An evaluative research survey involving 694 faculty members with an academic appointment in Oregon's 4-year unionized institutions of higher education was undertaken to determine whether or not collective bargaining has supported faculty rights for participation in institutional governance. Four hypotheses were formulated to study the relationship between the independent variable of collective bargaining and the dependent variable of institutional governance, specific to: (1) professional interest, (2) economic interest, (3) educational policy, and (4) academic and personnel policy. Data received from 486 respondents' questionnaires were used for the Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance to test the four hypotheses. The four hypotheses of the study were rejected. However, findings of the study suggest that the collective bargaining process is perceived by the respondents in all three unionized institutions as having (1) facilitated their participation in the formal structure and process for institutional decision making and (2) provided for just cause in dismissal and grievance decisions.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Virginia, 1992. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 154-160). Also available online through Digital Dissertations.

Thesis (D.Phil.(Educational Management, Law and Policy))-University of Pretoria, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Mississippi State University. Department of Agricultural Information Science and Education. / Title from title screen. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2004. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 172-178). Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2004. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 172-178). Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (MTech (Quality))--Cape Peninsula Univeristy of Technology, 2008. / Summary in English. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 116-119). Also available online.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Brigham Young University. Dept. of Educational Leadership and Foundations, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 238-245).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Florida State University, 2005. / Advisor: Joseph C. Beckham, Florida State University, College of Education, Dept. of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies. Title and description from dissertation home page (viewed Jan. 25, 2006). Document formatted into pages; contains x, 225 pages. Includes bibliographical references.

The Government of India launched the National Higher Education Mission (NHEM) in 2013 to address concerns of severe funding shortages, poor governance structures, and weak quality assurance mechanisms in the country’s public state universities. NHEM provided funding incentives to states conditional on the implementation of multiple reforms in the university systems. This study answers important questions about the policy - why and by whom was NHEM formulated, and how well have the policy’s reforms been implemented in Indian states. The study uses a theoretical framework based on Advocacy Coalition Framework and institutional theory. Using qualitative methods, this dissertation examines the policy formulation process for NHEM at the federal level and explores the implementation of NHEM reforms through case studies of four Indian states. The study finds that NHEM was developed when the federal ministry of education saw a window of opportunity to push its reform agenda. However, the policy was created in a short span of time, in a top-down manner, and with insufficient involvement of stakeholders. NHEM was created by borrowing policy problems and solutions from prior government reports and layering them on a pre-existing funding structure. The resulting policy lacked a cohesive design and theory of action. Implementation of the policy’s reforms in states has been limited. The findings of the study suggest that implementation is thwarted by four challenges; the bureaucratic higher education culture in states; the weak political will to decentralize the government’s powers; limited technical capacity; and inadequate financial resources. As a result, states have engaged in a variety of reform responses ranging from avoiding compliance, engaging in proforma implementation of reform requirements to receive federal funds; and reinterpreting reforms in ways that suit their existing cultures and structures.