Higher Education: University Governance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The governance of tertiary (higher, postsecondary) education refers to the means by which institutions are formally organized and managed. Simply, university governace is the way in which universities are operated. Governing structures for higher education are highly differentiated throughout the world. Noted by Altbach (2005: 16-18) the different models for higher education throughout the world nonetheless do share a common heritage. Coldrake, Stedman, and Little (2003: 5) also discuss the shared traditions and history of higher education worldwide. The concept of governance for postsecondary education generally refers to the internal structure, organization and management of autonomous institutions. Internationally, tertiary education includes private not-for-profit, private for-profit, and public institutions governed by various structures of management. The organization of internal governance is generally composed of a governing board (board of regents, board of directors), the university president (executive head, CEO) with a team of administrative chancellors and staff, faculty senates, academic deans, department chairs, and usually some form of organization for student representation. Management structures themselves become increasingly complex to establish a means of managing an equally complex system of intraorganizational, interorganizational and governmental relationships.
As universities have become increasingly interdependent with external forces, independent structures are accountable to external organizational relationships such as local and federal governments, equally in managing business and corporate relationships. "Governance" in this sense is discussed by Kezar and Eckel (2004: 371-398), whom define it at the macro-level of policy decisionmaking. Many federal, state and local governments have established coordinating and governing boards as both a buffer and to coordinate between state legislation and institutional governance. Kezar and Eckel (2004: 371-398) define governance as a multi-level concept including several different bodies and processes with different decision-making functions. With the complexity of internal structures, the external relationships between institutions and official local and national governments is evidently equally differentiated given the different forms of government in the international system (making the concept of governance for higher education pluralistic in its broadest sense and usage). External governance depends much on the relationship between institutions, government policy, and any other formal or informal organizational obligations. Generally, institutions are recognized as autonomous actors with varying degrees of interdependence with, and legislated commitments to the external governance of local and national government.
[edit] Issues in University Governance
Due to the influences of public sector reforms, several authors (Kezar and Eckel 2004; Lapworth 2004; Middlehurst 2004) point out that next to the concept of shared and participative governance a new form of governance has emerged, i.e. the notion of corporate governance (of universities) that has increasingly become a more dominant approach to tertiary governance. According to Lapworth (2004: 299-314), the rise of the notion of corporate governance and the decline of the shared or consensual governance can be seen to be a result of the decline in academic participation, growing tendency towards managerialism and the new environment where the universities are operating.
The American Association of University Professors was the first organization to formulate an official philosophy on the governance of higher education based on principles of democratic values and participation (which, in this sense, correlates with the Yale Report of 1828, discussed by Brubacher (1982: 5) as the “first attempt at a formally stated philosophy of education” for universities, emphasizing at that time that Enlightenment curriculums following the establishment of democratic constitutional governance should not be replaced with retrogression to religious curriculums). While institutions internationally do not directly share the same geneology with the idea of shared, democratic governance, Kezar and Eckel (2004: 371-398) point out the substance of governance has changed during the last decades with more emphasis put on high stake issues and more incremental decisions made in a less collegial mode – the reasons for this stem from trends that have devalued the notion of participation and also from the external pressures for more accountability and demands for quicker decision-making (that sometimes is achieved through bureaucracy).
Dearlove (1997: 56-75) emphasises that, under the conditions of mass higher education, no university can avoid the need for some sort of bureaucratic management and organisation, though this does not mean that the importance of informal discipline and profession based authority (internal governance of universities) can totally be ignored. Lapworth (2004: 299-314) advocates what the author believes is a more flexible model of university governance to benefit both from the positive aspects of corporate and collegial approaches. The issues in university governance discussed by these literatures are given critical analysis by Coldrake, Stedman, and Little (2003) through a comparative study of current trends in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, with poigniant insight into the different models of governance for the management of higher education. Critical of the currents of change toward “corporate governance,” the authors cite reference to literature that similarly call for “re-balancing” of university governance, maintaining that such “a rebalancing would amount to a clarification of shared governance” (Coldrake, Stedman, and Little 2003: 14). With debates over the recent trends, university organizations and governing associations have set forth policy statements on the governance of higher education.
[edit] Statements from Educational Organizations
[edit] American Association of University Professors (AAUP): Statement on Government
The American Association of University Professors published its first "Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities" in 1920, “emphasizing the importance of faculty involvement in personnel decisions, selection of administrators, preparation of the budget, and determination of educational policies. Refinements to the statement were introduced in subsequent years, culminating in the 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities” (American Association of University Professors 1966). The document does not provide for a “blueprint” to the governance of higher education. Nor was the purpose of the statement to provide principles for relations with industry and government (though it establishes direction on “the correction of existing weaknesses”). Rather, the statement aimed to establish a shared vision for the internal governance of institutions. Student involvement is not addressed in detail. The statement concerns general education policy and internal operations with an overview of the formal roles for governing structures in the organization and management of higher education. In terms of process and structure, the meaning with the end result of the statement is an organizational philosophy for shared governance in higher education.
[edit] National Education Association (NEA): Faculty Governance in Higher Education
First published in 1987, the NEA policy statement on faculty governance in higher education is a straightforward statement on the organization’s policy for shared governance in higher education. The policy states that faculty involvement in governance is critical. The organization believes faculty should advise administration in developing curriculum and methods of instruction. Faculty is responsible for establishing degree requirements, takes primary responsibility in tenure appointments and the award of promotion, sabbatical, research support, etc. Through collective bargaining, the statement believes “administration and the governing boards of colleges and universities should accept the faculty's recommendations” (National Education Association 1987). The statement also maintains that faculty should be involved in salary decisions, evaluating administrators, and budgeting. The policy concludes asserting:
State and federal government and external agencies should refrain from intervening in the internal governance of institutions of higher education when they are functioning in accordance with state and federal law. Government should recognize that conserving the autonomy of these institutions is essential to protecting academic freedom, the advance of knowledge, and the pursuit of truth (NEA 1987).
The policy statement references the AAUP's "1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities." The basic principles evidently draw from the AAUP statement itself. Though the NEA makes no mention of students anywhere in the policy, the NEA like the AAUP statement does reflect the basic ideas and premise for the “responsibility primarily of the faculty (university) to determine the appropriate curriculum and procedures of student instruction” (AAUP 1966). In this respect, the AAUP also notes considerations should be made for publicly supported institutions. Unlike the NEA, the AAUP elaborates more on the role of governing structures, including the role of the president to ensure “sound academic practices,” as the NEA suggests faculty rights to appeal flawed and improper procedures. In summation, where the AAUP discusses the organizational structure in more detail, touching on student involvement and the university president's role in governance, the NEA statement differs by detailing primarily faculty rights and responsibilities.
[edit] Higher Education Policy: Statement of Community College Governance
Noting the 1987 publication of "Policy Statement on Higher Education Faculty Governance," in 1989 the NEA put forward a "Policy Statement on Higher Education Policy for Community College Governance." The NEA elaborates upon policies specifically adopted for community college governance, junior and technical colleges. The statement is based on the same principles of shared governance, believing cooperative decision-making and collective bargaining should be based on “collegial” relationships. Where statements from the NEA and the AAUP advocate the critical importance of faculty involvement in governance, the community college statement notes that many do not exercise the right when available and that faculty “at public institutions are not yet permitted to bargain collectively in many states” (NEA 1989). The policy then expands upon the need for faculty participation in the governance.
The community college statement also elaborates upon structure and procedure, including the “ad hoc” and standing committees as discussed in the AAUP policy statement. Where the AAUP statement discusses policy on students and their academic rights, the NEA (1989) does conclude on student involvement in governance with their community college statement. The "Policy Statement of Community College Governance" correlates based upon the same underlying principles of the AAUP and NEA statement on faculty governance.
[edit] American Federation of Teachers (AFT): Statement on Shared Governance
In 2002, the Higher Education Program and Policy Council of the American Federation of Teachers also published a statement on shared governance. The policy statement is a response to the fact that many governing boards have adopted the "mantra of business” (American Federation of Teachers 2002). The AFT (2002: 5) iterates purpose by which higher education achieves democratic organizational processes between administration and faculty, believing shared governance is under attack in six ways: (1) The outsourcing of instruction, particularly to learning technologies; (2) Redirecting teaching to part time and temporary faculty; (3) Re-orienting curriculum to business oriented coursework; (4) The buying and selling of courseware for commercial exploitation; (5) For profit teaching and research; (6) Through the formation of a “commercial consortia with other universities and private investors."
Accordingly, six principles affirm standards of academic freedom, faculty participation in standards and curriculum, and faculty decisions on academic personnel as the AAUP first established them. The statement maintains that participation in shared governance should be extended, acknowledging that the way in which participation is expanded will vary from institution to institution, “but each group whose work contributes to the academic enterprise should be involved in a manner appropriate to institutional functions and responsibility” (AFT 2002: 8). The policy addresses unions and faculty senates as they contribute to the maintenance of shared governance in institutions as well as the role of accrediting agencies to support standards of governance. In conclusion, the AFT emphasizes affirmation of the goals, objectives and purpose for shared governance in higher education.
[edit] Statements from Governance Associations
[edit] Association of Governing Boards (AGB): Statement on Institutional Governance
With recent debates and trends in the governance of institutions of higher education in the United States, the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) has put forward a statement on governance. The statement was published with a correlating statement, “Governing in the Public Trust: External Influences on Colleges and Universities.” In the first statement on governance, the advisiory organization on institutional governance discusses facts and perceptions concerning governance, including specific facts related to institutional trends and perceptions that “internal governance arrangements have become so cumbersome that timely decisions are difficult to make” (AGB 2001: 3). The AGB statement then defines specific principles upon which governing boards are to operate and the responsibilities of a governing board to the institution. The principles include specific issues such as responsibility to the academic integrity and financial health of an institution as well as conducting affairs “in a manner that exemplifies the behavior it expects from other participants in institutional governance” (AGB 2001: 5). From which, in acknowleging the changing nature of stakeholder interests in the governance of institutions, the AGB establishes standards of good practice.
From the standards – including (1) the board’s relationship with faculty decisionmaking, (2) the need to establish consultive decisionmaking, (3) serving as a window for the institution to external stakeholders, (4) defining practices of communication with the internal management of institutions, (5) and the role of union leadership in faculty governance – the statement addresses the nature of institutional relationships with external stakeholders. The statement emphasizes that the “responsibilities of these officials and bodies vary widely among the states, but governing boards should serve as important buffers between the college or university and political structures, partisan politics, and pressures of state government” (AGB 2001: 10). The AGB notes the importance of, and issues with alumni and other organizations in institional governance, concluding and then offering questions to consider.
[edit] AGB Statement on Governing in the Public Trust
The organization then provides statement on governing in the public trust, iterating many of the same points concerning recent external pressures. The statement defines the historic role and rationale behind the principles of citizen governance upon which governing boards operate. Again, addressing the nature of external influences in university governance, the AGB defines specific principles in maintaining accountability and independence in the public trust, including (1) the primacy of the board over individual members, (2) the importance of institutional missions, (3) respecting the board as both buffer and bridge, (4) exhibiting exemplary public behavior, and (4) keeping academic freedom central (AGB 2001: 23-26). In conclusion, the statement asks for the reaffimation of a commitment to citizen governance to maintain the balanced and independent governance of institutions.
[edit] Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee (AVCC): Statement on University Governance
In October 2003, the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee (AVCC), the council of Australia’s university presidents, put forward a “Chancellors and AVCC statement on university governance." Given national and institutional debates over the governance of tertiary education, the statement acknowledges the opportunities with developments in management and governing structures, noting the “business model” that has been advanced alongside the traditional models of higher education in Australia. With reference to additional “third models” in introducing a discussion of the existing frameworks for the governance of tertiary education, the statement defines the legal autonomy of institutions and independence of internal stakeholders. With the diversity of governing structures and believing a balance is necessary between internal and external forces, the governing organization maintains: “No single way to achieve an effective governance arrangement” (AVCC 2003: 3) is possible. In recognizing the differentiation of institutional structures and frames of reference, the statement offers operational good practices as generic principles upon which the AVCC defines recommendations based on national protocols for the success of Australian public higher education.
The recommendations address principles by which governing structures, specifically internal governing boards, operate and can improve institutional governance for the Commonwealth of Australia. External relations, the role of faculty and students in governance are not approached except inasmuch as institutional board members should be appointed with their selection based on contributions “to the effective working of the governing body by having needed skills, knowledge and experience, an appreciation of the values of a university and its core activities of teaching and research, its independence and academic freedom and the capacity to appreciate the university’s external community needs from that university” (AVCC 2003: 6). The committee define the responsibilities of university governance, including legal obligations and legislative requirements for the internal governing boards of Australian institutions. From which, governing bodies “should make available a programme of induction and professional development . . . to ensure that all members are aware of the nature of their duties and responsibilities” (AVCC 2003: 6). The report concludes with further protocol for annual reports, including report of risk management and steps to ensure good governance.
[edit] Additional Perspectives
[edit] The Case of South Africa
South Africa faces issues related to the governance of their tertiary system of higher education that correlate with international trends. Hall and Symes (2005) discuss the state of South African higher education in the first decade of the country’s constitutional democracy at a time where the country has faced not only democratic transition but also the end of Apartheid racial segregation. With the South African transition to democracy in 1994, the national government and institutions of postsecondary learning envisioned the cooperative governance of higher education. For a developing country that faced “massive social exclusion” for the better part of a century – only to be challenged in 1970s and 1980s – Hall and Symes (2005: 205-206) note traditional models for governance in higher education, European and North American models of institutional autonomy are not entirely applicable to the South African context. The authors discuss the need for government “steering,” an idea originally envisioned in South Africa with the democratic transition, based upon a cooperative framework as a “conditional autonomy.” The goals and objectives for cooperative governance were thus established with the National Commission on Higher Education (NCHE) in 1994, detailed in its 1996 report.
The South African National Commission on Higher Education was meant to serve as a “buffer mechanism” between the national government and institutions to establish a system by which “autonomous higher education institutions would work in a range of partnerships with government and other stakeholders,” with the involvement of state supervision and consultation (Hall & Symes 2005: 200, 204, 210). Within the initial years of the democratic transition and the end of the Apartheid, Hall and Symes (2005) note that the national government assumed a much stronger regulatory and bureaucratic control of South African postsecondary institutions than what had been originally expected. From the appointments to the National Commission on Higher Education, the 1997 Higher Education Act, and the 2001 National Plan for Higher Education, the national government has taken bureaucratic control of institutions, with direct command over curriculum, funding and regulation with “weak or non-existent traditions of academic freedom in individual institutions” (Hall and Symes 2005: 201-202).
Where the 1997 Higher Education Act and ministerial appointments specifically provided the framework by which the national government could assert control over the governing structures of postsecondary institutions, the 2001 Education Amendment Act and white paper specifically expressed the government’s motivations to take a strong position of power in the governance of higher education in South Africa. Whereby, the “period from the 1997 White Paper to the 2001 National Plan for Higher Education has seen a systematic tightening of state control and the erosion of both the procedural and substantive autonomy of individual institutions” (Hall and Symes 2005: 210). Furthermore, Hall and Symes (2005: 201-202) note that while the ten universities reserved for white students during the apartheid maintained substantial autonomy, other institutions such as technical schools and “branches of the racially defined government bureaucracy,” continued to be governed by tight government intervention. The authors do not reject the need for government “steering,” and cooperative governance with the national government for the developing country. Nonetheless, where the concept of conditional autonomy remained vague with its vision in 1996, the authors suggest that given the direction that the national government and NCHE have taken, there need be a rethinking of the relationship between institutions and the newly established democratic government.
[edit] European Higher Education
Institutions of tertiary higher education in Europe have been under reform, following the common goals and objectives to develop new models for institutional governance. Sporn (2003: 31) discusses the restructuring of higher education for EDUCAUSE as “notions of new public management” have accompanied them, which the author correlates to neoliberal economic models. The author directly relates these currents in the management of European higher education with the influence of U.S. models for approaching change in higher education. Changes in the United Kingdom’s system of higher education are exemplary of neoliberal economic models. Increased managerialism toward privatization and deregulation with a decrease in internal governance are common themes in the restructuring of UK higher education, which entails the “erosion of the power of unions and professionals and gains in the importance of managers and nonexecutive, nonelected directors (Sporn 2003: 32). In general, the new managerialism for European higher education involves four basic models:
- Efficiency in finances with stronger managerial controls and deregulation of the labor market, i.e. the Efficiency Drive.
- Downsizing and Decentralization, breaking up large institutions into smaller peripherary units with a small centralized managerial core and a split between public and private funding.
- Excellence, the In Search For Excellence Model, which focuses on a more human resource approach to institutional change with a mix of top-down and bottom-up organization
- Public Service, with the merging of both public and private managerial practices.
The European countries of Norway and Sweden are provided as additional examples of the new managerialism in tertiary education, noting that the countries do differ in their approaches to institutional change from that in the United Kingdom. These examples illustrate that the changes in the governance of European higher education “can be interpreted differently in varying contexts” (Sporn 2003: 33). In both countries, each have emphasized restructuring based on the in vogue international trends, undertaking differentiated reform approaches common to continental Europe. New organizational forms for governance and leadership with the diversification of higher education have included maintaining institutional autonomy, harmonizing institutional standards, and the expansion of higher education with objectives related to the market model. Emphasizing quality and leadership within higher education, restructuring by way of the key catchphrases such as accountability, changing governance also includes providing for objectives such as professional staff development.
Significant among these changes in the restructuring of European higher education is the establishment of governing and coordinating boards with new decision-making structures for collaboration in external and internal governance of higher education (as done in many states within the United States). Believing that there will be either a convergence or divergence between a strong administrative managerialism and faculty involvement in governance throughout Europe, the UK and U.S., the example of the system in Austria illustrates the potential for innovative approaches that grant autonomy to institutions with restructuring through an external board for governance. In conclusion, Sporn (2003: 41) emphasizes that while the new governing structures provide stronger leadership and management; institutions “should pay close attention to the role of faculty and shared governance” (Emphasis added).
[edit] Shared Governance and Jesuit Catholic Universities
Since the 1819 U.S. Supreme Court case Dartmouth College v. Woodward before the Yale Report of 1828 (where the former was catalyst from the later, each of which upheld the separation of church and state) private universities in the United States generally maintain remarkable legal and administrative autonomy from local, state, and federal government. Questions might be raised over the role of shared governance in private education. A significant topic for discussion in Conversations on Jesuit Higher Education, Quinn and Moore (1992-2004) support values of shared governance in Jesuit Universities. Quinn (30-31) notes the way in which Catholic colleges and universities adopted principles of shared governance throughout the 1960s. Moore (26-28) begins by noting that the concept of shared governance is often viewed as inefficient in the corporate world. The author believes that shared governance is not a cumbersome system of management, but necessary given the organizational dynamics and complexities of university systems.
By contrast, the author maintains that the corporate “one-size-fits-all” system could not effectively suit institutional needs. From which, the perspective then affirms the AAUP tradition of shared governance as a sound system of organization and management in higher education, “essential to the long term interests of colleges and universities if they wish to remain competitive and academically credible” (Moore 26-28). The way in which shared governance is realized in Catholic colleges and universities does vary from institution to institution. In Jesuit institutions, when serving the role of a board member an individual of the formal order provides guidance on the philosophy of Jesuit education while facilitating “the mutuality so essential for shared governance before the law and in reality,” (Quinn: 30-31) respecting Catholic traditions with a democratic spirit of institutional governance.
[edit] 2001 Kaplan Survey on Higher Education Governance
Sponsored by the AAUP and the American Conference of Academic Deans, the 2001 Survey of Higher Education Governance is a study done by Gabriel Kaplan, a doctoral student at Harvard University interested in replicating a study done by Committee T of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) thirty years ago. Available from the AAUP - (Contact-Info.) - are the general findings and the preliminary results from the survey. The general findings of the report detail the method with summary of the present state of shared governance. The findings include the state of the locus of authority and reforms as well as the analysis of the challenges facing Liberal Arts Colleges with the pressures of the current economic climate (Kaplan 2001). The preliminary results contain the raw data on the landscape of governance in higher education from a population of 1303 4-year institutions in the United States, with data compiled from both administrative structures and the faculty. The survey did not include participation from any population of students.
[edit] University Governance Statements
|
|
[edit] See also
- American Association of University Professors
- American Federation of Teachers
- Comparative education
- Educational leadership
- Higher education
- International education
- National Education Association
- Students' union
- University Organizations (annotated list)
[edit] Further Reading
- Butts, R.F. 1955. A Cultural History of Western Education; its social and intellectual foundations. New York: McGraw-Hill.
- Heller, D.E., (Ed.). 2001. The States and Public Higher Education Policy. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
- Kaplin, W.A. & Lee, B.A. 1995. The Law of Higher Education: A Comprehensive Guide to Legal Implications of Administrative Decision Making, (3rd Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.
- Mingle, J.R. & Epper, R.M. 1997. "State Coordination and Planning in an Age of Entrepreneurship." In Goodchild, Lovell, Hines, & Gill, (Eds.). Public Policy and Higher Education, Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.
- Rudolph, F. 1990 [1962]. The American College and University: A History. Athens and London: The university of Georgia Press.
- UNESCO. (2004). "Managerialism and Evaluation in Higher Education." UNESCO Forum Occasional Papers Series No. 7. Paris: Author. Available online [1].
[edit] References & External Links
- Altbach, G.P. 2005. "Patterns in Higher Education Development." In P.G. Altbach, R.O. Berdahl, and P.J. Gumport, (Eds.), American Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century: Social, Political, and Economic Challenges, (2nd ed.). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
- Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. 2001. "AGB Statement on Institutional Governance" and "Governing in the Public Trust: External Influences on Colleges and Universities." The Fundamentals. Board Basics. Washington, D.C.: Author.
- Australian VIce-Chancellors' Committee: the council of Australia's university presidents. 2003. "Chancellors and AVCC statement on university governance." Author.
- American Association of University Professors. 1966. “Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities.” Retrieved September 26, 2002, [2]http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/issuesed/governance/default.htm
- American Federation of Teachers. 2002. "Shared Governance in Colleges and Universities," Retrieved September 27, 2006, [3]http://www.aft.org/higher_ed/news/2002/shared_governance.htm
- Brubacher, J.S. 1982. On the Philosophy of Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
- Coaldrake, P., Stedman, L, and Little, P. 2003. "Issues in Australian University Governance." Brisbane: QUT.
- Dearlove, J. 1997. “The academic labour process: from collegiality and professionalism to managerialism and proletarianisation?” Higher Education Review, vol. 30, no. 1: 56-75.
- Hall, M & Symes, A. 2005. “South African higher education in the first decade of democracy: from cooperative governance to conditional autonomy.” Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 30, Issue 2, pp. 199-212.
- Kaplan, G. 2001. “Preliminary Results from the 2001 Survey on Higher Education Governance.” Sponsored by the American Association of University Professors and The American Conference of Academic Deans.
- Kezar, A., Eckel, P. D. 2004. “Meeting Today’s Governance Challenges.” The Journal of Higher Education: vol. 75, no. 4: 371-398.
- Lapworth, S. 2004. “Arresting Decline in Shared Governance: Towards a Flexible Model for Academic Participation.” Higher Education Quarterly, Vol. 58, No. 4: 299-314.
- Middlehurst, R. 2004. “Changing Internal Governance: A Discussion of Leadership Roles and Management Structures in UK Universities.” Higher Education Quarterly, Vol. 58, No. 4: 258-279.
- Moore, R., Jr. 1992-2004?. "In Shared Governance, What Role for the AAUP?" Conversations on Jesuit Higher Education, 28:26. [4]
- National Education Association. 1987. "NEA Policy Statements: Faculty Governance in Higher Education." Retrieved September 26, 2006, [5]http://www2.nea.org/he/policy6.html
- National Education Association. 1989. "NEA Policy Statements: Statement on Community College Governance." Retrieved September 26, 2006, [6]http://www2.nea.org/he/policy-cc.html
- Quinn, K.P., S.J. 1992-2004?. "Shared Governance: The Elusive Role of Jesuit as Trustee." Conversations on Jesuit Higher Education, 28:30. [7]
- Sporn, B. 2003. "Convergence of Divergence in International Higher Education Policy: Lessons from Europe." Publications from the Forum for the Future of Higher Education, Retrieved February 2007, [8]http://www.educause.edu/content.asp?page_id=666&ID=FFPFP0305&bhcp=1
