Exploring Effective Academic Governance at a Canadian University - Volume 46 - Academic governance effectiveness study

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Muffet

The study examines senators’ views on the effectiveness of a Canadian university’s senate in decision-making, focusing on governance structures, processes, and leadership, and collecting recommendations for change. Interviews with current or recent senators were conducted in May 2012, each lasting 30–60 minutes. At the time, fewer than half reported that the senate was effective, citing concerns around committees, faculty and student participation, and the depth of debate, with implications for legitimacy and credibility in Canadian academic governance.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages15

Reading Time38 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Introduction

CSSHE SCÉES Canadian Journal of Higher Education Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur Volume 46, No. 3, 2016, pages 90-104 Exploring Effective Academic Governance at a Canadian University Patrick Lougheed Plaid Consulting Michelle Pidgeon Simon Fraser University Abstract In Canada, only 44% of members of academic governance bodies at universities feel that their boards are effective decision-making bodies (Jones, Shanahan, & Goyan, 2004). In this study, we examined the views of senators at a British Columbia university regarding their senate’s effectiveness in decisionmaking, including structures, processes, and leadership, and their suggestions for potential changes. Eight interviews were conducted with current or recent former senators in May 2012; each interview lasted 30 to 60 minutes. At the time of the interviews, fewer than half of the senators stated that the senate was effective, with concerns concentrated in the areas of committees, participation of faculty and students, and level of debate. This research has implications for enhancing the effectiveness, legitimacy, and credibility of institutional academic governance structures and processes, particularly in the Canadian context. Résumé Au Canada, seulement 44 % des membres des instances de gouvernance universitaire estiment que leur conseil est compétent dans sa capacité décisionnelle (Jones, Shanahan et Goyan, 2004) . La présente étude aexaminé les différents points de vue des membres du conseil d’une université de la Colombie-Britannique en ce qui concerne son efficacité décisionnelle quant aux structures, aux processus et au leadership de l’université . On leur demandaitaussileurs suggestions quant aux changements qu’ilsapporteraient à leur conseil. C’est ainsi qu’en mai 2012, huit entrevues d’une durée de 30 CJHE / RCES Volume 46, No. 3, 2016 Exploring Effective Academic Governance / P. Lougheed & M. Pidgeon 91 à 60 minutes chacune ont été menées auprès des membres du conseil decette université, dont certains sont toujours en poste aujourd’hui. En plus derelever des inquiétudes portant surtout sur les comités, la participation des professeurs et des étudiants, et le niveau des débats, l’étude révèle que moins de la moitié des membres interrogés jugeait le conseil efficace au moment de l’entrevue. Ainsi, la présente recherche pourrait améliorer l’efficacité, lalégitimité et la crédibilité des structures de gouvernance universitaires, ainsi que les processus institutionnels, en particulier dans un contexte canadien. Introduction It is easy to point at something and say “it’s broken,” but it is another matter to understand what we mean by “broken” and how to fix it. There is developing consensus that the university senate as it exists in Canada has problems—including lack of strategic focus (Bradshaw & Fredette, 2009), diversion of authority to senior administration, few meaningful conversations and debates (Berkowitz, 2010), and a negative view of senate effectiveness (Jones, Shanahan, & Goyan, 2004)—but what should we do about them? The current governance arrangements that are widely used in Canada have their roots in the Flavelle Commission of 1905–06, which recommended splitting the academic and financial governance of the University of Toronto between two separate bodies. The Commission sought to insulate the University from the political whims of government by creating a corporate board appointed by, but separate from, the government, while balancing the public and academic interests between two distinct structures within the overall framework of the institution (Province of Ontario, Royal Commission on the University of Toronto, 1906) . This bicameral arrangement has become the dominant model at most universities in Canada, with only a small number of institutions using alternative structures (Jones, Shanahan, & Goyan, 2001) . Within a bicameral governance model, one half is the academic governance body, usually refe

FAQs

What issue does the study investigate?

It investigates how effective a university senate is perceived to be as a decision-making body in a Canadian context, including structures, processes, and leadership.

How was the research conducted?

Eight interviews were conducted with current or recent former senators in May 2012, with each interview lasting 30 to 60 minutes.

What concerns did senators most frequently raise?

Concerns centered on committee work, participation by faculty and students, and the level or quality of debate.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Muffet