Board of trustee governance in Iranian higher education system

Authors
Reza Mahdi 1
Eznollah Azargashb 2
1 Institute for Social and Cultural Studies (ISCS)
2 School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti Uinversity of Medical Siences
Abstract
Quality of governance in every institution is one of the critical factors for development, efficiency and effectiveness. Higher education system in general and universities and higher education institutions in particular, are affected by governance mechanism of these bifurcated academic and bureaucratic institutions. Accumulated experience of higher education in developed countries indicated a necessity of universities and higher education institutions governance by the board of trustees. The Formation, Duties and Authorities of the Board of Trustees Act and the quality of its implementation could impact and provide success and effectiveness of university and higher education institutions in the long-term. In this study, using grounded theory based on the 15 higher education experts and key informants' opinions, a model for the governance of higher education, particularly public higher education institutions was developed from the perspective of the trusteeship. According to the results, the board of trustees governance has contexts for improvement of  diversification of board of trustees organization, appointing and dismissal of academic institution chief, overseeing  the performance of the university,  mission oriented collective decision-making,   community needs decision making and stakeholders, students, faculties, families, communities and employers participation in the process of decision-making and problem solving. In fact, current board of trustees' governance does not provide the maximum benefits. Therefore, it is necessary to improve board of trustees governance continuously.

Keywords

1. AGB (2007). AGB statement on board accountability. Retrieved from http://agb.org/sites/agb.org/files/u3/AccountabilityStatement2007.pdf.
2. Azargashb, E., Arasteh, H., Sabaghian, Z., & Towfighi, J. (2007). An evaluation of boards of trustees functions in public universities affiliated to ministry of science, research, and technology (1991-2006). QuarterlyJournal of Research & Planning in Higher Education, (46), 1-20 (in Persian).
3. Bastedo, M. (2009). Conflicst, commitments, and cliques in the university: Moral seducation as a threat to trustee independence. American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 354-386.
4. Blau, P.M. (1973). The organization of academic work. New York: Wiley.
5. Blau, P.M. (1974). On the nature of organizations. New York: Wiley.
6. Birnbaum, R. (2003). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. Translated by Arasteh, H.R. Tehran: Institute of Research & Planning for Higher Education, 5-6 (in Persian).
7. Bowen, W.G. (2008). The board book: An insider’s guide for directors and trustees. New York: Norton.
8. Campbell, M. (2002). Governance structures: Academic senate and trustee boards. Retrieved from http://www.asstudent.unco. edu/students/ae-extra, P. 2.
9. Duryea, E.D., & Williams, D. (2000). The academic corporation: A history of college and university governing boards. New York: Falmer Press. Jossey-Bass.
10. Gadd, M. L. (1997). Boards of trustees. Translated by: Nafisi, N., in: Higher Education Encyclopedia. Tehran: Institute of Research & Planning for Higher Education, P. 707 (in Persian).
11. Hendrickson, R.M., Lane, J.E., Harris, J.T., & Dorman, R.H. (2013). Academic leadership and governance of higher education. USA, Stylus Publishing.
12. Hofstadter, R. (1955). Academic freedom in the age of the college. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
13. Kaskeh, S., & Mohebzadegan, Y. (2011). Strategic development of universities explanation of functional elements of board of trustees and trend analysis of function. Social Development and Welfare Planning, 2, 165-202 (in Persian).
14. Kezar, A.J. (2006). Rethinking public higher education governing boards performance: Results of a national study of governing boards in the United States. J. of Higher Education, 77(6), 968-1008. doi:10.1353/jhe.2006.0051.
15. MacTaggart, T. (2011). Leading change: How boards and presidents build exceptional academic institutions. Washington, DC: AGB Press.
16. Novak, R., & Johnston, S.W. (2005). Trusteeship and the public good. In A. Kezar, T. C.
17. Nason, J.W. (1980). Responsibilities of the governing board. In R. T. Ingram (Ed.), Handbook of college and university trusteeship (pp. 27-46). Hoboken, NJ: Jossey- Bass.
18. Sajjadi, H.S., Maleki, M.R., Hadi, M., & Hasanzadeh, H.R. (2014). Design of model for evaluation of boards of trustees in Universities of Medical Sciences. Iranian Higher Education Journal, 6(2), 138-170 (in Persian).
19. Schein, E. (1983). Organizational psychology. New Delhi, Prentice Hall.
20. Strauss, A.L. & Corbin, J. (2008). Basics of qualitative research. Translated by Mohammadi, B., Tehran: Human Science & Cultural Studies Center Publication. (in Persian).
21. Washington State University (2006). Board of regents: General powers & duties. Retrieved from http://www.regents.wsu.edu. /generalpowers. html, P. 1.
22. Wilson, E.B. (2005). It all boils down to this. Trusteeship, 13(5), 8-12.
23. Wilson, E.B. (2007). Row, row, row the same boat. Trusteeship, 15(3), 8-13.
24. Zwingle, J.L. (1980). Evolution of lay governing boards. In R. T. Ingram (Ed.). Handbook of college and university trusteeship (pp. 14-26). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

  • Receive Date 06 March 2023
  • Publish Date 06 March 2023