Representation and conflict of interest among students on higher education governing boards

Lozano, Jon M.; Hughes, Rodney P.

doi:10.1080/1360080x.2017.1377961

Cited by 11 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, some newer studies have focused on the institutions' interactions with students. For example, Lozano and Hughes (2017) use PAT to study how student representatives in governing boards act on behalf of the student body's interests. Similarly, Dill and Soo (2004) argue that this theory helps to represent inefficiencies in how students select institutions and courses.…”

Section: Theoretical Underpinningsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Doctoral advisor selection processes in science, math, and engineering programs in the United States

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although advising relationships are key for doctoral student success, little research has addressed how they form. Understanding the formation of advising relationships can help contextualize their later development and ultimately support a student’s decision to persist in the doctorate. To understand relationship formation, the purpose of this qualitative study is to identify and describe the types of advisor–advisee selection processes that exist in engineering, science, and math doctoral programs and examine patterns across disciplines within those fields. We conducted interviews with doctoral program directors and engaged in document analysis of graduate student handbooks from 55 doctoral programs in the aforementioned fields in high research institutions across the United States. Using principal–agent theory as a theoretical lens, our findings showed that engineering programs tend to decentralize the advisor selection process by funding students across different funding sources upon enrollment. Contrariwise, science and math programs tended to fund all students in a cohort from a common funding source, which allowed students to have more time to gather information, meet, and select an advisor. These findings also show important nuances when comparing graduate education in these programs that directly impact the doctoral student experience and reiterates the necessity to study these fields separately.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Underpinningsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Doctoral advisor selection processes in science, math, and engineering programs in the United States

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, some have focused on the institution's interactions with students. For example, Lozano & Hughes (2017) used PAT to study how student representatives in governing boards act on behalf of the student body's interests. The authors explored whether the representatives truly represented their constituents versus their individual interests when voting on issues and found that students that were elected rather than appointed reported having more pressure from the student peers when it came to voting on issues.…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Doctoral Advisor Selection in Chemical Engineering: Evaluating Two Programs through Principal-Agent Theory

Artiles¹,

Matusovich

2022

Studies in Engineering Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:Little is known about how doctoral advising relationships form, but understanding the inception of these relationships can be helpful to address doctoral attrition. Chemical Engineering programs highly structure this advisor-advisee selection when compared to other engineering programs.Purpose: This study examines how two programs in Chemical Engineering practice the advisor-advisee selection process from the perspective of their faculty. In particular, our study uses principal-agent theory to address the following research question: How do two Chemical Engineering doctoral programs manage the advisor-advisee matching process? Methods: Through multi-case study methods, we examine faculty perceptions in two large doctoral programs in the U.S. Our coding was informed using Principal-Agent Theory as a framework to help characterize faculty perceptions and develop insight into their interactions with students and the graduate program director.Results: Our findings showed that faculty perceived control could strongly impact whether they adhere to departmental processes and adapt to the existing practices or if they circumvent the process. Our findings also showed the role of transparency and how such impacted faculty engagement. Conclusion:We recommend departments consider how they practice shared governance in their departments regarding the advisor-advisee matching process. We also recommend they continuously engage in conversations about processes and practices to surface implicit and explicit practices and perpetuate good community in their academic units. We also present recommendations for using economics frameworks in studying academic processes.

show abstract

“…For instance, early examples of student government and class councils were created to mirror the U.S. political system (May, 2010). Much like the political system, student governments have multiple branches of governance (May, 2010), vote on contentious initiatives and university matters (Goodman, 2022b;Goodman et al, 2021;Terrell & Cuyjet, 1994), and even have a seat on university boards of trustees (Lozano & Hughes, 2017;Templeton et al, 2018). To guide this study, we enlisted the following research questions:…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2023

JCAPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It focuses on publishing rigorous, relevant, and respected scholarship related to postsecondary education cocurricular campus activities, and translating such scholarship to practice. It especially encourages submissions from practitioners throughout higher education. Typical submissions to the journal cover topics such as: Student and leadership development within campus activities Programming within a diverse and multicultural campus Advising students and their organizations Campus programming, governance, and/or funding boards Assessing the effects of student involvement in campus activities Navigating political and legal issues in working with students Professional development for staff and faculty who work with studentsAuthors can find more information about the submission process at naca.org/JCAPS.The Journal of Campus Activities Practice & Scholarship is published biannually by the National Association for Campus Activities. Statements of fact and opinion, or other claims made herein, are the responsibility of the authors and do not imply an opinion on the part of NACA® office employees, or officers, staff and other members of the Association. All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce the contents of JCAPS either in whole or in part. Any reproduction includes, but is not limited to, computerized storage of information for later retrieval or audio, visual, print or internet purposes. All protections offered under federal copyright law will be strictly pursued, and no reproduction of any portion of this publication may occur without specific written permission from NACA. No material can be copied in any form if the purpose is to sell the material.NACA, National Association for Campus Activities, The Journal of Campus Activities Practice & Scholarship, JCAPS, and all other designated trademarks, service marks, and trade names (collectively the "Marks") are trademarks or registered trademarks of and are proprietry to NACA, or other respective owners that have granted NACA the right and license to use such Marks.

show abstract

Representation and conflict of interest among students on higher education governing boards

Cited by 11 publications

References 22 publications

Doctoral advisor selection processes in science, math, and engineering programs in the United States

Doctoral advisor selection processes in science, math, and engineering programs in the United States

Doctoral Advisor Selection in Chemical Engineering: Evaluating Two Programs through Principal-Agent Theory

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About