ABSTRACT Boards of trustees are vital in safeguarding institutional autonomy and ensuring educational quality for an informed American citizenry. Their ability to do so is increasingly impacted by three major changes: the 2010 Supreme Court decision on Citizens United defining corporations as having citizens’ rights to “free speech”, the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the Capitol, and the November 6, 2024 federal election. These entwine to place American democracy and higher education at an inflection point. Higher education's future will be shaped by the interplay of new power structure representatives with citizen trusteeship, the actions of governing boards and higher education chief executives. This chapter, using social influence/power bases theory analyzes citizen‐trusteeship's mission, roles, and future.
ABSTRACT Questions and issues surrounding US higher education governance have long been examined, but the extensive range of applicable questions and broad disciplinary foundations complicate the research that constitute this area. Given heightened critiques of how higher education operates in the country, this volume presents a variety of studies examining this critical area while also offering opportunities for future research and insights for practitioners and policymakers. This introduction provides an overview of the importance of this volume as well as highlights the contributing articles.
ABSTRACT A growing body of research links student sense of belonging to important educational outcomes including retention, persistence, graduation, and well‐being. Conventional approaches apply a one‐time intervention but may not effectively achieve an enduring belongingness. Samura reveals the importance of understanding belonging as more of an ongoing process that takes sustained effort, resources, and shared responsibility by organizations and institutions, not just individuals. Using multiple measures of belonging including factors from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and the Healthy Minds Survey , the Division of Student Affairs at Mississippi State University found consistency among these measures with up to 30% of MSU students describing a lack of sense of belonging. Additionally, through the implementation of a campus‐wide climate survey in Fall 2022, approximately 20% of student respondents indicated they had seriously considered leaving Mississippi State–48% of them identified lack of sense of belonging as the most significant reason for considering departure from the university. With much room for improvement as it related to our students’ sense of belonging, departments in the Division of Student Affairs set out to develop and implement ‘sense of belonging’ strategies. One of those strategies are shared here. In Fall 2023, the Division of Student Affairs was awarded an internal grant from the Division of Access, Opportunity and Success to address sense of belonging. Because previous evidence had illustrated a higher rate of sense of belonging in our pre‐college program participants when compared to non‐participants, the decision was made to focus the grant on a strategy associated with first‐time college students who had not participated in a pre‐college program. Made up of approximately 1550 students, this population of non‐pre‐college participants accounted for almost half the population of first‐time college students‐ a sizeable population with a potentially high percentage of students who lacked a sense of belonging. Their successful engagement potentially could lead to some very positive outcomes. Program strategies designed to attract the 1550 first‐time college and transfer students were facilitated by multiple departments across the Division of Student Affairs including our Center for Student Activities, Fraternity and Sorority Life, Student Leadership and Community Engagement, and the Office of Survivor Support. Students were invited to attend a “Find Your People” resource session including a one‐on‐one consultation with professional staff members and seasoned student leaders. The goal of these consultations was to learn about the interests of the participating students, connecting them to specific organizations and activities they were curious to explore. Additional campus‐wide programming branded “Find Your People” helped link students to organizations and activities of interest to them. The “Find Your People” campaign invited all MSU departments and student organizations to plan events or programs where the main goal was for students to meet other students. Departments were asked to use the #findyourpeople hashtag on social media and to register the event through our event management system allowing us to market these events directly to the students. All events were required to have a meet‐and‐greet component built in, no matter the size of the audience they were targeting. Using our campus‐based student organization management and attendance tracking system, we monitored the engagement of these students over the course of the semester to assess the scope of their connections to organizations and their attendance at campus programs. We then compared fall to spring semester return rates of pre‐college early start program participants and non‐participants to determine if there were statistically significant differences. Summary Belongingness efforts require a coordinated institutional response. While individual programs and activities can create a sense of belonging in the moment, a sustained sense of belonging is achieved through consistent engagement and communication. Data regarding belongingness is likely available on campus without developing and deploying new instruments. Working with institutional offices of research and effectiveness to use existing data sources can save time and resources. The involvement of current students and student organizations in belongingness work is important. Engaging student leaders in conversations and asking them to help come up with solutions is helpful. It also creates awareness that every student on campus is not having a similar experience of welcome and connection. More assessment is needed to fully understand the ways transfer students are or are not experiencing a sense of belonging and how their sense of belonging, or lack thereof, is impacting degree progress.
ABSTRACT This analysis explores power allocation within traditional shared governance models at colleges and universities, focusing on who makes which decisions according to classical theories as well as through evidence from real‐world leadership. Examining existing governance structures, roles, and responsibilities of various stakeholders, this study offers a new paradigm for sharing and distributing decision‐making power in higher education. The analysis will address how power distribution affects institutional efficiency, transparency, and academic freedom. Recommendations will be provided for enhancing collaborative decision‐making processes while maintaining a balance of power to ensure sustainable and inclusive governance. Summary Clear role definitions through the Shared Governance Power Allocation Framework (SGPAF) help reduce ambiguity and power imbalances, improving efficiency and trust in institutional decision‐making. Integrating the responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed (RACI) model with Bolman and Deal's four frames equips stakeholders to clarify responsibilities while considering structural, human, political, and cultural dimensions of governance. Institutions can adapt the SGPAF to their unique contexts, ensuring governance structures align with institutional culture, mission, and stakeholder expertise rather than rigid, outdated models. Practical steps, such as governance role audits, structured policies, stakeholder training, and feedback mechanisms, support sustainable, transparent, and inclusive governance practices.
ABSTRACT Sense of belonging is regularly cited as a barrier for student entry into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. This study of six years of data, collected from 160 undergraduate students who participated in the summer Green Teams Internship Program managed by the PSEG Institute for Sustainability Studies at Montclair State University (NJ), provides new strategies and structures for universities seeking to improve sense of belonging among students underrepresented in STEM fields. Quantitative and qualitative results from this mixed‐methods study (including the SURE survey of learning gains and focus group sessions) suggest that focus on teamwork and real‐world sustainability projects, in tandem with professional training and equitable support services, contribute to a sense of belonging in STEM, particularly among women and Hispanic students. Summary Wraparound support for summer interns (paid participation, holistic application review, food, housing, transportation, computers, Diversity Equity Inclusion and Belonging [DEIB] training, ethics training) can remove barriers to participation, improve access, and create communities of practice that increase student sense of belonging. Team internships create a welcoming and inclusive environment where peers and mentors learn from and support one another as they work toward resolving a common goal. Group work helps build confidence, develop tolerance for obstacles, and hone professional skills, particularly for students currently underrepresented in STEM fields. Sustainability, a transdisciplinary field that addresses complex social issues related to equity and justice, provides an inclusive pathway to STEM for students from a variety of majors and life experiences. Everyone belongs because each person shares valuable expertise in a particular discipline. Meaningful real‐world projects among universities and corporate and community partners build self‐confidence and bridge the gap between classroom learning and the professional world. They dispel stereotypes about who belongs in the STEM world, familiarize students with career opportunities in STEM, develop professional networks, and build social capital.
ABSTRACT Since their origin, college unions have played a significant role in fostering a sense of belonging and advancing the academic mission of colleges. However, published empirical studies remain scarce due to the focus of college union professionals’ work on both student development and facility operations. The role of the physical space of this unique facility along with the work of college union professionals supervising and developing student employees deserves more attention in the academic sphere. Through their respective dissertation studies, both authors offer an emic understanding of the college union as professionals working in this space to build community and cultivate student belonging and success. The first study was a qualitative study that employed a photo‐elicitation method using a conceptual framework that included campus ecology and sense of belonging theories to explore undergraduate student experiences of belongingness in the college union. The findings indicated both spatial and nonspatial elements of the college union influence students’ sense of belonging. The second study was a qualitative case study that employed a single bounded case study method undergirded by Bronfenbrenner's ecological theory to examine the sense of belonging of eight student employees who worked in a student union at a South Texas institution. Three main themes emerged: cultivating relationships to create a sense of belonging, cultivating development through student employment, and thriving in a supportive UC environment. Looking across the findings of these two studies illustrates the influence of the college union on enhancing students’ sense of belonging. Summary The college union is a powerful living learning community that fosters a sense of belonging among the campus community. Physical elements of the college union such as light, art, signage, and layout can enhance or diminish a students’ sense of belonging. College union student employees experience many benefits that contribute to their sense of belonging, including impactful relationships, professional development, and an environment that both challenges and supports their success. Through investing in the college union, colleges and universities can harness the college union's capacity for enhancing belonging, which improves student outcomes.
ABSTRACT Understanding collegiate norms and practices that promote sense of belonging among students who have traditionally been raced, gendered, stigmatized, and excluded as the ‘other’ in predominantly white institutions (PWI) is of paramount importance today as these efforts face increasingly antagonistic legislation, state policies, and governmental executive orders. This study describes specific norms and practices that an organization at one college campus—a performing arts center—took to actively create a sense of belonging for students at the university who identified as members of racially and ethnically minoritized groups. Study findings highlight changes made at the performing arts center that may be adopted by college administrators whether they are responsible for arts or other areas of programming. Recommendations feature the importance of inclusive pedagogy and student engagement. Summary College campus arts venues act as important sites to create structural belonging for members of racially minoritized groups when programming engages the geopolitics and the politics of difference with intersectional specificity, offering representations of diversity attentive to the complexities of social identities, especially for individuals with multiple minoritized identities. Structural belonging is fostered by efforts to expand “ownership” of arts programming beyond season ticket holders and donors to include racially minoritized students, whose voices can be centered as performers, artists, arts producers, and participants in shared governance through steering committees and advisory groups. The work of “curating” structural belonging includes instruction on how to negotiate interactions with cultural practices different from one's own and an invitation to do so. Careful attention to difference contributes to the connectedness and social well‐being of students. Art, rhythm, movement, music, voice, film, sculptural forms, and the resonance of time and place are subjects that need not be limited to arts education. Other curricular areas and student affairs programs can incorporate the arts through their teaching of history, place, society, self, physical dynamics, and interpersonal relationships.
Research examining state higher education governing agencies often focuses on their centralization of authority and structure as key differentiating factors (e.g., consolidated governing agencies vs. coordinating boards vs. planning/regulatory agencies). The utility of the resulting typology has been widely used and contributes extensively to the body of literature framing the collective understanding of these organizations. Despite studies questioning whether these groupings offer adequate nuance across state contexts, limited research has sought to compare similarly structured state higher education governing agencies. Accordingly, this chapter examines the similarities and differences in roles and structures across three state higher education governing agencies (Idaho, Nevada, and Utah), which are similarly classified as consolidated governing agencies and maintain some similar characteristics given their regional proximity, while providing additional insight into the operation of higher education in the US Mountain West.
Four‐year university policies and practices typically promote a two‐year normative graduation timeline for transfer students, but there is limited information about the ramifications of these expectations. High Impact Practices (HIPs), identified by Kuh (2008, Peer Review, 10(4): 30–31) , are evidence‐based practices that are associated with college student success. Given the high level of engagement and time associated with most HIPs (e.g. leadership in student organizations, internships, study abroad), there is a possible conflict for transfers engaging in HIPs, while still following a two‐year timeline. With many transfer students holding identities that are underrepresented in higher education, this reduced time conflict creates a possible systemic barrier for transfer student HIP engagement and the associated increase in student success. The current mixed methods study sought to understand how perceived graduation timelines influenced student experiences in the university and explored transfer student engagement in HIPs. Our single institution results suggest that the pressure of their compressed timeline was associated with transfer students choosing not to engage in HIPs, with very low rates of engagement in HIPs. Focus group interviews further highlight the pressure of the timeline influencing their active choice not to be involved in HIPs, or explore other academic disciplines, as they felt these opportunities were not feasible as a transfer if they wanted to graduate “on‐time.” Transfers also reported that they felt a lack of opportunity to build relationships with professors and other peers which was associated with a lower amount of research experience opportunities, both important aspects of success if choosing a graduate school pathway. While HIPs have been shown to have positive impacts on student success, our data suggest there are external factors constraining students ability to participate in these activities, centered around graduation timeline expectations. Transfer students’ concerns center around graduation timeline and financial concerns. Due to pressures of graduating within a two‐year timeline, transfer students emphasized that they purposely chose not to participate in certain high impact practices (HIPs). The pressure of time and getting involved in university life also manifested itself in building relationships, or rather, feelings of not having enough time to build relationships with faculty. Many students expressed that they would be interested in participating in these HIPs, if they had more time to do so. Common forms of HIPs students referred to were internships, research assistantships, and study abroad. To foster a truly transfer‐receptive culture, universities must reassess timelines and support structures. Normative two‐year graduation expectations can limit transfer student engagement. Practitioners should ensure opportunities are accessible and flexible, accounting for work, financial aid, and lived realities of transfer students from all backgrounds.
Considerations of governance in US higher education do not typically include the academic department. This results in a knowledge gap about the role of these central organizing units of academic work in the governance of colleges and universities. Through the concept of microfoundations, we explore concrete ways in which departmental governance matters, how it may be challenging, and strategies for fostering effective governance within academic departments. Faculty members are encouraged to examine their departmental infrastructure, including materials related to and procedures for departmental processes such as admissions, teaching excellence, and student grievances. These materials should be co‐constructed by members, aligned with policies and processes at higher organizational levels, and centrally maintained to ensure access, cross‐training, consistency, and continuous improvement. Leaders of academic departments should establish 1–2 priorities per semester or year, such as enrollment management or admissions, and invest in opportunities to recognize those department members who contribute to such initiatives. Establishing monthly department meetings with clear agendas, and clear ways for faculty members to add items to that agenda, can help create and reinforce a collegial culture; promote the free and open exchange of ideas and perspectives; and maintain a record of collective decision‐making, votes and outcomes, and priorities. Departmental leaders have opportunities to prepare and support faculty for effective engagement in shared governance within their academic departments and across career stages and appointment types, including development, socialization, mentorship, and leadership that helps members of the academy understand what shared governance is and why it matters, including within departmental contexts.
ABSTRACT In this study, we present the Transborder College Student Sense of Belonging Model , developed to understand how to create an inclusive and validating campus climate for Transborder students in postsecondary and higher education institutions along the US–México borderlands. The study centers the experiences of joy and unrest that shape the educational journeys of Transborder college students. Using photovoice pláticas , we examined student affairs practices and programming that we, as scholar‐activists, implemented to foster a sense of belonging for Transborder college students. Through collaborative autoethnographic analysis, we identified three key findings, visually represented in a model highlighting the themes of (1) Transborder Institutional Agents and Allies, (2) Basic Transborder Needs, and (3) Transborder Sociocultural Validation, all in relation to the theorized transborder students’ sense of Belonging. We conclude with practical recommendations for educational leaders and student affairs professionals serving Transfronterizx college students. Summary We define Transborder College Students’ Sense of Belonging as a balance between providing systems of support for Transfronterizx students' most critical needs, while at the same time validating their sociocultural identity as Transfronterizx people. In the efforts to create initiatives dedicated to Transborder College Students’ Sense of Belonging, it is paramount to include Transfronterizx students, faculty, and staff in the forefront leadership of these programs and events. To begin to address Transborder College Students’ Sense of Belonging, we need to start by providing systems of support for the fundamental challenges Transfronterizx students face, perpetuated by the geopolitical obstacles of the US–México border. Alongside basic Transborder needs, Transborder sociocultural validation is an important factor in creating Transborder College Students' Sense of Belonging.
Due to a series of fiscal challenges, struggling state university (SSU) (a public, research-engaged regional comprehensive university) faced a multi-million dollar structural deficit. University leadership proposed a variety of program cuts or eliminations that faced immediate backlash from faculty, students, and staff and a vote of no-confidence in the university leadership. In this single descriptive case study, we examine the factors that led to the fiscal crisis and how faculty and university leadership perceived their role and experience with shared governance during this time. This case offers valuable insights into the complexities of shared governance, particularly focused on budgetary and financial affairs during a fiscal crisis.
This chapter explores the intersection of higher education governance and social movements, focusing on how governance actors respond to equity-focused demands. Integrating scholarship from governance and social movement theory, we develop a framework to analyze the conditions under which actors can adopt or resist social change initiatives. To do so, we critically synthesize literature on tactics and frames employed by movements, the structural characteristics of governing bodies that influence responsiveness, and the distinction between symbolic gestures and substantive institutional changes. Our contributions highlight the critical role of governance actors in shaping campus responses to social justice movements and broader societal change.
Through the American Council on Education, the Carnegie Foundation introduced the Elective Classification of Leadership for Public Purpose (EC‐LPP) in 2022. Application for this formal recognition is a voluntary but rigorous process involving the gathering and presentation of a variety of evidence of institutional indicators, concluding with a thorough third‐party review and status decision. The designation was initially piloted in partnership with 13 institutions, with 9 founding institutions successfully completing the process in 2021; however, no published work to date was available to provide guidance or insight for the next application round (American Council on Education, 2023). The purpose of this article was to describe the process employed at a Carnegie Special Focus Institution whereby an interdisciplinary team of stakeholders was charged to create, convene, and deploy the necessary processes and information in order to make an application for the 2024 cycle. Given the relative newness of the designation and the interest in the EC‐LPP designation by a variety of institutions across the country, it was anticipated that the process employed and lessons learned locally would be beneficial for other individuals and/or institutions considering future application(s). Collaborative Framework for EC‐LPP Application: The paper outlines a 6‐week strategic process involving interdepartmental collaboration, emphasizing the importance of leadership, teamwork, and stakeholder engagement for institutions pursuing the Carnegie Elective Classification for Leadership for Public Purpose (EC‐LPP). Challenges in Organizational Structure: The manuscript highlights the complexities posed by decentralized structures, such as autonomous academic units, which can hinder cohesive data collection and narrative alignment, underscoring the need for institution‐wide coordination. Strategic Insights for Leadership Programs: The authors identify gaps in learner engagement in leadership initiatives and suggest expanding leadership frameworks to include student‐facing programs, ensuring institutional alignment with EC‐LPP's public purpose objectives. Lessons from the Feedback Process: Though the initial application was unsuccessful, the review panel's feedback provided actionable insights for improving future submissions, such as articulating leadership initiatives’ impact more broadly and refining assessment methods to demonstrate institutional commitment to leadership development.
What are the chances of a Deaf and Person of Color becoming a university or college professor? Extremely slim. This case study focuses on a multiply-oppressed group of Deaf and People of Color who work in higher education. They will be referred to as Deaf Faculty of Color (DFOC). The focus will be on their experiences in the settings of “predominantly white, hearing-serving institutions” (PWHI), covering both 4-year universities and 2-year community colleges only. Drawing from a previously collected (counter)narratives from 15 DFOC across the nation, their testimonies illuminate various forms of oppressions, including through audism, linguicism, and racism. Theoretically, the framework of this paper focuses on multiple oppressive experiences of intersectional Deaf people, upholding the values of critical studies about Deaf People of Color. In turn, those frameworks from Critical Deaf Studies will be reinforced by several principles of Disability Justice, merging Critical Disability scholarship with Deaf academia.
How do queer disabled students create connections and dream about accessible futures? With our current commitment to surveillance, queer disabled college students find ways to connect without administrative intervention and create ways to resist ableist norms. This manuscript will explore how college students who identify as queer, mad, mentally ill, neurodivergent, and/or disabled (QMMIND) discover liberatory spaces within hostile environments. The setting for the case study is a transfer student seminar; as the instructor, you will reflect on how Disability Justice principles can aid you in support of QMMIND college students. Through subtle and covert outreach, QMMIND students utilize “gaydar” and “MMIND-dar” to seek connection while avoiding stigmatized reactions from peers and administrators. The Disability Justice principles of intersectionality, interdependency, recognizing wholeness, cross-identity, and cross-disability solidarity will be used to deepen understanding of QMMIND connection and care as tools of resistance and tools of hope.
This paper explores the experiences of Black, Deaf, and disabled students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) through the lens of Disability Justice. It examines the historical and ongoing intersections of racism and ableism, highlighting the contributions of Black disabled activists and the need for affirming, inclusive spaces within Black educational institutions. A case study of “Keisha,” a fictional Black, Deaf, disabled student, illustrates systemic challenges and opportunities for change. Through reflection and application of Disability Justice principles, crip time, and Black time, the authors offer insights and recommendations for advancing equity, inclusion, and justice for individuals with disabilities in Black higher education and beyond.
This inquiry centers the emerging community of Black women graduate students with disabilities in higher education. The exploration of their academic and cultural experiences upends a typically male and White research trend, regarding disability in higher education. Here I explore the complex experiences of a dynamic Black woman graduate student, her academic and non-academic life, and what can be done differently to support multiply marginalized students. Using her experience, with a focus on Disability Justice Principles, I offer solutions for higher education and student affairs professionals engaging with neurodivergent graduate students.
In this chapter we explore the racialized dynamics embedded in disability accommodation practices within higher education. We draw on DisCrit, whiteness as property, and research on how racial identity influences experiences of apparentness of disability in educational settings. Institutional processes for approving accommodations often reflect and reinforce structural racism, disproportionately privileging white students while marginalizing students of color with disabilities. Through an intersectional lens, we challenge the idea that accommodation policies and processes are race neutral and we advocate for more equitable practices. Readers are introduced to foundational disability rights legislation in education and guided to critically assess how policies and procedures may reproduce systemic inequities. By engaging with data and case-based analysis, the chapter empowers practitioners, educators, and administrators to make informed decisions that actively support the disability community. We call for a recognition of the ways many widely used practices in higher education compound existing access issues and fail to account for the systemic intersection of racism and ableism.
There is a growing phenomenon within academia wherein the rhetoric of disability culture and disability justice is employed in programming and committee work that aims to address inaccessibility and ableism. In this article, we think intentionally about the institutional lives of disability culture and disability justice in higher education. We provide a hypothetical case of a college convening a “disability justice” committee in response to protests from disabled students of color about the lack of culturally relevant practices within disability services and disability culture spaces on campus. We offer context, discussion questions, and implications to help readers consider the possibilities and tensions involved in “doing” disability justice and disability cultural work in postsecondary contexts. Throughout, we provide examples, resources, and references to help readers understand the histories of both terms and how they might inform anti-ableist committees and/or initiatives within a college setting. Specifically, we discuss how disability justice can help us understand the failures of traditional rights-based spaces to create access for disabled people of color, and how the disability justice principle, “Leadership of Those Most Impacted,” can be integrated into initiative work to co-create cultures of access that make this work sustainable.
