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.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
AAU (2019) Who we are: AAU by the numbers. Retrieved from https://www.aau.edu/who-we-are/aau-numbers.
AGB (2010) Statement on institutional governance. Retrieved from http://agb.org/sites/default/files/agb-statements/statement_2010_institutional_governance.pdf.
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.
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/.
Baldridge, J. V., Curtis, D. V., Ecker, G. and Riley, G. L. (1978) Policy making and effective leadership, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Barringer, S. N. and Riffe, K. (2018) ‘Not just figureheads: Trustees as microfoundations of higher education institutions’, Innovative Higher Education 43(3): 1–16.
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.
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.
Bastedo, M. N. (2005) ‘The making of an activist governing board’, Review of Higher Education 28(4): 551–570.
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.
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.
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.
Berdahl, R. O. (1990) ‘Public universities and state governments: Is the tension benign?’, Educational Record 71(1): 138–142.
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.
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.
Bogue, E. G. (2006) ‘A breakpoint moment: Leadership visions and values for trustees of collegiate mission’, Innovative Higher Education 30(5): 309–326.
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Brint, S. (2018) Two cheers for higher education: Why American universities are stronger than ever—and how to meet the challenges, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Burns, G. P. (1966) Trustees in higher education: Their functions and coordination, Independent College Funds of America.
Cantwell, B. (2014) ‘Laboratory management, academic production, and the building blocks of academic capitalism’, Higher Education 70: 487–502.
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.
Chait, R. P., Holland, T. P. and Taylor, B. E. (1991) The effective board of trustees, New York, NY: MacMillan.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Fligstein, N. and McAdam, D. (2012) A theory of fields, New York: Oxford University Press.
Freedman, J. (2004) ‘Presidents and trustees’, in R. G. Ehrenberg (ed.) Governing academia, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 9–27.
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.
Harris, M. S. (2010) ‘Interdisciplinary Strategy and Collaboration: A Case Study of American Research Universities’, Journal of Research Administration XLI(1): 22–34.
Harris, M. S. (2013) Understanding institutional diversity in American higher education, Vol. 39, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
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.
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.
Hartnett, R. T. (1969) College and university trustees: Their backgrounds, roles, and educational attitudes, Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Herbst, J. (1974) ‘The first three American colleges: Schools of the reformation’, Perspectives in American History 8: 7–52.
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.
Huisman, J. (2000) ‘Higher education institutions: As different as chalk and cheese?’, Higher Education Policy 13(1): 41–53.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Krippendorff, K. (2013) Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology, Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Lazerson, M. (1997) ‘Who owns higher education? The changing face of governance’, Change 29(2): 10–15.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Madsen, H. (1997) Composition of governing boards of public colleges and universities. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
Mampaey, J. and Huisman, J. (2016) ‘Defensive stakeholder management in European universities: an institutional logics perspective’, Studies in Higher Education 41(12): 2218–2231.
Marsden, G. M. (1994) The soul of the American university: From Protestant establishment to established nonbelief, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
Merriam, S. B. and Tisdell, E. J. (2016) Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation, San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Meyer, J. W. (1977) ‘The effects of education as an institution’, American Journal of Sociology 83(1): 55–77.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. and Saldaña, J. (2014) Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
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.
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.
Mizruchi, M. S. (2013) The fracturing of the American corporate elite, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Patton, M. Q. (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
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.
PLSG (2019) About: What is PLSG? Retrieved from https://www.plsg.com/about/what-is-plsg/.
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.
Powell, W. W. and DiMaggio, P. J. (eds.) (1991) The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
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.
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.
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.
Rutherford, A. and Lozano, J. (2018) ‘Top managment turnover: The role of governing boards structures’, Public Administration Review 78(1): 104–115.
Schreier, M. (2012) Qualitative content analysis in practice, Washington, DC: Sage.
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.
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.
Slaughter, S. and Rhoades, G. (2004) Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
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.
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.
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.
Taylor, B. J. and Cantwell, B. (2019) Unequal higher education: Wealth, status and student opportunity, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
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.
Thelin, J. R. (2011) A history of American higher education, Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Tierney, W. G. (2004) Competing conceptions of academic governance: Negotiating the perfect storm, Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
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.
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.
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.
Warren, H. G. (1914) ‘Academic freedom’, Atlantic Monthly 114: 689–699.
Wasser, H. (1992) ‘Boards of trustees as buffers: The case history of the City of New York’, Higher Education Policy 5(3): 46–47.
Weber, R. P. (1990) Basic content analysis, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Yin, R. K. (2003) Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Yin, R. K. (2016) Qualitative research from start to finish, New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
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.
About this article
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
- higher education
- social network analysis
- organizational stratification
- organizational boundaries