How University Leaders Shape Boundaries and Behaviors: An Empirical Examination of Trustee Involvement at Elite US Research Universities

Barringer, Sondra N.; Taylor, Barrett J.; Riffe, Karley A.; Slaughter, Sarah

doi:10.1057/s41307-020-00193-y

Cited by 10 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Scholars have found higher education leaders play an important role in determining and shaping organizational boundaries (Barringer et al, 2020). Social network analysis, quantitative analysis, and descriptive studies have all illustrated how trustees, presidents, and affiliated organizations can reshape organizational behaviors, values, and boundaries (Barringer et al, 2020;Taylor et al, 2018). As it relates to this study, organizational theory helps to conceptualize the relationships between political nonprofits, the UA System, PACs, and other stakeholders.…”

Section: Organizational Boundariesmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…At its core, organizational boundaries are concerned with the "intersection of the organization and the environment" (Oliver, 2009, p. 1). Scholars have found higher education leaders play an important role in determining and shaping organizational boundaries (Barringer et al, 2020). Social network analysis, quantitative analysis, and descriptive studies have all illustrated how trustees, presidents, and affiliated organizations can reshape organizational behaviors, values, and boundaries (Barringer et al, 2020;Taylor et al, 2018).…”

Section: Organizational Boundariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Political nonprofits and dark money in Alabama education politics

Baser¹

2022

EPAA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The proliferation of political nonprofit organizations since the Citizens United decision has undoubtedly reshaped American politics. These interest groups have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in recent state and federal elections. Yet, little is known about how these organizations influence higher education politics and the extent to which higher education leaders rely on political nonprofits to increase state support and tilt policy decisions in their favor. To that end, this descriptive case study analysis explores the purpose and activities of a short-lived political nonprofit organization in Alabama, the Alabama Association for Higher Education (AAFHE). Using publicly available data, I developed a follow-the-money scheme to illustrate the activities of the AAFHE and its affiliates. Findings suggest that leaders of the University of Alabama System established the AAFHE to sustain and obtain resources through political contributions and lobbying at the state and federal levels. The AAFHE employed several direct and indirect lobbying strategies to secure state and federal resources for higher education institutions in Alabama, primarily those within the University of Alabama System. The study highlights the ethical and practical challenges campus leaders face when using political nonprofits to advance institutional goals.

show abstract

Section: Organizational Boundariesmentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Organizational Boundariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Political nonprofits and dark money in Alabama education politics

Baser¹

2022

EPAA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although our organization-level analyses can document the conditions under which some associations hold, we do not identify the practices that bring these relationships about. Individual trustees engage in a wide variety of activities (Barringer et al, 2020). Some trustees could be actively involved in the daily direction of university activities.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…University trustees typically are powerful actors who can span boundaries, facilitate cross-field alliances, stabilize resource flows, and regularize communication (Barringer & Riffe, 2018; Barringer & Slaughter, 2016). Accordingly, like boundary spanners in other social networks, trustees might shape university activities by coordinating campus operations with activities in other fields such as industry and government (Barringer et al, 2020; Slaughter & Taylor, 2016).…”

Section: Boards Universities and Multiple Fieldsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although ties to finance firms are unlikely to change all aspects of a university's operations, these connections might shape campus investments. Universities are directly involved in financial and commodity markets through aggressive endowment management (Cantwell, 2016;Humphreys, 2010;Weisbrod et al, 2008) and, in some cases, partner directly with financial institutions (Barringer et al, 2020). We expect universities that are most aggressively managing their endowments both to recruit trustees with ties to the finance industry (in an effort to remain on the cutting edge of wealth management) and to be most attractive to such trustees.…”

Section: Linking Board Connectivity To University Activitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

University Board Connectivity, Finances, and Research Production, 1985–2015

Taylor

Barringer

Slaughter

2022

Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/context: A growing body of evidence indicates that trustees link the boards of research universities to organizations in other fields. It is less clear whether these board characteristics indicate distinct university contexts with which particular activities would be associated. Research questions: We ask three questions. The first two are descriptive and focus attention on the changing characteristics of university boards: How do boards tie universities to other sectors of society? How has the composition of these ties changed over time? The third is inferential and attends to possible relationships between board characteristics and university activities over time: Are there relationships between board ties to external organizations and university activities? Research design: We answered our first two questions using descriptive analyses. We answered the third question using regression analyses, inclusive of fixed board-level effects, which estimated the within-unit association among board characteristics, control characteristics, and the dependent variables associated with activities of interest. Data collection and analysis: Our sample consisted of the 54 boards that oversaw members of the Association of American Universities. Data were compiled in 10-year increments between 1985 and 2015. Historical data on university boards were created using Standard and Poor’s Register of Corporations, Directors, and Executives and the Capital IQ Personal Intelligence database, both of which provided time-verified data about the affiliations of individual trustees at a given moment in time (e.g., 1985, 1995). We merged these data with information on university characteristics drawn from existing secondary data sources. Findings: Consistent with other analyses, sampled boards were increasingly connected to organizations in other fields over time. Connections grew especially rapidly between 1995 and 2015, with particularly notable growth in ties to the finance industry. In inferential analyses, the total number of ties to external organizations was associated with increases in total publications and with the share of publications in the biological sciences. Board characteristics were not associated with variation in other variables (e.g., endowment growth). Conclusions/recommendations: Our findings suggest that board characteristics are more likely to be associated with some university activities than others. It is less clear why this is the case. Our paper therefore lays important groundwork for future research on the ways in which individual trustees may directly coordinate, indirectly facilitate, or be selected because of their ties to particular external organizations.

show abstract