Academic Leadership for Teaching and Learning

1.1 DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Objectives

There is a small but growing body of literature on the topic of academic leadership. The adopted definition of this concept as a process in which academic administrators influence, support, develop, and inspire their colleagues to engage in changes that reflect their mutual purposes and vision is grounded in this literature (Burns 1978; Gmelch and Wolverton, 2002; Lucas, 2000; Rost 1993). Findings to date have provided insight into broad roles of departmental chairs and deans (cf. the work of Gmelch and his colleagues, e.g., Gmelch and Miskin, 1995; Wolverton and Gmelch, 1999, 2002), the nature of leadership in different types of postsecondary (Jones, and Holdoway,1995), disciplinary (Kekäle, 1999), and cultural (Knight and Trowler, 2000) contexts, and the perception of leadership of academics and administrators (Arcuri, 2002; Knight and Trowler, 2001; Martin, Trigwell, Prosser, and Ramsden, 2003; Ramsden 1998a; Saroyan and Arcuri 2002, 2003).With a few exceptions, none of the published empirical literature specifically addresses and explores the impact of academic leadership on the quality of university teaching and learning. This literature is even more limited as regards the Canadian context. While there has been significant scholarship on leadership at the school level (cf. the works of Michael Fullan), the empirical literature on academic leadership in Canadian postsecondary systems is quite nascent.

The proposed program, an extension of research initiated 4 years ago, attempts to fill these gaps. The broad objective is to determine the influence of departmental chairs on the teaching performance of faculty and on student learning. More specifically, the research aims to address five questions:

(a) What characterizes effective academic leadership as perceived by department chairs and faculty and to what extent do these perceptions converge? Are convergence patterns different or the same between disciplines (social and physical sciences) and between research and teaching universities?

(b) What is the relationship between effective academic leadership as perceived by departmental chairs and faculty with students' perceptions in the way departmental climate affects their learning? Is the pattern different or the same between disciplines and research and teaching universities?

(c) What do chairs consider as essential for creating an environment that is conducive to teaching and learning and which institutional and external factors do they consider significant in either supporting or hindering their efforts in creating such an environment?

(d) What do faculty consider as essential elements of an environment that is conducive to their teaching and the learning of their students and which institutional and external factors do they consider significant in either supporting or hindering their effort to optimize their teaching?

(e) What are perceived training needs of department chairs for more effective academic leadership in general and for promoting a climate conducive to teaching and learning, in particular?

Context

In the past few decades, higher education systems in OECD countries including Canada and the developing world have gone through fundamental changes (Task Force on Higher Education and Society, 2000). Among the most critical dimensions of change are the shift from elite to mass education, the increasing importance of knowledge as a main driver of growth, and the information and communication revolution (The World Bank, 2002). Concurrent reduced public funding of universities and a slow transformation in university governance that reflects greater “business penetration of academia” (Tudiver, 1999, p. 4) have exacerbated the effects of change (Birnbaum, 2004; Clark,1996). This latter phenomenon has had a particularly negative impact on the morale of academics. With the encroachment of new management systems in the genre of corporation and business over the collegium model of university administration, there is a growing feeling that essential academic values are being eroded (Hargreaves, 1994; Knight and Trowler, 2001; McNay, 1995; Pope, 2004). There is also a sense that diminished funding and increased accountability measures have contributed to the marginalization of academic work (Ramsden, 1998b) and the “downgrading of the academic profession …." (Enders and Teichler 1997, p. 348). 

Governments, with an agenda to become more competitive in a global market, have used various funding mechanisms to force academe to be more labour market oriented, more accountable, and more efficient. Their interests and priorities, however, “… sometimes converge and sometimes sharply conflict” (Clark, 1996, p. 417) with those of academe. A fundamental difference in government and academic culture is in motive and method. While the motive for governments tends to be stewardship (i.e., directing the way monies are spent) and their methods regulatory, the academic culture has tended to be more centered around educational improvement, using the peer review process as its method. In recent years, however, the collegial decision-making process has come under sharp criticism for being too slow to be a functional mechanism in a fast changing climate (Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 2001; Kellog Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Colleges, 1996; Ramsden, 1998a). Instead, more top-down managerial models, “…with far greater command over institutional objectives and policies” have been promoted to replace “Administration[s], originally set up to support teaching and research”, (Newson, 1992 as cited  in Tudiver, 1999, p. 4). University administrators have, by and large, embraced these changes, perhaps with the hope that by doing so, they will be in a better position to influence governments and to shape policy. The changes have had several consequences, among them a growing skepticism and distrust of academic leadership (Pope, 2004), a climate that seems to be more interested in “score keeping” than in fostering uninhibited scholarship and quality teaching (Tudivor, 1999), and a slow shift away from institutional autonomy and independence, both of which are requisites for quality research and teaching. Institutions now tend to measure the quality of the education they provide based on activities and outputs that are quantifiable. For instance, teaching quality is measured by indicators such as student faculty ratios, teaching load, percentage of courses taught by regular professors, program completion percentages, and the continued administration of student course ratings (cf. McGill University and Ministère de l’Éducation du Québec (MÉQ) Agreement, 2000) . When teaching quality is not measured by any indicator related to student learning, the implicit message is that the system does not value teaching, leaving little motivation for faculty to pay serious attention to this aspect of academic work (Martin, 1999; Rice and Austin 1990).

Externally imposed values and policies are not singled out as factors that have contributed to changing the academic world in general and the academic task in particular. Other factors are as influential (Green, 1990; Kezar, 2004) and foremost among them are the changing demographics of student and faculty. The increase in the number of students entering systems and the difference in the level of their preparation and goals (Astin, 1998)(Boyer, Altbach, & Whitelaw, 1994) are issues in countries such as Canada where participation ratios are high. One implication of wider access has been greater diversity in student populations and diversity necessarily means greater variation in intellectual abilities of students, their motivation, and other predictor factors of student academic achievement. An international survey carried out a decade ago suggested that professors find students inadequately prepared in basic cognitive skills including written and oral communication and mathematics and quantitative reasoning (Boyer et al., 1994). With increased participation, these shortcomings are likely to be more widespread. Clearly, the preparation and goals that enabled students in the past to succeed even in the worst teaching situations are not yielding the same results today. Less prepared students are likely to put greater demands on faculty time and energy and their success is increasingly dependent on the extent to which faculty make learning possible for them (Laurillard 1993; Ramsden 1992). This means that faculty must be prepared and willing to dedicate the time it takes to support student learning and they are more likely to do so if policies and practices of their respective institutions reflect a meaningful regard for quality teaching and student learning.

Another important factor, in particular within the Canadian context, is the eminent change in the demographics of faculty. In a report entitled Trends in Higher Education, The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (2002) projected that 60% of faculty in Canadian universities will have to be replaced in the next decade. New and inexperienced faculty are even more likely to find the present environment formidable in light of the myriad of demands related to a newly defined academic task. Their existing competencies may no longer be sufficient for effective performance (Knight, 1998) and given current patterns, they are likely to have even less time to dedicate to the improvement of student learning and their teaching (Knight and Trowler, 2000).

Who is going to lead faculty through this turbulent period? If pressure on universities is to intensify in the years to come, then we need to know how to develop and sustain environments that are conducive to academic work which foster not only uninhibited scholarship but quality teaching and learning. Effecting change in the present climate is more likely to happen in smaller academic units such as departments than on an institutional scale and developing the leadership capacity of chairs is "… the most practical and cost-effective strategy " (Ramsden, 1998a, p. 3). Chairs understand the constraints placed on universities by external forces yet they are close enough to faculty to be sympathetic toward their concerns. They have the potential to influence the local departmental culture (Kekäle, 1999) and to play a considerable role in tempering negative feelings and attitudes. They can also contribute to restoring departments as the “building blocks of academic life” (Mallon, 2004, p. 2). Blackburn and Lawrence (1995) have shown that academics’ research productivity is conditioned by the characteristics of the department in which they work and Ramsden (1998a) asserts that the same is true of teaching effectiveness. This assertion has yet to be empirically tested particularly since structural changes in the workplace are not the single factor in determining how people feel or respond to change (Trowler and Knight, 1999). The present research program builds on existing work on perceptions of leadership (Arcuri, 2003; Martin et al,  2003; Saroyan and Arcuri 2002, 2003) and aims at exploring ways in which the department and its leadership as an activity system can create and support a conducive environment for improving teaching and learning.

Relationship /relevance of the proposed research to ongoing research

The proposed program is a direct extension of research carried out independently and collaboratively with colleagues at McGill University and its Centre for University Teaching and Learning in the past 14 years. With continuous support from funding councils, to date we have examined the process of improving teaching and gaining pedagogical expertise (Saroyan-SSHRC, 1991-94), pedagogical growth and improvement of teaching (Donald, Saroyan, Amundsen - SSHRC, 1991-94), variables which influence change in teaching (Donald, Saroyan, Amundsen, Weston, and McAlpine -FCAR, 1993-96), postsecondary students' conceptualization of learning (Donald, Saroyan, Amundsen- SSHRC, 1994-97), the assessment teaching effectiveness (Saroyan and Amundsen, SSHRC, 1997-2001), students’ and professors’ conceptualization of learning (Donald, Saroyan, Amundsen, Weston, and McAlpine -FCAR, 1996-99), the effect of learning climate on higher order learning (Donald and Saroyan, SSHRC, 1997-2001 and Donald, Saroyan, Weston, and McAlpine, FCAR 1999-2002), academic leadership and the effective teaching and learning environment (Saroyan and Donald, SSHRC, 2001-2005); and factors affecting higher order learning (Donald and Saroyan, SSHRC, 2001-2005).

The starting point of the applicant’s systematically evolving research agenda has been the individual professor and factors that influence pedagogical development. Based on a working model of teaching (Saroyan and Amundsen, 2004; Saroyan, Amundsen, McAlpine, Weston, Winer, & Cowan, 2004), earlier work focused on the individual, pedagogical development, the process of change, and the evaluation of teaching (Saroyan and Amundsen, 2001; Saroyan, Weston, McAlpine, Gandell, and Cowan, 2004). More recent research has shifted to contextual factors that influence teaching. The department as the main activity system for most academics (Sackmann, 1997) and its climate are of primary interest in this line of inquiry. The initial phase of this research, which is nearing completion, has attempted to address some of the same questions within the context of one research-intensive university. The proposed program extends current research to the broader Canadian context to multiple sites representing two disparate disciplines in research and teaching universities.

Originality and anticipated contribution to knowledge

Organizational environments shape faculty attitudes, perceptions, and performance (Rice and Austin, 1990). The literature suggests that although administrators recognize their role in providing leadership and support, existing climates in departments do not in fact provide a supportive context specifically for effective teaching and learning. The results of a survey of over 1000 department chairs indicated that chairs did not feel they had been successful in dealing with a number of faculty development problems (Lucas, 1990). Another study that looked at socialization experiences of new faculty found that departmental cultures were actually counterproductive to developing a more positive regard for teaching and learning (Knight and Trowler, 2000). In a third large scale survey, chairs were asked to identify the areas in which they needed training most. None of the identified areas related specifically to improving teaching, the learning environment, student outcomes, and quality of education (Carroll and Gmelch, 1994; Gmelch and Miskin, 1995).These and other studies on academic leadership have typically used the survey method to explore broad questions related to the meaning of leadership, associated roles, tasks, and skills. The originality of the present research is in that it aims to generate a more comprehensive understanding of the concept of academic leadership and its effect on teaching and learning using different theoretical and methodological approaches. The four proposed theoretical frameworks will afford the examination of the phenomenon from conceptually contrasting perspectives. The application of the case method will afford the in-depth analysis of a limited number academic departments (12) located in teaching and research universities and representing the physical and social sciences. The variety of data sources will make it possible to triangulate the perspective of the main stakeholders, namely the chair, faculty members, and students, and to generate a more comprehensive and ecologically valid definition of academic leadership. Finally, by carrying out the studies in a Canadian context, findings are expected to complements other international studies on this topic (cf. Martin et al., 2003; Ramsden, 1998b, Wolverton and Gmelch, 2002).

Theoretical framework

Four theoretical frameworks have informed the conceptualization of this research program, its design, and the ways in which data will be treated and interpreted(Saroyan, 1999, April; Saroyan, 1999, July; Saroyan et al., 1997). The first is our model of teaching in higher education (Saroyan and Amundsen, 2001, 2004), developed as a result of previously SSHRC funded research. The model describes teaching in terms of the interaction of 4 elements, namely beliefs, knowledge, action, and context and can account for the process of change toward effective teaching.

The second relevant framework is activity systems theory (Engeström, 1987) which depicts human activity as an interdependent system involving the individual, tools, a problem space, the community of people who are similarly concerned with the problem, the division of labour between community members, and the conventions regarding actions. The activity of the individual is seen as socially-bound and not simply the sum of individual actions (Hewitt, Scardamalia, and Webb, 1999). From this perspective, improving teaching will require both personal development as well as the development of systems of work relations with peers in the community (Bess, 2000; Saroyan, 2000; Saroyan and Jazvac, 2003). This theoretical lens will provide particular insight into departmental work relations and the influence of institutional policies and practices on teaching.

The third relevant framework is the transactional-tranformational leadership paradigm (Bass 1985, 1997; Seltzer and Bass, 1990) which "views leadership as using two possible strategies - the contingent reinforcement of followers by a transactional leader or moving followers beyond their self-interests for the good of the group, organization, or society by a transformational leader" (Bass, 1997, p. 130). This theory is particularly useful because it captures the dichotomy between articulated visions and accountability policies and practices in many Canadian universities. It also provides insight into correlations between leadership styles and outcomes in effectiveness, effort, and satisfaction (Bass and Avolio, 1995).

The fourth is Easton’s Framework for Political Analysis (1971) which consists of 5 main components: The system itself, the environment, the inputs, the outputs, and feedback - outputs that elicit some kind of change in the environment. This model is relevant in that it can help unpack complex organizational change events into component parts, thereby making it possible to identify forces that have acted on the system and the subsequent outcomes of those forces on teaching and learning.

Methodology

Context: The proposed research will be carried out in the Canadian context and more specifically, in selected physical and social science departments of 6 universities located in Quebec, Ontario and Nova Scotia. Sampling will be purposeful at the university level and will comprise a total of 6 universities, 3 representing research-intensive (medical/doctoral) universities from the list of G10 (McGill, Queen’s, and Dalhousie) and a regionally matched cohort of 3 undergraduate (mainly teaching) universities (Bishop’s, Trent, and Acadia). The three provinces are targeted due to the high ranking of both their teaching and research-intensive universities. The universities are selected because of their regional proximity. Unless there are insurmountable obstacles, the departments of physics and history of these universities will be selected as study cases as they are most likely be very divergent in culture and context. Alternative choices could be mathematics and chemistry in the physical sciences and anthropology and sociology in the social sciences.

The research questions lend themselves to a multi-site, case study method with the department being the “bounded system” or case (Bogdon and Biklen, 1992; Cresswell, 1998). A survey study will complement the case method. Thus, the design is mixed methods which incorporates multilevel use of approaches used at different levels of data aggregation (Tashakori and Teddlie, 1998; Yin, 1993). The sample for the case studies will be as follows: The chair sample will consist of the entire population of department chairs (n=12). The exact faculty sample size will be determined after the selection of the unit has been finalized. Based on current numbers of faculty in the two departments of the universities listed above, in mainly teaching universities, it will be possible to include the entire population of faculty members in the sample. In the research-intensive universities, a representative sample, equal to the sample size of the regional counterpart teaching university will be drawn from each department, resulting in a sample of 120 faculty members. The student sample will consist of students enrolled in one randomly selected class of faculty included in the sample. The sample for the survey will be the entire population of chairs and faculty in all the physical and social sciences departments in the 6 universities.

Procedure/Data Sources/Instruments:

(1) The first objective is to characterizes effective academic leadership as perceived by department chairs and by faculty, establish the extent to which these perceptions converge, and determine convergence patterns between the two disciplines and university types. One data source for the first objective will consist of semi-structured interviews with all the chairs and faculty sample of the 12 departments. Interview questions will be oriented toward teaching and will focus on perceived effective leadership characteristics, skills needed for effective leadership, and factors that support or hinder teaching improvement and enhanced student learning. The second source of data will be  the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, (MLQ Form 5X; Bass and Avolio, 1995) which identifies characteristics of transactional and transformational models of leadership and departmental outcomes. This questionnaire has two forms: one for the leader and one for the members of the unit. The questionnaire will be used for the general survey and will be distributed to the larger disciplinary community (i.e., all faculty and chairs in the physical and social sciences departments in the participating universities). The third and fourth data sources will consist of field notes based on observation of the departments in action (e.g., departmental meetings and randomly selected classes), and institutional and departmental documents, policies, and procedures related to teaching. Interview data will be transcribed verbatim, coded several rounds, each time with one of the relevant theoretical referents. The same kind of coding will be applied to the coding of observational data and documents, leading to the creation of a relational database that will be then used for both holistic and embedded analysis (Yin, 1993). Descriptive statistics followed by appropriate statistical procedures (Chi square and log linear models where data are categorical and ANOVAs where there are interval or ratio scales) and within and cross case qualitative analysis will be carried out to examine response patterns and group similarities and differences.

The MLQ offers its own scoring protocol. Its analysis for comparing purposes will include ANOVAs and MANOVAs, canonical and Pearson correlations, as well as multiple regression analysis.

(2) The second objective is to determine the relationship between effective academic leadership, effective teaching, and student perceptions of the way the departmental climate affects their learning. Interview data (chairs and faculty) and two validated instruments, administered to the faculty sample will comprise two data sets. The instruments are the Perceptions of Teaching Environment Inventory (PTEI) and Approach to Teaching Inventory (ATI) (Prosser and Trigwell, 1993). The former provides information on 5 sub-scales: control of teaching, appropriate class size, enabling student characteristics, departmental support for teaching, and appropriate academic workload. The latter determines the teaching approach on a continuum that ranges from transmission/teacher focused to conceptual change/student focused. The Course Perceptions Questionnaire (Entwistle and Ramsden, 1983), which will be administered to students in a randomly selected class of each participating faculty member, will be the other source of data. Analysis will be similar to what was described earlier.

(3) The third objective relates to chairs’ perceptions regarding essential elements for creating an environment that is conducive to teaching and learning, and significant institutional and external factors that either support or hinder their efforts in this regard. The primary source of data to address this question will be interviews conducted with the chairs. Easton’s (1971) framework will guide the coding and analysis of interview data, field notes generated during observation data, and university documents concerning teaching and learning. Descriptive statistical analysis and within and cross case qualitative analysis will be carried out to examine response pattern similarities and differences between type of university and discipline.

(4) The fourth objective relates to faculty perceptions of essential elements of an environment that is conducive to teaching and learning and the institutional and external factors they perceive to be significant in supporting or hindering their effort to optimize their teaching. Source of data to address this question will be the interviews with faculty and their responses to the three questionnaires (MLQ, PTEI, and ATI). Analyses will be the same as what was described above. The coding schemes derived from activity theory and Easton’s (1971) framework and subsequent within and cross case qualitative analyses will be most relevant for addressing this question.

(5) The final objective relates to  perceived training needs of department chairs for more effective academic leadership in general and for promoting a climate conducive to teaching and learning, in particular. Interview data with the chairs of the 12 departments will be the primary source of data for this question and descriptive statistics will be used for treating this data set.

Communication of results

Higher education refereed journals and conferences organized by national and international professional organizations will be the main venues for disseminating results. Contacts developed with other teaching development centres and through the Canadian Society for the Study of Higher Education will also be used to disseminate findings. Finally, ongoing collaboration with the European Commission and The World Bank will provide the applicant, as they have in the past (Saroyan, 2001, February; 2002, May, June; 2002; 2003, February; 2004, April) with the context to engage policy makers and academics in the very important discussion on academic leadership for improving university teaching and learning.

3. LIST OF REFERENCES

Arcuri, N. (2002). Faculty and chair perspectives on leadership and its impact on departmental outcomes. Unpublished master’s thesis, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.

Arcuri, N., & Saroyan, A. (2003, August). Perceptions of leadership style and departmental outcomes. Poster presented at the European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction, Padova, Italy.

Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) (2001). AGB statement on institutional governance and governing in the public trust: External influences on colleges and universities. Washington, DC.: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.

Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. (2002). Trends in higher education. Ottawa, ON: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.

Astin, A. W. (1998). The changing American college student. Thirty-year trends, 1966-1996. The Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 115-135.

Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.

Bass, B. (1997). Does the transactional - transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130-139.

Bass, B., and Avolio, B. (1995). The multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.

Bess, J. (Ed.). (2000). Teaching alone/teaching together. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Birnbaum, R. (2004). The end of shared governance: Looking ahead or looking back. In W. Tierney & V. Lechuga (Vol. Eds.), New Directions for Higher Education: Vol. 127. Restructuring shared governance in higher education (pp. 5-22). Published online: Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Blackburn, R. T., and Lawrence, J. H. (1995). Faculty at work. Baltimore, NJ: Johns Hopkins University.

Bogdon, R. & Biklin, S. (1992). Qualitative research for education (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Boyer, E. L., Altbach, P. G., and Whitelaw, M. J. (1994). The academic profession: An international perspective. Princeton: NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.

Carroll, J. & Gmelch, W. (1994). Department chair's perceptions of the relative importance of their duties. Journal for Higher Education Management, 10(1), 49-63.

Clark, B. R. (1996). Substantive growth and innovative organization: New categories for higher education research. Higher Education, 32, 417-430.

Council of Ministers of Education (1999). Report of the Pan-Canadian education indicators program. Ottawa, CA: Statistics Canada.

Cresswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Easton, D. (1971). A framework for political analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Enders, J., & Teichler, U. (1997). A victim of their own success? Employment and working conditions of academic staff in comparative perspectives. Higher Education, 34(3), 347-372.

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Helsinki, Finland.

Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.

Everett, J. E., & Entrekin, L. (1994). Changing attitudes of Australian academics. Higher Education, 27(2), 203-227.

Gmelch, W. H., & Miskin, V. D. (1995). Chairing an academic department (Vol. 15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gmelch, W. H., and Wolverton, M. (2002, April). An investigation of dean leadership. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Green, M. F. (1990). Why good teaching needs active leadership. In P. Seldin (Ed.), How administrators can improve teaching (pp. 45-63). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times. London, UK: Cassell.

Hewitt, J., Scardamalia, M., & Webb, J. (1999, March). What is activity theory? Martin Ryder. Retrieved August 2000 from: http://www.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/act_dff.html.

Jones, D. & Holdaway, E. (1995). Expectations held for department heads in postsecondary institutions. Alberta Journal Educational Research, 41(2),188-212.

Kekäle, J. (1999). Preferred patterns of academic leadership in differential disciplinary (sub)cultures. Higher Education, 37, 217-238.

Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Colleges (1996). Taking charge of change: Renewing the promise of state and land-grant universities. Washington, D.C.: National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges.

Kezar. A. (2004). What is more important to effective governance: Relationships, trust, and leadership or structures and formal processes? In W. Tierney & V. Lechuga (Vol. Eds.), New Directions for Higher Education: Vol. 127. Restructuring shared governance in higher education (pp. 35-46). Published online: Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Knight, P. (1998). Professional obsolescence and continuing professional development in higher education. Innovations in Education and Training International, 35(3), 248-256.

Knight, P. T., & Trowler, P. R. (2000). Department-level cultures and the improvement of learning and teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 69-83.

Knight, P., & Trowler, P. (2001). Departments and leadership in higher education. Buckingham, UK: Open University.

Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching. London: Routledge.

Lucas, A. F. (1990). The department chair as change agent. In P. Seldin (Ed.), How administrators can improve teaching (pp. 63-88.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lucas, A. (2000). Leading academic change: Essential roles for department chairs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mallon, W. (2004). Disjointed governance in university centers and institutes. In W. Tierney & V. Lechuga (Vol. Eds.), New Directions for Higher Education: Vol. 127. Restructuring shared governance in higher education (61-74). Published online: Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 

Martin, E. (1999). Changing academic work: Developing the learning university. Buckingham, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Martin, E., Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Ramsden, P. (2003). Variations in the experience of leadership in teaching in higher education. Studies in higher education, 28(3), 247-259.

McGill University MEQ Agreement (2000, December). Retrieved September 2003 from: http://www.mcgill.ca/public-relations/documents.

McNay, I. (1995). From the collegial academy to corporate enterprise: The changing cultures of universities. In T. Schuller (Ed.), The changing university? Buckingham, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Pope, M. (2004). A conceptual framework of faculty trust and participation in governance. In W. Tierney & V. Lechuga (Vol. Eds.), New Directions for Higher Education: Vol. 127. Restructuring shared governance in higher education  (pp. 75-84). Published online: Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1993). Development of an approach to teaching questionnaire. Research and Development in Higher Education, 15, 468-473.

Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.

Ramsden, P. (1998a). Learning to lead in higher education. London: Routledge.

Ramsden, P. (1998b). Managing the effective university. Higher Education Research and Development, 17(3), 347-370.

Rice, R. E., & Austin, A. (1990). Organizational impacts on faculty morale and motivation to teach. In P. Seldin (Ed.), How administrators can improve teaching (pp. 23-42.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: Praeger.

Sackmann, S. (Ed.) (1997). Cultural complexity in organizations. London: Sage.

Saroyan, A. (2000). Addressing the needs of large groups: The lecturer. In J. Bess (Ed.), Teaching alone/ teaching together: Transforming the structure of teams for teaching (pp. 87-107). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Saroyan, A. (2001, February). Accreditation and accountability. Invited speaker in seminar organized by the World Bank Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Saroyan, A. (2002, May). Higher education in the Middle East and North Africa: Challenges and opportunities for the 21st century. Invited speaker and discussant in conference organized by the World Bank and the World Bank Institute, Paris, FR.

Saroyan, A. (2002, June). Higher Education: Strategic Choices for tertiary education reform. Discussant in conference organized by The World Bank and the World Bank Institute, Sèvres, FR.

Saroyan, A. (2002). Academic leadership: A solution to address challenges facing universities. (Policy paper prepared for the European Commission). Brussels, BE: Author.

Saroyan, A. (2003, February). Pedagogical innovations for improvement and change. Paper presented at the Ministerial Conference on Tertiary Education Reform, organized by The World Bank Institute, Bangalore, India.

Saroyan, A. (2004, April). Higher education and research. Invited paper presented at the Europe of Knowledge 2020 Conference, organized by the European Commission, Liège, Belgium.

Saroyan, A., & Amundsen, C. (Eds.) (2004). Rethinking teaching in higher education. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Saroyan, A., & Amundsen, C. (2001). Evaluating university teaching: Time to take stock. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education ,26, 4, 337-349.

Saroyan, A., & Arcuri, N. (2002, July). Academic leadership as perceived by chairs and faculty. Paper accepted for presentation at the Improving University Teaching and Learning, Vilnius, Lithuania.

Saroyan, A., & Arcuri, N. (2003, April). Academic leadership and the effective teaching and learning environment. Paper accepted for presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Saroyan, A., & Jazvac, M. (2003). Teaching in higher education: International initiatives promoting quality and value. In F. Salili and R. Hoosain (Eds.), Research in teaching, learning, and student motivation in multicultural contexts: Vol. 3, Multicultural education and international perspectives (pp. 223-241). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Saroyan, A., Amundsen, C., McAlpine, L., Weston, C., Winer, L., Cowan, S., & Gandell, T. (2004). The course design and teaching workshop. In A. Saroyan and C. Amundsen (Eds.), Rethinking teaching in higher education (pp. 3-14). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Saroyan, A., Weston, C., McAlpine, L. & Cowan, S. (2004). The final step: The evaluation of teaching. In A. Saroyan and C. Amundsen (Eds.), Rethinking teaching in higher education (115-130). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Seltzer, J., and Bass, B. (1990). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. Journal of Management, 6, 693-703.

Tashakori, A., and Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Task Force on Higher Education and Society (2000). Higher education in developing countries: Peril and promise. Washington, D.C.: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.

The World Bank (2002). Constructing knowledge societies: New challenges for tertiary education. Washington, D.C.: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.

Trowler, P. R., & Knight, P. (1999). Organizational socialization and induction in universities. Higher Education, 37(2), 177-195.

Tudiver, N. (1999). Universities for sale: Resisting corporate control over Canadian Higher Education. Toronto, ON: James Lorimer and Company, Ltd.

Wolverton, M., & Gmelch, W. (1999). Stress in academic leadership: U.S. and Australian department chairs/heads. Review of Higher Education, 22(2), 165-185.

Wolverton, M., & Gmelch, W. (2002). College deans: Leading from within. Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Onyx.

Yin, R. (1993). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.