Birnbaum, R. (2004) "The end of shared governance: Looking ahead or looking back" In W. Tiemey and V. Lechuga (Eds.), Restructuring shared governance in higher education, New Directions for Higher Education, number 127, 5-22

• shared governance = dual authority; 
• (1) legal, role of trustees and admin, 
• (2) professional, role of faculty
• faculty role in governance first time = 1967 joint statement
• mutual undestanding, joint effort, interdependence, -> shared governance
• -> confirm faculty primary responsibility for edu matters + faculty involvement in edu policy more generally (= set institutional objectives, planning, budgeting, selecting admins.)
• -> but criticized; (1) not responsive enough, (2) decision speed too slow
• -> but no empirical evidence, just claim
• shared gov = slow decision, but assure more through discussion and provide institution with a sense of order and stability
• how a univ should be governed, vs, what a univ should be
• slow move criticism = inability to change a univ quickly into something else
• academic (social) institution, market (industry) institution
• curiosity-drieven insti, vs, service enterprise
• shared gov = effective, academic insti achieve their indefinite goals, <- education as an end
• move away from academic insti = education as a means
• univ cannot become a corporation without ceasing to be a university (changing purpose and culture)
• hard governance, vs, soft governance
• hard = structure, regulations, systems of sanctions <- theories of rational choice, forward looking, 
• soft = social connections and interactions <- how org culture are created over time through the interaction of people + cognitive process through which people come collectively to share perceptions and make sense of what they are doing, backward looking
• change shard gov (AGB) = change gov structure <- less attention to soft gov
• but, hard gov make little difference, <- important decision occur outside the formal system.
• Isomorphism = gov less shared, institution become less academic
• 2 issues of gov; (1) making good decisions, (2) accept the decisions as legitimate
• procedural justice; fairness of the processes, <- Decisions made “in the right way” are more likely to be considered legitimate
• Trust; willingness to comply voluntarily, without rewards or threaten