Negotiating Technology in Faculty Collective Bargaining Agreements.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A Dissertation entitled Negotiating Technology in Faculty Collective Bargaining Agreements by Andrew J. Shella Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Higher Education Dr. Snejana Slantcheva-Durst, Committee Chair Dr. Gary Rhoades, Committee Member Dr. David Meabon, Committee Member Dr. Penny Poplin-Gosetti, Committee Member Dr. Amanda Bryant-Friedrich, Dean College of Graduate Studies The University of Toledo December 2017 Copyright 2017, Andrew J. Shella This document is copyrighted material. Under copyright law, no parts of this document may be produced without the expressed permission of the author. An Abstract of Negotiating Technology in Faculty Collective Bargaining Agreements By Andrew J. Shella Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Higher Education The University of Toledo December 2017 This study analyzed the ways the implementation of instructional technology proscribes higher-education faculty work as coded in faculty collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). This study replicates and extends the work on the production politics of teaching and technology completed by Rhoades (1998). Collective bargaining agreements were collected from the higher education contract analysis system database, state employee relations websites, and union websites. A close reading and content analysis of the CBAs focused on to what extent instructional technology has deskilled or enskilled faculty work and/or extended managerial control over faculty work. This study found instructional technology provisions in faculty CBAs increased from 37% to 96% over last 20 years. The organizational and social context effected the frequency of negotiating instructional technology provisions. Two new categories emerged regarding faculty evaluation and privacy. Finally, the findings reinforce Rhoades’ contention that faculty are being marginalized to the periphery of the higher education organization and the traditional faculty duties are being assumed by contingent faculty and non-faculty professionals. iii For my Dad, Donald Shella; you taught us to value education and to do the right thing. “I believe that what we become depends on what our fathers teach us at odd moments, when they aren't trying to teach us. We are formed by little scraps of wisdom.” ― Umberto Eco, Foucault's Pendulum Acknowledgments I am eternally grateful to Dr. Snejana Slantcheva-Durst for her patience, kind encouragement, and ultimately never giving up on me. It has been a long journey but you were always there for me with grace and compassion. I am proud of this dissertation but it might not have been completed without your mentoring. I am grateful to Dr. Gary Rhoades agreeing to be on my committee and not only allowing but encouraging me to replicate your work. I appreciated every word of your critiques, your kind words of encouragement, and you truly challenged me reach my potential as a researcher. Your research, articles, and books inspired me from the beginning of my doctoral studies, even before I understood the sociology of organizations. I am overjoyed that I am able to contribute in some small way to your legacy of research. I have benefited greatly from the high expectations and patience of Dr. David Meabon and Dr. Penny Poplin-Gosetti. You generously gave of your time and expertise over this long journey. Your encouragement inspired me to persist as well as work to my potential as a researcher and writer. Your reputations for demanding high levels of rigor in research methodology and precise writing style precedes you. I was always relieved and encouraged by your gentle critiques and positive feedback. Finally, to my wife, Cassandra and my daughters, Fiona and Alexa. Thank you for your support, patience, and understanding. I promise not to hide in my office as often and to be in a better mood, or at least be a little less distracted. I love you. v Table of Contents Abstract iii Acknowledgements v Table of Contents vi List of Tables x I. Introduction and Problem Statement A. Introduction 1 B. Purpose of the Study and Research Questions 7 C. Significance of the Study 8 D. Theoretical Framework 9 E. Assumptions and Limitations 9 F. Delimitations 11 G. Definition of Terms 11 H. Upcoming Chapters 13 II. Literature Review A. Introduction 15 B. Academic Capitalism 17 C. Globalization 23 D. Faculty Viewed as Professional and Managed Professional 28 E. Production Technologies and Social Relations at Work 42 F. Deskilling as a Tool for the Reproduction of Labor 44 G. Technological Determinism in Social Organizations and Systems 50 H. Technological Changes Reinforces Hegemonic Structural Control 55 vi I. Effects of Technological Change 64 J. Technological Change Mediated by Social Relations 71 K. Managerial Extension 83 L. Theoretical Framework 86 M. Summary 87 III. Methodology A. Introduction 91 B. Purpose of the Study and Research Questions 92 C. Research Rationale 93 D. Data Collection 96 E. Research Design 104 F. Data Analysis 106 G. The Researcher as the Instrument of Data Collection and Analysis 110 H. Assumptions and Limitations 113 I. Delimitations 115 J. Summary 115 IV. Analysis A. Purpose of the Study and Research Questions 117 B. Data Analysis 118 C. Results 123 a. Provision 126 b. Deciding to Use and Selecting Technology 126 c. Training and Support 130 v d. Skills and Hiring 138 e. Remuneration 140 f. Displacement 148 g. New Duties 155 h. Curriculum Control 166 i. Ownership 172 j. Evaluation 178 k. Privacy 183 D. Summary 189 V. Findings A. Introduction 192 B. Main Findings 193 C. Discussion 205 a. Provision 205 b. Deciding to Use 206 c. Training and Support 207 d. Skills and Hiring 210 e. Evaluation 211 f. Remuneration 213 g. Displacement 216 h. New Duties 220 i. Privacy 226 j. Curriculum Control 230 vi k. Ownership 232 D. Implications for Practice 235 E. Recommendations for Further Research 237 F. Conclusions 238 References 241 vii List of Tables Table 1 State University Systems with Multi-Campus Faculty Contracts……… 100 Table 2 Faculty Contracts Sources……………………………………………… 103 Table 3 Descriptive Start Codes………………………………………………… 105 Table 4 States Represented in Faculty Contract Dataset...........................……… 119 Table 5 State University Systems with Multi-Campus Faculty Contracts……… 120 Table 6 Descriptive Codes………………………………………………………. 122 Table 7 Instructional Technology in the Contracts……………………………... 194 Table 8 Summary of Study Findings……………………………………………. 203 viii Chapter One Introduction and Problem Statement Introduction Faculty are in a constant political struggle for autonomy and control with managers, governing boards, non-faculty professionals, and even between stratified segments of the faculty profession (Braverman, 1998; Rhoades, 1998). The professional status of higher education faculty has been widely debated in the literature for over a century. Professionalism theory conceptualized the professional professoriate as autonomous experts who have control over their work and actions, serve clients and society, and are held to high ethics and standards via peer review (Hutcheson, 2000; Kater & Levin, 2004; Kezar & Sam, 2010; Rhoades, 1998). Rhoades (1998) extends and modifies professionalism theories in his studies of unionized higher education faculty, conceptualizing higher education faculty as managed professionals, a hybrid between traditional definitions of professionals and labor. Rhoades (1998) asserts that higher education faculty exhibit some but not all of the characteristics of autonomous professionals. Faculty members maintain a tenuous monopoly on discipline specific expertise, internal promotion and discipline procedures, and at minimum, an advisory role within institutional governance (Rhoades, 1998). Faculty members have a modicum of day-to-day autonomy and control but ultimately must report to managers (Rhoades, 1998). Faculty work has been influenced if not dictated by the needs of managers, the institution, and the trustees (Rhoades, 1998). The combined labor and governance terms of faculty collective bargaining agreements reveal 1 how faculty members codify the relationship with the administration as managed labor as well as maintain some autonomous control as professionals (Rhoades, 1998). Much of Rhoades’ work is rooted in prior scholarship on the academic profession and the role of faculty as professionals. Mintzberg (1979) describes the academic profession as a Professional Bureaucracy. In a professional bureaucracy, there are few levels of managerial control between the administration and the professors. The professionals, in this case the faculty, maintain internal standards and self-governance (Mintzberg, 1979). The professors have access and input on managerial decisions but are insulated from interference (Bolman & Deal, 1997). Other concepts of academic professionalism place an increased emphasis on expertise, on the maintenance of some autonomy within bureaucratic institutions, and on serving clients or the faculty member’s self-interest (Clark, 1984). Additionally, Brint (1994) notes that faculty links to the public good and their authority as experts in the public eye have been eroded by the increased influence of corporate and state interests. According to Abbott (1988), professions are “systems” that have negotiated boundaries between themselves and other professional systems. The boundaries are based on each group’s perception of the objective and subjective