Academic librarians participation in shared governance: Effects of faculty leaders' motivational type.

摘要

This study asks the question: Does the motivational type of faculty leaders, including Chief Academic Officers (CAOs), affect the participation of academic librarians in shared governance in higher education. The literature reveals that librarians' participation in shared governance is minimal and may continue to be so for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to, obstacles from faculty and administration, self-exclusion, and academic credentials.; The study surveys faculty leaders, including CAOs, from Alabama Council of Independent Colleges. Data collection includes part one of a commercially produced instrument, The Power Management Inventory ( PMI), and a modified University Shared Governance Survey (USGS) borrowed from a dissertation by Persson.; The PMI investigates the motivational type of faculty leaders and groups them into one of three types ("affiliative," "personalized" or "socialized" power) as identified by motivational theorist, David C. McClelland. In this study, one (1) respondent ties two groups and is categorized as a "mixed" motivational type.; The USGS asks opinions of faculty leaders regarding issue areas where academic librarians may be allowed to participate in shared governance. Issue areas include academic, financial and personnel, institutional, and student affairs. Demographic data is also collected.; An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was applied to determine if there are any statistically significant differences between faculty leaders' by motivational type and opinion. ANOVA testing revealed that there were no statistically significant differences between the faculty leaders' motivational groups and their opinions about academic librarians' participation in shared governance. Statistical significance was found when pairing opinion with gender on three questions from the institutional affairs issue area; question #2 F(1,40) = 4.08, p .05; question #3 F(1,40) = 5.406, p .05; and, question #9 F(1,40) = 4.143, p .05. Statistical significance was also found when pairing opinion with academic rank on question #5 F(5,36) = 2.817, p .05 of financial and personnel affairs and on questions #2 F(5,36) = 2.604, p .05 and #3 F(5,36) = 2.721, p .05 of student affairs thus replicating some findings by Persson. Post hoc and Eta-squared tests were applied.