from the institutional text to bicollegiality

From the Institutional Text to BicollegialityAuthor(s): Philip LewisSource: Profession, (2006), pp. 75-86Published by: Modern Language AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25595831 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 07:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Modern Language Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toProfession.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:14:01 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mla

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25595831?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


From the Institutional Text to Bicollegiality

PHILIP LEWIS

Practical Collegiality

Does the long-term history of the words college, colleague, and collegiality offer us interesting clues about the particular relevance of the collegial order to the academic profession today? To consider the negative answer

first, suppose we take the 1999 statement On Collegiality as a Criterion for

Faculty Evaluation of the American Association of University Professors

(AAUP) as our primary guide. Our ongoing preoccupation, it suggests, has to be the evolution of tenure policies. In this context, we must resist

proposals to separate collegiality?understood as cooperative behavior in

support of the collective enterprise?from faculty service and treat it as a

fourth standard for tenure. To be fair and professional, we must define ex

pectations of service by delineating the tasks we expect a faculty member to perform and then state clearly what satisfactory performance means.

The candidate whose service meets these clear criteria will be regarded as a colleague worthy of citizenship in the academic community.

If there is cause to entertain second thoughts about this position, it does not lie in faulty reasoning or inadequate understanding of what is at stake

for the professoriat. The AAUP statement aptly underscores the threats to

academic freedom, due process, and diversity that a collegiality standard?if it required faculty members to conform to established views or values?

could entail. Implicitly, the statement advocates the promotion of collegial virtues through an understanding that links them to all three of the existing

The author is Professor of Romance Studies at Cornell University. ~*? *

75 PROFESSION 2006



76 III FROM THE INSTITUTIONAL TEXT TO BICOLLEGIALITY

activities?teaching, research, and service?on which tenure evaluations have traditionally focused. Elsewhere, moreover, the AAUP, notably in its

cautious yet rigorous statement on professional ethics (Amer. Assn. of Univ.

Professors, Statement), articulates a vision of the professor's commitments to

academic freedom, intellectual honesty, and critical judgment that strongly

emphasizes the obligations of colleagues as members of the community of

scholars and of an academic institution. The capacious notion of collegiality that informs this vision is anchored in a reciprocal relation: to protect my academic freedom I must respect and defend that of others, students and

teachers alike, while relying on them to join with me in this cause. This

professional principle, which positions the complex and delicate practice of collegiality as a higher collective calling, is entirely consistent with the

refusal to turn collegiality into a category of evaluation.

The AAUP's claim that a new and separate category is unnecessary has been bolstered by civil court rulings. The courts have consistently

upheld the legitimacy of factoring standard expectations about collegial conduct into tenure evaluations. As nearly as I can tell, the cases consid

ered by Mary Ann Connell and Frederick G. Savage in "Does Collegiality Count?," which supports this claim, would not be assimilable to situations

in which a "weasel clause" is deployed. According to a pseudonymous article in the Chronicle of Higher Education (Singer), the weasel clause uses

vague language in policy statements to allow negative appointment deci

sions on the basis of subjective judgment and personal antipathy. From

the legal standpoint, if uncollegial conduct is to be used as a factor in a

judgment about teaching, service, or scholarship, it has to be objectively documented and the norms of acceptability have to be explicit.

When collegiality is treated in these conventional terms?that is, as

a relationship of mutual respect and support among faculty members in

an academic unit?it requires of individuals a core commitment to toler

ance and to the priority of a common educational mission for which the

faculty, a corporate body, is collectively responsible. This commitment

to what I call practical collegiality means that differences of opinion or

outlook can coexist in a productive tension, that people who disagree with

one another or who dissent from the majority view are still behooved to

collaborate in the ongoing work of their unit's team of educators. The

sometimes difficult question is of course how to achieve a constructive

modus operandi when either manifestations of intellectual dissensus or

what we might term workplace issues interfere with the routine opera tional consensus.

In the most thorough and thoughtful attempt to answer this question that I have encountered, Donald Hall's chapter "Collegiality, Commu



PHILIP LEWIS III 77

nity, and Change" in The Academic Self1 the vital resource that provides the means for sustaining or reviving the dynamics of collaboration is

taken to be the individual subject's determination to act responsibly. "First and foremost," Hall writes, "realizing collegiality demands a delib erate commitment of identity on the part of the individual academic" (70).

His book offers an account of personal agency?"self-identity" or "self

reflexivity"?that stresses the intellectual's capacity for self-fashioning and for responding strategically to the situation at hand. Thus, for ex

ample, as faculty members in a department or a college we are agents

capable of analyzing the communal realities in which we are entrenched

and deriving from the analysis a programmatic understanding of what

will ground or enhance relations of community. To invoke the exercise in leadership that consists in deploying the

"micro-'self in 'self-help'" as a "building block for a well-functioning community" (69), Hall tellingly appropriates a metaphor that scholars of

language and literature will find both enticing and suspect: our task as

individuals is to read the institutional text critically, with the objective of forming projects that are nonetheless collective. The value of the text

metaphor is undeniable: it evokes a dense and complex structure that has to be grasped in both its diachronic and synchronic dimensions and that

embraces the articulation of the private, individual self with the public, collective subject of a communal discourse. This discourse is a language that we speak and that speaks us in the academic world; it subtends a

broad textualization that allows us to integrate coherently all the facets of our activity; it regulates the immense and elusive academic conversation in which we engage not only by imposing far-reaching constraints but also by holding open some room to maneuver.

As Hall lucidly recognizes, we contribute to this institutional text

principally in local contexts. The potentially tight connection between

identity and locality is an important, enabling insight. For in our own

domains, as it were, to comprehend what we see and hear by textual

izing it is to perceive opportunities for inflecting the departmental or

intra-institutional conversation. To select some of those opportunities and pursue them in a sustained and sensitive way is to engage in a kind of collective rewriting of the institutional text. Such calculated individual

participation, according to the practical guidance Hall offers in the final

pages of his book, would be the crux of collegial practice. To the extent that The Academic Self takes on deliberately?though

not naively and without the pious overconfidence that issues from many a proposal for improving academic practices?the cast of the self-help

manual, and to the extent that it indulges in a certain complicity with




the discourse about managing strategic change that pervades the field of

education, it runs the risk of provoking dismissive reactions akin to those

often occasioned by down-to-earth recipes for behavior modification. It

also rekindles familiar misgivings about the appeal to identity and self

hood, despite Hall's thoughtful and measured efforts to overcome them.

Just how often and for how long, we have to wonder, do the resources of

self-construction or self-engagement prove to be commensurable with the

problems and pressures of a typical academic environment?

Yet it is important to salute the constructive spirit and pragmatism of

this work. Its signal merit lies in its willingness to spell out concretely measures and conditions conducive to productive relations among aca

demic colleagues. Moreover, in the orbit of Profession it will come to be

appreciated, I believe, for its initiation of a heuristic account of collegial

ity that Hall recently proposed to integrate into the training of graduate students ("Collegiate and Graduate Training").2 This mentoring in col

legiality would probe practices of dialogue and personal interaction in the

academic setting critically; in so doing, it would perform the very kind of

professional conversation that exemplifies collegiality; its structure would

then resemble that of pedagogical training in which the student learns to

teach not just by teaching but also by participating in a dialogue about

that teaching with a mentor.

When we try to imagine just how this learning process might be struc

tured formally, as an inquiry into academic transactions in various kinds

of institutions, we immediately perceive risks and pitfalls akin to those we encounter in trying to prepare graduate students for job interviews.

Would mentoring in collegiality not put into play the same concessions

to conformity that dictate professionally correct responses to potential

colleagues who hold the power to hire? Would helping students become

wise to the ways of academe not work to the detriment of originality,

spontaneity, and intellectual honesty? It seems likely that Hall will argue, in the book he has announced, for a view that resonates with that of Ger

ald Graff in Beyond the Culture Wars: studying and rehearsing collegiality, far from erasing the needs, problems, and differences with which faculty

members (as individuals and in groups) have to reckon, could yield a co

herent contextualization of the issues that would in turn contribute to a

viable community of dissensus. It would do so by clarifying the arguments for that community, as only careful study and critical dialogue can.

If this hypothesis strikes me as dubious, it is because training in the col

legial arts does not necessarily foster the type of commitment to collabo

ration in a local setting that the counsel offered in The Academic Self urges on the young scholar. It could just as easily have the opposite effect.



philip lewis iii 79

Structural Collegiality

Let us now turn to the affirmative answer to my opening question about

the history of the collegial order or concept. To assert the relevance of

this history is to claim that, as academics, we cling to the kind of relation our predecessors had when colleges emerged in Europe several centuries

ago: they remained members of a corporate entity, exemplified by the

college of bishops in the Roman Catholic Church, who shared authority at their level in an enduring hierarchy (for a brilliant discussion of the

hierarchical structures in academe and their persistence in the face of

pressures to flatten educational businesses, see Hammond). Before the

modern era, the model of the college that carried over into the universe

of education was offered by the early episcopal councils, and the colle

giality that designated their collective relationship also named the form

of governance from the top proper to the ecclesiastical power structure.

From our contemporary standpoint, a dominant in the history of Western

educational institutions since the Enlightenment appears to be a gradual secularization, anchored in the concept of academic freedom, that is com

monly decisive even in colleges and universities with religious affiliations.

It is not surprising, then, that in the twenty-first century most faculties of

colleges and universities rarely notice the vestiges of the structuring col

legiality that permeates institutional hierarchies and ensures agreement at

all levels with the principles and doctrines articulated on high. We rarely trace to this background our orthodox notions about the faculty's exercise

of a ramifying authority in academic matters that the rest of the institu tion ought to reflect and respect.

Yet anyone who observes the peculiar stratification of a college centered universe in which trustees, administration, faculty members, students, and alumni occupy distinct levels and form councils that assert

their prerogatives in relation to the other levels will see that the col

legial order, at each level, resembles the ecclesiastical one insofar as it

knowingly serves the cause of a larger unity and solidarity. Structural

collegiality is the relationship of colleagues who agree to agree, who value

the collective authority they hold and exercise in concert, who believe their mode of interaction conforms to a model that should pervade the

academic organization from top to bottom and provide for the homol

ogy of the institutional order. Although rarely enunciated in historical or theoretical terms, this general, foundational collegiality is woven into

the fabric of administrative discourse as a presumption of negotiated cor

relation. Ideally, it mutes the invidious effects of hierarchical distinctions

by making the administration responsible for agreement among all the



80 HI FROM THE INSTITUTIONAL TEXT TO BICOLLEGIALITY

constituencies, including trustees and faculty members. Thus the con

ceptual function of this collegiality is at once to frame the articulation

of authority in the college or university and to name its community's processes of association and self-governance. It would be hard indeed to

think of a concept more worthy of our attention.

Rather than dwell on the significance of the ecclesiastical roots of this

overarching collegiality, I submit that our critical task, as scholars working in it, is to determine whether the linkage between the two dimensions of

collegiality that I have delineated?roughly, collegial structure and colle

gial practice?has been changing and, if it has, to ask what the change im

plies. To do so in a rigorous way would require an elaborate reading of the

institutional text that attends to the density and complexity of its interlock

ing orders or strata. Since this work is beyond the scope of a short essay, let me sketch quickly, in broad strokes, an account of the evolving academic

workplace that responds tentatively but strategically to this imperative. My

question thus becomes whether or not "the pressures induced by the height ened and broadened expectations institutions have for faculty," studied by

Eugene Rice and Mary Sorcinelli, are making academe less clearly sup

portive of collegial practice (Chait, Introd. 3). The affirmative response to

this question I now sketch yields a corollary concern that I address briefly toward the end of this essay: What understanding about governance might serve the cause of structural collegiality in this environment?

Notwithstanding the diversified and stratified spectrum of United

States higher education, faculty bodies remain predominantly important in the self-descriptive discourse of most institutions. In general, the lead

ers of colleges and universities of all types and at all levels of distinction

claim that their organization is built around the faculty and designed to

enable faculty members to work productively and harmoniously with its

other constituencies. Hence the uncontroversial proposition according to which the structuring collegiality of the institution, informed by its

mission, should enable and serve the practical achievement of collegial

ity among members of the faculty. The result will be a healthy esprit de

corps, successful educational outcomes, and, some would stress, faculty

support of or compliance with the aims or vision of the organization as a

whole. Such conventional wisdom, in its facility, harbors an understand

ing that both complements and questions the psychological linkage of

collegiality to the goodwill and savvy of individuals who undertake to

promote cooperation among colleagues: conditions in the academic envi

ronment play a significant role in encouraging or discouraging the prac tice of collegiality. By the same token, this commonplace connection of

working conditions to the attitude and performance of an individual fac



PHILIP LEWIS III 81

ulty member invites critical scrutiny of the ways collegial behavior can be

here required and there precluded by institutional constraints.

To indicate substantively what underlies these concerns, it suffices to

consider the major changes that have affected the academic workplace

during the last few decades. An excellent overview is offered by James P.

Honan and Damtew Teferra, who describe the forces transforming our

workplace under the following four headings, in each case citing effects

on faculty members that I note telegraphically:

assessment and accountability: serious evaluation of teaching and advising, more

elaborate and exigent standards for tenure, post-tenure review, proposals for

tenure policy reform, systematic program review, remuneration based on

quantified evaluation of performance financial pressure: reduction of staff support; tight market for faculty positions;

sharp increase in part-time positions; reduction in tenure-track positions;

pressure on faculty to support development of income streams such as dis

tance learning, grants, and alumni contributions

governance and power: in response both to federal and state regulation and to financial

imperatives, aggressive managerial initiatives that encroach on faculty preroga

tives; measures to guarantee academic freedom without tenure; support among boards of governors or trustees for strong college and university presidents

technology: adaptation to new modes of instruction; pressure to engage in entre

preneurship, achieve productivity gains, compete with for-profit institutions

Beyond these trends that have pushed colleges and universities toward

functioning as businesses in an environment that emphasizes competition, whether among peer institutions or among faculty colleagues, Honan and Teferra note that the net of the pressures on administrations may be tip

ping the larger enterprise of higher education toward a certain erosion of

academic freedom and faculty autonomy. The prospects of the younger

generations now entering the professoriat or seeking to survive there are

further complicated by demographic trends that show sharply increased

numbers of women and minority members (i.e., groups whose members

face inordinate demands on their time at the start of their careers) and

by shifts in student demand that reduce faculty numbers in some fields

while boosting them in others. Given these sobering realities that our

colleagues who study higher education present to us, can we say the aca

demic profession is offering to those who are entering it adequate means

or compelling incentives for practicing collegiality? This is not a rhetorical question, and it has no clear answer. For an in

dividual working in a department or program and concerned mainly with

practical collegiality, the response will be idiosyncratic, local, contextually overdetermined. For some who have been mentored in the collegial arts,



82 HI FROM THE INSTITUTIONAL TEXT TO BICOLLEGIALITY

the academic workplace may be understood as an opportunity for altru

istic achievement or else as an ordeal imposing self-interested compliance with exacting norms. For others, it may be perceived as a free-market venture requiring competitive rather than cooperative effort, or else as

a thicket of excessive demands that invite cynicism while leaving little room for collegiality. In sum, whether understanding the challenges of

the workplace fosters or deters collegial behavior will depend on the par ticular individual and the local setting. Once we recognize the unpredict

ability and the range of possible responses to taxing working conditions, then reflect on the vulnerability of a neophyte who ignores the profes sional realities, we are of course confronted with an ethical rationale for

mentoring in academic citizenship. The human, moral imperative to dis

allow ignorance may well be decisive even though it does not disqualify the key reservations about collegiality training that I noted earlier.3

For the profession at large, the evolving, somewhat forbidding work

place that has emerged in our brave new world of globalized markets and

corporatized education points to two clear-cut options. One of them is

to concede that the cause is lost, that the rising tide of self-interest and

competition is irreversible, that the destiny of higher education is that

of a business, not that of a college. Where this view prevails, faculties

will not necessarily give up on collegiality in the academic orbit, where it

could still be beneficial. But they will recognize that it is primarily local

(unit-based) and practical rather than broadly professional and integral to institutional design. As a practice of cooperation and solidarity, col

legiality would enable faculty groups to deal with the conditions of their

workplace as well as possible under the circumstances.

The other option is to assert altruistic values?academic freedom, in

tellectual integrity, openness to controversy?and be determined to pre serve them against all threatening pressures, precisely because they are

open and critical rather than corporate or ideological, because they im

munize scholarly endeavor against an institutional party line or a strictly business mind-set. Faculties would still pull together in support of struc

tural collegiality, which is to say in advocacy of a workplace designed to

support practical collegiality at all levels of the academic organization and

collegial relations among the constituencies at these levels. This stron

ger, bicollegial option, with its more comprehensive idea of collegiality, is clearly not a project for individuals, however important their practical commitments to educational collaboration may be. Only whole faculties

in colleges and universities, acting collectively, can assume this responsi

bility for collegiality, and more broadly it is an ongoing project for profes sional organizations such as the MLA.



philip lewis hi 83

Collegiality as a Principle of Governance

In the broad universe of colleges and universities that regard collegiality as an institution-wide value or objective, its enactment is generally under

stood to occur in the work of self-governance. The sphere of cooperation among constituencies in which it is most vitally sustained or threatened

is commonly taken to be the necessary collaboration between the faculty and the administration. In the ideal case, each of these key groups is a

confident partner of the other and pleased to leave to its partner a great deal of autonomy. Thus the faculty is free to do its teaching and scholar

ship; the administration is free to handle its multiple responsibilities; both

are happy to remain largely in their respective orbits and expect their

limited interactions to be cordial and productive. The question I raised

earlier about the approach to governance that would support this ideal of

collaboration is then one that concerns the conditions that ground mutual trust. Sustaining trust obviously becomes difficult in an environment in

which mounting pressures on the faculty seem to emanate from the ad

ministration or in circumstances in which administrative fiat appears to

encroach on the faculty's prerogatives. Given the trends I noted above, we

have to anticipate such difficulty. Is there an understanding of governance that would help us forestall it without diluting further the already tenuous

separation between the academic and the administrative functions?

The hypothesis I offer for discussion reflects my experience as an ac

ademic dean: I presided as an administrator over an arts and sciences

faculty, while at the same time dealing on behalf of that faculty with a

university administration. It stems in particular from the observation of

faculty members who become frustrated when they lack access to the in

formation behind decisions or when they are not consulted about deci sions that affect them. In any organization?but especially in academic

ones, where the participants are all heavily invested in the value and status

of knowledge?it is understood that some knowledge must be reserved

for privileged individuals because it is sensitive and would cause embar rassment or dissension if it were disseminated. On the other hand, when

knowledge needed or coveted by many participants in an organization is

known to be withheld, the result is friction and resentment.

In the academic world, where in theory making the knowledge we pro duce accessible is a cardinal obligation, historians and social scientists have become acutely interested in the use and abuse of information clas

sified as secret. They have often criticized the government for refusing to release information that is not really vital for national security or for

withholding too long what would be more valuable to scholars and policy




makers if it were released in a timely fashion. They have understood that in organizations of all kinds, sharing information with those affected by the decisions it underlies fosters trust and commitment, whereas restrict

ing or prohibiting access does just the opposite: it constitutes a structure

of deprivation in which individuals reduced to ignorance tend to treat

claims about the larger interests of the group with suspicion. To prevent a slide from solidarity into the privileging of individual self-interest, the

institution needs to offer its members a convincing rationale for practices that limit access to information and consign some matters to secrecy.

Over the second half of the twentieth century the business world and

the field of organizational behavior produced a massive body of work that

analyzes the development of trust and emphasizes its value. Institutions

function less well when trust wanes and have crises when it breaks down.

The mechanisms of trust building are those of democracy and account

ability, which allow the members of an organization to see what is hap

pening, to know their leaders, and to participate with them in making decisions for the common good. A relationship of trust makes it possible for a community to make its leaders trustees?that is, to entrust them

with responsibility for judgments that may need to be confidential and for

information that may need to be restricted.

Clearly, then, the condition for maintaining a solid sense of confidence

in institutional integrity is not absolute transparency; it is rather the belief that recourse to secrecy will be kept to a prudent minimum and that it

will not be used to shield decision makers from accountability or to spare them from the embarrassment or controversy occasioned by mistakes or

questionable judgments. In this literature about trust (see, e.g., Kramer

and Cook), the overarching lesson is akin to the understanding of formal

checks and balances that our forefathers built into the American Constitu

tion: in a group or a society, the model for trust is not that of a personal re

lationship between two individuals who respect each other's integrity and

good intentions; it is rather?necessarily?that of a rule-governed system that requires cooperation and provides for critical and public scrutiny.

In the practice of managing a large organization, what the responsibil

ity for trust implies is by no means simple. It means not that there should

be no confidential agreements, not that all information should be available

to everyone, but rather that a common, carefully reasoned understanding needs to be in place about what legitimately requires confidentiality, what

should be accessible to whom, and what should be publicly disclosed. The

understanding that ensures trust will include a commitment to maximal

(not full) transparency, but also an agreement on how information will be

restricted and what decisions will be exempt from broad scrutiny.



PHILIP LEWIS III 85

Administering this critical understanding is a complex task that re

quires judgment, experience, and experimentation. A college or university is not a "flat" business; it remains a densely layered organization in which

there are sure to be tensions between, on the one hand, our scholarly commitment to openness and to full and clear statements of the truth

and, on the other hand, the countless compromises that a big bureau

cracy and multifaceted activity impose on us. No information policy will

incorporate enough wisdom and foresight to immunize those responsible for the blend of secrecy and transparency against mistakes. However,

through their practice of accountability and their openness to discussing decisions vital to the whole community, they can maintain for themselves

the chance to acknowledge and learn from mistakes so as to be able to

correct them or to avoid repeating them. If it is clear that the art of sus

taining credibility and confidence is one of consultation and of sharing

responsibility, it is just as clear that upholding relations of trust in a cli

mate of enforced secrecy and stonewalling is difficult if not impossible. A concrete, practical lesson does emerge from this abstract overview:

for academic leaders, to promote collegiality is to sin on the side of pro

viding information to the faculty; it is to consult faculty members about

decisions affecting them or the institution at large before those decisions are made; it is to explain decisions with care once they are made; it is to

provide thorough and timely reports about the state of the institution

that indicate clearly how the interests and ideas of the faculty have influ

enced the work and the outlook of the administration. From the faculty member's standpoint, to promote collegiality is to take an interest in the information provided, to offer feedback to administrators, to work toward an understanding of the institution and its mission that a responsible citi zen of its academic community should take on as a long-term obligation. In sum, collegial governance should be anchored in complementary poli cies on information and on consultation. The former should go as far as

prudence allows in disseminating knowledge relevant to both academic

and administrative issues; the latter should ensure a sharing of responsi

bility for decisions based on that information.

NOTES =^.

1. For further light on this question and on changes in the profession that affect the

way we think about it, see Hall's interviews with influential scholars in literary studies in

the final chapter of Professions: Conversations on the Future of Literary and Cultural Studies.

2. Hall's proposal is echoed in an essay by Milton Greenberg, "The Power of

Academic Citizenship," that advocates educating faculty members as well as graduate




students about issues in higher education and training them in the ways and means

of good citizenship. In the field of education, the abundant bibliography on the topic of academic citizenship dwarfs the meager literature on collegiality per se but offers

many discussions that are directly relevant to it.

3. A threshold was doubtless crossed in the early 1970s, when graduate faculties and their students encountered a job market crash. It was quickly understood that

fairness to incoming students meant informing them about the weak market and pre

paring them better for the job search. A logical extension of this sense of the mentor's

responsibility to the mentee would then be an honest account of conditions in the

academic workplace and preparation for dealing with them.

WORKS CITED

American Association of University Professors. On Collegiality as a Criterion for Faculty Evaluation. Nov. 1999. 11 July 2006 <http://www.aaup.org/statements/Redbook/

collegia.htm>. -. Statement on Professional Ethics. June 1987. 11 July 2006 <http://www.aaup.org/

statements/Redbook/Rbethics.htm>.

Chait, Richard P. Introduction. Chait, Questions 1-5.

-, ed. The Questions of Tenure. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2002.

Connell, Mary Ann, and Frederick G. Savage. "Does Collegiality Count?" Academe Nov.-Dec. 2001: 37-40.

Graff, Gerald. Beyond the Culture Wars: How Teaching the Conflicts Can Revitalize American Education. New York: Norton, 1992.

Greenberg, Milton. "The Power of Academic Citizenship." Chronicle of Higher Education

3 Feb. 2006. 11 July 2006 <http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i22/22b02001.htmPrss>. Hall, Donald E. The Academic Self. Columbus: Ohio State UP, 2002.

-. "Collegiate and Graduate Training." Inside Higher Education 4 Jan. 2006.

11 July 2006 <http://www.insidehighered.com/workplace/2006/01/04/hall>. -, ed. Professions: Conversations on the Future of Literary and Cultural Studies. Ur

bana: U of Illinois P, 2001.

Hammond, Thomas H. "Herding Cats in University Hierarchies: Formal Structure

and Policy Choice in American Research Universities." Governing Academia. Ed.

Ronald G. Ehrenberg. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 2005. 91-138.

Honan, James P., and Damtew Teferra. "The US Academic Profession: Key Pol

icy Challenges." The Changing Academic Workplace: Comparative Perspectives. Ed.

Philip G. Altbach. Chestnut Hill: Center for Intl. Higher Educ, 2000. 234-58.

Kramer, Roderick M., and Karen Cook, eds. Trust and Distrust in Organizations. New

York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2004.

Rice, R. Eugene, and Mary Deane Sorcinelli. "Can the Tenure Process Be Im

proved?" Chait, Questions 101-24.

Singer, Michele [pseud.]. "Collegiality and the Weasel Clause." Chronicle of Higher Education 20 Nov. 2002. 11 July 2006 <http://chronicle.com/jobs/2002/ll/ 2002112001c.htm>.



from the institutional text to bicollegiality

Documents