Tertiary Education and Management Students' views ...

This article was downloaded by: [University of Cyprus] On: 28 May 2014, At: 23:32 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Tertiary Education and Management Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtem20

Students’ views regarding their participation in university governance: Implications for distributed leadership in higher education Maria E. Menon

a

a

Department of Education , University of Cyprus , P.O. Box 20537, Nicosia, 1678, Cyprus Email: Published online: 17 May 2010.

To cite this article: Maria E. Menon (2005) Students’ views regarding their participation in university governance: Implications for distributed leadership in higher education, Tertiary Education and Management, 11:2, 167-182 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2005.9967145

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Tertiary Education and Management (2005) 11:167-182 DOI 10.1007/sll233-005-0686-x

© Springer 2005

MARIA E. MENON

Downloaded by [University of Cyprus] at 23:32 28 May 2014

STUDENTS' VIEWS REGARDING THEIR PARTICIPATION IN UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE: IMPLICATIONS FOR DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP IN HIGHER EDUCATION

ABSTRACT. The paper examines the views of students regarding the extent of their participation in the management of their university and their satisfaction with the degree of this participation. After an examination of the literature on student participation in university governance, the author presents the results of a survey based on data collected from 135 students of the University of Cyprus in 2002. According to the findings, respondents believed that their involvement in the management of their institution was very limited. This applied to both high and low levels of decision making, even though respondents recognised that their input was greater in less important decisions. The perceived limited involvement resulted in feelings of frustration and dissatisfaction among students, with the majority of respondents demanding a higher level of participation for all three decision making situations considered in the study. The paper discusses the implications of the findings for the practice of distributed leadership at contemporary universities, with emphasis on the need to abandon outdated leadership models. Specifically, it proposes measures for increasing student participation in university governance in the framework of a distributed leadership approach designed to empower the key stakeholders of higher education.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS OF THE STUDY

In recent decades, 'top-down' approaches to school governance have been increasingly abandoned in favour of more democratic and participatory models, one of which is based on the notion of distributed leadership. Unlike traditional theories of leadership, distributed leadership does not associate school leadership with the efforts and actions of one individual (the school principal) (Goleman 2002; Harris 2004). Instead, it proposes a new conception of leadership, according to which leadership is the "result of the way responsibilities and activities are distributed or dispersed across a wide range of people within each specific context" (Lumby 2003, p. 283). In this framework, leadership extends beyond the authority of a single person to the views and potential contributions of all organisational members and stakeholders.


168

MARIA E. MENON

Studies of distributed leadership have commonly focused on the need to involve the teacher population in the practice and process of leadership (Gronn 2000; Muijs & Harris 2003). Additionally, in the case of further and higher education, the importance of opening leadership to all key stakeholders, including both staff and students has frequently been highlighted (Lumby 2003). Studies of shared governance in higher education have examined the numerous benefits that can emerge from the adoption of more transparent governance mechanisms, with greater faculty and student participation in managerial decision making. Despite the strong interest in issues of academic governance, there has been little research on the nature of student participation in decision making (Zuo & Ratsoy 1999). Even though universities have recognised the need for shared or distributed governance, few studies have attempted to examine student attitudes and concerns in relation to their input in decision making. As regards lower levels of education, a small number of studies have explored the willingness of teachers to assume leadership roles and responsibilities (see, for example, Little 1995; LeBlanc & Skelton 1997). According to the findings, teachers are often reluctant to take on leadership duties, feeling that this could invite the disapproval of their colleagues and lead to their isolation. This suggests the need for further research on the topic of stakeholder acceptance of the practice of distributed leadership in education. For distributed leadership can be successfully implemented only if key stakeholders such as students and teachers are willing to abandon traditional leadership models and subscribe to more participative approaches to management. The aim of the present study is to investigate the willingness of higher education students to actively contribute to the management of their universities, in the manner envisaged by the proponents of distributed leadership. To this effect, I investigate the perceptions of students regarding the extent of their involvement in decision making at their institution and their satisfaction with the degree of this involvement. The data for the study were gathered from students of the University of Cyprus, the first state accredited university to be established on the island. Thus, the present study also provides the means for assessing the degree to which the University of Cyprus is successful in addressing the needs and views of its students within its present governing system. The remainder of the paper focuses on the following topics: First, it presents an overview of the main benefits and limitations associated with student participation in university governance. Second, it

STUDENTS' VIEWS ON PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNANCE

169

examines the results of empirical studies on the topic. Third, it provides information on the current status of student participation in the governance of the University of Cyprus, where the study was conducted. Finally, it presents the findings of a survey among students of the university and discusses the conclusions and implications associated with these findings.

THE BACKGROUND


Benefits and limitations of student participation in academic governance

Several benefits of student participation in academic governance are reported in the literature. Lee (1987), for instance, argues that the participation of students in the governance of their universities facilitates their introduction to democratic ideals and practices. In this manner, participatory democracy contributes to the personal growth and development of individuals. Lee also suggests that the importance of education for an individual's future well being and social status entitles students to a voice in the determination of its nature and quality. Moreover, it is proposed that, as 'consumers' of education, students are entitled to participatory rights in managerial processes and practices at their institutions (McGrath 1970). This view is in alignment with recent trends in higher education, associated with the adoption of a marketing orientation by tertiary institutions. The marketing concept draws attention to the importance of meeting 'consumer' needs, if the organisation (in our case, the university) is to survive and compete in the market. Student participation is also considered to have important benefits for the quality of the educational 'product' offered by universities. Student input can facilitate the evaluation of curricula and teaching practices, through the identification of deficiencies in higher education programmes and instruction (Lee 1987). Moreover, student participation in decision making plays a role in the creation of an atmosphere of openness and trust in universities, leading to a positive organisational climate (Wood 1993). A positive climate can be expected to reduce the likelihood of conflict between the board and the students or the board and the staff. Obondo (2000), for instance, attributes the management crises at the Universities of Nairobi and Kenyatta to the failure of administrators to take into account the needs of students and staff members.


170

MARIA E. MENON

The arguments against student participation in academic governance also appear frequently in the literature. Wood (1993) considers the following to be the main four arguments against student participation: students may not be in a position to effectively represent the interests of their groups; student have no place in university boards because only trustees have been assigned the responsibility of serving the public through board membership; students promote the interests of specific groups, which can lead to conflict of interest; and students are not suitable for participation in boards due to limited knowledge and experience. It has also been suggested that students have no interest in academic matters and that their involvement could distract them from their studies, and thus have a negative impact on their educational progress; also, critics have pointed out that students should be excluded from the discussion of 'sensitive' issues such as student grading and faculty tenure (Lee 1987; Zuo & Ratsoy 1999). The findings of empirical studies

A limited number of studies have produced interesting findings on the importance of student participation in university governance. Two studies were conducted at the University of Alberta in Canada. In the first, Wood (1993) examined faculty, student and support staff participation in the process of governance through case studies at three community colleges. He gathered data through 51 interviews with the following five groups: faculty, student and support staff members; public board members; college presidents; and presidents of associations. Information was also gathered from documents and observations of board meetings. According to the findings, the influence of staff and student members on the board's decision making ranged from limited to moderate. Presidents and public members described the influence of these groups as 'fairly subtle' and said that only in a few cases they were 'influenced considerably' by them (Wood 1993, p. 6). However, in all cases, student and faculty representatives were viewed in a positive light as they were considered to constitute valuable sources of information on decision issues. Overall, the participation of students and faculty was considered necessary by respondents and no support was found for the arguments against student participation in decision making. In the second study, Zuo and Ratsoy (1999) examined student participation in governance at the same university through semistructured interviews with 31 respondents, who were selected on the



171

basis of their participation in the decision-making processes of the main university governing bodies and three student bodies. Information was also collected through reviews of the minutes of the main decision-making bodies and their associated committees. According to the findings, respondents were positive about student participation and generally considered students to be capable of making significant contributions to the quality of decision making. The importance of student involvement in policy making in higher education was also highlighted in a study by Obondo (2000) at the University of Nairobi and Kenyatta University. Focus group interviews were conducted and questionnaires were completed by 45 administrators and 100 students. Student respondents (64%) reported that they were not at all involved in policy formulation at their institutions and that they did not participate in the process of policy implementation. They pointed to several limitations in student participation including excessive bureaucracy and the lack of adequate information. The majority of students (68%) viewed their union leaders with mistrust. Additional information on students' satisfaction with their participation in university governance is found in the Council of Europe Project on Education for Democratic Citizenship (CC-HER Bureau 2000). The study examined the practices of universities in Europe and the USA in relation to the promotion of democratic values and practices. The extent of student participation in university governance was measured through interviews conducted in 15 European universities in different countries, and 15 colleges and universities in the United States. According to the findings, students were dissatisfied with the extent of their influence on decision making. They reported that their views on academic matters were not taken into account and that their institutions did not provide them with adequate information on their rights. In general, students pointed to the lack of transparency and consultative democratic processes in the governance process. Moreover, in several universities, students expressed dissatisfaction with their representation, claiming that a small elite of student representatives dominated student opinion.

THE CONTEXT: THE UNIVERSITY OF CYPRUS

The University of Cyprus was established in 1989 and admitted its first students in 1992. Prior to the establishment of the University,


172

MARIA E.MENON

the strong demand for higher education in the country was met by private colleges and foreign universities1. At present, private institutions continue to absorb a large number of higher education entrants due to the numerus clausus policy adopted by the University of Cyprus. However, the latter is the only tertiary education institution in Cyprus to have been granted institutional accreditation and support from the state. The University of Cyprus is a public corporate body governed by the Council and Senate. Additional governing bodies include the faculty boards and the departmental boards. The University Council consists of the following: The Chairperson and the ViceChairperson (appointed by the Council of Ministers), the Rector and the Vice-Rectors (elected by departmental boards), two representatives of academic staff (elected by each faculty board), four members-non members of the university staff (appointed by the Council of Ministers), three members-non members of the university staff (appointed by the Senate), the Director of Administration and Finance (non-voting member), one representative of administrative staff (elected by the administrative staff) and one student representative. The University Senate includes the following members: the Rector and the Vice-Rectors, the Deans of the faculties (elected by the departmental boards), three representatives from each faculty, the Director of Administration and Finance (non-voting member), the Library Director (non-voting member) and student representatives equal to the number of faculties. Faculty boards include a number of student representatives equal to the number of the departments of each faculty. Finally, student representatives in departmental boards are equal to one third of the total number of academic staff. The Student Union of the University of Cyprus was established in 1993. All registered students join the union, which represents its members in the previously mentioned governing bodies. The executive body of the union is the Administrative Council, which consists of 21 members elected annually by the students. Union representatives have been active in defending student rights, especially in cases where individual students faced the possibility of dismissal from the university. In general, however, the participation of student representatives in debates involving academic issues is limited and their attendance in meetings can often be described as ritualistic in character.


173


METHODOLOGY

The survey method was used to collect primary data for the study. Questionnaires were administered to a sample of students of the Education Department of the University of Cyprus in the Spring semester of 2002. The sample included mainly students who were in the final two years of their studies as it was expected that older students would be in a better position to express an opinion on matters of governance due to sufficient experience with university structures and practices. A total of 135 students answered the questionnaire, which contained both fixed-alternative and open-ended questions. In order to assess the degree to which students participated in university governance, three instances of participation were included in the questionnaire. The first concerned participation in high level decision making regarding the aims and mission of the university. The second referred to decision making in relation to the formulation of strategies that would enable the university to pursue its mission and accomplish its aims. This is also a case of high level decision making as the selection of appropriate strategies is vital for the accomplishment of institutional aims. The third decision making level concerned medium and low level decisions relevant to the actions to be taken by the university, such as decisions to modify programmes of study and grant requests made by individual students. For each level, respondents were given two questions: they were asked to assess the extent to which students actually participate in decision making at that level, and the extent to which they believed they should participate. A numerical scale was provided with the following points: 1, No participation; 2, Low participation; 3, Average participation; 4, High participation; and 5, Very high participation. Respondents were provided with space in the questionnaire for them to explain their numerical rating. Additionally, students were asked to rate the extent to which their representatives were able to influence decision making at the university and contribute to the solution of problems faced by them. They were also requested to identify the main 'players' in university policy making and place them in order of importance. Finally, respondents provided information on a set of demographic/individual characteristics, which included gender and year of studies.

174

MARIA E.MENON RESULTS

More than 90% of the respondents were female, reflecting the small number of male students admitted to the Education Department after examinations. As intended, the sample consisted mainly of 3rd-year and 4th-year students (73.7% and 16.5%, respectively), with a small number of 2nd year students also included (9.8%).


The participation of students in the aims setting process: actual and ideal

The first question concerned the extent to which students participated in the process of setting aims for their institution. The majority of students (83%) felt that they were in a position to answer this question, while 17% indicated that they did not possess sufficient information on the topic2. Of those who answered, the majority said that students at the University of Cyprus participated in the aims setting process either to a small extent (58%) or not at all (17.8%). Average participation was reported by 23.2% of respondents. What is truly striking in the findings is that only one student reported high participation (1%) and none opted for very high participation. The findings thus suggest that respondents believed that the student population had very little input in high level decision making concerning institutional aims and priorities. Comments like the following are indicative of this point of view: We are represented in the Senate and the Council but the set aims are a result of social and political factors and do not reflect our point of view. (3rd year, female student) Students may be opposed to some of the set aims; however, aims are defined with no reference to student opinion. (2nd year, female student) Even though an effort is made through our Student Union to take care of some 'student-opposed' rules and regulations through dialogue and argumentation, the highest bodies of the University (Council, Senate) insist on their own initial decisions and ideas, putting forward 'cheap' arguments. Moreover, the regulations do not allow for the right number of student representatives in university bodies, which condemns the attempts made by students to influence aims. (3rd year, male student)



175

The answers to the question regarding the respondents' preferred level of participation in this type of decision making indicate that the students' ideal scenario is the exact opposite of present practice. Thus, only 5.2% of all respondents believed that students should participate to either a small or average extent in the aims setting process (no respondent opted for the 'no participation' category). In contrast, the vast majority felt that participation should be high or extremely high (59.2% and 35.6%, respectively). It is interesting to note that, while in the previous question a considerable number of respondents were unable to express an opinion on the matter, in the 'ideal scenario' question, all respondents were able to provide an answer. This suggests that students were dissatisfied with the present state of affairs regarding their participation in decision making and were aware of the need for a significant change in current practice. The comments given below were representative of student opinion on the matter: Since the University consists of students and the set aims affect them, they must have the main say in their definition. (2nd year, female student) I believe in upgrading the degree of participation of students so that they start feeling that the university belongs to them and is not just a place where they study. (4th year, male student)

A similar picture emerged in the second set of questions, which concerned actual and ideal student participation in the selection of institutional strategies. Again, the majority of students who answered the question described current practice as involving no or very small student participation (14.7% and 59.8%, respectively). About one in five considered this participation to be average (21.6%), while only 3.9% chose the high participation category. It is noteworthy that an even greater proportion of all respondents in comparison to the previous set of questions (24.3%) failed to answer. In their comments, respondents pointed once again to the fact that the opinion of students is seldom taken into account in educational decision making. As regards the ideal scenario of student participation in the choice of institutional strategies, respondents again desired a state of affairs that was clearly at odds with the current situation. Thus, a very small number were satisfied with very little or average participation (0.7% and 8.1%, respectively). The majority opted for high participation


176

MARIA E. MENON

(59.3%), while almost one in three respondents (31.9%) believed that their participation in the choice of strategies should be extremely high. One reason given for the need to involve students in decision making at this level was the fact that student participation would make it easier for the defined aims to be achieved. Generally, students noted the fact that the choice of strategies affects their educational experience, making their input necessary. The third set of questions concerned actual and ideal student participation in medium and low level decision making. It was expected that students would be more satisfied with their level of input at this level since they have a greater opportunity of influencing medium and low level decisions at the university. While this was found to be the case to some extent, the findings suggest that students remained dissatisfied with the extent of their participation at this level. Specifically, of the students who answered this question, a small number opted for very high and high participation (2.4% and 12.7%, respectively). Almost one in two reported average participation (48.4%), while one in three (33.3%) considered student participation to be very small. In contrast to previous questions, only a very small number (3.2%) reported no participation at all. The proportion of students who chose not to express an opinion was also lower (6.7%) compared to the previous 'actual situation' questions. Respondents' comments once again highlighted their limited input in decision making. Students are powerless when compared to the faculty and this is evident from the handling of the issue of student dismissals and the second examination attempt. (4th year, male student)

Remarks such as the above were very common among respondents, even though a small number opted for a more moderate approach. In this area there is some improvement even though it is not satisfactory. (3rd year, female student) There is often adequate participation at this level because of greater student contact with the department rather than the university as a whole. (3rd year, female student)


177

The desired level of student participation in medium and low level decisions was reported to be very high or high by an overwhelming majority of respondents (95.5%). Only 4.5% were satisfied with average participation, with no respondents opting for little or no participation. Once again, respondents commented on the importance of greater student involvement in decision making: The level of participation should be very high because, in this way, students learn to claim what belongs to them through co-operation and discussion. (3rd year, female student) The University is made up of students and not faculty. A good university works constructively with students. After all, they represent the youth and they should be listened to. Downloaded by [University of Cyprus] at 23:32 28 May 2014

(3rd year, female student)

In response to the question concerning the extent to which student representatives are able to assist in the solution of problems faced by the university community and the students in particular, students reported an average level of satisfaction. The majority (61.6%) believed that student representatives were able to assist to an average extent, while the remaining were equally divided between the dissatisfaction and the satisfaction scale points (both at 19.2%). In their comments, respondents pointed to limitations in the effectiveness of student representatives stemming from factors such as their limited power and authority, affiliation with political parties, and possible lack of awareness of students' needs. Student representatives were considered unable to influence the 'final decision makers', as they were described by one respondent. The following comment is representative of a large number of respondents: From what I know, they cannot provide assistance to a satisfactory extent as the officials in charge arrive with ready-made solutions and ignore student requests. (4th year, female student)

Several respondents pointed to variations in the effectiveness of student representatives across different departments and issues. Student representatives were considered to exert greater influence on decisions involving less important issues:

178

MARIA E. MENON

The extent of the influence varies according to the nature of the problem. I believe that they do not have much influence on serious issues and they have much more on less important, everyday issues.


(3rd year, female student)

The limited role that students considered themselves to play in institutional governance was also apparent from their responses to the final question, in which they were requested to rank the four most important bodies or individuals in terms of their influence on university policy making. About one third of respondents (34.9%) placed the University Senate in the first position, while an almost equal proportion (33%) considered the government or the state to be the most influential agent. The Rector and the Vice-Rector were assigned first rank by about a fifth of respondents (20.8%). It is noteworthy that there was not even one case of students being mentioned as the most important players. The second rank was assigned mainly to the faculty (30%), the Senate (28%), and the University Council (15%). Only one respondent placed students in the second rank. It is only in the case of the third rank that students began to appear as influencing agents (36.4%). However, there was a clear tendency on the part of respondents to place students in the fourth and final rank, where they accounted for 73.2% of all responses. The findings thus suggest that students considered themselves to have a very limited role in the governance of their institution and identified others as the main decision makers.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The present set of findings indicates that students at the University of Cyprus perceived themselves as having little or no involvement in the governance of their institution. This was true of both high and low levels of decision making, even though respondents believed that their contribution was greater in situations involving the latter. Thus, for the first two decision making situations considered in the study (aims setting, choice of strategies), the vast majority of students reported very little or no student participation. In the case of the third level (choice of actions), a greater number of respondents selected the category of average



179

participation, while very few opted for higher levels. A second conclusion to be drawn from the study is that students were not satisfied with the limited extent of their participation in university governance. For all three decision-making situations, the vast majority of respondents believed that their participation should range from high to very high, when, under the current situation, they considered it, for the most part, to range from below average to nonexistent. The findings have noteworthy implications for the practice of distributed leadership in higher education: Specifically, they point to the desire of higher education students to abandon traditional 'top-down' leadership models in favour of more distributive approaches. The responses of students indicate that they are aware of the importance of their contribution to the management of their institution. This suggests that attempts to promote distributed leadership models in relation to the student population are not likely to encounter barriers stemming from the reluctance of students to contribute to the management of their university. However, if distributed leadership is to be developed at universities in relation to the student public, several changes in current practice appear necessary: An important first step is to educate the members of governing bodies on benefits associated with greater student input in decision making. This could be achieved through the collection and dissemination of data on students' views, which would make board members aware of students' concerns regarding their role in university governance. The findings also point to the need for addressing the limitations in the effectiveness of student representatives, as these are perceived by students. To address this problem, it is important that university bodies open themselves to the opinions and critical comments of student representatives. Student representatives should be offered information and support on important issues so that they are in a better position to identify the strategies and courses of action that will best satisfy the student public. This will improve student representation, making it more effective and less elitist. Furthermore, student representatives should be encouraged to identify and discuss new problem areas with university bodies in addition to longstanding issues. For instance, university representatives should be encouraged to examine the problems of first-year students (freshmen), who, upon entrance at the university, often receive insufficient information and face adjustment problems. The lack of


180

MARIA E.MENON

familiarity with the university environment might dissuade newcomers from contacting their representatives, when in fact it is they who may benefit the most from such contact. In general, university governing bodies should adopt a positive, accommodating attitude towards student representatives as opposed to the more commonly observed confrontational one. One measure that could help improve the relationship between board members and student representatives could consist in informal meetings between the two groups. It is also important to assess the effectiveness of student participation mechanisms on a systematic basis through organisational audits (Menon 2003). Audits should be used to record student satisfaction with current practices and to identify the reasons for student discontent with the governance of higher education institutions. This in turn will allow for the identification of possible remedial measures. Additional measures for increasing student participation in governance include the provision of information to students about their rights and the offering of courses that explicitly address democratic practices and civic education (CC-HER Bureau 2000). A final implication of the present set of findings concerns the need for greater use of strategic planning at the tertiary education level. In this context, attention ought to be paid to an agreement among stakeholders on the mission and priorities of each institution, which should constitute the basis for the planning and implementation of future strategies and tactics. Strategic planning that involves all stakeholders is necessary for universities to identify, and respond to, opportunities and threats in their environment. In order to enable debates on the mission of higher education to take place, universities must move away from bureaucratic and hierarchical forms of governance to more open and flexible organisational structures that allow different perspectives to emerge (Mora 2001). The examination of the views of the students of the University of Cyprus presented in this paper suggests that beyond their theoretical significance, distributed leadership models can be useful in addressing the actual needs of key publics in higher education. NOTES 1. For a discussion of demand patterns in Cyprus higher education, see Menon (1998).


181

2. In cases where a number of respondents chose the 'no response' category, the percentages given in the paper were calculated on the basis of the valid responses to the question.


REFERENCES Goleman, D. (2002). The New Leaders: Transforming the Art of Leadership into the Science Results. London: Little Brown. Gronn, P. (2000). Distributed Properties: A New Architecture for Leadership, Educational Management and Administration 2 8 , 317- 338. Harris, A. (2004). Distributed Leadership and School Improvement: Leading or Misleading?, Educational Management Administration & Leadership 32, 11-24. Jones, G.A., Shanahan, T. & Goyan, P. (2001). University Governance in Canadian Higher Education, Tertiary Education and Management 7, 163-180. Jones, G.A., Shanahan, T. & Goyan, P. (2002). Traditional Governance Structures Current Policy Pressures: The Academic Senate and Canadian Universities, Tertiary Education and Management 8, 29-45. Lee, H. (1987). The Nature and Scope of Student Participation in Policy-Making in Academic Government. Proceedings of the 6th International Seminar Current Issues in University Education of Korea and Japan. Seoul, Korea: Korean Council for University Education. LeBlanc, P.R. & Skelton, M.M. (1997). Teacher Leadership: The Needs of Teachers, Action in Teacher Education 19, 32-48. Leslie, D.W. (1996). Strategic Governance: The Wrong Questions? The Review of Higher Education 20, 101-112. Lijphart, A. (1983). University Democracy in the Netherlands. In J.W. Chapman (ed.), The Western University on Trial. Berkeley: University of California Press, 212-230. Little, J.W. (1995). Contested Ground: The Basis of Teacher Leadership in Two Restructuring High Schools, The Elementary School Journal 96, 47-63. Lumby, J. (2003). Distributed Leadership in Colleges: Leading or Misleading? Educational Management & Administration 31, 283-293. McGrath, E.J. (1970). Should Students Share the Power? Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Menon, E.M. (1998). Factors Influencing the Demand for Higher Education: The Case of Cyprus, Higher Education 35, 251-266. Menon, E.M. (2003). Student Involvement in University Governance: A Need for Negotiated Educational Aims? Tertiary Education and Management 9, 233-246. Mora, J. (2001). Governance and Management in the New University, Tertiary Education and Management 7, 95-110. Muijs, D. & Harris, A. (2003). Teacher Leadership- Improvement Through Empowerment? An Overview of the Literature, Educational Management & Administration 31, 437-448. Obondo, A.T. (2000). Politics of Participatory Decision-Making: The Case of Kenyatta University and the University of Nairobi, French Institute for Research in Africa "Les Cahiers" Review no 19, November-December.

182

MARIA E. MENON

Wood, D. (1993). Faculty, Student, and Support Staff Participation in College Governance: An Evaluation. Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the Association of Canadian Community Colleges, Edmunton, Alberta, Canada. Zuo, B. & Ratsoy, E.W. (1999). Student Participation in University Governance, The Canadian Journal of Higher Education XXIX, 1-26.


Department of Education University of Cyprus P.O. Box 20537 1678 Nicosia Cyprus E-mail: [email protected]