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

Abstract

Despite the importance of trustees as leaders in US higher education institutions, our knowledge and understanding of their behavior is limited. This is increasingly problematic as trustees engage more directly with institutions as institutional boundaries have become more porous. We utilize social network analysis and document analysis of exchanges to explore trustees’ involvement in a qualitative comparative case study of four elite US research universities. We draw on the microfoundations tradition of neo-institutional theory to frame and evaluate how the actions of these individuals reproduce, expand and reorganize these institutions and their boundaries. Results show that these leaders are heavily involved with the universities they govern, but in widely varied ways and to different degrees. We inductively derive two forms of trusteeship — traditional trusteeship (e.g., governance) and expanded trusteeship (e.g., capacity building and collaborative partnerships) — that occur unevenly across our four institutions. These findings demonstrate that the nature of trusteeship at US research universities varies across institutions in profound ways that have substantial consequences for their boundaries, behaviors, and governance as well as the organizational stratification in the field of US higher education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Figure 1

References

  1. AAU (2019) Who we are: AAU by the numbers. Retrieved from https://www.aau.edu/who-we-are/aau-numbers.

  2. AGB (2010) Statement on institutional governance. Retrieved from http://agb.org/sites/default/files/agb-statements/statement_2010_institutional_governance.pdf.

  3. AGB (2013) Building public governing board capacity: Suggestions and recommendations to governors and state legislatures for improving the selection and composition of public college and university board members, Washington, D.C.: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, Ingram Center for Public Trusteeship and Governance.

  4. AGB (2015) Fiduciary Duties of Governing Board Members. Retrieved from https://agb.org/reports-and-statements/agb-board-of-directors-statement-on-the-fiduciary-duties-of-governing-board-members/.

  5. Baldridge, J. V., Curtis, D. V., Ecker, G. and Riley, G. L. (1978) Policy making and effective leadership, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Barringer, S. N. and Riffe, K. (2018) ‘Not just figureheads: Trustees as microfoundations of higher education institutions’, Innovative Higher Education 43(3): 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Barringer, S. N. and Slaughter, S. (2016) ‘University trustees and the entrepreneurial university: Inner circles, interlocks, and exchanges’, in S. Slaughter and B. J. Taylor (eds.) Higher education, stratification, and workforce development: Competitive advantage in Europe, the US, and Canada, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, pp. 151–171.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Barringer, S. N., Taylor, B. J. and Slaughter, S. (2019) ‘Trustees in turbulent times: External affiliations and stratification among US research universities, 1975–2015’, The Journal of Higher Education 90(6): 884–914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bastedo, M. N. (2005) ‘The making of an activist governing board’, Review of Higher Education 28(4): 551–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bastedo, M. N. (2009a) ‘Conflicts, commitments, and cliques in the university: Moral seduction as a threat to trustee independence’, American Educational Research Journal 46(2): 354–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bastedo, M. N. (2009b) ‘Convergent institutional logics in public higher education: State policymaking and governing board activism’, The Review of Higher Education 32(2): 209–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Beck, H. P. (1947) Men who control our universities: The economic and social composition of governing boards of thirty leading American universities, Morningside Heights, NY: King’s Crown Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Berdahl, R. O. (1990) ‘Public universities and state governments: Is the tension benign?’, Educational Record 71(1): 138–142.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Berdahl, R. O. and McConnell, T. R. (1999) ‘Autonomy and accountability: Who controls academe?’, in P. G. Altach, P. J. Gumport and R. O. Berdahl (eds.) American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political and economic challenges 3rd ed, Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 70–99.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bitektine, A. and Nason, R. (2020) ‘Toward a multi-level theory of institutional contestation: Exploring category legitimation across domains of institutional action’, in P. Haack, J. Sieweke and L. Wessel (eds.) Microfoundations of institutions, Bingley, UK: Emerald, pp. 43–66.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bogue, E. G. (2006) ‘A breakpoint moment: Leadership visions and values for trustees of collegiate mission’, Innovative Higher Education 30(5): 309–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Brint, S. (2018) Two cheers for higher education: Why American universities are stronger than everand how to meet the challenges, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Burns, G. P. (1966) Trustees in higher education: Their functions and coordination, Independent College Funds of America.

  20. Cantwell, B. (2014) ‘Laboratory management, academic production, and the building blocks of academic capitalism’, Higher Education 70: 487–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cantwell, B., Taylor, B. J. and Johnson, N. M. (2020) ‘‘Ordering the global field of academic science: money, mission, and position’, Studies in Higher Education 45(1):18–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Chait, R. P., Holland, T. P. and Taylor, B. E. (1991) The effective board of trustees, New York, NY: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Cho, A. R. and Taylor, B. J. (2019) ‘Alignment between universities and their affiliated professional schools: organizational segmentation and institutional logics in the USA’, Higher Education 78(3): 463–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Chu, J. S. G. and Davis, G. F. (2016) ‘Who killed the inner circle? The decline of the American corporate interlock network’, American Journal of Sociology 122(3): 714–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Colyvas, J. A. and Powell, W. W. (2006) ‘Roads to institutionalization: The remaking of boundaries between public and private science’, Research in Organizational Behavior 27: 305–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Commodore, F. (2017) ‘The tie that binds: Trusteeship, values, and the decision-making process at AME-affiliated HBCUs’, The Journal of Higher Education 89(4): 97–421.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Dika, S. L. and Janosik, S. M. (2003) ‘The role of selection, orientation and training in improving the quality of public college and university boards of trustees in the United States’, Quality in Higher Education 9(3): 273–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Eckel, P. D. and Kezar, A. (2011) ‘Presidents Leading: The Dynamics and Complexities of Campus Leadership’, in P. G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl and P. J. Gumport (eds.) American higher education in the twenty-first century, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 279–311.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Fligstein, N. and McAdam, D. (2012) A theory of fields, New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Freedman, J. (2004) ‘Presidents and trustees’, in R. G. Ehrenberg (ed.) Governing academia, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 9–27.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Gonzales, L. D. (2014) ‘Framing faculty agency inside striving universities: An application of Bourdieu’s theory of practice’, The Journal of Higher Education 85(2): 193–218.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Harris, M. S. (2010) ‘Interdisciplinary Strategy and Collaboration: A Case Study of American Research Universities’, Journal of Research Administration XLI(1): 22–34.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Harris, M. S. (2013) Understanding institutional diversity in American higher education, Vol. 39, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Harris, M. S. and Ellis, M. K. (2018) ‘Exploring involuntary presidential turnover in American higher education’, The Journal of Higher Education 89(3): 249–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Harris, M. S. and Ellis, M. K. (2019) ‘Measuring changes in institutional diversity: The US context’, Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00413-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hartnett, R. T. (1969) College and university trustees: Their backgrounds, roles, and educational attitudes, Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Herbst, J. (1974) ‘The first three American colleges: Schools of the reformation’, Perspectives in American History 8: 7–52.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hill, B., Green, M. and Eckel, P. (2001) What governing boards need to know and do about institutional change, Washington, DC: American Council on Education, Project on Leadership and Institutional Transformation.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Huisman, J. (2000) ‘Higher education institutions: As different as chalk and cheese?’, Higher Education Policy 13(1): 41–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ingram, R. T. (1995) Effective trusteeship: A guide for board members of independent colleges and universities, Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kelly, M. (2010) ‘John A. Swanson’s Distinguished Career Includes Numerous Honors, Contributions’, Pitt Chronicle, 17 May. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.pitt.edu/story/john-swanson’s-distinguished-career-includes-numerous-honors-contributions.

  42. Kerr, C. and Gade, M. L. (1989) The guardians: Boards of trustees of American colleges and universities, Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kezar, A. (2006) ‘Rethinking public higher education governing boards performance: Results of a national study of governing boards in the United States’, The Journal of Higher Education 77(6): 968–1008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kezar, A. and Eckel, P. D. (2004) ‘Meeting today’s governance challenges: A synthesis of the literature and examination of a future agenda for scholarship’, The Journal of Higher Education 75(4): 71–400.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kohn, P. F. and Mortimer, K. P. (1983) ‘The national commission on college and university trustee selection: Selecting effective trustees’, Change 15(5): 30–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Krippendorff, K. (2013) Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology, Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Lazerson, M. (1997) ‘Who owns higher education? The changing face of governance’, Change 29(2): 10–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Leahey, E., Barringer, S. N. and Ring-Ramirez, M. (2019) ‘Universities’ structural commitment to interdisciplinary research’, Scientometrics 118: 891–919. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2992-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Leslie, L. L., Slaughter, S., Taylor, B. J. and Zhang, L. (2012) ‘How do revenue variations affect expenditures within U.S. research universities?’, Research in Higher Education 53(6): 614–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Lowry, R. C. (2001) ‘Governmental structure, trustee selection, and public university prices and spending: Multiple means to similar ends’, American Journal of Political Science 45(4): 845–861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Lozano, J. (2019) ‘Bridging the divide: Exploring the connections between student governments and higher education governing boards’, Studies in Higher Education, published online 22 March. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1593351.

  52. Lozano, J. and Hughes, R. (2017) ‘Representation and conflict of interest among students on higher education governing boards’, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 39(6): 607–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Madsen, H. (1997) Composition of governing boards of public colleges and universities. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Mampaey, J. and Huisman, J. (2016) ‘Defensive stakeholder management in European universities: an institutional logics perspective’, Studies in Higher Education 41(12): 2218–2231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Marsden, G. M. (1994) The soul of the American university: From Protestant establishment to established nonbelief, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Mathies, C. and Slaughter, S. (2013) ‘University trustees as channels between academe and industry: Toward an understanding of the executive science network’, Research Policy 42(6–7): 1286–1300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.03.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. McClure, K. R., Barringer, S. N. and Brown, J. T. (2020) ‘Privatization as the “new normal” in higher education: Synthesizing literature and reinvigorating research through a multi-level framework’, in L.W. Perna (ed.) Higher education handbook of theory and research vol. 35, Cham: Springer, pp. 589–666.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Merriam, S. B. and Tisdell, E. J. (2016) Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation, San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Meyer, J. W. (1977) ‘The effects of education as an institution’, American Journal of Sociology 83(1): 55–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. and Saldaña, J. (2014) Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

  61. MIT Alumni Association. (2009) 2009 Award Winners Volunteers Exemplify Service, Accomplishment. Retrieved from https://alum.mit.edu/volunteering/RecognitionAwards/AnnualAwards/AwardWinners/2009_award_winners?destination=node/17467.

  62. Mizruchi, M. S. (1996) ‘What do interlocks do? An analysis, critique, and assessment of research on interlocking directorates’, Annual Review of Sociology 22: 271–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Mizruchi, M. S. (2013) The fracturing of the American corporate elite, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Morphew, C. C. (2000) ‘Institutional diversity, program acquisition and faculty members: examining academic drift at a new level’, Higher Education Policy 13(1): 55–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Morphew, C. C. (2009) ‘Conceptualizing change in the institutional diversity of U.S. colleges and universities’, The Journal of Higher Education 80(3): 243–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Morphew, C. C. and Hartley, M. (2006) ‘Mission statements: A thematic analysis of rhetoric across institutional type’, The Journal of Higher Education 77(3): 456–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Nason, J. W. (1982) The nature of trusteeship: The role and responsibilities of college and university boards, Washington, DC: The Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Patton, M. Q. (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

  69. Payette, D. L. (2001) ‘Fiduciary responsibility of board trustees and officers in universities and colleges’, Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society 1(4): 12–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. PLSG (2019) About: What is PLSG? Retrieved from https://www.plsg.com/about/what-is-plsg/.

  71. Powell, W. W. and Colyvas, J. A. (2008) ‘Microfoundations of institutional theory’, in R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin and R. Suddaby (eds.) The sage handbook of organizational institutionalism, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 276–298.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Powell, W. W. and DiMaggio, P. J. (eds.) (1991) The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Powell, W. W. and Rerup, C. (2017) ‘Opening the black box: The microfoundations of institutions’, in R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T.B. Lawrence and R.E. Meyer (eds.) The sage handbook of organizational institutionalism, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 311–337.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Pusser, B., Slaughter, S. and Thomas, S. L. (2006) ‘Playing the board game: An empirical analysis of university trustee and corporate board interlocks’, The Journal of Higher Education 77(5): 747–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Pusser, B. and Turner, S. (2004) ‘Nonprofit and forprofit governance in higher education’, in R. G. Ehrenberg (ed.) Governing academia, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 235–257.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Rutherford, A. and Lozano, J. (2018) ‘Top managment turnover: The role of governing boards structures’, Public Administration Review 78(1): 104–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Schreier, M. (2012) Qualitative content analysis in practice, Washington, DC: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Seeber, M., Cattaneo, M., Huisman, J. and Paleari, S. (2016) ‘Why do higher education institutions internationalize? An investigation of the multilevel determinants of internationalization rationales’, Higher Education 72(5): 685–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Slaughter, S., Feldman, M. P. and Thomas, S. L. (2009) ‘U.S. research universities’ institutional conflict of interest policies’, Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 4(3): 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Slaughter, S. and Rhoades, G. (2004) Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Slaughter, S., Thomas, S. L., Johnson, D. R. and Barringer, S. N. (2014) ‘Institutional conflict of interest: The role of interlocking directorates in the scientific relationships between universities and the corporate sector’, The Journal of Higher Education 85(1):1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Taylor, B. J. (2016) ‘The field dynamics of stratification among US research universities: The expansion of federal support for academic research, 2000–2008’, in S. Slaughter and B.J. Taylor (eds.) Higher education, stratification, and workforce development: Competitive advantage in Europe, the US, and Canada, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, pp. 59–80.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Taylor, B. J., Barringer, S. N., and Warshaw, J. B. (2018) ‘Affiliated nonprofit organizations: Strategic action and research universities’, The Journal of Higher Education 89(4): 422–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Taylor, B. J. and Cantwell, B. (2019) Unequal higher education: Wealth, status and student opportunity, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Taylor, B. J., Cantwell, B., and Slaughter, S. (2013) ‘Quasi-markets in U.S. higher education: The humanities and institutional revenues’, The Journal of Higher Education 84(5): 675–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Thelin, J. R. (2011) A history of American higher education, Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Tierney, W. G. (2004) Competing conceptions of academic governance: Negotiating the perfect storm, Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Tierney, W. G. and Rall, R. M. (2018) ‘Lessons not yet learned: Culture, governance, and the Jerry Sandusky Case’, Journal of Higher Education Management 33(2): 12–27.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Tolbert, P. S. and Zucker, L. G. (2020) ‘What are microfoundations? Why and how to study them?’, in P. Haack, J. Sieweke and L. Wessel (eds.) Microfoundations of institutions, Bingley, UK: Emerald, pp. 3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Wan, D. and Ong, C. H. (2005) ‘Board Structure, Process and Performance: evidence from public-listed companies in Singapore’, Corporate Governance: An International Review 13(2): 277–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Warren, H. G. (1914) ‘Academic freedom’, Atlantic Monthly 114: 689–699.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Wasser, H. (1992) ‘Boards of trustees as buffers: The case history of the City of New York’, Higher Education Policy 5(3): 46–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Weber, R. P. (1990) Basic content analysis, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Yin, R. K. (2003) Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

  95. Yin, R. K. (2016) Qualitative research from start to finish, New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Zajac, E. J. and Westphal, J. D. (1996) ‘Director Reputation, CEo-board power, and the dynamics of board interlocks’, Administrative Science Quarterly 4(3): 507–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Zeig, M. J., Baldwin, R. G. and Wilbur, K. M. (2018) ‘Leveraging an overlooked asset: The role of public university trustees in institutional advancement’, Philanthropy and Education 2(1): 53–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Zietsma, C. and Lawrence, T. B. (2010) ‘Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work’, Administrative Science Quarterly 55(2): 189–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1262522. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. We would like to thank Denisa Gándara and Michael S. Harris for their thoughtful comments on earlier drafts.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sondra N. Barringer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Methodological Appendix

Methodological Appendix

Mapping trustee affiliations

In order to determine which boards were the most- and least-connected, we had to first ascertain the full scope of trustee affiliations for all university boards that were members of the AAU. Therefore, we obtained the list of trustees from each US AAU university in 2010 from either the respective university Web sites or university archivists. Specifically, we included trustees that were voting members for each board. We analyzed the 2010 trustee affiliations because this allowed us to explore how trustees had been involved that year, prior years and how they continued to be involved in subsequent years. This provided us with a more comprehensive sense of the nature of the exchanges between trustees and universities than we would be able to obtain if we examined trustees currently.

Once we had the list of trustee names for the 54 public11 and private AAU university boards,12 we used the 2010 Standard and Poor’s Register of Corporations, Directors and Executives to determine the for-profit firms, nonprofits and government organizations that trustees were affiliated with, and therefore tied to, in 2010 when they were on the boards of these institutions. Affiliations, for the purposes of this data collection, existed if the trustee was in an executive-level role (e.g., board member, owner or CEO) within the external organization. This is consistent with the expansive literature on board interlocks as well as previous literature on trustee affiliations in the higher education literature (e.g., Barringer et al., 2019; Chu and Davis, 2016; Mathies and Slaughter, 2013; Mizruchi, 1996, 2013; Pusser et al., 2006).

The boards, trustees and their affiliations provided us with a three-mode university by trustee by organization network for each of the four university boards examined here (Figure 1). These networks formed the basis for an aggregated two-mode university by external organization (i.e., nonprofit, government organization or firm) network where the trustees serve as the links (i.e., lines) between the university boards, nonprofit, government and for-profit organizations (i.e., the nodes) in 2010.13

Identification of cases on two dimensions

From this two-mode university board by external organization network, we determined the connectivity of each board. Connectivity reflects differences in institutions’ number of ties to other organizations and, as we argue here, is a measure of the porosity of these institutions. We used the degree centrality of each university board within this network to measure the connectivity of these elite university boards. Degree centrality is, in this case, the number of ties a university board has to external organizations via their trustees (Borgatti et al., 2013) and is therefore an intuitive measure of boundary porousness and board connectivity.

The second dimension of case selection we used is institutional control, which we argued is likely to influence trustee involvement in the universities they steward. We used IPEDS data on institutional control to identify public and private university boards.

We chose to maximize the variation on board connectivity, which provides greater nuance in our understanding of trustee roles in both less-connected and more highly-connected AAU universities. Therefore, we focused on the boards which exhibited the most and least connectivity. When combined with our second dimension of institutional control, this led to the selection of the most- and least-connected public and private elite universities which are depicted in Table 1.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barringer, S.N., Taylor, B.J., Riffe, K.A. et al. How University Leaders Shape Boundaries and Behaviors: An Empirical Examination of Trustee Involvement at Elite US Research Universities. High Educ Policy (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-020-00193-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • higher education
  • trustees
  • governance
  • social network analysis
  • organizational stratification
  • organizational boundaries
  • microfoundations