly, (Autumn, 2003), p. 60. 14  Deborah C. Poff, “The Duty to Protect: Privacy and the Public University,” Journal of Academic Ethics, 1 (2003), pp. 5–6. 15  I mean this term globally, rather than locally, in this context. 16  J. Angelo Corlett, “Epistemic Responsibility,” International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 16 (2008), pp. 179–200. 17  For some ideas on how academic journal peer review processes ought to operate, see J. Angelo Corlett, “Letter to the Editor,” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, forthcoming; Leigh Turner, “Doffing the Mask: Why Manuscript Reviewers Ought to Be Identifiable,” Journal of Academic Ethics, 1 (2003), pp.  41–48; Leigh Turner, “Promoting F.A.I.T.H. in Peer Review: Five Core Attributes in Effective Peer Review,” Journal of Academic Ethics, 1 (2003), pp. 181–188. 18  John Cooper, Editor-in-Chief, Plato: The Complete Works (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1998). For a guide to how to approach Plato’s works, see J. Angelo Corlett, Interpreting Plato’s Dialogues (Las Vegas: Parmenides Publishing, 2005); J. Angelo Corlett, Interpreting Plato Socratically (Dordrecht: Springer, 2018). 12

218

J. A. Corlett

even many academic administrators) think, with some degree of truth, that college and university faculty are lazy and are over compensated! The good professor always seeks truth and wisdom in her chosen field(s) of inquiry, and this will be reflected in her humble attitude toward her own ideas in particular and toward the enterprise of knowledge acquisition more generally. She will desire and actively seek out various venues of intellectual development: academic conferences and symposia at which to present her research and engage the research of others, academic journals and reviews in which to publish her articles, discussions and book reviews, and academic presses on which to publish her most refined research in the form of monographs (books). After all, in some cases the good professor will be able to use her published research as assigned readings in her courses and seminars, just as we use the published research of others for such crucial pedagogical purposes. Indeed, it is surprising to find that so numerous a lot of college and university faculty aver that research actually detracts from good teaching in that, it is alleged, research has a tendency to alienate faculty from students. Such alienation occurs, they claim, as faculty become increasingly involved with high-level research that is inapplicable to the classroom environment or simply inappropriate for classroom use, except, they sometimes concede, in finer graduate-level programs where research and teaching can be more easily aligned. But this argument is problematic for the following reason. Although it might be rather challenging in some cases to use one’s research in the classroom where high-­ level students are not present who can better grasp the points of such complex research, it is also true that much of one’s research can be grasped by many other students in many other environments in higher education. Moreover, would we not assume that it is the good professor’s task to “translate” whatever might be overly difficult for many students to comprehend so that the students would be more able to understand it? This implies that it is a sign of poor teaching that too many faculty involved in research either cannot or will not perform this task of translating research into pedagogically accessible terms. On the other hand, it is a sure sign of indolence and mediocrity that many faculty do not even make the attempt to do so when at the same time they do not even attempt research continually. Yet many of these are the very same faculty who proclaim their devotion to student learning and well-being! How true is it that non-research faculty really care about the quality of their students’ learning in higher educational contexts? Generations of non-research (merely teaching) faculty have paraded their self-serving biases about higher education, all the while persuading the naïve that they are among those who truly care about the quality of the content of student education. But if that were the case—which it most surely is not—then they would make the sacrifices it takes to devote their lives to research that will best inform their otherwise dwindling minds so that their unsuspecting students would benefit from an engaged and active mind rather than a shiftless one. It is high time to question the very motives of those mere teaching faculty who have no excuse for their researchlessness except their own intellectual vagrancy! And how much more appropriate is it to reduce the compensation of under-­published faculty to be closer in line with the contingent faculty who do not and are not expected to publish and for well-known reasons? Other things being equal, why

12  Academic Freedom and the Good Professor

219

should poorly or under published professors receive roughly the same compensation as well-published ones? In current times of budget underfunding and constant struggles, there is absolutely no justification for such nonsense. What then amounts to the overcompensation of under published faculty could and ought to be used for better purposes. (The same is true of over compensated administrators of whom there are plenty throughout the U.S. higher education.) Perhaps the massive over compensation of the under productive faculty and poorly productive administrators can be at least in part used to increase the compensation of numerous well-­deserving higher educational staff who are so often over-worked and underpaid due to their being generally under appreciated. It might also be used to decrease the tuition and fees of students generally. Richard T. De George notes the stereotype of college and university faculty: The caricature of tenure portrays a young assistant professor spending six years working extremely hard, teaching, doing the jobs the senior professors no longer want to do, and nonetheless finding time to write articles or a book, and finally after six years of doing what is necessary to please the senior professors in the department, being awarded tenure. Once receiving tenure, the professor loses all the virtues he or she developed in the previous six years, and once guaranteed a position for life does the least possible so as not to be fired for incompetence. The professor now teaches as little as possible, spends time at the college or university only when necessary to meet the few classes he or she teaches and to hold office hours for a minimal number of hours. Having achieved tenure, the need to publish diminishes to the minimal necessary to eventually be promoted to full professor, when he or she no longer bother with publishing and eventually turns to dead wood and becomes a drag on the department and institution until he or she eventually retires to live on a comfortable retirement plan.19

Of course, De George does not agree that such a view of college or university faculty is justified. But in point of fact there are far too many faculty who indeed fit at least part of this view of faculty. My estimation is that they can number as many as over 50% of the faculty at a particular college or university. I have in mind here the part of the above “caricature” pertaining to the ceasing of published research: “Having achieved tenure, the need to publish diminishes to the minimal necessary to eventually be promoted to full professor, when he or she no longer bother with publishing…” except that far too many faculty, having been granted tenure, no longer publish at all or with any regularity or in respectable venues. This is especially true in several small liberal arts private colleges where the emphasis is often placed on teaching and not research. But this slothfulness is not limited to many liberal arts colleges; it pervades even numerous “research” universities. If one adopts reasonably rigorous minimal standards for faculty performance such as an average of, say, 1 article per year in an academic journal that published no more than 30% of its unsolicited submissions and is otherwise well-respected, along with excellent teaching evaluations coupled with a close examination of the faculty member’s grade point averages for those courses taught to guard against grade inflation, and a reasonable amount of meaningful and excellent service, there are surely several  Richard T. De George, “Ethics, Academic Freedom, and Academic Tenure,” Journal of Academic Ethics, 1 (2003), p. 18.

19

220

J. A. Corlett

thousand faculty in the U.S. who fail even this rather low standard of performance excellence. Like many stereotypes, the one noted by De George sadly rings so very true of so many tenured associate and full professors. A simple perusal of the CV’s of faculty in one’s own college or university will prove such a statement correct, except that it seems that as a general rule those who do not publish well tend to be those who post no faculty website—or if they do so by institutional mandate, such faculty do so rather selectively and misleadingly so as to attempt to hide the fact that they are rather underproductive. So the pervasiveness of college and university faculty mediocrity and loafing behooves us to struggle with the question the nature of the good professor qua researcher. What additional qualities does the good professor as researcher possess and exercise? One such quality is sound methodology. But another is depth and breadth of scholarship regarding her selected topic(s) of investigation. The field of philosophy is rife with rather poor scholarship, though there are, of course, notable exceptions. Yet it would appear that there is hardly a way for journal editors or book publishers to know of the originality of submitted research if the author has not gone to some length to demonstrate her knowledge of the other works in her topic of research and also showing how her project differs from others like it and how hers is superior in this way or that. Although such scholarship is not sufficient to prove originality of research, it is certainly helpful in demonstrating responsible research. Faculty having normal capacities and under normal conditions (lacking, for instance, excusing or significantly mitigating reasons) who do not engage in the research processes are, quite simply, intellectual loiterers and not good professors. They are embarrassments to our otherwise noble profession which seeks to provide society with excellence from among the most highly trained of its citizens. It is one thing to ardently attempt but fail to fulfill an essential task which is part of one’s role as a good professor; it is quite another thing to not even attempt to do the right things. Indeed, how many faculty sit and informally criticize the published research of others, while not performing research themselves? Perhaps it is out of a hypocritical fear to have their own work criticized in like manner, or out of an inability to demonstrate the creativity and intellect that quality research demands. Whatever the reason, such hypocrites or incompetents do not have good reason to not even attempt (continually) in good faith to publish well and often. This amounts to a moral failing of grand proportions. To the extent that the production of high quality research is essential to being a good professor, those who not only do not make the attempt at it because of some lame excuse or out of their own slothfulness are to be considered somewhat enemies of the dissemination of knowledge and a mockery of tenure and even of the academy itself! And tenure surely ought not to protect them in the public interest of efficiency and excellence of higher education. In the U.S., the institution of tenure was never meant to protect mediocrity and laggardness of faculty who abuse it. Rather, its sole purpose was to protect in a special way each faculty member’s right to freedom of expression within the limits of the First

12  Academic Freedom and the Good Professor

221

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.20 And this sacred right has nothing whatsoever to do with the protection of drones and ill-qualified personnel masquerading as legitimate faculty in our sacred halls of higher learning! Such faculty are bad professors, free-riding on the hard work of others who devote themselves to overall excellence as good professors. They are free-riders in that they leech off of the hard work of fine researching-teaching-service faculty who continually make the arduous sacrifices to push knowledge and learning forward, while the mere “teachers” disseminate who knows what qualitative level of informational content to students (and who knows how well) and then go home (or elsewhere) to lounge and perfect their pretentiousness. The good professor as researcher will continually seek to study works in her chosen field(s) of research, knowing that in many, if not most, cases such research can and ought to enhance the quality of the content of her teaching and inspire her to share it appropriately with students and colleagues when relevant or as needed. One way in which this happens is when research faculty who take seriously the varied demands of teaching allow their attention to intricate detail to pervade their assessment of student assignments—especially written ones. While “rusty” faculty who do little or no published research simply repeat what they already presume to know, the good professor holds her students to legitimately higher standards of excellence in writing and experimentation, with respect to both form and content, serving as living examples of the humility with which successful research endows (or ought to endow) one. It is reasonable to expect that under such circumstances students on average will develop and sustain a healthy attitude and respect for higher education, as opposed to the imperiling disdain and mockery that far too many U.S. students demonstrate toward higher education. In short, research can, if performed regularly and excellently, serve as one primary way by which to raise the academic standards and reasonable expectations of students wherein active faculty researchers serve as mentors and examples of academic excellence for students. Without the humility that continual research encourages (or ought to encourage), mere teaching faculty can and often do easily adopt rather conceited and self-­ aggrandized self-appraisals. They are, as the saying goes, “legends in their own minds,” egotistically and almost solipsistically parading themselves as experts in this or that area of human learning. It is difficult to imagine a more arrogant and anti-Socratic kind of behavior. It speaks loudly of the motivations of such faculty. While so many of them self-servingly tout their “achievements,” I prefer to think of what humble good professors do in terms of contributions. In addition to this incomplete list of qualities of a good professor as researcher is honesty in terms of giving credit where credit is due. Plagiarism is an academic crime and ought to be punished as such. In some cases, it ought to be punished with complete banishment from academia. But there are subtler instances of it, such as ignoring the published contributions of Black, American Indian (First Nation, First

 Unprotected categories of freedom of expression are discussed in Joel Feinberg, Freedom and Fulfillment (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), Chapter 5.

20

222

J. A. Corlett

Peoples…), Latino/a, or Asian scholars and women relevant to one’s work and composed in a language with which one oneself works, or ignoring the work of those with whom one disagrees or dislikes. And hypocritically, much of this occurs in the works of those cautioning against implicit bias in higher education. Humble open-­ mindedness and fairness, Socratic and Rawlsian virtues, are paramount in higher educational research. This is especially the case given that, Socratically speaking, there is a real sense in which the more one knows, the more one understands what one does not know about this or that topic. While it is often unreasonable to expect one to include in one’s research each and everything published on the more popular topics, a good faith effort ought to be made to include in one’s own research a wide range or representative sample of what is published on one’s topic from one’s own discipline. Assumed here is that one’s research is a book-length project or a substantial length article.21 The good professor as researcher should always stand as a fine example of academic integrity for her students. Faculty research should be a no tolerance zone concerning dishonesty of any variety. But excellent work performed by the international Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) reveals that various forms of plagiarism and other varieties of research dishonesty are on the rise especially in scientific communities where there is the most to gain in terms of grant rewards.22 The above statements about the good professor’s research hold true generally, but it must also be the case that faculty ought to be able to pursue research in areas where they have not been hired to teach. For instance, if a good professor has been hired to regularly teach courses on, say, philosophy of law, one has an obligation of sorts to teach such courses where there is no one else in the department qualified as an expert to teach them. This comes with the duty to regularly conduct research in philosophy of law in order to provide her students with solid teaching content on the topic. But she also has a right to pursue other research interests quite apart from philosophy of law, as time and circumstances permit. While the contractual or otherwise understood agreement to teach philosophy of law remains until a suitably qualified replacement is procured, the right to pursue other research projects also  One factor which is at odds with this standard of scholarship in a good professor’s research is the fact that the economics of academic journal publishing increasingly limits the length of what is published therein. In many cases, Publishers of academic journals are able to charge libraries and others more for the quantity of articles published in their journals. Thus the page limitations on journal articles, and the obvious pernicious effect this has on the ability of authors to fulfill the requirement of good faith scholarship. For those who wish to condemn academic Publishers for the pursuit of economic viability with regard to their seeking ways to become or remain economically sustainable, let us become and remain ever mindful that if said Publishers fail to remain or become economically viable, good professors will not be able to fulfill the requirement of research at least in traditional ways. Perhaps one way to address this problem is to have shorter versions of articles published in journals in hard and electronic copies, while authors produce substantially lengthier versions of their published articles on line at no cost to Publishers of their shorter works. This assumes the capacity of authors to post such lengthier works on line, or to successfully procure such assistance. Perhaps the reduction of underproductive faculty salaries can cover such costs. 22  See https://mailchi.mp/publicationethics/cope-digest-february-2021-data-­sharing?e=5cd01d6d10. Accessed on 1 March 2021. 21

12  Academic Freedom and the Good Professor

223

exists as part of her academic freedom rights, and given the relationship of research to teaching content. In light of the above statements, it is important for the good professor to practice collegiality. For instance, in cases where a colleague is attempting in good faith to publish but for some reason is in a rut and cannot do so after having done well in previous years, a good professor seeks to offer good faith assistance to her, perhaps co-authoring something with said colleague to help jump start her research productivity back to where it once was. When this occurs, it is a genuine time for celebration as the beneficiaries include the entire campus communities. Everyone needs a bit of help at one time or another, and the search for knowledge is a team effort.

12.3  Teaching and the Good Professor On the other hand, there are some research faculty who care little or nothing of teaching. For them, dealing with students is either an albatross around their conceited necks, or a simple annoyance in that having to teach and meet with students prevents these faculty from doing what they really want to do: write and lecture so that they can be admired as top-ranking specialists in their respective field(s). These faculty certainly do not seem to remember or care about the traditional task of the professor, namely, to teach! Now it is certainly true that research is a form of pedagogy in the sense that many readers of the research may and do learn much from it, generally speaking. And in this sense the barrier between research and teaching erected by the bifurcated argument above is artificial, if not contrived. But it would seem that a professor who is not good at teaching is about as worthwhile to have in a university as one who is constantly out of touch with sound research in her field(s).23 This assumes, of course, that one of the primary goals of universities is to teach students. What properties does the good professor as teacher possess? It is quite common amongst putatively good teachers that they have “good students,” where “good students” often means that they score well in the teacher’s course. But grade inflation is rampant these days, and it is difficult in my experience to find an award-winning teacher who has an average (“C” or 2.0) or below average grade point average for her students. A somewhat higher than average grade point average per classroom is somewhat understandable in the case of upper-division or advanced-level courses, as such students are likely to be ones who are highly motivated and prepared academically to do well in such courses. But grade inflation is rampant in even  Assuming, of course, that colleges and universities are interested in employing as faculty those who are good professors, as opposed to mere researchers, for instance, whose task is never meant to involve the mentoring or teaching of students. In this way, such researchers might be contracted out by colleges or universities to perform useful functions, such as to perform checks on current faculty research, or to perform scientific research in areas that might bring fiscal reward to the institution and/or the community.

23

224

J. A. Corlett

lower-division and introductory-level general education courses, raising suspicion that many faculty are, for a variety of reasons, inflating grades to grade point averages of “B-“ or 3.00 and even higher.24 And this is true despite the fact that alarming numbers of students have engaged in academic dishonesty.25 This points directly to the matter of how unreliable reported student performances are at the college and pre-college levels, unless stringently monitored to guard against all forms of cheating. And it questions to a tremendous extent the grades awarded by grade-inflating faculty, especially those who do not bother themselves to guard well against cheating by students. But would we not think that it is part of a faculty member’s duty (albeit an unenviable and unfortunate one) to maintain the integrity of the grading process by consistently doing whatever is reasonable to prevent academic cheating? Such measures, of course, include the personal and active proctoring of in-class examinations/projects to the very construction of courses such that students cannot easily cheat in them and the requirement that students possess and demonstrate, among other things, solid writing skills in this or that human language. Yet there are numerous faculty who do little or nothing along these lines, and few universities and colleges have the administrators with the academic integrity to institute and implement zero-tolerance and meaningfully harsh punishments for students who engage in academic dishonesty. So the blame lies not only on many parents who failed to instill an adequate sense of respect for education in most of our students, but also on irresponsible administrators and faculty who do not even care enough to institute and monitor a system that would duly punish offending students (To whom I shall refer as “schmudents”), teaching them a valuable lesson in life that cheating is a bad thing and should and will demand accountability. Academic cheating is one contributory cause of grade inflation insofar as the schmudents undermine the grading system by not earning the grades they receive. Assuming that they cheated in order to receive a higher grade than they have otherwise earned through study, the schmudents are artificially and unjustly raising the grade point average per classroom of students. The good professor as teacher seeks to reasonably guard against student cheating. Of course, grade inflation is nothing but a very bad thing as it not only gives many students a false sense of self-confidence concerning a subject matter, but it also gives students and others a false sense of a faculty member’s teaching abilities. In either case, everyone loses, even taxpayers in the case of grade inflation in public universities. There is nothing good about grade inflation; it is one of the dirty little secrets of today’s colleges and universities, and I suspect that university and college faculty—and even administrators—do little or nothing at all about it because it in part quells student complaints, which translates into student (or customer) satisfaction and preservation or even enhancement of the brand of the institution. Grade inflation, so long as it is kept relatively secret from taxpayers and ranking agencies, can be an administrator’s dream as it can and often does boost numbers of

24 25

 Assumed here is a traditional grading scale of 0–4.0, where a grade of “A” = 4.0.  https://www.academicintegrity.org/statistics/. Accessed on 17 March 2021.

12  Academic Freedom and the Good Professor

225

applications and costs of tuition and fees as it gives the wrong impression that their students are generally higher achievers than they in fact are. In such contexts, faculty are constantly reminded of student “success” and high student grade point averages in order to attempt to guilt nonconforming faculty into participating in such pernicious behavior and to reward faculty grade inflators for their efforts at such student “success.” The good professor refuses to participate in such nonsense. If students are assessed properly, they will be awarded the grades they deserve based on their respective performances on well-designed examinations, written assignments, oral presentations, and/or the like. And if students perform poorly, they will either improve their study skills and devote sufficient time to their own education, or they would, should the university possess a modicum of educational integrity, soon be suspended or even expelled from the university. So it is clear that good professors are ones who understand that sometimes (indeed, many times) students will earn poor grades that will then remove them from the higher educational system, making room for more serious ones who will not take for granted what rewards and other benefits are in store for them should they place a higher priority on their own intellectual betterment. However, such a demanding stance on such matters must be coupled with a system that is there to legitimately assist struggling students in various ways to succeed, and one that holds accountable faculty who engage in fraudulent or otherwise seriously wrongful behavior. The epidemic of grade inflation raises the vital issue of conscientious student assessment. And there are at least two ways to approach the assessment of students in higher education: comparatively or non-comparatively. Most faculty I know use a comparative standard of student assessment that includes a “curving” of grades such that students are in effect in competition with one another for grades. No matter how poorly or how well the students perform, grades will be adjusted to reflect a kind of curve such that some students receive “As,” more receive “Bs,” even more receive “Cs,” a similar number receive “Ds” as receive “Bs,” and a similar number of students receive “Fs” who receive “As,” that is, if the faculty curve consistently. One basic flaw in this method of student assessment is that it delimits the numbers of students who can otherwise earn and deserve higher or lower grades than what they receive within a curved system. In most cases, the result is a kind of insidious grade inflation that artificially raises students’ grades insofar as the curve is consistently upward such that the highest grade awarded to a group is an A and the lowest grade being something of a C. One motivation for this is a faculty member’s desire to be well-liked among students in order to in turn strengthen her self-esteem. This is common among faculty who are lazy or who experience anxiety when students complain about their being awarded low grades. So grade inflation is a means for such faculty to avoid their role responsibility of actually assessing student performance according to what they deserve in purely academic terms. The non-comparative method of grading arduously seeks to locate a fair and equitable standard of assessment and holds all students to it, making sure that all assignments coherently reflect the main objectives of the course or seminar. It sets a grading scale that in no way shifts upward in order to accommodate for poor student performance, nor does it shift downward for successful student performance in

226

J. A. Corlett

order to not make the poorly performing students feel uncomfortable. Instead, each student is given the grade that she deserves based on her academic performance on the various assignments that are in themselves fair and relevant to the main objectives of the course or seminar. This non-comparative method of student assessment generally seeks to highlight those students who work hard and well in studying for their courses, and rewards them accordingly. It also seeks to highlight those who for whatever reasons fail to do well, and it also highlights the average performers. In any case, non-comparative student assessment seeks to set a fair and reasonable standard to be achieved, and then applies it without prejudice to each student. It abides by the dictum that the basic standards of excellence in higher education should never change to satisfy the decreasing values that new generations of students might place on learning; rather, students’ values concerning learning must be raised, if needs be, to new levels for them to properly adapt to their new educational environment. Comparative grading often contributes to grade inflation in many cases, whereas non-comparative grading systems, as I depict them, do not do so. For in principle they seek to best achieve the awarding of students grades that they truly earn and deserve. While comparative grading systems relativize students’ performances to a specific campus community, non-comparative ones seek to set reasonably high expectations for students based on objective26 standards of performance. What accounts for grade inflation? In some cases, it would appear that faculty seek to derive their self-esteem from student approval by giving them higher grades than they deserve, or by allowing so much extra credit assignments for students that it is genuinely difficult for students to do poorly in the course without it. There are several faculty who actually permit students to re-work assignments as many times as they want to in order to improve their grades on the assignment, and hence in the courses! One gets the idea that such faculty are ignorant of (or simply do not care about) the fact that so many students will simply hire someone else to complete their assignments. Perhaps these faculty are unaware of the fact that numerous college and university students countrywide admit to academic cheating. Or perhaps they do not care, as giving good grades to students results in making themselves as “teachers” appear to be good ones—and in many cases in even obtaining teaching awards! So much for “good teaching”! In other words, the course is “rigged” from the start to inflate grades and thereby result in high student evaluation scores which in turn feed the faculty member’s self-esteem.27 So it would appear that grade inflation can be motivated by or rooted in a faculty member’s lack of adequate self-­ esteem. And it is possible, contrary to many of the grade inflating faculty, for a faculty member to do far too much for students in their well-intentioned efforts to educate them. Another issue here is the extent to which most faculty test or otherwise assess students and what this effect has on student learning outcomes. While this is a

 Or standards that are as objective as humanly possible, at any rate.  Some faculty deny that grade inflation can lead to better student evaluation scores! This is how severe the problem of grade inflation has become: outright denial of clear facts.

26 27

12  Academic Freedom and the Good Professor

227

largely empirical question, it is reasonable to think that college and university students can reach a point wherein they are so concerned with preparations for assessments that they experience something of a psychological overload concerning them, thereby questioning the idea that more than a couple or few means of assessing students is optimal for quality student learning. Anecdotally, some of us faculty in philosophy have discovered a rather surprising result, namely, that in response to some students complaining that a lengthy essay mid-term and a lengthy final essay examination did not provide them with sufficient opportunities to do well in the course, we faculty experimented with requiring three and then four such lengthy examinations of equal percentage worth (25%) instead of two such examinations. This experiment lasted three years for introductory philosophy students who were not philosophy majors. The result was that the grade point average of the classes reduced dramatically for each group of students from course to course: from a C grade point average previous to the informal experiment to a D grade point average during the experiment. In fact, the grade point averages were experiencing a sharp downward trend by the end of the three years. This experiment took the exact same course content and divided it between three and then four exams equidistant from each other throughout each term of study. This anecdotal evidence is not much on which to build a reasoned scientific position on this matter. But it is unclear that the increasing of assessment measures for students is a good thing, especially if many students fail to study the assigned readings for the course. Assumed here is that the course seeks to test and measure the student’s understanding of the assigned readings. However, this much seems reasonably clear: assessing students fewer times and concerning  less rather than more  content generally provides students greater opportunities to learn more course content. The point is that for every examination not administered, opportunities for learning information abound. A moderate approach is perhaps best here. But the answer should not depend on how students feel about it, especially when most of the students who complain about such matters are less than well-prepared and highly motivated learners and whose grades really do not reflect the musing that if only they had another opportunity to be assessed (and please make it a take home assignment or examination), they would perform better in the courses in which they are enrolled. This reasonable idea might be revised if it were the more successful students making the request for more means of assessment. However, it is typically the worst student performers in the groups who request more examination (or instead, take home projects). Unsurprisingly, they strongly prefer take home or unsupervised projects that can be completed by a friend or a professional. To the extent that this sort of experience is real, it can surely amount to a kind of grade inflation to provide too many means of assessing students, especially if they are unsupervised by faculty. In any case, the good professor takes such matters seriously, and while she listens carefully to student advice, she hardly takes it for granted that students are not self-serving in the “advice” they provide. The good professor must always serve as the voice of reason and reasonableness “in the room.” Another example of lowering expectations for students and perhaps even of grade inflation insofar as it contributes to making student learning too easy is when,

228

J. A. Corlett

under normal pedagogical circumstances, faculty provide students copies of their own lecture notes so that students do not have to take notes in class.28 Unbelievable as this seems, it is becoming more prevalent as faculty soften their expectations of college and university students. One reason why this is a bad practice is that it robs students of the exercising of their cognitive processes that are crucial for them to develop in note taking, while it simultaneously sends the message to most students that class attendance is hardly mandatory as one need not spend time going to class when they can simply access the class notes without even attending. One manner by which to address this issue is to grade for class attendance, just as many K-12 institutions do. However, this is a discussion of higher educational contexts, not K-12 ones. Students must be expected to perform their own work and take responsibility for their own successes and failures and to learn from them. Under normal face-to-­ face circumstances, making education too easy for students does them no favors, no matter how much it might appear to the uninitiated that some of the faculty involved are “extraordinary” ones. The tremendous egos of many grade inflating faculty must be set aside for the good of authentic student education which requires student responsibility for learning. Reasonably high expectations and practices of students must be set, and students must be expected to and be allowed to study hard and receive no assistance that would make the learning process less of a challenge for them that it ought to be. Faculty must be motivated, not by inadequate self-esteem or pedagogical incompetence (such as conflating university academic standards with K-12 ones), but rather by a love of learning and of arduously and effectively enabling students to learn in legitimate but reasonably challenging ways. In other cases, grade inflation is caused by a faculty member’s lack of knowledge as to how to deal effectively with the discomfort that arises when failing students approach her. Instead of finding out precisely what caused the student’s poor performance and enabling the student to take responsibility for her own performance and failure to place education as one of her top priorities, the faculty member simply changes the grade to satisfy the student, or rigs the grading system up front to make it too difficult for even the most slothful of students to fail, thereby avoiding complaining students altogether. In such cases, the faculty member confuses responsible teaching (insofar as the evaluation of students is concerned) with irresponsible pedagogical behavior by fostering in students a kind of self-destructive irresponsibility for her own education. So many of such grade inflating faculty regularly provide “do-overs” for students instead of holding students responsible for the initial grades they earn. Another possible cause of grade inflation is a faculty member’s sheer laziness in not wanting to deal with problems that can arise in the teaching and evaluation of students. Here it is not so much that the faculty member lacks knowledge of the problem and how to deal effectively with it. Rather, it is that she simply would rather not deal with it, perhaps because it takes away from her research agenda, or a service agenda, or personal time spent on other things altogether. Sometimes this

28

 This point is made regarding normal, face-to-face pedagogical contexts.

12  Academic Freedom and the Good Professor

229

can be a sign of professional “burnout” or the like. But not necessarily so. It can also be the result of irresponsibility on the part of a bad professor. Only a careful analysis of each particular situation will yield the basis of a considered judgment as to precisely why many faculty engage in grade inflation. The good professor does not inflate grades, nor does she “curve” them. For curving grades is a sign of grade inflation, as it seeks to relativize student performances to one another. And anyone who has taught for more than a year knows that several students want to know whether or not their professor curves grades so that they have a better chance to “do well” even if no student in the course truly does well! In other words, students who seek out grade curving faculty really want to know how little they can do to receive (not earn) a high mark in the course.29 If that is not a sign that something is grossly askew in the curving of grades, then I do not know what is! If a faculty member does not know what constitutes a grade of “A” or “B” or “C” or “D” or “F,” then she ought to try another profession. To be sure, there are hard cases in grading. But what is not needed is an artificial and general “dumbing down” of the learning and evaluation experience. This prevalent pernicious practice fosters expectations in students that every faculty member either does or ought to curve grades. In this way, faculty who grade inflate by curving are enemies of quality higher education. If students cannot perform well in a course as is, then either the course needs to be redesigned (though not to “meet” the students where their levels of interest or motivations to learn are), or the students need to study better and harder, or both. The good professor never inflates grades as one of the mean reasons for assessing students’ work is to provide an accurate accounting of their performances. But of course, she will gladly correct errors she makes in conscientiously grading students. Sad as it is, higher educational administrators have little, if any, incentive to punish or seek not to hire grade inflating faculty as it attracts many students customers who tend to enjoy their college experience rather than work hard to earn high grades in order to in turn graduate and become superb influences on the world. In fact, such an attitude can reach the point where administrations actually seek to admit even the least qualified international students because their parents pay more than twice the amount of tuition and fees as resident students who generally are better prepared in terms of having the necessary language writing skills for humanities education coursework. A rash of such international students tend to fail their humanities courses due to their general lack of written language skills. The answer? Remove any impediment to the timely graduation and enjoyment of said students’ experience with the brand of the college or university. In the case of many colleges and universities, the required language writing skills are removed so that said students can graduate in a timely manner, and there is no damage done to the budget in the process. Furthermore, the administration can brag about its commitment to what it believes is a “diverse and inclusive campus environment.” So it is mostly, if not all,  Contrast this with the non-comparative approach to grading, which simply sets out a general and reasonably high standard to be achieved for the various grades, and holds all students to it without prejudice.

29

230

J. A. Corlett

about the brand and money than it is about the quality of student learning. And grade inflation addicted faculty actually support such a system by in many cases knowingly and intentionally graduating lesser quality students so that the corporatized system can continue unabated. Not only does the good professor avoid the inflating of grades as much as reasonably possible, but she also is a teacher outside of her classroom, available to students during and often beyond office hours. She is there to assist students in better understanding the material covered in class and in the assigned readings, and sometimes to assist students in the conceptualization of oral or written assignments. But it is the bad professor who, perhaps with the best of intentions, does the work for students rather than enabling them to do the work for themselves, robbing students of that genuine feeling of personal and academic accomplishment and the “ownership” of their ideas. Good teaching involves good mentoring, which is akin to good parenting. And good parenting does not involve doing mostly everything for children, but allowing them to, once they are “of age” to find their own ways in life.30 It is similar with college and university students. They must as young adults learn to take responsibility for their own actions, and sometimes this means their experiencing the pains of failure, or of sub-par performances. Indeed, the good professor will seek to assist students in discovering what went wrong concerning sub-par performances, and lead them toward an understanding of how to better prepare for future ones. This in no way assumes that faculty are always on track in devising examinations or other assignments that are assessed.31 Yet if the college or university experience is to prepare students for the world ahead, then students must begin to learn that life will not always be such that every means of assessment is perfectly devised or enacted by those who stand above them in supervision. The good professor as pedagogue constantly seeks to improve her performance both in and outside of the classroom. As new technologies develop, she wants to responsibly adopt them if they are potentially useful to the effective communication of ideas and methods to students. Yet sometimes such “advances” can become a hindrance to teaching and/or learning. For instance, the excessive use of “handouts” can actually over time make students less likely to develop valuable note taking skills. So when they begin to take courses where note taking is essential, they complain that the lecture is proceeding too rapidly for them to take notes. Such students seek a quick fix to their lack of development of these skills, and request that the notes be made available on electronic “blackboard.” Many faculty accommodate this request, as they apparently do not want to feel badly about the fact that many of their students lack essential skills that used to be considered necessary for higher education. Once again, higher education is cheapened. While the utilization of certain technologies often has its place, the good professor will always first consider  Joel Feinberg, Freedom and Fulfillment (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), Chapter 3.  But the good professor will constantly work on devising ways of perfecting the quality of assignments, and the evaluation thereof. Of course, it hardly follows from the fact that students’ assignments are not graded with perfection by even the most conscientious faculty that grade inflation by purely comparative means of assessment is justified.

30 31

12  Academic Freedom and the Good Professor

231

the manifold implications of her adoption of such methods as they might in certain ways contribute to an already eroding quality of higher education. Cognitively speaking, it would appear that taking notes is one way in which, if done effectively, permits students to store information in memory while attention is presumably high, thus making it more likely for her to retrieve and utilize that information in the future. The good professor seeks to hold the standards of learning reasonably high, where the better students function, and encourages the other students to rise to the level of such reasonable expectations. In many cases they will. Educational access is important. But permitting horribly poor students to remain in colleges and universities serves as a mockery to economically disadvantaged persons who would otherwise qualify and through hard work succeed in higher education. Of course, this assumes that such students have been provided with ample resources to enable them to improve their academic performances: writing laboratories for native and non-­ native language students, tutors for particular courses, etc.. The good professor, however, does not spend so much time with students that she fails to fulfill her research obligations. After all, of what value is it to spend time counseling students if the content of such mentoring is dubious, untested by the rigors of peer-reviewed  research over time? Colleges and universities are staffed with several faculty who sometimes out of positive intentions sacrifice valuable time with students in office hours that should be spent rather doing research. It is common knowledge that the more pretentious among us enjoy spending time during office hours trying to impress students with their “knowledge” of this or that, rather than performing the arduous task of self-humbling research. This would seem to question the motivations such faculty might have in even becoming professors in the first place. To spend time with students can be and often is necessary and enjoyable so long as the amount of time faculty do this does not replace time necessary for the performance of necessary research (or, for that matter, teaching preparation time and important service activities). This will strike some as insensitive to students’ needs. But what is truly insensitive to students’ needs is for a faculty member to become negligent in her research to the extent that she becomes little more than what she was when initially hired, intellectually speaking. The quality of teaching and tutoring is essentially contingent on the quality of one’s ever-improving mind, which is best effected by means of incessant and high quality research. Students deserve better than impudently ignorant and idle faculty posing as leaders in their fields when they are little more than dilettantes within their own campus communities! Yet so many faculty whine about “having” to publish to earn tenure and promotion. It is precisely those faculty that good colleges and universities can surely do without. Remember that the good professor is passionate about learning humbly and teaching what she knows (or, with good reason, believes she knows). What, then, would possibly justify such grieving about “having” to do research and publish, or perish? It certainly could not be that such requirements were not made public to them during graduate school or the hiring processes. Nor could it be that the typical standards for tenure at colleges and universities are somehow unreasonable. In fact, most colleges and universities in the English-speaking world have rather low expectations of their faculty. And if one complains under those circumstances, then

232

J. A. Corlett

one ought to simply step aside and allow a much better quality scholar-teacher do the work that the fourth-rate lamenter seeks to avoid. It is simply not a virtue of the good professor to think that one’s own inability or unwillingness to succeed is the fault of a system seeking to sustain a modicum of quality control. “Publish or perish” ought to rather read: “Do all one can do in good faith to publish well, or have the moral integrity to find another line of work!” Or, more pithily but in the same spirit: “Publish well and regularly (under normal cognitive and social conditions), or be fired!” No one, not even the good professor, enjoys having to report students for unethical behavior such as academic cheating. And while surely there are different ways and levels of severity of cheating, certainly there are some that deserve suspension and even expulsion, whether or not it was the student’s first time to commit the act(s). While taking context and the range and type of facts into due consideration, the good professor will report such incidents to the proper institutional authority so that the student can be handled appropriately. Of course, the legitimate institutional authority must do the right thing in expelling the student, at least in some cases where the circumstances justify such action. For it does little good to treat students in an unjustly protective way for conducting themselves in ways unbecoming of an adequate student. And the quasi-religious ideology of many faculty and administrators who simply cannot and will not bring themselves to enact true justice on such students stands as a clear reminder of how dogmatic ideology helps to sometimes create racist and classist double standards regarding the treatment of students versus young folk in our society who cannot afford or otherwise attend college who themselves commit various kinds of wrong doings. The good professor seeks justice and fairness, especially in cases where students commit egregious acts of cheating. Why? Because such acts demean and other wise undermine the very integrity of the system of higher education (something to which the good professor is deeply committed), and also the work and reputation of those students who work honestly and hardest for their university degrees. There is no room in higher education for cheating, especially concerning the more serious varieties. The very integrity of higher education is contingent on academic honesty. The good professor must report students caught in serious acts of academic dishonesty for purposes of expulsion, while less serious acts of cheating require less drastic measures of punishment. And if a college or university employs mostly good professors, academic dishonesty will be taken rather seriously, and students guilty of many serious offenses will be expelled. The good professor’s teaching excellence is not judged by the scores of student evaluations, as the typical student evaluation is little more than a way to judge the popularity of faculty, with popular faculty being the ones who typically give out high grades to students and unpopular faculty are the ones who give students the grades they deserve (including low grades when they are deserved). Student evaluations, if their contents are devised thoughtfully, can reveal the extent to which students feel as though they are respected by faculty. But they on average cannot in any meaningful sense measure how clearly a faculty member presents material, or how much academic integrity she has. For these are things that most students are not in positions to know. And most students, in my more than three decades of

12  Academic Freedom and the Good Professor

233

university-level teaching experience, do not keep up with their reading assignments anyway. So how would they know if what the faculty member is presenting is relevant to the assigned reading, or clear in its presentation or content? General student apathy and irresponsibility renders student evaluations almost worthless, except to administrators who wish to know which faculty support the brand of the college or university in terms of customer satisfaction. There needs to be a better way to measure teaching effectiveness than to ask students many of whom are irresponsible and self-admitted cheaters (schmudents) to judge faculty many of whom are responsible professionals. To take student evaluation scores too seriously is to ignore the plain fact that more demanding faculty who often have lower grade point averages for their students will typically have lower student evaluation scores than those who cater to their students’ desires to have extra credit assignments and have the contents of their courses made easier for them to grasp to the point of absurdity. To not understand this fact about higher education is to be part of the fundamental problem. The good professor presents her material clearly, assigns readings that are accessible but challenging to students, and holds students fully accountable for understanding that material after quite reasonable efforts are made to communicate the meanings of the readings to students. But she must also hold students accountable for poor performances without extra credit assignments or “do-overs” that would in effect realize grade inflation. This ought to hold true, unless there is a legitimate reason for an examination and assignment re-take. It is, in short, impossible to be a good professor while contributing to the insipid epidemic of grade inflation.

12.4  Service and the Good Professor What about faculty service? It is typically dreaded by many research-oriented faculty, and even by many teaching faculty. But it seems to be a necessary task of faculty if the university is not to be governed by administrators some of whom (often unbeknownst to themselves and despite their best intentions, such as they are) do not have the best interests of students, staff and faculty at heart. Moreover, there are many ways to serve as faculty that do not involve local university committee work: actively serving on committees for one’s national, regional, or local academic and professional association, or serving as an active officer thereof. Additionally, one can serve as an expert media consultant for a reputable news agency, or as a community consultant in one’s area(s) of expertise. Moreover, one can serve as an editor, an editorial board member, or a referee for a journal or book Publisher in one’s field(s) of specialization. These are some of the many ways in which the good professor can and should actively serve others. In short, this kind of service helps to bring knowledge to life in one’s community, locally, regionally, nationally, or internationally. After all, research and the classroom are not the only arenas of knowledge acquisition and dissemination.

234

J. A. Corlett

Serving as a referee, a book reviewer, an active editorial board member, or an editor of an academic journal is a tremendously valuable way to serve the profession of academics. For in large part the quality of our research and teaching are contingent on the quality of the contents of academic journals. So it is imperative that sufficient numbers of qualified and dedicated academicians serve in these positions. And it is also vital that editors receive sufficient institutional support to be able to meet their responsibilities in excellent fashion. But with the advent of the corporatization of the multiversity, as described in the Introduction to this section of this volume, several higher educational administrators often deem it more important to multiply their own ranks with bloated salaries than to support the often hard and excellent work of journal editors and book editors, etc.. But why do things differently so long as the student customer base does not care and does not complain? And why would they? Students in large part seek the easiest route to graduation, and the quality of their education seems not to matter so long as most employers have little or no concern for the same and never ask for the grade point averages of their recent graduate employee prospects. But faculty service should also be construed in terms of one’s being a good colleague. This means, among other things, being constructively critical (even if passionately at times, even by way of some form of non-violent protest32) of the status quo in one’s college or university.33 It also means that the good professor will serve as a helpful advisor to younger colleagues when they need assistance, and to more senior ones when they do. It also means tearing oneself away from research and pedagogical concerns from time to time in order to address vital departmental and university concerns—or even concerns of higher education more generally. Sometimes this means that the departmental or university path must be revised or rethought altogether in light of changing circumstances such as budgetary constraints, the social, educational and fiscal ramifications of pandemics, etc.. At other times, it means creating means of collaborating with scholars from other departments and colleges, ones that will likely make a conspicuous and positive impact on the advancement of knowledge. But the good professor will also seek to surround herself with other good professors. This means that jealousy and envy and territoriality must be set aside when it comes to hiring new faculty. The good professor does not fear that her interests or success will be overshadowed by another because she sees the hiring of other good professors (or potential ones, in the cases of entry-level hires) as a means to enhanced self-development as well as the betterment of the department and college and

32  For philosophical discussions of non-violent protest, see J.  Angelo Corlett, Terrorism: A Philosophical Analysis (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003), Philosophical Studies Series, Volume 101, Chapter 2; Feinberg, Freedom and Fulfillment, Chapter 6; John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971), pp. 363–391; James W. Washington, Editor, A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1986). 33  This holds despite former U.S. Olympian Jesse Owens’ truism that “You don’t get too far telling people the low down about themselves.”

12  Academic Freedom and the Good Professor

235

university as a whole. Even if the prospective or new hire does not enhance one’s own interests, the good professor is too busy being productive to worry about getting her own way even most of the time. Pettiness has no place in the life of the good professor. Ideological conflict is endemic to several higher-educational contexts. While biases are normal and ought to be minimized for the sake of fairness, many faculty are straightforward about their prejudices and seek to impose their ideological whims on others—even on an entire university! And these days it is especially true concerning those administrators and faculty who seek to promote “diversity” and “inclusion” and lecture others about “implicit bias” when they themselves apparently did not study the subject sufficiently to grasp that such biases infect EVERYONE (including those who accuse everyone but themselves of having it!), not just the ones too busy to volunteer to serve on the administration’s committees to spread the administration’s rather selective take on the problem which has been very well studied by various experimental social cognitive psychologists well before it became a way by which to administratively rebrand colleges and universities in the names of “diversity” and “inclusion”. It goes without saying that such dysfunctional faculty and administrators often do more harm than good in higher education. And every college and university can do without ideological madness. It further goes without saying that the good professor will not engage in such destructive behavior, though perhaps she might from time to time have to assist in the removal of this kind of cancerous faculty and administrators from a campus. The good professor does not look for trouble as she is too busy at fulfilling her many professional tasks. However, when seriously dysfunctional faculty and administrators seek to tremendously disrupt or damage the fundamental functions, aims and reputation of a college or university, the good professor sometimes needs to do the right things in getting involved to challenge and combat such abnormally controlling and detrimental behavior which often vitiate academic freedoms. Far too often it is faculty who are negligent in stopping bad things from happening in their educational contexts. For senior faculty, this might mean from time to time getting involved in the protection of nontenured faculty when those faculty are threatened insofar as their basic faculty rights are concerned. This is not meddling. Rather, what is meant here is the discovery of all relevant facts of the circumstances, and if the facts justify it supporting that junior faculty member where she needs support. To be negligent here is to be, morally speaking, a bad Samaritan.34 Insofar as committee service is concerned, the good professor will always seek to make fair and just decisions. In retention, tenure and promotion matters, she will develop critically fair standards of assessment and do all that she can to make sure that the committee on which she serves implements such reasonable standards consistently along the way. Of course, due process is a most highly regarded principle for the good professor. So it would be quite out of character for the good professor

 For a philosophical discussion of anti-bad Samaritan law, see Feinberg, Freedom and Fulfillment, Chapter 7.

34

236

J. A. Corlett

to make decisions in committees that would, say, promote and/or tenure someone even if that candidate did not satisfy the necessary conditions for promotion and/or tenure. Nor would the good professor hinder the tenure or promotion of qualified faculty candidates due to personal or ideological biases. Yet as is common knowledge, so many times bad professors promote and even succeed in the destruction of the quality of college and university education by promoting and/or awarding tenure to those who do not earn it by fair and equitable standards of assessment, or even worse, by denying tenure and promotion to those who most assuredly earned it by surpassing easily the standards made clear to both the candidate and institution alike. Absolutely no one ought to be tenured and/or promoted unless and until they clearly satisfy the unambiguous, fair and equitable standards applied equally to all faculty of a particular category (whether traditional scholarly faculty, scientists, or art faculty, etc.). For the good professor, it is equally bad to tenure and promote those who do not deserve it as it is to deny promotion and tenure to those who earned it. Tenure should never protect illegal and highly unethical acts of sabotaging another’s career, or assisting it by granting candidates a status in the profession they hardly deserve. It is better to terminate the employment of such awful influences on higher education, whether they are faculty or administrators. For there are plenty of well-qualified candidates, I assume, to replace those who greatly abuse higher educational institutions in such grave ways. The good professor will likely be asked from time to time to serve on committees regarding the awarding of grants and sabbatical leaves. When serving either one’s own college or university or a national granting agency, the good professor will seek to make fair and equitable decisions based on the procedures of the agency under whose auspices she serves. It is not a time to return favors for friends or colleagues in order to maintain or gain national ranking in research. And she will resist the temptation to decide in favor of her former students for reasons of her own faculty placement or promotion. Although mentoring ought not to cease at graduation, it does not follow that the good professor ought to abuse her powers to award anything to anyone without the strongest record, all things considered and in light of the rules of the granting agency. Bad professors will award grants and sabbaticals to friends and fellow committee members who then often form a community of like-minded and inbred has-been intellectuals whose primary goals have long since not included research and teaching excellence, and have been replaced by goals unworthy of continued employment. Once again, tenure was never intended to protect mediocrity and moral vice at levels and of kinds that transparently undermine fundamental justice and fairness in higher education. Perhaps most importantly, the good professor is one who values and supports academic freedom. As De George argues, “The moral obligation on the part of those with academic freedom is not only to pursue, or at least not hinder the pursuit of knowledge, but also…to protect those whose academic freedom is threatened.”35 This statement is meant to apply not only to faculty, but to students. And it ought not

35

 De George, “Ethics, Academic Freedom, and Academic Tenure,” p. 14.

12  Academic Freedom and the Good Professor

237

to be assumed that only college and university administrators are typically out to violate rights to academic freedom in terms of research, teaching and service. Often it is certain faculty themselves who violate this sacred right out of revenge, envy, jealousy, racism, sexism, classism, etc.. Indeed, academic freedom is so important that perhaps the following rule ought to be adopted by every college and university: Any college or university personnel duly convicted of intentionally, knowingly, and voluntarily violating the academic freedom of another is to, upon the third conviction by way of an institutional system of due process, be terminated from employment, forfeiting all retirement benefits, and with cooperation from every accredited higher educational institution, never again to be employed at any capacity in a higher educational institution. I hereby christen this the “three strikes law of academic justice.” As noted above, academic freedom is a cluster of faculty rights based (in the United States) on the First Amendment right to express oneself within the broad but not absolute boundaries defined by the U.S. Supreme Court, Federal District courts, and various states such as the State of California the Constitution of which mimics the U.S. Constitution pertinent to such matters. Legally, and it has been exhaustively argued morally, unless faculty are engaged in expression which causes wrongful harm to others such as incitement to violence, defamation, “fighting words,” causing panic, violate another’s privacy, such faculty possess the right to express themselves even when the expression offends others and is grotesquely unpopular to everyone else in a public university community. These rights impose on all others a duty of non-interference with the exercise of enjoyment of said rights. The value of respecting the rights to academic freedom is that it protects autonomous adults from intrusion into their self-expression which protects their legitimate claims to and interests in autonomy as beings with dignity and value in themselves, thereby respecting them as autonomous beings. The good professor never violates but instead protects her own and others’ rights to academic freedom, but ought to carefully discern when academic freedom has or might wrongfully harm others and require regulation. And one ought to bear in mind that one can possess a right, but this does not necessarily mean that the right ought always to be exercised. However, it is the right of the good professor alone, as the possessor of the right, to decide how best to exercise it, rather than an administrator more concerned with considerations of social utility maximization such as campus peace, “diversity” and the like which are often used as catch words to silence those who are not popular on campus or who disagree with the campus administration. The better part of wisdom might from time to time caution against the exercise of a particular right, depending on context and circumstance. This does not mean that one has an obligation to not exercise her right to, say, academic freedom, as that would imply that it is not a right at all in such a case. Rather, it means that the good professor ought to exercise wisdom in exercising her sacred right to academic freedom. The rights to academic freedom are exercised best when they are exercised wisely.

238

J. A. Corlett

12.5  Concerns About the Good Professor Now there might be questions raised regarding my conception of the good professor. One such concern might be that it fails to place students first in a college or university, which is anathema to the main point of a higher educational institution. And any plausible notion of the good professor ought never to run afoul of the fact that students are always to come first in higher education. I will refer to this as the “Mere Teacher’s Objection.” In reply to the Mere Teacher’s Objection, it must be noted that nothing in my description of the good professor fails to place an extremely high priority on the education of students. In fact, my rather high demands placed on faculty, holistically speaking, are precisely the kind that will best ensure the highest quality education for students. Surely it is implausible to think otherwise. For those who coddle their students while not performing research are cheating their students of having a highly knowledgeable faculty mentor whose ideas are tested continually by some of the best minds in her field, and those who sacrifice adequate time with students in favor of research cheat students in ways too obvious to mention. And let us not forget the faculty who hide themselves inside committees and other forms of service while they neglect students’ important academic needs. My balanced and holistic description of the good professor, though aspirational and highly demanding, places the burden on each and every faculty member to reach and sustain the balance necessary for her to achieve the status of a good professor. And no consumerist ideology of “students are the most important part of higher education” can take the place of what that statement, turned into a shibboleth by many mere teaching faculty, really means in practice. This kind of an objection is typically leveled by those who long ago abandoned the duty of research in favor of one or more of a variety of reasons. And as long as this subject excludes faculty who have legitimate medical or other serious reasons why they cannot become or remain good professors, then there is no good reason to reject the high standard in favor of one that makes the lowest common denominator of faculty more comfortable in their utter mediocrity, laziness and self-important pretentiousness. Thus it would seem that the Mere Teacher’s Objection to my conception of the good professor seeks to obfuscate the real issue, which is part of the problem all along: poor faculty trying to make excuses for themselves and those like them for not performing their duties in a reasonably well-balanced fashion. There is simply no excuse for incompetence and laziness in any line of work. A Ph.D. is not a degree that entitles one to evade professional responsibilities! A more reasonable objection to my conception of the good professor is that its admirable quality of holistically high standards for faculty performance is also what makes it an overly demanding standard. In other words, it places too high a standard on most faculty to satisfy, and thus ought to be rejected because it is unrealistic. I shall refer to this as the “Unrealistic Expectation Objection.” In reply to the Unrealistic Expectation Objection, it must be pointed out that the legitimate standards of any profession are not to be lowered to make professionals

12  Academic Freedom and the Good Professor

239

comfortable. Professionals in any field are to be passionate about their fields, at least most of the time. And that passion ought to occupy them most of their lives, with the exception of necessary needs of family and the like. Besides, there are plenty of faculty who can and do satisfy the standards I lay out, so it is not as if the standards of excellence for the good professor are too high. That they are too high for most faculty to desire to reach demonstrates that there are many faculty who are not good professors, despite what they have duped their students and others to believe. Excellence in higher education is not about giving students what they want (good grades, self-esteem, etc.). If these happen to be the results of many students as they study hard and well in their courses, then that is a wonderful thing. For then students’ grades would truly reflect what they have learned on their own as a result of their own studies. But there will never be excellent students unless excellent professors teach them. And there will never be excellent professors to teach them unless faculty become and remain good professors. And there will never be good professors without faculty becoming reasonably well-balanced in their integrating research, teaching and service into their professional lives. And this is unlikely to ever happen unless higher educational administrators supply their faculty colleagues with substantially greater resources in order to achieve and sustain these most reachable and essential goals. The Unrealistic Expectations Objection, though it serves as a legitimate caution against placing too high of expectations on faculty, is not in itself sufficient grounds to defeat my conception of the good professor. Thus of the concerns mentioned, neither the Mere Teacher’s Objection or the Unrealistic Expectations Objection points to a serious weakness of my conception of the good professor. Rather, each reaffirms the importance of a well-balanced and integrated professional life of faculty members, supported adequately by administrators who understand the importance of which resources are needed for a good education. Students deserve the best we can offer them. They do not deserve slacker faculty who do little or no research. Nor do they deserve faculty who are otherwise poor teachers and mentors. Nor do they deserve faculty who do not care enough to serve in this way or that. Students deserve nothing less than the good professor in each and every course or seminar they take. And the closer we come to reaching that goal, perhaps we as good professors will serve as better role models for our students who will then place a much greater value on the education they receive.

12.6  Conclusion In sum, I have discussed some of the key features of the ideal or good professor in general terms that I intend to be generalizable across most academic disciplines, along with the rights to academic freedom. Far more needs to be argued about academic freedom than is found herein. Nevertheless, the good professor is a holistic faculty member with a reasonably well-balanced professional life of active research, teaching and service who values quite highly academic freedom rights without which she cannot serve her students and others well. She does not seek to avoid

240

J. A. Corlett

service or teaching. But neither does she seek to avoid regularized research for the posh life of a pretentious and self-absorbed intellectual with an inordinate amount of time to spend with students and others in local coffee houses in a life of relative leisure. We must combat this somewhat justified stereotype of many higher-­ educational faculty. The good professor need not be, nor is she, perfect. But she will humbly and incessantly strive toward perfection in at least the three main areas discussed herein. The mistakes she makes will mostly be minor ones, and she will devote herself to the betterment of her skills and assist other faculty in the same. Perhaps above all else the good professor is one who in her constant drive to perfect herself in every aspect of faculty activity is one who becomes cautiously comfortable with her realization that she will nonetheless never fully reach her ultimate goals of truth, understanding, and wisdom, and the dissemination thereof. But a key requirement of the good professor is academic freedom and the carefully defined set of rights thereto. Absent academic freedom as a general right, no professor can be a good one in the fullest sense, as she cannot exercise her expression to combat abuses of power on campus, either from administrators, other faculty, staff, students, or the public at large. Just as freedom of expression is the hallmark of a good society, so is academic freedom the hallmark of the good professor. J. Angelo Corlett (PhD, 1992 in Philosophy, University of Arizona) is Professor of Philosophy & Ethics at San Diego State University. He served as the founding Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of Ethics: An International Philosophical Review (Springer) from 1995 to 2018, and is the author of almost 200 books and articles in philosophy, including Analyzing Social Knowledge (1996); Responsibility and Punishment (2001, 2003, 2014); Race, Racism, and Reparations (2003); Terrorism: A Philosophical Analysis (2003); Interpreting Plato’s Dialogues (2005); Race, Rights and Justice (2009); The Errors of Atheism (2010); Heirs of Oppression (2010); Interpreting Plato Socratically (2018), and a host of publications in the following journals: Analysis; American Philosophical Quarterly; The Classical Quarterly; Dialogue (Canada); Ethics; Ethnicities; Grazer Philosophisclohe Studien; International Journal for Philosophy of Religion; Journal of Academic Ethics; Journal of African American Studies; The Journal of Ethics; Journal of Medicine and Philosophy; Journal of Social Philosophy; Mind; Philosophia (Israel); The Philosophical Forum; Philosophy; Public Affairs Quarterly; among several others.  

Chapter 13

Organizational Revolutionaries in a Transformative World Grant Szalek and Cam Caldwell

Abstract  Colleges and universities would do well to adopt an “organizational revolutionary” approach to governing that improves the delivery of tomorrow’s academic programs. The specific focus of this chapter is on the business school and its role within the academic institution. The chapter begins by citing evidence that confirms the need for improving the quality of business education. The chapter then defines “Organizational Revolutionary” and introduces a model for improving academic effectiveness which incorporates the principles of Positive Organizational Scholarship. The chapter identifies five advantages of this positive approach and challenges academic leaders and faculties to become organizational revolutionaries in order to meet the needs of their future students. Keywords  Organizational revolutionary approach · Business schools · Innovation · Moral duties The obligations of colleges, universities, and their leaders and faculties require that those institutions fully understand and responsibly address their moral and ethical responsibilities to their many stakeholders (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2017). These obligations are a fundamental part of the social responsibilities owed to others and those who lead the academic institutions throughout the world recognize  – but do not always honor  – these responsibilities (Anderson et  al., 2017). Unfortunately, the trends in academia – and in organizations of all types today – suggest that this failure to honor the vital responsibilities owed to stakeholders has worsened and that leaders and organizations of all types are becoming increasingly ineffective at understanding and honoring their moral and ethical obligations (Caldwell & Anderson, 2020).

G. Szalek University of Texas, San Antonio, TX, USA C. Caldwell (*) St. George, Utah © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 D. C. Poff (ed.), University Corporate Social Responsibility and University Governance, Advances in Business Ethics Research 8, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77532-2_13

241

242

G. Szalek and C. Caldwell

In the very difficult world of the post-COVID-19 pandemic, the challenges facing individuals and organizations in society are imposing to effectively address. Notwithstanding that reality, the obligations of leadership impose a comprehensive set of moral duties that are part of the “covenantal” mantle of leadership with its multiple levels of impact (DePree, 2004; Pava, 2003). However, many of the failures of those who lead or teach at colleges and universities pre-date the global pandemic. As leaders of the institutions responsible for teaching future leaders and employees, academic administrators and faculties must raise the bar of their performance if the needs and demands of future generations are to be met. Revolutionizing the approach to leading colleges and universities and developing better ways to honor the responsibilities owed to stakeholders is a priority that those who accept leadership roles must to more effectively fulfill. According to survey results from the Edelman Trust Survey, leaders struggle in earning the trust of their stakeholders (Harrington, 2017). Low employee engagement (Clifton & Harter, 2019) and the fact that seven out of ten employees are actively looking for new jobs (Fanning, 2017) suggest that lack of confidence in leaders and organizations necessitates a bold new “transformative” leadership approach (cf. Bennis & Nanus, 2007; Burns, 2010). The decline in confidence in academic institutions and their leaders (Jashik, 2018) confirms that a revolution in organizational governance is also needed at colleges and universities  – schools where the common complaint in the United States is that education is overpriced, classes are increasingly being taught by graduate students and part-­time adjunct faculties (AAUP, 2018), and 73% of all faculty are denied tenure track opportunities (Flaherty, 2018). The focus of this chapter is on the importance of college and universities adopting an “organizational revolutionary” governance approach that improves the delivery of academic programs and that meets the needs of students and the society in which those students will work. The specific focus of emphasis of the chapter is on the business school and its role within the academic institution because of the significant responsibility of business schools in preparing those who will eventually work within commerce and industry, in Non-Governmental Organizations, or in other work contexts. The chapter begins by citing examples that confirm the need for improving the quality of academic governance, specifically in the area of business education. The chapter then defines the term “Organizational Revolutionary” as that term applies to business schools and introduces a revolutionary model for improving academic effectiveness which incorporates the principles of Positive Organizational Scholarship. The chapter concludes by identifying ten suggestions for incorporating the principles of this positive approach to business school governance and challenges academic leaders to become organizational revolutionaries to meet the needs of today’s transformative era.

13  Organizational Revolutionaries in a Transformative World

243

13.1  The Need for Improvement There are numerous “culprits” for the decline in public confidence with academia. According to the U. S. Department of Education data, a major factor in that country has been the rise in the number of administrators at colleges and universities – coupled with a major decline in full-time tenured faculty (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017). Although 78% of faculty were full-time in 1970, today that number has declined precipitously while the number of administrators has increased (Campos, 2015). One of the practical realities of academia is that faculty are not fully aware of the practical implications of the theories that they advocate nor are they up to date regarding the current systems in the workplace. A California report indicated that the number of administrators working within the University of California school system actually tripled between 1993 and 2013 (York, 2015). Despite that increase in administrative personnel, confidence in the quality of university graduates produced by colleges and universities has declined markedly (Alsop, 2015). According to a 2017 survey, 86% of college students admitted that they cheat – and 97% of the cheaters report that they have never gotten caught (Farkas, 2017). McCabe et al. (2017) have suggested that the primary reason that college students cheat is because they see their peers cheating … and getting away with that dishonest behavior. Despite the alarming statistics about student dishonesty, a research study reported by Swanson and Fisher (2008) reported that only one in twenty of the top business school deans in the United States thought that there might be an academic integrity problem in their school’s business programs. Although business students are acknowledged to be engaged in academic dishonesty more than any other student group, the denial reflected by this body of academic deans seems almost humorous in light of a growing body of research about dishonesty in academia (Andrade, 2015). Floyd et al. (2013) reported that business schools focus their ethics-related education on issues that students, ethics experts, and academic administrators acknowledge to be relatively unimportant and that often have little practical application in society. Nonetheless, business schools are often criticized for not emphasizing ethical behavior in the classroom and only one in three business schools even includes a business ethics class in their academic curricula – at either the undergraduate or the graduate levels (Swanson & Fisher, 2011). An example of the frustrating disregard for holding students accountable to standards of integrity is the case of a Business Ethics instructor at a Georgia university a short time ago. Upon discovering that a team of four MBA students had plagiarized a paper submitted as part of the assignment, the instructor was called into the Department Chair’s office. After discussing the clear evidence of the students’ cheating, the instructor asked the Chair, “What do you want me to do?” Typifying the disregard being shown for academic dishonesty at many business schools, the Chair’s response was simply, “Make it go away.” But academic integrity, though increasingly acknowledged as a major issue, is not the only element of business education that falls under criticism. McGill

244

G. Szalek and C. Caldwell

University’s Henry Mintzberg is just one of a multitude of scholars who has been sharply critical of the approach used to teach business students – particularly at the graduate level. Mintzberg (2005) argued that the engagement of students in the classroom is done poorly – but the greater sin, he suggests, is that MBA programs are training analysts who can calculate financial rates of return but who do so without an understanding of how the business world actually works or how people should be treated to produce optimal results. (Mintzberg, 2005). Although Mintzberg’s commentary is no longer the latest opinion about the shortcomings of business training, his insights are nonetheless relevant and are shared by numerous other scholars (Anderson & Caldwell, 2019). With the decline in ethical behavior, a growing number of scholars are critical of business education and the failure of business schools to adequately emphasize the importance of social responsibility (Swanson & Fisher, 2011). Those scholars address the obligation of universities and colleges in becoming “part of the solution” in addressing the many societal challenges facing the world (Anderson et al., 2017). The failure of academic institutions to adequately address business ethics education has risen to crisis significance in a society that has long been labeled “the cheating culture” (Callahan, 2004). Systems to counteract unethical academic behavior are short-circuited on many campuses and faculty often report that their universities neither facilitate the reporting of academic dishonesty or provide adequate resources to identify when plagiarism and other academic misconduct occurs (Swanson & Fisher, 2008, 2011). Many business schools allege that they address the teaching of business ethics “across the curriculum” – despite the fact that deans freely admit that their faculties are neither very good at teaching business ethics nor qualified to do so. In addition, Floyd et al. (2013) confirmed that the highest priority issues emphasized about business ethics were not being addressed by academic institutions – an opinion held by students, ethics scholars, and business school deans but nevertheless not incorporated in the curricula of business education. Ultimately, the decision of business schools to not address the most important ethical problems facing the business community demonstrates an unwillingness to focus on priority ethical issues and degrades the legitimacy of the preparation of business students for the world of work where those issues must ultimately be faced when students become full-time employees. Despite the fact that many colleges and universities teach students about Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), those same schools have been criticized for being unwilling to “practice what they teach” (Caldwell et al., 2005) by becoming active participants in developing meaningful solutions in partnership with private sector businesses, governmental units, and other stakeholders (Caldwell & Anderson, 2017). Although a small number of schools are exemplary in partnering with the private sector in developing creative solutions that meet the needs of local businesses, minimal efforts are exercised at the majority of schools to make a contribution to their communities and in many schools, there is no contribution at all (Anderson, Ndalamba & Caldwell, 2017).

13  Organizational Revolutionaries in a Transformative World

245

Private “for profit” colleges and universities exacerbate the problem of serving societal and student needs – with many of those schools offering sub-standard academic programs taught by marginally qualified faculties. Schools like Colorado Technical University and Capella University are among those being criticized for offering doctoral level programs in business  – but failing to hold their students accountable to doctoral level academic standards and avoiding telling their doctoral candidates that their academic degrees are unlikely to qualify them for tenured teaching positions. The moniker of “diploma mills” is a criticism appropriately aimed at such institutions which provide graduates with degrees that look good on paper but have minimal value for the recipients and poorly prepare students to have successful careers (Sykes, 1996). Internationally, the problems of holding students to a high standard of academic rigor exist at many schools. For example-at a highly regarded university in New Zealand, foreign students are admitted into business programs without being adequately evaluated regarding their qualifications. The failure of that school to remediate the learning skills of those students, coupled with the desire of that school to retain admitted students, resulted in a recent “passing score” for final exams at just over 30% – that is 30% correct. In addition to providing skilled workers for society, universities must ensure their financial ability to deliver a higher standard of education. The two challenges that most frequently face postsecondary education in the United States are in increasing the number of adults with high-quality degrees and certificates and keeping the costs of advanced education under control (Fowles, 2013). Trying to increase the availability of a quality educational product, while simultaneously addressing the financial needs of colleges and universities, has become a challenge facing many academic institutions and their response has often been to meet those needs by hiring non-tenured, part-time adjunct faculty who are not always qualified to deliver the level of excellence that the world of tomorrow demands. A university’s purpose revolves around increasing its graduates’ competitive success, honoring the obligations due to multiple stakeholders, and creating long-­ term value. Unfortunately, many universities seem to be unable or unwilling to change their structures to facilitate achieving these outcomes. Anderson and Caldwell (2019) have proposed that business schools must redefine their missions, reconfigure how they deliver their educational product, and make that product more relevant to employer needs. Other scholars concur with this perspective (Murphy & Clark, 2016). Dr. Theocharis Kromydas (2017) of the University of Glasgow states that “the ultimate goal of education is to create eminent people.” His perspective is accepted by many scholars and the general public as the virtuous purpose of higher education. As the working world becomes increasingly complex, society demands technically-­skilled and highly-educated workers. The advent of new technologies has dictated the enhancement of people’s talents and skills and the creation of a knowledge-­based-­economy, which in turn, demands even more high-skilled workers. (Kromydas, 2017). To address this need, universities have sought to become more accessible to the broader population (Sykes et  al., 2009). Policies such as

246

G. Szalek and C. Caldwell

U.S.  President Barack Obama’s K12 policy were developed in response to this shortage of qualified knowledge workers, as well as to alleviate social and income inequalities (Hobbs, 2012). Universities are largely influenced by their pursuit of national and international rankings. These rankings are viewed as important to their stakeholders and are perceived as putting ‘value’ on a degree. A prestigious academic reputation generates more students, better students, and more highly regarded faculty – ultimately enhancing the status and reputation of the university overall. These rankings are allegedly based on objective criteria developed by the rating agencies (Oravec, 2017). Unfortunately, these criteria often don’t align with what Kromydas suggested that a university should ultimately seek to achieve. Students need to expand their experience beyond the university environment to prepare themselves properly for the workplace. Although internships are common at some schools, many students are required to work part-time or even full-time jobs that do not make internship experiences feasible – limiting the ability of students to apply what they are learning in the classroom. Because of the size of classrooms at many large schools, a significant portion of college students are examined predominantly via multiple choice and short answer examinations (Anderson & Caldwell, 2019), ignoring the need for these students to be held accountable to developing skills demonstrated by conducting research and writing. From a practical standpoint the quality of education provided is limited by the sheer number of students in large classrooms, an inability to involve students in real world experiences, and an unwillingness or inability of business faculty to grade student writing and provide helpful feedback. That problem has been exacerbated by the large number of business faculty who are not native English speakers and who feel uncomfortable critiquing student writing skills. The overall impact of the problems identified in this summary is that leaders and faculties as business schools in colleges and universities need to substantially reassess how they can improve the product that they deliver to their students (Eyring, 2011). The many problems cited herein impair the ability of business schools to adequately prepare their graduates for a business world where the competitive challenges that modern businesses face are ominous and demand individuals who possess knowledge, skills, and the ability to not only compete in the global economy but to contribute to the challenges of tomorrow (Kember & Ginns, 2012).

13.2  P  roactive Innovation Through Positive Organizational Scholarship In this section, we introduce the definition of “Organizational Revolutionary” as that definition applies to individual faculty members, department chairs and deans, and academic administrators who take on the responsibility of making the curriculum and supporting activities of a business school more effective in addressing the needs of tomorrow’s business community and the students who will work in

13  Organizational Revolutionaries in a Transformative World

247

organizations. We then suggest a model for increasing the quality and sustainability of business education that incorporates this definition by incorporating principles inherent in Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS). POS is a positive approach to leading and governing individuals and organizations that focuses on dynamics typically described by words such as excellence, thriving, abundance, resilience, and virtuousness. POS combines a perspective that includes instrumental concerns that increase the standards of performance results while also emphasizing the normative values of “goodness,” flourishing, and the pursuit of the highest in positive human potential (Cameron, 2011). POS is a paradigm for reinventing the purposes of education to enable academic institutions to meet the challenges of volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity which typify the modern world in which the graduates of academic institutions must compete. Consistent with the philosophy of POS, an “organizational revolutionary” is an individual who is an ethical steward (Caldwell et al., 2010) positively committed to creating a better world by improving the effectiveness of the organizations in that world. Such stewards seek to honor their obligations to organizations, society, and the best interests of all stakeholders. Academic scholars, faculty members, and administrators who seek to revitalize the substantive content of business programs to match the demands of tomorrow’s organizations  – and who take affirmative actions to assist their organizations to adapt to the needs of the business community and society  – qualify as organizational revolutionaries. Such academics are wise and ethical leaders who understand that the world of the future demands a new perspective and new paradigms (Anderson & Caldwell, 2019; Mintzberg, 2005; Covey, 2004). Our definition of organizational revolutionaries within a business school context includes five important social-responsibility-related qualities. 1. Adaptability – a commitment to constant change and improvement and willingness to do so quickly (Kotter, 2012). 2. Vision – the ability to envision the key requirements of a changing landscape and a recognition of the implications of the failure to act (Covey, 2013). 3. Passion – the deep-down commitment to doing good that motivates extra-mile effort to put great ideas into operation (Duckworth, 2018). 4. Emotional Intelligence – the wisdom to know that working with others and the finesse to bring them on board requires being interpersonally sensitive and cooperative in achieving changes that last (Goleman, 2005). 5. Perseverance – the stick-to-itiveness to follow through on tasks that require constant effort in order to overcome real boundaries, outmoded policies, and institutional resistance to change (Duckworth, 2018). This definition of organizational revolutionaries acknowledges that such individuals are team players who work within a system to achieve powerful results – and do so

248

G. Szalek and C. Caldwell

by using research, information, and interpersonal moxie to overcome the barriers that inevitably must be addressed in achieving any sustainable change (Kotter, 2012). Organizational revolutionaries are change agents and ethical stewards who assume a personal responsibility for raising the bar of business schools to refine the quality of learning opportunities available in the classroom, create practical applied learning experiences for business students, empower students to develop important skills required of practitioners, and achieve their highest potential as scholars who understand how to become the best versions of themselves within the business world. We define organizational revolutionaries within the business school context as “faculty, department chairs, deans, and academic administrators who demonstrate their commitment to constantly improving the quality of business education by incorporating learning experiences, and “state-of-the-art” curricula, to enhance the ability of their students to develop the refined skills, knowledge, and abilities to succeed in the business world and to honor the obligations of the organizations for which they work to address the long-term social responsibility needs of society.” Consistent with the research of other POS scholars, we propose ten specific actions that business schools can incorporate to improve the quality of business education, in the spirit of being organizational revolutionaries. 1. Improve Standards of Professional Accountability  – Due, in part, to the pressures that business schools are under to deliver their product economically, many schools are overly reliant upon marginally qualified doctoral candidates and part-time adjuncts to teach classes – even at the Masters level. This practice waters down the quality of courses taught and is inconsistent with the needs of students and future employers (Anderson & Caldwell, 2019). Those who teach Masters classes should hold a doctoral degree or be professionally qualified, such as by the standards recommended by AACSB International (AACSB, 2020). 2. Reduce the Time Required to Make Curriculum Changes – Many business schools require a ponderous two-year process, including Faculty Senate review and what often seems to be an unnecessary administrative approval in order to introduce a new course into a curriculum. Meanwhile, students are either learning outdated curriculum content or are unable to benefit from courses that are cutting-edge in their content and application. In a “Just-in-Time” business world where destructive innovation is a constant, academia seems to be alarmingly out-of-date in the time that it takes to adjust to real world insights (Christensen & Eyring, 2011). 3. Refocus Business Resource to be Practical  – By partnering with business institutions in the communities where they are located, business faculties have the opportunity to refocus their scholarly research so that it is far more practical. Focusing on research topics that not only can benefit those local businesses but that have added value for their students who can learn from that research can make business research far more practical. The esteemed Henry Mintzberg has long criticized academic research as failing to pass the “Bill and Barbara Test” – a test wherein two of Mintzberg’s practitioner colleagues assess whether

13  Organizational Revolutionaries in a Transformative World

249

research in allegedly “top tier” business journals have practical value (Mintzberg & Caldwell, 2017). 4. Increase Emphasis on Student Self-Reflection – Requiring business students to reflect on what they are learning – especially in reflecting on the moral and ethical implications of the concepts and theories that are part of their curriculum – can benefit students in applying the emotional and attitudinal elements of education in their lives (Fink, 2013). Business concepts are important to understand at the cognitive level, but the application of those concepts clearly has a vital emotional element as well. Incorporating higher order learning pedagogy beyond cognitive learning can substantial benefit students’ understanding of the values implicit in those concepts (Tello et al., 2013). 5. Emphasize Evolving Teaching Methods – Unfortunately, most doctoral programs do not teach scholars basic principles of teaching. In addition, many academic institutions do a mediocre job at best in assessing teaching effectiveness. The typical business faculty member is evaluated based upon student responses to a survey and, perhaps, a visit by a colleague (Hardre & Cox, 2009). The validity of those assessment methods is not only questionable but are considered “highly suspect” by many faculty who are evaluated by such means. Meanwhile, virtually no truly constructive feedback is provided to faculty about either the current status of the concepts that they teach or the manner in which teaching is presented at many universities. 6. Increase Focus on Applied Skills – Business student graduates are widely considered to be grossly lacking in writing skills by many employers (SingletonJackson et al., 2009). For nearly two decades the inability of college graduates to write effectively has been a bane and a source of frustration for employers of all types (Ridgley, 2003). Part-time faculty who are paid wages far below their tenure-­track brothers and sisters have no incentive to wade through dozens of poorly-­written essays and papers and tenure-track faculty are so bogged down attempting to write their own papers for publication that they don’t want to spend the time to read their students’ writing assignments. As a result, many students report that they complete their entire business education careers without being taught the applied skills necessary to write effectively (Burton & Bartlett, 2014). 7. Emphasize Lifelong Learning  – The myth perpetuated in some business schools is that obtaining a degree, especially a graduate degree, is the culmination of the learning process. In fact, in a world where the body of knowledge is now doubling every four years, it is necessary for business schools to emphasize to their students that they must become lifelong learners (Anderson & Caldwell, 2019). 8. Create Partnerships with Government – The opportunity for business schools to become partners with local, state, and federal governmental agencies is rarely taken advantage of  – despite the fact that business schools and those ­governmental units share common interests. Business schools have the ability to research and advise governmental entities about a multitude of practical problems that have a basis in business theory. Business administration and public administration are more alike than dissimilar at many levels, yet business

250

G. Szalek and C. Caldwell

schools have often overlooked the opportunity that they have to partner with government to address problems that government units frequently face (Ndalamba et al., 2018). 9. Demand Academic Integrity  – Business schools do themselves, their students, and the entire community a disservice when they do not demand academic integrity and enforce the highest academic integrity standards among their students. The evidence is profoundly clear that business graduates have frequently been found to be the most dishonest of college students (Swanson & Fisher, 2008, 2011). Proactively emphasizing the importance of academic integrity can be done in a positive way – but academic dishonesty and the incidence of technology-aided plagiarism and cheating have become a plague and a crisis in many business schools (Caldwell, 2010). 10. Create a Sense of Urgency – Change only occurs, according to Harvard’s John Kotter (2012) when a sense of urgency is created. The need to change the trajectory of the quality of business education has been called for by many highly regarded scholars for many years (Mintzberg, 2005; Pfeffer & Fong, 2002). Notwithstanding the superb efforts made by some colleges and universities, the world has nonetheless seen the proliferation of fly-by-night business-programs led by scholars of suspect qualifications. The urgency to respond to the needs of tomorrow’s world seems obvious – but at many schools the change process is slow and resisted grudgingly.

13.3  Conclusion Many years ago, W. Edwards Deming (2000) noted that there is “no instant pudding” involved at times when change is badly needed. The evidence suggests that colleges and universities can do exponentially more to improve the quality of their curricula, to be more engaged in their s communities, and to provide a product that can better prepare business school graduates for a world that appears to be increasingly challenging. Realistically, expecting these changes to occur overnight is profoundly unrealistic  – but many scholars and practitioners recognize that the evolutionary or revolutionary process must begin. We suggest that a proactive, POS approach to business education be incorporated as part of the agenda of colleges and universities. The organizational revolutionary model that we suggest, while undoubtedly perceived as threatening to some, is nonetheless necessary – and can be achieved when undertaken with respect for current faculty that may fear change. As Clayton M. Christensen and Henry J. Eyring (2011) have reminded the academic community, we live in a transformative world marked by disruptive innovation. Change is the constant. Duties are owed to society that transcend obligations previously understood. The problems facing the world of tomorrow are ominous. As university leaders, administrators, department chairs, deans, and faculties honestly confront the demands of tomorrow and assess the shortcomings that

13  Organizational Revolutionaries in a Transformative World

251

characterize many academic institutions of today, they recognize the need. Although organizational revolutionaries may initially sound like an ominous term that threatens the status quo in today’s business schools, the need for change and for ethical stewards who are committed to creating a better future are both obvious. Organizational revolutionaries who prepare to work in cooperation with others to create business programs that will address the issues facing business education will honor their institutions and better serve the stakeholders to whom they owe a higher standard of moral duties.

References AACSB. (2020). Guiding principles and standards for AACSB accreditation. Found online on March 26, 2022 at 2020-business-accreditation-standards.pdf (aacsb.edu) Alsop, R. (2015). This is the real reason new graduates can’t get hired. BBC.com, November 18, 2015 and found online on August 15, 2019 at https://www.bbc.com/worklife/ article/20151118-­this-­is-­the-­real-­reason-­new-­graduates-­cant-­get-­hired Andrade, A. (2015). The cheating epidemic: Reducing academically dishonest behavior amongst college students. American College Personnel Association, June 1, 2015 and found online on August 15, 2019 at http://www.myacpa.org/article/ cheating-­epidemic-­reducing-­academically-­dishonest-­behaviors-­amongst-­college-­students Anderson, V., & Caldwell, C. (Eds.). (2019). Business education’s future: A transformative approach. NOVA Publishing. Anderson, V., Ndalamba, K. K., & Caldwell, C. (2017). Social responsibility in a troubled world: A virtuous perspective. International Journal of Public Leadership, 13(2), 98–115. AAUP [American Association of University Professors]. (2018). Data snapshot: Contingent Faculty in U. S. Higher Education. Washington, DC: AAUP, October 11, 2018 and found online on August 14, 2019 at https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/10112018%20 Data%20Snapshot%20Tenure.pdf Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (2007). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge. HarperCollins. Burns, J. M. (2010). Leadership. Harper Perennial. Burton, D. M., & Bartlett, S. (2014). Key issues for education researchers. SAGE Publishers. Caldwell, C. (2010). A ten-step model for academic integrity: A positive approach for business schools. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(1), 1–13. Caldwell, C., & Anderson, V. (2017). Ethical leadership in troubled times. International Journal of Public Leadership, 13(2), 54–58. Caldwell, C., & Anderson, V. (Eds.). (2020). Business ethics: Perspectives, management, and issues. NOVA Publishing. Caldwell, C., Karri, R., & Matula, T. (2005). Practicing what we teach – Ethical considerations for business schools. Journal of Academic Ethics, 3, 1–25. Caldwell, C., Hayes, L., & Long, D. (2010). Leadership, trustworthiness, and ethical Stewardship. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(4), 497–512. Callahan, D. (2004). The cheating culture: Why more Americans are doing wrong to get ahead. Harcourt Publishing. Cameron, K. (2011). Responsible leadership as virtuous leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 25–35. Campos, P. F. (2015). The real reason college tuition costs so much. New York Times, April 4, 2015 and found online on August 15, 2019 at https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/ the-­real-­reason-­college-­tuition-­costs-­so-­much.html?_r=0 Carroll, A.  C., & Buchholtz, A. (2017). Business and society: Ethics, sustainability, and stakeholder management. Cengage Learning.

252

G. Szalek and C. Caldwell

Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of higher education from the inside out. Jossey-Bass. Clifton, J., & Harter, J. (2019). It’s the manager: Gallup finds the quality of managers and team leaders is the single biggest factor in your organization’s long-term success. Gallup Press. Covey, S. R. (2004). The 8th habit: From effectiveness to greatness. Simon & Schuster. Covey, S. R. (2013). The 7 habits of highly effective people: Powerful lessons in personal change. Simon & Schuster. Deming, W. E. (2000). Out of the crisis. MIT Press. DePree, M. (2004). Leadership is an art. Crown Publishing. Duckworth, A. (2018). GRIT: The power of passion and perseverance. Scribner. Eyring, H.  C. (2011). Unexploited efficiencies in higher education. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 4(7), 1–18. Fanning, B. (2017). 71 percent of employees are looking for new jobs. 5 strategies to address your pain. Inc. November 16, 2017 and found online on August 14, 2019 at https://www.inc.com/ ben-­fanning/71-­percent-­of-­employees-­are-­looking-­for-­new-­jobs-­5-­strategies-­to-­address-­your-­ pain.html Farkas, K. (2017). 86 percent of college students say they’ve cheated. It’s easier with mobile devices. Cleveland.com, February 7, 2017 and found online on August 15, 2019 at https:// www.cleveland.com/metro/2017/02/cheating_in_college_has_become.html Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. Jossey-Bass. Flaherty, C. (2018). A non-tenure-track profession? Inside Higher Education, October 12, 2018 and found online on August 14, 2019 at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/10/12/ about-­three-­quarters-­all-­faculty-­positions-­are-­tenure-­track-­according-­new-­aaup Floyd, L., Xu, F., Atkins, R., & Caldwell, C. (2013). Ethical outcomes and business ethics: Toward improving business ethics education. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(4), 753–776. Fowles, J. (2013). Funding and focus: Resource dependence in public higher education. Research in Higher Education, 55, 272–287. Goleman, D. (2005). Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam Books. Hardre, P., & Cox, M. (2009). Evaluating faculty work: Expectations and standards of faculty performance in research universities. Research Papers in Education, 24(4), 3R83-419. Harrington, M. (2017). Survey: People’s trust has declined in business, media, government and NGOs. Harvard Business Review, January 16, 2017 and found online on August 14, 2019 at https://hbr.org/2017/01/survey-­peoples-­trust-­has-­declined-­ in-­business-­media-­government-­and-­ngos Hobbs, A., (2012). Conclusion: A paradigm shift in fits and starts. Academia, pp. 289–296. Found online on March 26, 2022 at hobbs_obama_conclusion_proofs-with-cover-page-v2.pdf (d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net) Jashik. (2018). Falling confidence in higher ed. Inside Higher Ed, October 9, 2018 and found online on August 14, 2019 at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/10/09/ gallup-­survey-­finds-­falling-­confidence-­higher-­education Kember, D., & Ginns, P. (2012). evaluating teaching and learning: a practical handbook for colleges, universities, and the scholarship of teaching. Routledge Publishing. Kotter, J.  P. (2012). Leading change, with a new preface by the Author. Harvard Business Review Press. Kromydas, T. (2017). Rethinking higher education and its relationship with social inequalities: Past knowledge, present state, and future potential. Palgrave Communications, 3, Art. 1. Leef, G. (2013). For $100K you would at least think that college grads could write. Forbes Dec. 11, 2013 and found online on October 15, 2019 at https://www. forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2013/12/11/for-100k-you-would-at-least-think-thatcollege-grads-could-write/#330acca91c99 McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Trevino, L. V. (2017). Cheating in college: Why students do it and what educators can do about it. Johns Hopkins University Press in Baltimore, Maryland.

13  Organizational Revolutionaries in a Transformative World

253

Mintzberg, H. (2005). Managers not MBAs: A hard look at the soft practice of managing and management development. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Mintzberg, H., & Caldwell, C. (2017). Leadership, ‘communityship,’ and ‘the good folk’. International Journal of Public Leadership, 13(1), 5–8. Murphy, C., & Clark, J. R. (2016). Picture this: How the language of leaders drives performance. Organization Dynamics, 46, 139–146. National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Digest of education statistics. Found online on August 15, 2019 at https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/current_tables.asp Ndalamba, K. K., Caldwell, C., & Anderson, V. (2018). Leadership vision as a moral duty. Journal of Management Development, 37(3), 309–319. Oravec, J. A. (2017). The manipulation of scholarly rating and measurement systems: Constructing excellence in an era of academic stardom. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(4), 423–436. Pava, M. (2003). Leading with meaning: Using covenantal leadership to build a better organization. St. Martin’s Press. Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). the end of business schools: Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1(1), 78–85. Ridgely, S. K. (2003). “College Students Can’t Write.” NRO (National Review Online), p. 19. Singleton-Jackson, J., Lumsden, D. B., & Newsom, R. (2009). Johnny still can’t write, even if he goes to college: A study of writing proficiency in higher education graduate students. Current Issues in Education, 12(10), 1–39. Swanson, D. L., & Fisher, D. G. (2008). Advancing business ethics education. Information Age Publishing. Swanson, D. L., & Fisher, D. G. (2011). Towards assessing business ethics education. Information Age Publishing. Sykes, C. J. (1996). Dumbing down our kids. St. Martin’s Press. Sykes, G., Schneider, B., & Plank, D. N. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of education policy research. Routledge Publishing. Tello, G., Swanson, D., Floyd, L.  A., & Caldwell, C. (2013). Transformative learning: A new model for business ethics education. Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 5(1), 105–114. Grant Szalek is a recent graduate of the Master of Science in Management program at the University of Texas at San Antonio. Grant is deeply committed to improving the effectiveness of business education in Australia, his home country.  

Cam Caldwell obtained a PhD in Business Administration at Washington State University where he was a Thomas S. Foley graduate fellow. Cam has written extensively about issues associated with improving business education and has co-­authored a book on that subject with Dr. Verl Anderson.  

Chapter 14

The Ethical Responsibilities of Researchers in the Sciences and Social Sciences Phillip N. Goernert

Abstract  Researchers in all sciences have a responsibility to maintain public confidence in our work. A large part of this confidence rests on the manner in which we collect and report data. Collecting and reporting data in an ethical manner sets a standard necessary for educating our students; is required to seek external funding for our research; ensures public confidence in our activities; and complies with government mandates. Across all disciplines in science, the foundation of ethical research begins with the contents we teach in our introductory courses. As students mature in their knowledge base, the curriculum shifts onto how to put these principles into practice. This chapter outlines the challenges faced by educators in science to both train future researchers and to collect and report data in an ethical manner. Meeting these challenges is necessary to ensure the integrity of our research enterprise. Keywords  Challenges faced by educators · Ensuring research integrity · Policies to ensure accountability and responsibility One key indicator of performance in a modern university is the creation of new knowledge. Creation of new knowledge necessitates that faculty in the sciences and social sciences engage in research. Ensuring that research adheres to ethical standards is a critical value all modern universities strive to achieve. Initially, a professional commitment to self-regulation oversaw efforts to ensure research involving human participants adhered to ethical guidelines. However, a number of studies were published that included violations of research participant rights. In North America for example, the The Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital Case (Arras, 2008) and the Milgram Obedience Experiments (Miller, 1986) violated participant’s rights and led to public scandals. In response to these scandals, most national governments legally imposed, P. N. Goernert (*) Department of Psychology, Brandon University, Brandon, MB, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 D. C. Poff (ed.), University Corporate Social Responsibility and University Governance, Advances in Business Ethics Research 8, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77532-2_14

255

256

P. N. Goernert

as a condition of funding, that universities engage in a systematic ethical review of research involving human participants conducted by their faculty. In compliance with these requirements, universities have developed Research Ethics Boards (CIHR, 2010); Institutional Review Boards (United States, 1978); and Research Ethics Committees (Royal College of Physicians of London, 1973). The goal of all of these government mandated bodies is to ensure that research conducted within universities follow guidelines to protect the rights of human participants. Ensuring that researchers protect the rights of human participants must begin in the classroom and teaching laboratory. Faden et al. (2002) identify as a professional duty instructing future researchers on the ethics of science. Educators must find ways to embed ethical research practices into our students’ curriculum and learning outcomes. Petrick et al. (2011) in a summary of the literature reported productivity in both the quantity and the quality of teaching, training and research publication outputs in business ethics. However, there are significant challenges to overcome in working towards ensuring that students learn how to conduct research in an ethical manner and ensuring that researchers conduct themselves with integrity. Meeting these challenges, depends on understanding there are different types of learning. Baddeley (1997) identifies four distinct types of learning. The teaching of ethics involves three of Baddeley’s areas of learning; acquiring new information, mastering a new skill, and developing a new habit. The first two types of learning lend themselves well to integration across the curriculum. However, as students transition into a role of independent researchers, ensuring that they have developed the habit of ethical practice is of importance. As part of student training, this area of learning is challenging to assess as opportunities to observe the habit of ethical practice occurring after a student has graduated. Conducting research in an ethical manner requires success in each of these distinct forms of learning. Doing so, makes universities accountable to their internal and external stakeholders.

14.1  Acquiring New Ethical Information The American Psychological Association (2007) has been at the forefront of identifying knowledge of ethics as a learning outcome for the undergraduate psychology major. For this reason, acquiring new ethical information is part of most introductory psychology course offerings. These introductory courses present information on which educators can base later high standards of academic integrity. Certainly, faculty enter the academy with appropriate skills and training in their subject areas. Research is now examining the benefits of integration of research ethics into an introductory psychology course (c.f., Zucchero, 2008). Similar outcomes are present in the literature for the accounting curriculum (c.f., Martinov-Bennie & Mladenovic, 2015). To the extent that we teach ethical research practices and ethical reasoning to our students, it is important that we critically assess the outcome of these teaching efforts. Unfortunately, a clear understanding of the methods to

14  The Ethical Responsibilities of Researchers in the Sciences and Social Sciences

257

measure in a reliable manner new learning in our students (c.f., Christie et al., 2007), is more challenging. While assessment of these types of learning is required for educational and credentialing purposes (Kaslow, 2004), a lack of evaluation strategies often cloud how we both define and measure important benchmarks. Moving forward it is important to both integrate ethical research practices into the curriculum and to identify methods to assess student learning in a reliable and valid manner. Regardless of the domain, students need an awareness of the seriousness of scientific misconduct, a definition of what constitutes misconduct in their field, and an understanding of the consequences of engaging such behavior.

14.2  Mastering New Ethical Skills Building on new information, mastering the skills necessary to collect data in an ethical manner is the next teaching milestone in the undergraduate curriculum. Development of these skills are typically addressed in a research methods course where procedures to ensure that the treatment of the humans or animals who participate in their work are clearly learned. According to McSkimming et al. (2000) educators face a number of major challenges in these courses. First, we need to teach students to treat participants a fair, just, and respectful manner. Second and more complicated, teaching students to apply research ethics requires they learn the regulations and codes that govern the researcher's behavior and interactions with others. Finally, students need to learn how to express this understanding in seeking approval to conduct research. Obtaining this formal ethics clearance to conduct research protects the student, the faculty supervisor, and the university (Polonsky, 1998). Ensuring formal ethical clearance of research proposals, prior to the collection of data is essential to maintaining public confidence in our work.

14.3  Developing New Ethical Habits In my discipline, Psychology, the teaching of ethics is a crosscutting theme, relevant to all domains (c.f., Gurung et  al., 2016). Accordingly, the ethical treatment of research participants and research integrity are included in the curriculum of virtually all introductory offerings. As a student progresses in their training, they learn concrete methods to protect the dignity and well-being of their participants. Further, they learn how to ensure that they conduct all aspects of their research in an ethical manner. Assessment of the habit aspect of learning is less clear. Generally, has students graduate into careers, the habit of ethical behavior is often assessed by some form of ethical review board. The literature does report that there are pressures on researchers that might undermine a consistent display of ethical research habits. Maggio et  al. (2019)

258

P. N. Goernert

reported that both perceived publication pressure and the number of publications were associated with self-reported misconduct and questionable research conduct. This burden may undermine displaying the habit of ethical research practices. Further, as pointed out by Triggle and Triggle (2007), in most cases, it is impossible for a journal to detect questionable research. For these reasons, it is important that we train new researchers to mitigate the realities that face them as they transition from student to researcher. This speaks to Baddeley’s second type of learning  – mastering a new skill. Indeed, Resnik and Stewart (2014) argue that responsible research instruction (including how to master the skill of conducting ethical research) should include all students, trainees, faculty, and research staff involved in research. Despite mandated ethical review of research prior to collecting data from participants, maintaining public confidence in our work requires researchers to avoid any suggestion of fraud or scientific misconduct (Schwartz, 1991). Sadly, despite our system of external and internal checks and balances, the literature reports five major categories of scientific misconduct: protocol violations, consent violations, fabrication, falsification, and financial conflict of interest (Habermann et al., 2010). Combating these forms of scientific misconduct requires universities to adopt a combination of proactive and reactive solutions. Accomplishing these solutions requires attending to the manner in which we train students to become ethical researchers and the methods we use to ensure that faculty follow accepted standards of research integrity. In regards to the reactive solutions to scientific misconduct, the literature provides us with many tools to employ. For example, in a recent review of the literature (2017), Hesselmann, Graf, Schmidt, and Reinhart reported that over the past decade, retractions of scientific articles have developed into the main format of making scientific misconduct visible. In support of the retraction process, the Council of Science Editors (CSE, 2009) provides concrete definitions of research misconduct and offers suggestions on how journals and their editors can treat these examples of academic dishonesty. Use of these are tools provides a concrete method to both investigate instances of scientific misconduct and to issue public retraction of articles that are found to represent instances of scientific misconduct. Retractions of research demonstrating instances of scientific misconduct are necessary to demonstrate to the public that that scientific community is serious about research integrity and is taking concrete steps to identify and correct examples of academic dishonesty. According to Kerasidou and Parker (2014), good governance is of paramount importance in achieving high-quality science and promoting good ethical practice. Reaching these goals requires administrators to embrace policies of accountability and responsibility for their researchers. Administrators are also responsible to Journal editors also have an active role to play in this process. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, 2011) provides examples of clear retraction guidelines for editors. In particular, they suggest that publishing agreements between authors and journals must contain language that describes the circumstances leading to the retraction of an article and how those retractions take place. Moreover, following the retraction of a paper, notification of this event should be publicised and notices

14  The Ethical Responsibilities of Researchers in the Sciences and Social Sciences

259

sent to the agencies that provided funding for the retracted research. In addition to these reactive measures, we are also responsible for proactive measures of teaching ethical responsibilities across the curriculum.

14.4  Future Challenges 14.4.1  Faculty Workload Issues Teaching students to master new ethical skills is a labour intensive process. Faculty undertaking this task face very real demands on their time. First, faculty are responsible for assisting students in developing a researchable project at the beginning of a course. After identification of a researchable project, faculty must guide students as they complete their ethics application for that project. Faculty must structure all these learning activities early in the academic term. This is necessary to allow students an opportunity to respond to comments they receive from the ethics review committee. Following this review, faculty must assist students as they complete the necessary changes to their application required to gain ethical approval for their project. Only then, can the student collect their data and complete their project. Accordingly, successfully overseeing the completion of a student’s ethics application, corresponding to their individual research project, takes considerable time for faculty. These time commitments might explain data reported by Parks et  al. (2011). In their study of empirical research methods courses taught in American communication programs, only 32.5% of respondents indicated completing an ethics application as a “hands-on” research experience in their research methods class.

14.4.2  Faculty Pushback On many campuses, there is an ongoing debate between researchers and the ethical review boards that examine their research protocols prior to data collection. Despite Government requirements for the establishment of such boards, the debate surrounding the necessity of ethical review of minimal risk research involving human participants is particularly passionate. As reported by Hyman (2007), both sides believe fundamental principles are at stake. Researchers claim oversight is burdensome. Ethical review boards and by extension university administrators, state the need to protect the rights and welfare of human participants is paramount. The competing interests between administrators and faculty reflect some of the discordant values that makeup the new parameters for universities. Resolution of this debate is necessary to help in the development of University Social Responsibility (USR). USR demonstrates to the public that policies are in place to protect the rights and welfare of human participants in research conducted by university faculty.

260

P. N. Goernert

Despite the goal of developing USR, researchers have published critiques of the review process in support of their claims of burdensome oversight. These critiques state that review of minimal risk research by ethics review boards is both an impairment and unnecessary. In particular, researchers have reported protocols receiving exaggerated review (Gunsalus et  al., 2007), consuming an inordinate amount of time (White, 2007), causing missed deadlines, and reduced productivity for researchers (Ceci & Bruck, 2009). The above are alleged to result in the unfair impediment of minimal risk research where the probability of harm to participants is absent or not significant. In addition to time demands, research identifies that all faculty do not readily accept the idea of ethical oversight of their research and perhaps the research of their students. Ashcraft and Krause (2007) surveyed faculty researchers and found that 20% of their sample reported that they had collected data without prior approval from their local ethics review board. A phenomenon they referred to as “going solo.” From a practical perspective, researchers holding a liberal attitude to the notion of “going solo” may behave in a manner that undermines the protection of the rights and welfare of human participants. Moreover, faculty holding liberal attitudes may serve as role models for the students they mentor. Abbott and Grady (2011) suggest future research to evaluate the effect on investigator satisfaction, ethics committee efficiency, and the focus of a pre-review by an ethics committee chair or designate. A better understanding of these issues may serve to decrease the incidence of faculty “going solo.” Government regulations mandating ethical review of all human participatory research, makes such avoidance of collecting data without prior approval challenging for Universities as they strive to develop social responsibility and respect Government mandates.

14.4.3  Journal Editors At present, at least two major issues face journal editors in their pursuit of research integrity. According to Wright (2016) the rapid development in statistical techniques have made it (a) more likely that authors may incorrectly apply a particular technique and (b) more difficult for reviewers and editors to identify when either of the above has occurred. Reviewers should be experts in the field and sometimes the number available to an editor may be insufficient to detect errors in the use of increasing sophisticated statistical techniques (Resnik & Elmore, 2016). These outcomes serve to undermine the integrity of research we publish and will require some accommodation in the future. To the extent that research misconduct has occurred. Journal editors face further hurdles in correcting the record. Retraction of a paper poses considerable risks to editors and journals. Papers retracted with the consent of the author (s) may face the threat of litigation from dissenting authors. The threat of legal action is real threat facing editors (Marusic et al., 2007).

14  The Ethical Responsibilities of Researchers in the Sciences and Social Sciences

261

14.4.4  University Administrators Universities administrators face competing views as they oversee the conduct of researchers on campus. One the one hand they are accountable to ensure that researchers receive training and to determine which approaches to training are both efficient and effective (Steneck, 2013). On the other hand, faculty have academic freedom to train students and conduct research consistent with their academic expertise. In addition to training of researchers, the costs of education and training for ethics committee members are a funding responsibility for universities (Wagner et al., 2003). Such funding should take pay for the costs of educational programs about the federal regulations and made available to all ethics committee members (Abbott & Grady, 2011). Beyond funding the costs of training, research integrity requires cooperation between universities and journals Wager and Kleinert (2012) suggest communication between universities and journals dealing with allegations of research misconduct. Reaching this goal requires universities to institute an office for research integrity and ensure that faculty are aware of the research ethics and governance procedures enforced from this office.

14.5  Conclusion In this chapter, I have outlined how answering the question of accountability requires a combination of proactive and reactive solutions. Accomplishing these solutions requires universities to attend to the manner in which we train students to become ethical researchers and ensure that faculty follow accepted standards of integrity in pursuing their research agendas. Although costs are associated with reaching these goals, they are worthy and essential to maintaining public confidence in our work and meeting Government mandates. Working towards reaching these goals serves to contribute to social betterment.

References Abbott, L., & Grady, C. (2011). A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: What we know and what we still need to learn. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 6(1), 3–19. American Psychological Association. (2007). APA guidelines for the undergraduate psychology major. Author. Retrieved August 23, 2019, from http://www.apa.org/ed/resources.html Arras, J. D. (2008). The Jewish chronic disease hospital case (pp. 73–79). Oxford University Press. Ashcraft, M. H., & Krause, J. A. (2007). Social and behavioral researchers’ experiences with their IRBs. Ethics & Behavior, 17(1), 1–17. Baddeley, A. D. (1997). Human memory: Theory and practice. Psychology Press.

262

P. N. Goernert

Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (2009). Do IRBs pass the minimal harm test? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1), 28–29. Christie, C., Bowen, D., & Paarmann, C. (2007). Effectiveness of faculty training to enhance clinical evaluation of student competence in ethical reasoning and professionalism. Journal of Dental Education, 71(8), 1048–1057. CIHR, N. (2010). SSHRC (Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada), 2010 Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct For Research Involving Humans. Tri-Council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. Council of Science Editors (CSE). (2009). White paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications. Available online at: http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/i4a/pages/index. cfm?Pageid=3354#2.1.7. Accessed 29 Aug 2019. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2011). Code of conduct for editors. COPE. Available online at: http://publicationethics.org/files/Code%20of%20conduct%20for%20journal%20 editors_0.pdf. Accessed 29 Aug 2019. Faden, R. R., Klag, M. J., Kass, N. E., & Krag, S. S. (2002). On the importance of research ethics and mentoring. The American Journal of Bioethics, 2(4), 50–51. Gurung, R.  A., Hackathorn, J., Enns, C., Frantz, S., Cacioppo, J.  T., Loop, T., & Freeman, J. E. (2016). Strengthening introductory psychology: A new model for teaching the introductory course. American Psychologist, 71(2), 112. Gunsalus, C. K., Bruner, E. M., Burbules, N. C., Dash, L., Finkin, M., Goldberg, J. P., Greenough, W. T., Miller, G. A., Pratt, M. G., Iriye, M., & Aronson, D. (2007). The Illinois white paper: Improving the system for protecting human subjects: Counteracting IRB “mission creep”. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(5), 617–649. Habermann, B., Broome, M., Pryor, E. R., & Ziner, K. W. (2010). Research coordinators experiences with scientific misconduct and research integrity. Nursing Research, 59(1), 51. Hesselmann, F., Graf, V., Schmidt, M., & Reinhart, M. (2017). The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles. Current Sociology, 65(6), 814–845. Hyman, D. A. (2007). Institutional review boards: Is this the least worst we can do. Northwestern University Law Review, 101, 749. Kaslow, N. J. (2004). Competencies in professional psychology. American Psychologist, 59(8), 774. Kerasidou, A., & Parker, M. (2014). Does science need bioethicists? Ethics and science collaboration in biomedical research. Research ethics, 10(4), 214–226. Maggio, L., Dong, T., Driessen, E., & Artino, A., Jr. (2019). Factors associated with scientific misconduct and questionable research practices in health professions education. Perspectives on medical education, 8(2), 74–82. Martinov-Bennie, N., & Mladenovic, R. (2015). Investigation of the impact of an ethical framework and an integrated ethics education on accounting students’ ethical sensitivity and judgment. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(1), 189–203. Marusic, A., Katavic, V., & Marusic, M. (2007). Role of editors and journals in detecting and preventing scientific misconduct: Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Medicine & Law, 26, 545. McSkimming, M. J., Sever, B., & King, R. S. (2000). The coverage of ethics in research methods textbooks. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 11(1), 51–63. Miller, A. G. (1986). The obedience experiments: A case study of controversy in social science. Praeger Publishers. Parks, M. R., Faw, M., & Goldsmith, D. (2011). Undergraduate instruction in empirical research methods in communication: Assessment and recommendations. Communication Education, 60(4), 406–421. Petrick, J. A., Cragg, W., & Sañudo, M. (2011). Business ethics in North America: Trends and challenges. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(1), 51–62. Polonsky, M. J. (1998). Incorporating ethics into business students’ research projects: A process approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(11), 1227–1241.

14  The Ethical Responsibilities of Researchers in the Sciences and Social Sciences

263

Resnik, D. B., & Elmore, S. A. (2016). Ensuring the quality, fairness, and integrity of journal peer review: A possible role of editors. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(1), 169–188. Resnik, D. B., & Stewart, C. N., Jr. (2014). Expanding the scope of responsible conduct of research instruction. Accountability in research, 21(5), 321–327. Royal College of Physicians of London. (1973). Committee on the supervision of the ethics of clinical research investigations in institutions. Royal College of Physicians. Schwarz, R.  P., Jr. (1991). Maintaining integrity and credibility in industry-sponsored clinical research. Controlled clinical trials, 12(6), 753–760. Steneck, N. H. (2013). Global research integrity training. Science, 340(6132), 552–553. Triggle, C. R., & Triggle, D. J. (2007). What is the future of peer review? Why is there fraud in science? Is plagiarism out of control? Why do scientists do bad things? Is it all a case of: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing?”. Vascular Health and Risk Management, 3(1), 39. United States. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical, & Behavioral Research. (1978). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research (Vol. 2). The Commission. US Department of Health and Human Services. HHS.gov, Office for Human Research Protections. 45 CFR 46. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 45. Public Welfare. Department of Health and Human Services. Part, 46. Wagner, T.  H., Bhandari, A., Chadwick, G.  L., & Nelson, D.  K. (2003). The cost of operating institutional review boards (IRBs). Academic Medicine, 78(6), 638–644. Wager, E., & Kleinert, S. (2012). Cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity cases: guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Maturitas, 72(2), 165–169. White, R. F. (2007). Institutional review board mission creep: The common rule, social science, and the nanny state. The Independent Review, 11(4), 547–564. Wright, P. M. (2016). Ensuring research integrity: An editor’s perspective. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1037–1043. Zucchero, R. A. (2008). Can psychology ethics effectively be integrated into introductory psychology? Journal of Academic Ethics, 6(3), 245–257. Phillip N. Goernert received his Bachelor of Arts in Psychology from Carleton University and his Doctorate in Experimental Psychology from Miami University. He is currently a Professor of Psychology at Brandon University. Prior to his appointment at Brandon University, he was a Professor of Psychology at Minnesota State University, Mankato. Throughout his career, Dr. Goernert has researched how we update the contents of our memories. He has served as the Chair of the Brandon University Research Ethics Board and serves on the Editorial Boards of The Journal of Academic Ethics and the Journal of General Psychology.  

Chapter 15

Summary and Suggestions for Future Directions Deborah C. Poff

Abstract  This chapter provides a brief further analysis of the state of universities and makes suggestions for future directions. Keywords  Poff – Equity values · Equal opportunity · Social mobility · Teaching and research integrity It should be evident that this summary will not be a unifying, neat reconceptualization of all of the chapters into a cohesive whole. All of the chapters in this book illustrate how complex, distinct and at times contested some activities are within the twenty-first century university. The elements we discussed were first and foremost chapters concerning students and research which are two of the traditional activities so I will address these topics first. The focus on students raised a number of issues. One is that universities need to do more of to fully embrace the consequences of their commitment to equity values which was a hallmark of the post World War II university in Western nations. Another way of putting this is what are the necessary conditions to educate students in such a way as to meaningfully allow students from different socio-economic classes, cultures, gender, gender identities, races and ethnicities to level the playing field so that equal opportunity is an actual possibility. This is not easy because the key issue with equality of opportunity is that it only works successfully in accordance with its definitional meaning if players starting place is at a meaningfully similar position in order to participate in a fair competition. Most of the research suggests that wealth and status trump the ability to compete in competitions for jobs

D. C. Poff (*) Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 D. C. Poff (ed.), University Corporate Social Responsibility and University Governance, Advances in Business Ethics Research 8, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77532-2_15

265

266

D. C. Poff

some of which never get to an open competition and are reserved for those who are privileged to begin with. One clear condition is affordability and limitation of debt load. Clearly, reducing debt load requires more sources of grant type support and less requirement for students to depend on loans and indebtedness to ease the burden of university education for students from lower socio-economic backgrounds. This requires a return to an understanding that higher education in a nation state is partially a public good and should be supported as such. This discussion is occurring in many nations currently, including the United States with the election of a democratic President. Another discussion in the United States currently that is related is the low level of corporate taxation in the United States. It is time for corporate social responsibility to be extended to taxation for resources to fund progressive public goods like affordable access to university education. Another issue referenced in some of the student-focused articles in this volume is the claim that universities have a responsibility to educate students not only for their various professions but also to educate students for the purpose of producing each generation of engaged citizens concerned with their communities and with an educated understanding of the need to approach their work with an informed commitment to sustainable development. With respect to universities who have committed to USR, education for sustainable development becomes a corporate accountability requirement for the institution. And this requirement applies both in the management of university resources and in preparing students as a part of their larger, values-based education. All of these commitments require a strategic allocation of the needed resources to commit to planned success. This is a time where universities are challenged by a lack of necessary resources to expand the proper accountability structures for universities and the additional resources required to expand curriculum for the purpose of graduating students with a clear commitment to sustainability and corporate social responsibility. This necessarily requires that senior academic administrators commit not only to continue to raise funds and resource opportunities but to assume the public mantle, presence and leadership for the education of governments, citizens, students and faculty concerning the importance and relevance of the multiuniversity to the common good. With respect to research, it is another new responsibility, frequently imposed externally by federal governments, that is, the monitoring of research in terms of many additional ethical and legal requirements which has significantly changed the conduct of research within universities. The responsible conduct of research includes the responsibility to educate all students who conduct research as part of their studies or who serve as research assistants, including doctoral candidates and post-doctoral fellows. This is particularly true with respect to research conducted with human participants or animal subjects. This responsibility is in addition to the responsibility of the faculty member to uphold principles of long list of imposed specific types of research ethics. Many governmental federal government agencies have long lists of things to avoid which include: • The requirement not to falsify, fabricate data or plagiarize • To keep scholarly records including raw data

15  Summary and Suggestions for Future Directions

267

• To conduct research with participants who voluntarily choose to participate in the research with full and informed consent • The requirement to treat students or other research or support staff with due respect, including acknowledge of authorship or appropriate credit for their contribution. This is but a partial list of all requirements and as Goernert points out it has made the research and teaching project with respect to the process of conducting research far more demanding than was traditionally the case for faculty conducting research. As well, the pressure to publish has increased as a combined consequence of world rankings of universities and government and university expectations for faculty performance. One theme that does run through many of the chapters is the impact of neoliberalism which has been globally felt by universities in all democratic states to a lesser or greater extent and which has had various and frequently detrimental consequences from the perspective of various stakeholders within the institutions. These include: reduced government supported base operating funds; increased tuition including significant tuition differential for international students as an independent source of revenue; reduction of fulltime permanent faculty and an increase of the number of part-time and limited term contract teachers; the rise in salaries of academics administrators and the growth of their number while faculty numbers are capped or reduced and have relatively low growth in comparison; the increase and diversification of development of fund raising and entrepreneurial ventures that are deemed necessary by administrators for financial reasons and a wrong-headed distraction by faculty who argue that this is contrary to the purpose of a university. All of this has led to a distrust and sometimes fractious relationship between the faculty of universities and the administration and boards of governors. It has also led to unionization in many universities throughout the Western democratic world. In light of this, Grills contributes an insightful understanding of the dynamics among stakeholders in terms of dominance and submission dynamics and perceived dominance and submission roles within universities. The shifting changes in faculty-­ administrator relations requires an understanding of how this operates within institutions which have a history of collegial governance. One thing that is clear in all of the articles from the introduction to this final conclusion is that all of the authors in this book are passionately committed to the purpose of a university in many if not all of its facets. That uniformity is both inspiring and bodes well for the future of the university system in all of its complexities. Many of the contributions here recognize the importance of imposing the conceptual framework and theory of Corporate Social Responsibility on the modern contemporary western style university. These individuals will work to strengthen the movement to USR and CSR within and among universities. The other voices will continue to be committed to and work for the values and the integrity of teaching and research for students and for the common goals of a values-based university. All and all, not a bad individual and collective commitment to higher education and research.

268

D. C. Poff

Deborah C. Poff is a retired Professor of Philosophy and Senior Academic Administrator. She holds four degrees from three universities in Canada (University of Guelph, Queen’s University, Carleton University). Her PhD was in Philosophy of Science. During Deborah’s career, she was variously the Director of a Research Institute; a Dean of Arts of Science; a Vice-President Academic and Provost and a President and Vice-Chancellor at various Canadian Universities. During her career, she has also been an active researcher, teacher and editor and currently edits the Journal of Academic Ethics. Her research areas are: Applied Ethics, including Business and Professional Ethics; Research Ethics, Publication Ethics and Feminist Studies. She is Editor in Chief of the Encyclopedia of Business and Professional Ethics and a book series entitled Advances in Business Ethics Research. In 1995, she was awarded a lifetime honorary membership by the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women in the category of “Outstanding Contribution to Feminist Scholarship”. In 2016, Deborah C. Poff was awarded the Order of Canada through the Office of the Governor General of Canada. For many years, Deborah C. Poff has been a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics Council and Trustee Board where she was Chair from 2019 to 2021.  

Index

A Academic freedom, 13, 17, 25, 43, 85, 86, 120, 123, 126, 127, 178, 184, 186, 188, 193–195, 198, 211–240, 261 Academic integrity, 9, 186, 222, 224, 232, 243, 250, 256 Accountability to public, 40, 120, 142 Affirmative actions, 157, 158, 162, 247 American Association of University Professors, 60 Aristotelianism, 168 Authority, 17, 140–142, 144, 145, 148, 150, 151, 162, 169–171, 178, 179, 185, 207, 209, 232 Autonomy, 16, 17, 24, 26, 30, 41, 120, 123, 127, 168, 172, 178, 180, 184, 186–188, 193–195, 211, 212, 237 B Baby boomers, 5, 6 Brundtland Commission, 78 Business schools, 38, 242–251 C Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 21 Care, 20, 63, 79, 81, 109–111, 113–115, 143, 163, 184, 193, 195, 209, 218, 223, 224, 226, 234, 239 Catholic universities, 24, 167–180 Catholic values, 24 Character, 32, 71, 76, 77, 107, 109–111, 113–115, 120, 124, 140, 151, 178, 179, 205, 217, 235

Citations and grants, 107 Citizen science, 89, 122 Citizenship corporate, 22, 30, 32–34 university, 22, 29–48 Climate crisis, 184, 193, 194, 198, 199 Collegial governance, 16, 23, 152, 198, 267 Competence, 25, 106, 108–113, 115, 123, 127, 129, 172, 177, 205 Corporate entities, 8, 22, 26, 32, 83, 184, 185 Corporate social responsibility (CSR), 3–27, 43, 78, 79, 82–102, 122, 184, 189–192, 199, 266, 267 principles, 84, 98, 102 and universities, 18–20, 82, 83, 122 Corporatization of universities, 185–189 Courage, 205, 206, 214 Culture bureaucratic, 123, 127, 128 collegiate, 45, 123, 127, 128 corporate, 123, 127 enterprise, 123, 127–129 organizational, 43, 187 D Deans, 138, 140, 142, 144, 145, 147, 148, 150, 151, 243, 244, 246, 250 Differential treatment of disciplines, 162, 163 Differential treatment of scholars, 161 Digitization, 109 Dignity and respect, 98 Dominance/domination, 10, 11, 23, 107, 135–152, 198, 267

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 D. C. Poff (ed.), University Corporate Social Responsibility and University Governance, Advances in Business Ethics Research 8, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77532-2

269

Index

270 E Education as vehicle for social justice, 6 Emotional intelligence, 247 Entrepreneurial activities, 16, 19, 20, 25, 45 Equality/diversity, 86, 87, 97, 99 European University Manifesto, 171 Excellence in universities, 10, 11 F Faculty part-time/contract, 9, 14, 15, 216, 242, 245, 267 as sellers of knowledge, 106 tenured, 9, 186, 196, 212, 243 Faculty and administration conflict, 15 Faith and reason in universities, 168–170, 174, 175 Faith-based universities, 24 Freedom of expression, 85, 212, 213, 220, 221, 240 G Globalization of the economy, 8 Good professor, 211–240 Governance and business education, 65, 140 Grade inflation, 219, 223–230, 233 H Holistic student development, 108 Humanities, 8, 15, 77, 88, 90, 91, 99, 157, 176, 183, 184, 188, 192–195, 229 Humboldt, 5 Humboldtian, 120, 123, 127, 128 I Intellectual autonomy, 193, 206 Internationalization, 31, 34, 36–40, 44 K Knowledge transfer, 30, 40, 60–61 L Land-Grant College Act, 53 Liberal arts, 52, 54, 64, 159, 219

M Management, 14–17, 19, 23, 38, 44–47, 53, 60, 70, 84–87, 89, 94–97, 100, 101, 108, 109, 111, 112, 120, 122, 129, 135–152, 168, 184–186, 192, 197, 266 Mandate of universities, 34, 46 Marketization and commercial of higher education, 106, 107, 186 Massification of Universities, 31, 34–36 Medieval and religious history of universities, 24 Megauniversities, 4–5, 24, 54, 56 Mission, 24, 31, 32, 37, 39, 40, 43, 45–48, 61, 64–67, 69, 96, 121–123, 138, 139, 141, 144, 149, 167–180, 185, 187, 198, 206, 214, 245 Mission statement, 24, 46, 120, 121, 124, 142 Modern university, 3–27, 113, 135, 156, 255 Modernity, 7–10, 169 Morrill Act, 53 Multinational corporations, 20, 192, 199 Multiuniversities, 23, 24, 120, 266 N Negotiation, 141, 142, 152, 163 Neoliberalism, 11, 22, 23, 267 O Obligations to community, 32, 33, 42, 163 Organizational revolutionary, 241–251 P Plagiarism and other forms of cheating, 221, 222, 244 Political conservatism, 55 Pope, 168–171, 174–176 Populism, 8, 55 Positive Organizational Revolutionary, 242, 247, 249, 250 Post-World War II growth of universities, 7, 21 Presidents, 16, 45, 66, 77, 140, 142, 143, 147, 149, 203, 207, 246, 266 Private universities, 4, 13, 31, 32, 39, 47, 55 Professional faculties, 157 Public policies, 30, 31, 36, 39–43, 45, 71, 85 Public-private partnerships (P3), 14 Public trust, 186, 203, 204, 208 Purpose of universities, 5, 7, 8, 11, 14, 23, 30, 192, 211

Index R Racism/racist, 15, 232, 237 Rankings of universities, 12, 267 Readings, 7, 10, 88, 217, 218, 230, 233 Reduced funding, 106 Religious freedom, 179 Republic, the, 204 Research, 5, 8, 10, 12–15, 17–21, 24–27, 30–36, 38–47, 54–56, 61, 64, 66, 67, 69, 76, 78, 81, 83–85, 88–93, 99, 100, 106–108, 113, 120–128, 143, 146, 150, 160, 161, 168, 171–180, 184–189, 193–196, 198, 199, 203, 205, 206, 208, 212–223, 228, 231, 233, 234, 236–240, 243, 246, 248, 249, 255–261, 265–267 Research ethics, 26–27, 256, 257, 261, 266 Responsibility, 4, 12, 17–23, 25–26, 30, 32, 33, 41, 43, 45, 47, 61–67, 75–102, 106, 108, 112, 113, 115, 119–129, 142, 145, 146, 155, 164, 167–180, 183, 184, 190–192, 209, 213, 215, 217, 225, 228, 230, 234, 238, 241, 242, 244, 246, 248, 255–261, 266 Rights, 6, 30, 41, 43, 53, 62, 85, 89, 110, 113, 143, 151, 159, 169, 171, 176, 178, 179, 188, 191–193, 196, 205, 208, 212, 213, 220–223, 232, 235, 237, 239, 240, 255, 256, 259, 260 Rising costs of higher education, 57 Role of the state in universities, 62–63 S Sciences and technological disciplines, 175 Self-governance, 26, 135, 136, 191 Senates, 16, 17, 83, 88, 90, 91, 96, 97, 140, 142, 185, 248 Senior academic administrator, 208, 266 Senior administrators, 208, 266 Service economy, 108, 109, 113, 115 Service leadership theory, 109–114 Service learning, 23, 115 Sexism, 237 Social and economic mobility, 6–9, 13, 21 Social justice and universities, 23, 155–164 Social sciences, 8, 15, 30, 36, 44, 77, 91, 136, 159, 173, 188, 195, 255–261 SPICE model, 61 Stakeholders, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 17, 20–22, 31–33, 37–39, 41, 43, 44, 47, 48, 52, 61–67, 70, 81, 83, 98, 115, 120–124,

271 128, 129, 190, 191, 211, 212, 241, 242, 245–247, 251, 256, 267 Student privacy and ethics, 203–209 Students as consumers, 65 financial aid, 57, 58, 158 international, 12, 37–39, 42–45, 186, 197, 229, 267 Student suicide, 25, 204 Sustainable development, 22, 75–102, 122, 128, 191, 266 T Targeted hiring, 156, 157 Teaching, 5, 8, 12, 15, 18, 19, 21, 24–27, 38, 42, 45, 46, 55, 66, 67, 69–71, 84, 88, 91, 93, 94, 100, 106–108, 114, 115, 120, 122, 123, 126, 128, 144, 158–163, 170–180, 184–186, 188, 189, 193–197, 199, 208, 212–216, 218, 219, 221–234, 236–240, 242, 244, 245, 249, 256, 257, 259, 267 Triple bottom line (TBL), 17–18, 20, 189 Tuition, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 32, 37, 38, 40, 42, 56–58, 65, 66, 70, 157, 158, 162, 186, 188, 196, 197, 219, 225, 229, 267 Twenty-first century universities, 4, 24, 265 U United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 34, 79, 95 United States Higher Education System, 67, 187, 212 Universities, 30, 51, 78, 106, 119, 135, 183, 203, 213 University research, 34, 41, 184, 188, 199 University social responsibility (USR), 17–19, 21, 23, 61, 83, 114–115, 119–129, 259, 260, 266, 267 University Social Responsibility Network, 19 University teaching, 184 V Vice-President, 137, 140, 148, 184 Vision, 9, 17, 72, 99, 106, 107, 160, 172–174, 178, 184, 185, 192, 193, 205, 206, 247