From the Editor 
Barbara Holland 

Is the academic culture of urban and metropolitan universities different from that of 
other universities? Such a question is not only controversial, but also difficult to 
objectify in ways that would support documentation and analysis. There is little doubt 
that the composition and priorities of faculty at urban and metropolitan institutions are 
distinctive in some ways and traditional in others. In addition, metropolitan working 
environments and student characteristics put unique pressures on academic culture and 
practices. At the same time, most of these faculty have as their only model the 
traditional cultural contexts and practices that emulate the "standard" approach to 
organizing academic life, departmental operations and the nature of faculty roles and 
rewards. 

The general stereotype of metropolitan universities is that their faculty communities 
consist of a high proportion of part-time and adjunct faculty, and tenure-track faculty 
who are highly diverse. Many have traditional educational backgrounds, others became 
academics as a second career, and they all live and work as commuters just like the 
students. At some metropolitan institutions, about half of all undergraduate courses are 
taught by non-tenure track faculty, yet only a few campuses have implemented formal 
strategies for involving those faculty in the governance of the organization. These 
conditions are in part the result of the chronic underfunding common to these 
universities. More positively, these traits are also a reflection of the rich intellectual 
resources of cities where there is ready access to top leaders and professionals in 
business, government, community and cultural sectors. Such experts enhance the 
learning experiences of students and the intellectual life of departments . . . if academic 
practices, policies, and personalities welcome these non-tenure track colleagues into 
the community of the institution. 

Given these and other core characteristics, the traditions of academe that were invented 
in older, more traditional campuses are often awkward to translate into the urban and 
metropolitan university reality. For example, with classes spread from 7 am-10 pm, 
just finding a common and convenient time for department or committee meetings can 
be a daunting problem! Faculty come and go at different times, and may not be housed 
or teaching in contiguous spaces that would promote informal interaction. Part-time 
faculty may not even have offices or phone numbers, and usually come to campus only 
a few hours a week. Full-time tenure track faculty are often pressed by heavy course 
loads and advising duties. Building a sense of academic community in such an 
environment may seem nearly impossible. Yet, in the face of these and other 
challenging conditions, faculty and academic administrators constantly strive to create 
a sense of an intellectual community, a common sense of mission, and a coherent 
agenda for scholarship and teaching. 

3 



4 

At the core of this work is the need to address the issue of governance. Internally, the 
challenge of creating and sustaining capacity for and commitment to shared 
governance is a work-in-progress at every academic institution. Though defined in 
many different ways and enacted in many different forms, each academic institution 
seeks to build both process and commitment to shared governance that is the hallmark 
of an intellectual community. My own observation of many of our urban and 
metropolitan institutions is that the distinctive characteristics and conditions described 
above make it even more important that these campuses develop a clear consensus 
about the institution's mission and common expectations for how the organization will 
operate, share information, ensure consultation and participation, and make decisions. 
The most successful urban and metropolitan campuses (places with high morale, good 
faculty and student retention, innovation, achievement in teaching, scholarship, and 
engagement), are those where there is an obvious shared understanding of the 
organizational personality and priorities of the institution. Such understanding is 
inevitably the product of hard and persistent effort by formal and informal leaders 
across the institution to open sustainable lines of communication and interaction, and 
to build a common vision (though rarely unanimous!). 

Beyond this example of internal challenges, all universities are also shaped by external 
governance structures, practices, and personalities. External governance has a dramatic 
impact on an institution's sense of its potential and on its achievements. Changes in the 
competitive market of postsecondary education make timely decision-making and 
adaptability ever more important. State laws and policies affect approaches to 
institutional decision-making and public access to decision-making. Financial 
conditions (and stresses) also affect both the challenge and the importance of 
institutional capacity for making tough decisions efficiently and respectfully. Urban 
and metropolitan universities are not unique in the need to understand the dynamic 
impacts of internal and external governance, but some of the nuances of their condition 
and context suggest a need for distinctive strategies and approaches. 

These few thoughts I off er on governance are but a slim representation of the complex 
issues academic organizations must consider regarding institutional governance and its 
evolving forms, challenges, roles, and impacts. In this issue of Metropolitan 
Universities you will discover recent works from leading higher education researchers 
who focus on governance. Guest Editor William Tierney, Wilbur-Kieffer Professor of 
Higher Education and Director in the Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis at 
the University of Southern California, presents a set of essays on governance that 
explore both internal and external issues that affect institutional decision-making, 
leadership, culture, and flexibility. While drawing on national perspectives on the 
changing landscape of governance in higher education, the articles also offer insights 
into the particular contexts of urban/metropolitan universities. 

The authors include distinguished senior scholars in higher education research as well 
as emerging scholars who are shaping the future of higher education through their new 
perspectives. Professor Tierney is himself author of many books and articles that have 
informed and examined recent trends in academic organizations and cultures. For the 



readers of this journal, I would particularly suggest two works with great relevance to 
the issues of concern to urban and metropolitan universities: The Responsive 
University (1998, The Johns Hopkins University Press), and Building the Responsive 
Campus (1999, Sage Publications). These are two essential works for leaders of urban 
and metropolitan universities seeking to understand changes in higher education 
organizations, including the growing commitment to "responsiveness" through 
engaged teaching and scholarship. 

Collectively, the articles presented here offer an extraordinary analysis of key 
dimensions of governance, and diverse perspectives on future developments. In reading 
these articles one comes to understand that while academic governance obviously 
requires attention to leadership and decision-making structures, it also requires 
awareness of the practical and cultural contexts that shape an organization's capacity to 
build a "common understanding" among its members. Professor Tierney and his 
colleagues offer a timely review of current key questions around shared governance in 
academia, and the internal and external forces that influence its form and capacity. I 
hope you will find these useful in advancing your own academic organizations and 
governance practices, and that you will engage Professor Tierney and his colleagues in 
further dialogue on these important issues and questions. 

5