The purpose of this descriptive-quantitative study was to examine which models of academic governance are utilized by Southern Baptist related liberal arts colleges and universities. Special attention was given to the distribution of institutional power among seventeen campus leadership groups or power holders. Using J. Victor Baldridge's models of academic governance (i.e., bureaucratic, political, and collegial), the study produced data of which models are most utilized on Southern Baptist related colleges and universities across the United States. The research additionally conducted a replica study of Edward Gross and Paul Grambsch's 1974 research on the distribution of institutional power in secular, nonreligious academic institutions. Gross and Grambsch's study produced ordinal data concerning which campus leadership group had the most and the least institutional power. The replica study was performed on Southern Baptist related colleges and universities. The findings of each were then compared identifying key similarities and differences between the two samples. The findings proved that similarities do exist between secular and Southern Baptist related institutions in regards to the three top power holders, the role and power of the faculty, and how academic leaders rank below administrators. Significant differences also exist between secular and Southern Baptist related institutions in the heightened influence of denominational leaders and financial donors and the minimal influence of state and federal government in campus decision making. KEYWORDS: academic governance models; institutional power; Christian colleges; Christian universities; Edward Gross, Paul V. Grambsch, J. Victor Baldridge, Southern Baptist related; International Association of Baptist Colleges and Universities; bureaucratic; collegial; political

The culminating recommendations of the United States Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings’ 2006 Commission on the Future of Higher Education report demand greater access, affordability, quality and accountability in higher education. Student affairs, as well as their academic counterparts, must show that they function effectively and contribute to student learning and development. A promising program review process for student affairs to fulfill this expectation is found in the Education Criteria of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award and its state-level equivalent, the Texas Award for Performance Excellence in Education Criteria. The purpose of this study was to determine the usefulness of the Texas Award for Performance Excellence Education Criteria, Progress Level, as the basis for a comprehensive program review in two diverse student affairs departments. Additionally, the study was to determine the potential usefulness of the Criteria as a management strategy for senior leadership in each department to focus on assessment, planning, improvement and change. The descriptive case study was conducted using naturalistic inquiry methodology with two student affairs departments. The researcher spent nine months in the field as a participant observer. Methodology included observations of training and team leader meetings; interviews with participants, department directors, and the Office of the Vice President; document review of both self-study reports; and the researcher’s reflexive journal. Student affairs departments are particularly well-suited for the quality concept of serving customers and, in this case, students as their primary customer. The researcher concluded that the Texas Award for Performance Excellence in Education Criteria serve as a useful basis for a comprehensive program review and as a management strategy for senior leadership under the following conditions: The department must be a mature and functional unit. Student affairs staff need a foundation in quality principles, in general, and the core values, Criteria and language of the Texas Award for Performance Excellence in Education before embarking on the self-study process. The Measurement, Analysis and Knowledge Category and the Planning Category provided the most introspection and action planning for both departments. The Process Category was the most challenging for both departments.

The culminating recommendations of the United States Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings’ 2006 Commission on the Future of Higher Education report demand greater access, affordability, quality and accountability in higher education. Student affairs, as well as their academic counterparts, must show that they function effectively and contribute to student learning and development. A promising program review process for student affairs to fulfill this expectation is found in the Education Criteria of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award and its state-level equivalent, the Texas Award for Performance Excellence in Education Criteria. The purpose of this study was to determine the usefulness of the Texas Award for Performance Excellence Education Criteria, Progress Level, as the basis for a comprehensive program review in two diverse student affairs departments. Additionally, the study was to determine the potential usefulness of the Criteria as a management strategy for senior leadership in each department to focus on assessment, planning, improvement and change. The descriptive case study was conducted using naturalistic inquiry methodology with two student affairs departments. The researcher spent nine months in the field as a participant observer. Methodology included observations of training and team leader meetings; interviews with participants, department directors, and the Office of the Vice President; document review of both self-study reports; and the researcher’s reflexive journal. Student affairs departments are particularly well-suited for the quality concept of serving customers and, in this case, students as their primary customer. The researcher concluded that the Texas Award for Performance Excellence in Education Criteria serve as a useful basis for a comprehensive program review and as a management strategy for senior leadership under the following conditions: The department must be a mature and functional unit. Student affairs staff need a foundation in quality principles, in general, and the core values, Criteria and language of the Texas Award for Performance Excellence in Education before embarking on the self-study process. The Measurement, Analysis and Knowledge Category and the Planning Category provided the most introspection and action planning for both departments. The Process Category was the most challenging for both departments.

Thesis (M.S.)--Rochester Institute of Technology, 1993. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 68-69).

No description available.