Photo: This meeting will never end; courtesy Rylee Isitt.
Warning: I sat through a frustrating meeting last week. And now you’re going to hear about it.
We all hate meetings. And yet, at the same time, we love calling meetings. In academia, at least, they’re part of the very foundation of our organizations, which we insist are distinguished from other enterprises by our use of collegial governance. (I’ve argued elsewhere, heretically, that we try to be quite a lot more collegial than is good for us, but that’s not my point today.) In universities, we want to govern ourselves from the bottom up, with the faculty rather than administrators making the decisions. The way we know how to do that is by holding meetings – big ones, and lots of them.
Image: Two-spotted tree cricket singing, © Patrick Coin CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
Warning: a little bit grumpy.
I’ve just come back from a highly successful Departmental retreat: high turnout, engaged faculty and staff, and some genuine problem-solving. But just as a sidewalk sighting of Manute Bol might make me realize that some of my friends are rather short, our successful retreat reminded me of a weird but not altogether surprising thing about university faculty. That thing: everyone loves collegial governance, right up until somebody calls a meeting.
As a general rule, university academics feel very strongly about collegial governance. Continue reading
Graphic: Organizational chart for a manufacturing corporation, 1896 (from J. Slater Lewis, Commercial Organization of Factories) via wikimedia.org
Thoughts on “A Critique of Universities” – Part 3
This is the third in a series of posts inspired by reading a little book full of very big ideas: Páll Skúlason’s A Critique of Universities (University of Iceland Press, 2015). The book is thought-provoking and extraordinarily lucid. In this series I’ll share a few points from the book, with my own thoughts, but there’s no substitute for reading the book yourself (links below the post).
The university as an organization: collegial or hierarchical?
My first posts in this series dealt with Páll Skúlason’s thoughts (and my own) about what a university is for, and about what a university is. Today, some thoughts about that that means for how a university is organized – and for our cherished notion of collegial governance.
Until I became accidentally entangled in university administration, I was remarkably uninterested in the university as an organization. I had an office and a lab and some classrooms in which I went about my business of research and teaching, and if I noticed the organizational infrastructure supporting this, it was mostly to grouse about how idiotic it all was. Continue reading