The social dimension of academic discipline as a discriminator of academic deans' administrative behaviors

Review of Higher Education

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2005, Pages

  Del Favero, Marietta ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 26444604439     PISSN: 01625748     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1353/rhe.2005.0066     Document Type: Review

References (61)

1. Austin, A. E. (1990). Faculty cultures, faculty values. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), Assessing academic climates and cultures (pp. 61-68). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2. Becher, T. (1981). Towards a definition of disciplinary cultures. Studies in Higher Education, 6(2), 109-121.
3. Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of the disciplines. Bury St. Edmunds, Eng.: Society for Research into Higher Education, Open University Press.
4. Becher, T. (1994). The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education, 19(2), 151-161.
5. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of discipline (2nd ed.) N.p.: Taylor and Francis.
6. Benjamin, R., & Carroll, S. (1998). The implications of the changed environment for governance in higher education. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), The responsive university: Restructuring for high performance (pp. 92-119). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
7. Beyer, J. M., & Lodahl, T. M. (1976). A comparative study of patterns of influence in United States and English universities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 104-129.
8. Biglan, A. (1973a). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 195-203.
9. Biglan, A. (1973b). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 204-213.
10. Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
11. Blackburn, R. T., & Lawrence, J. H. (1995). Faculty at work. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
12. Blau, P. M. (1994). The organization of academic work (2nd ed.). London: Transaction Publishers.
13. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1984). Modern approaches to understanding and managing organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
14. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1991). Leadership and management effectiveness: A multi-frame, multi-sector analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 30(4), 509-534.
15. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
16. Bok, D. (1986). Higher learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17. Braxton, J. M., & Hargens, L. L. (1996). Variations among academic disciplines: Analytical frameworks and research. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 11, 1-45.
18. Clark, B. R. (1991). Faculty organization and authority. In M. W. Peterson (Ed.), Organization and governance in higher education (4th ed., pp. 449-458). Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster Custom Publishing.
19. Clark, B. R. (2000). Collegial entrepreneurism in proactive universities: Lessons from Europe. Change, 32, 10-19.
20. Del Favero, M. (2001). The influence of academic discipline on administrative behaviors of academic deans. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
21. Del Favero, M. (2003). Faculty-administrator relationships as integral to high performing governance systems: New frameworks for study. American Behavioral Scientist, 46(7), 902-922.
22. Dill, D. D. (1991). The nature of administrative behavior in higher education. In M. W. Peterson (Ed.), Organization and governance in higher education (4th ed., pp. 369-388). Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster Custom Publishing.
23. Etzioni, A. (2000). Administrative and professional authority. In M. C. Brown II (Ed.), Organization and governance in higher education (5th ed., pp. 111-118). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.
24. Finnegan, D. E., & Gamson, Z. F. (1996). Disciplinary adaptations to research culture in comprehensive institutions. Review of Higher Education, 19(2), 141-177.
25. Fuchs, S. (1992). The professional quest for truth. Albany: State University of New York Press.
26. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9, 293-306.
27. Hargens, L. L. (1978). Relations between work habits, research technologies, and eminence in science. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 5(1), 97-112.
28. Hayward, P. C. (1986). A discriminant analytic test of Biglan's theoretical distinction between biology and English department chairpersons. Research in Higher Education, 25(2), 136-146.
29. Helgesen, S. (1995). The web of inclusion. New York: Doubleday.
30. Huberty, C. J., & Lowman, L. L. (1998). Discriminant analysis in higher education research. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 13, 181-234.
31. Kennedy, D. (1997). Academic duty. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
32. Klecka, W. R. (1980). Discriminant analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
33. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
35. Lipman-Blumen, J. (1998). Connective leadership: What business needs to learn from academe. Change, 30, 49-53.
36. Lodahl, J. B., & Gordon, G. (1972, February). The structure of scientific fields and the functioning of university graduate departments. American Sociological Review, 37, 57-72.
37. Lodahl, J. B., & Gordon, G. (1973). Differences between physical and social sciences in university graduate departments. Research in Higher Education, 1, 191-213.
38. Morphew, C. C. (1999, Spring). Challenges facing shared governance within the college. New Directions for Higher Education, 105, 71-79.
39. Morris, V. C. (1981). Deaning. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
40. Muffo, J. A., & Langston, I. W., IV. (1981). Biglan's dimensions: Are the perceptions empirically based? Research in Higher Education, 15(2), 141-159.
41. Neumann, Y., & Boris, S. B. (1978). Paradigm development and leadership style of university department chairpersons. Research in Higher Education, 9, 291-302.
42. Pence, J. L. (2003). Dean's dilemmas: Practicing academic leadership. Liberal Education, 89(4), 38-47.
43. Peterson, M. W., & White, T. H. (1992). Faculty and administrator perceptions of their environments: Different views or different models of organization? Research in Higher Education, 33(2), 177-204.
44. Pfeffer, J., & Moore, W. L. (1980). Average tenure of academic department heads: The effects of paradigm, size, and departmental demography. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 387-406.
45. Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond rational management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
46. Raveling, J. S. (1999, November). An exploratory analysis of academic leadership career attainment: Examining the role offender, institutional characteristics, and faculty productivity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, San Antonio, TX.
47. Rice, E., Sorcinelli, M., & Austin, A. E. (2000). Heeding new voices: Academic careers for a new generation, Working Paper Series, Inquiry No. 7. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education, Forum on Faculty Roles and Rewards.
48. Rosovsky, H. (1990). The university: An owner's manual. New York: W. W. Norton.
49. Rosser, V. (2003, September). Using multilevel SEM to study leadership effectiveness in higher education. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 18, 389-420.
50. Rosser, V., Johnsrud, L. K., & Heck, R. H. (2003). Academic deans and directors: Assessing their effectiveness from individual and institutional perspectives. Journal of Higher Education, 74(1), 1-25.
51. Ruscio, K. P. (1987). Many sectors, many professions. In B. R. Clark (Ed.), The academic profession: National, disciplinary, and institutional settings (pp. 332-365). Los Angeles: University of California Press.
52. Smart, J. C., & Elton, C. F. (1975). Goal orientations of academic departments: A test of Biglan's model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(5), 580-588.
53. Smart, J. C., & Elton, C. F. (1982). Validation of the Biglan model. Research in Higher Education, 17(3), 213-229.
54. Smart, J. C., & Ethington, C. A. (1995, Winter). Disciplinary and institutional differences in undergraduate education goals. In R. J. Menges (Ed.), Disciplinary differences in teaching and learning (New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Vol. 64, pp. 49-57). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
55. Stoecker, J. (1993). The Biglan classification revisited. Research in Higher Education, 34(4), 451-464.
56. Toma, J. D. (1997). Alternative inquiry paradigms, faculty cultures, and the definition of academic lives. Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 679-705.
57. Tucker, A., & Bryan, R. A. (1991). The academic dean. New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan.
58. Wheatley, M. J. (1999). Leadership and the new science (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
59. Wolverton, M., Gmelch, W. H., Wolverton, M. L., Sarros, J. C. (1999). Stress in academic leadership: U.S. and Australian department chairs/heads. Review of Higher Education, 22(2), 165-185.
60. Wolverton, M., Gmelch, W. H., Montez, J., & Nies, C. T. (2001). The changing nature of the academic deanship. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(1), 95-108.
61. Yukl, G. (1989). Leadership in organizations (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.