The purpose of this qualitative case study was to gain insight into the perspectives of experienced higher education administrators regarding faculty unionization, the collective bargaining process, and the interpersonal relationships between higher education faculty members and administrators. The primary method of data collection was semi-structured face to face interviews with nine administrators from two community colleges and two universities in the south Florida area. All of the study participants worked with unionized faculty members and had direct experience participating in bargaining negotiations. Upon the completion of each interview, the researcher listened to the taped audio recording of the interview several times and then transcribed all of the information from the audiotape into a Word file. Data collection and analysis for each participant were performed concurrently. Using a modified concept mapping approach, the research questions were written on large yellow sticky notes and placed in the middle of a wall in the researcher’s home with nine descriptive categorical themes written on smaller sticky notes placed around the study questions. The highlighted quotes and key phrases were cut from each transcript and placed under each of the descriptive categories. Over the course of a few months repeatedly reviewing the research questions that guided this study, the theory of symbolic interactionism, and relevant literature the categorical descriptive themes were refined and condensed into five descriptive themes. Study findings indicated that the administrators: (a) must have a clear understanding of what it is that the faculty does to be an effective representative at the bargaining table, (b) experienced role ambiguity and role strain related to a lack of understanding as to their role at the bargaining table and a lack of organizational support, (c) were not offered any type of training in preparation for bargaining, (d) perceived a definite “us versus them” mentality between faculty and administration, and (e) saw faculty collective bargaining at public institutions of higher education in Florida as ineffectual.

abstract: The goal of higher education institutions is to provide access to quality education along with adequate support so students can achieve personal and academic success. At the same time, institutions are increasingly responsible for ensuring a safe and inclusive learning environment. To support this, universities respond to allegations of violations of the student code of conduct through a variety of conduct models. The use of restorative practices, an approach of responding to criminal or judicial violations with an emphasis on repairing relationships and reintegration into the community, has been implemented into existing university student conduct models across the nation with success. Student Rights and Responsibilities (SRR) conduct administrators at Arizona State University expressed feeling unprepared to engage in restorative conversations with students during conduct meetings. As a response, training modules on restorative justice theory and practices were created as a staff development engagement opportunity for SRR conduct administrators. This mixed methods action research study was conducted to investigate the inclusion of restorative dialogue in conduct meetings, factors that influence the incorporation of restorative dialogue into professional practice, and conduct administrator satisfaction with staff development training modules. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected through pre-, post-, and follow-up training survey assessments, one-on-one interviews with conduct administrators, observation of student conduct meetings, and observation of staff development training sessions. Findings suggested that conduct administrators responded positively to staff development training on restorative justice practices. Analysis of quantitative data suggests that conduct administrators increased their self-reported knowledge of training topics, including restorative justice philosophy and practices. Further, conduct administrators, to an extent, incorporated restorative practices into conduct meetings. The most frequently observed practice was the use of restorative questions during conduct meetings. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Leadership and Innovation 2016

No description available.