Moore (2007) provides abundant challenges to conventional beliefs about higher education. With stark assertions such as “… we must grow beyond the old idea that instruction should be the monopoly of people full-time on the college payroll” he also raises concerns that he has too sanguine a view on the higher education enterprise, that higher education governed by administrators would in some way act in the best interests of students. The theory that doing otherwise would self-correct by market mechanisms, espoused by Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve Chairman, is directly implicated in the current financial crises (). What seems logical and rational in theory turns out to be simply wrong in practice.
Greenspan, 82, acknowledged under questioning that he had made a “mistake” in believing that banks, operating in their own self-interest, would do what was necessary to protect their shareholders and institutions. (AP, 2008)
Similarly, faculty governance is a critical safeguard to quality control and open investigation – hallmarks of higher education. A university comprised of only part-time or consultant faculty may be responsive to customers in the short-term, but with what threats to quality and mission in the long term? Such a university lacks a countervailing power to administrative governance and we have seen how aberrant this can become in the extreme.
Accreditation standards for academic programs rightly ask about the adequacy of resources for programs undergoing review for accreditation, and consider full-time, terminally credentialed faculty a critical resource.
Absent governance by full time faculty with a long term interest in higher education and in the institution they serve, and accreditation requirements, the economic imperative when using less than full time faculty is the seasonal harvest worker model. Despite Moore’s many insights, on this matter his theory leads to a conclusion that empiric results are unlikely to support.
Moore, M.G. (2007).Web 2.0: Does It Really Matter? The American Journal of Distance Education, 21(4), 177–183.
AP Associated Press. Greenspan admits ‘mistake’ that helped crisis. October 23, 2008. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27335454/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hello Alan,
ReplyDeletethis accreditation topic is an important one in DE, and I got interested in this earlier. Quality management systems are implemented in many areas of our life already, they seem to be "modern" these days. The system in the US is very different to the one in Germany. Is there a difference in accreditation of universities/colleges versus commercial companies? Is the requirement of full-time staff bound specifically to the accreditation of universities? As far as I understood, UMUC relies mainly on adjunct faculty for the DE classes.
Uli
Hi Uli,
ReplyDeletethese are excellent questions. Accreditation and certification apply to different types of programs, institutions and overlap. In addition, a university may be regionally accredited in general, but specific components, schools or programs may require additional accreditation - such as a medical school, a school of public affairs, a school of pharmacy, etc. I know that some of the sub sprecialization accreditations do look at dedicated resource use and the fit between what is required and what is committed by the university. My perspective was from that of the instructor, that Moore's assertion taken to a logical extreme may eliminate full time faculty.
Thanks for your stimulating comments - I appreciate your thoughtfulnes in stimulating my thinking further.
- Alan
Another concern though is that FT faculty may act to protect their own interests at the expense of other considerations, including quality and innovation. For example, protecting research and scholarly fiefdoms at the expense of student learning and strategic response to changing knowledge, markets, and institutions. There is a balance that must be achieved, I think.
ReplyDeleteExcellent point, Maxine.
ReplyDeleteThis clearly does not have an either or solution.
I think some structural variant of Glabraith's idea of countervailing powers but in an arrangement where stalemates would be precluded at some point. In addition to protecting the franchise, the horizon problem places delay on the side of existing full-time (?tenured) faculty. If the faculty's horizon is too long and interests are potentially too personal, the administrators' horizon is too short and interests less connected to their present institution -- is it only a trampoline to the next and higher position elsewhere? Are their decisions carefully weighed and judiciously calculated risks, or merely checking the requisite boxes?
Which pose the greater risk? The costs of faculty governance are visible, but the losses with a K-12 top-down approach seem more costly.