|
I. Describe the Dangerous Discussions
issues in the least inflammatory language and identify important
pre-requisites and conditions and the stakeholders.
Why bother - under what conditions? Who cares?
Overload, Shared Governance & Productive Assessment
New Paradoxes (and Paradigms?)
for Shared Governance in Higher Education
The challenge of rising and changing expectations,
increasing options and workload
What are the risks and benefits? How can we take
advantage of the latter and avoid the former?
Why bother?
Why is it important to deal with this issue?
Under what conditions is it important to deal
with this issue?
Under what conditions should this issue be
avoided?
Under what conditions are the benefits
associated with this issue likely to result? Are there any important
pre-requisites that must be in place?
Under what conditions are the risks associated
with this issue too likely to occur - so that this issue should not be pursued
or implemented?
Who cares? (Who
should be involved in considering this issue?
Because they will be influenced by it?
Because they are able to influence how it proceeds? Other?)
Back to Top of Page
|
II. Restate polarizing views or
questions in ways most likely to enable
stakeholders who are initially committed to apparently opposing views to engage
in civil, constructive discussion.
NON-PEJORATIVE VERSIONS OF
POLARIZING VIEWS
1. "Minimum Compliance"
Is there a constructive alternative for those faculty and others who look for
the absolute minimum they need to do to comply with accrediting organizations'
requirements? "Tell me what I have to do to get those guys off my back so I can
return to teaching the way I really know is right."
2. "This too shall pass."
Don't worry about assessment because no one will care in a few years. Shared
governance is a myth whose time has gone.
Back to Top of Page |
III. List desirable results
of participating in the Dangerous Discussions
activities for this issue.
1. Deflate the hype and defuse artificial disagreements
– restate the issue and challenge in more realistic and less inflammatory ways
2. More widespread use of assessment
activities that produce information that people actually use to make
improvements in teaching and related activities. Specific steps people can take
to improve shared governance within a college or university.
3. More realistic policies about incentives and disincentives for
faculty to develop and use surveys and for students to respond to them. More
realistic policies about which issues are appropriate for “shared governance”
and which are more appropriately handled by other means.
Back to Top of Page |
