prospectus - ben.edu · web viewthe report also pointed out that every ... the trustee...
TRANSCRIPT
A PHENOMONLOGICAL STUDY OF STUDENT TRUSTEE LEADERSHIP
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE GOVERANCE STRUCTURE
AT FOUR-YEAR PUBLIC UNIVERISTIES
A dissertation submitted
by
Sarah Knox Cunningham
to
Benedictine University
in partial fulfillmentof the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Educationin
Higher Education and Organizational Change
Benedictine University
November 2016
Copyright by Sarah Knox Cunningham, 2016All rights reserved
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To the many people who helped make this dream a reality, my deepest gratitude goes to:
Dr. Antonina Lukenchuk for her continuous support throughout my dissertation
journey. I could not have imagined this journey without her guidance, motivation and
immense knowledge.
Dr. Gary Davis, dissertation chair and my internship supervisor, for his insightful
comments, encouragement, and hard questions throughout my doctoral journey.
Dr. Nancy Chrystal-Green, the final member of committee for her phenomenal
support over the past decade, her mentorship and friendship.
The Commission for Student Involvement from ACPA for the research grant
award.
My talented staff, colleagues and supervisors at the University of Chicago for
their continued support through this intense and chaotic twenty eight month journey.
My mom and Ralph, thank you for always encouraging me to be as ambitious,
your unwavering love and always believing in me.
My dad and Deb, thank you for the quiet patience, home cooked meals and
encouragement.
My brother Mac, thank you always for listening, your support and our lunch
dates.
My amazing friends whose text messages and get togethers gave me the strength
to continue.
iii
My former students who have inspired me, challenged me and even created my
lotus image.
And finally my phenomenally talented participants who entrusted me with their
stories.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................iii
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................x
LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................xi
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................xii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION...............................................................................1
Reflecting Biographically..................................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem..................................................................................................3
Research Purpose and Questions.......................................................................................5
Methodological Approaches to the Study.........................................................................6
Significance of the Study...................................................................................................7
CHAPTER TWO: LITURATURE REVIEW.................................................................11
Introduction.....................................................................................................................11
Evolution of Governance in U.S. Higher Education.......................................................12
History of the Board of Trustees..............................................................................12
Authority of the Board.............................................................................................17
Shared Governance..................................................................................................19
Student Governance.................................................................................................23
Trusteeship in U.S. Higher Education.............................................................................25
Current Trustee Landscape.......................................................................................25
The Trustee Role......................................................................................................27
Student Trustees.......................................................................................................31
College Student Leadership Development......................................................................37
v
Theoretical Evolution of the Study of Leadership...................................................37
Collegiate Leadership Programs..............................................................................42
Student Government Leaders...................................................................................44
Summary..........................................................................................................................46
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY........................................................................52
Introduction.....................................................................................................................52
Conceptualizing the Study Through the Interpretative and Critical Paradigms..............53
Phenomenology........................................................................................................55
Social Phenomenology.............................................................................................58
Research Design and Participants...................................................................................59
Data Collection Procedures.............................................................................................61
Interviews.................................................................................................................62
Reflective and Observational Notes.........................................................................63
Data Analysis...................................................................................................................64
Epoche......................................................................................................................65
Horizonalization.......................................................................................................66
Clustering for Meaning............................................................................................66
Imaginative Variation...............................................................................................67
Synthesis of Meanings and Essences.......................................................................67
Validation of Qualitative Research.................................................................................68
Researcher’s Self in a Phenomenological Study.............................................................69
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION.............................73
Introduction.....................................................................................................................73
vi
Participant Profiles..........................................................................................................74
Will...........................................................................................................................76
Gwen........................................................................................................................77
Samantha..................................................................................................................78
Beth..........................................................................................................................79
Jon............................................................................................................................80
David........................................................................................................................80
Molly........................................................................................................................81
Nick..........................................................................................................................83
Alexis.......................................................................................................................83
Post-Interview Process....................................................................................................85
Data Analysis Process.....................................................................................................85
Epoche......................................................................................................................86
Horizonalization.......................................................................................................86
Clustering for Meaning............................................................................................87
Imaginative Variation...............................................................................................87
Synthesis of Meanings and Essences.......................................................................88
Leadership Is in Their DNA............................................................................................89
High School Leadership Roles.................................................................................89
College Leadership Roles.........................................................................................90
The Student Trustee Hat..................................................................................................94
Range of Emotions...................................................................................................94
Universities Are Complex Organizations................................................................99
vii
Board 101...............................................................................................................101
Trustees as Educators.............................................................................................106
Cheerleaders...........................................................................................................107
Gender and Student Trusteeship............................................................................110
Student Perception of the State Influence on University Governance..........................112
Elected Official Status............................................................................................113
The Governor.........................................................................................................114
State Funding..........................................................................................................115
Trusteeship Is a Life-Changing Experience..................................................................116
Life and Leadership Skills......................................................................................116
Influence on Career Path........................................................................................118
Expedited Development.........................................................................................120
Adapting to Transitions..........................................................................................121
Desire to Give Back.......................................................................................................124
Motivations for Role..............................................................................................125
Do Your Homework...............................................................................................126
I Love My School...................................................................................................127
Legacy....................................................................................................................128
Student Trusteeship: Composite Description................................................................129
CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND REFLECTIONS.....133
Introduction...................................................................................................................133
Discussion of the Findings............................................................................................134
Leadership Is in Their DNA...................................................................................134
viii
The Student Trustee Hat.........................................................................................137
Student Perception of the State Influence on University Governance...................142
Trusteeship Is a Life-Changing Experience...........................................................144
Desire to Give Back...............................................................................................145
Recommendations for Future Research.........................................................................147
Reflections on My Journey............................................................................................149
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................153
APPENDIX A: Consent Form.......................................................................................169
APPENDIX B: Interview Guide...................................................................................172
APPENDIX C: Primary Theme List.............................................................................175
APPENDIX D: Final Coding Guide..............................................................................180
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Participant Overview...............................................................................................75
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Representation of student trusteeship: The lotus...................................................132
xi
ABSTRACT
Higher education in the United States has a long and rich history in which new
voices and roles are consistently integrated into the enterprise. U.S. higher education
emphasizes values of scholarship, responsibility, civic leadership, diversity, and
community service, producing educated and informed citizens who are prepared to
become leaders in their professions and in their communities.
Student trustees represent an institutional commitment and value to provide
leadership development opportunities for students. While another cornerstone component
of public American higher education is the concept of shared governance. It is at this
intersection of student leadership development and governance that a new research
opportunity presents itself: the need to investigate the impact on leadership development
of serving as a student trustee within university governance.
My tenure in higher education and doctoral studies inspired my desire to tell the
story of one of the most complex student leadership role at a four year public university.
The position of student trustee provides unparalleled access to information and power not
found in any other student leadership role on campus; they are truly one of kind. The
purpose of this phenomenological study was to explore the lived experiences of student
trustees engaged in leadership development within the institutional governance at four
year public institutions. Interviews with nine former student trustees constituted main
data analysis. Resulting from this analysis were the themes that unveil the essential
structures of what it means to be a student trustees at a four year public institution: (a)
xii
leadership is in their DNA, (b) the student trustee hat, (c) student perception of the state
influence on university governance, (d) trusteeship is a life-changing experience, and (e)
desire to give back.
xiii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Reflecting Biographically
I can vividly remember the first student trustee I advised. James was a senior in
college, majoring in business, and had recently turned 21 years old. He spent two
grueling weeks campaigning against two other candidates to win his election to the
student trustee position. He and the chair of the Faculty Senate served as the only two
non-governmental appointees on his institution’s Board of Trustees. The election was
held in April, and he quickly realized how little time he had to catch up academically
after the campaign, study for his upcoming finals, and prepare for his first board meeting,
just three weeks away. James was elected during his senior year and would assume the
student trustee role while enrolled as a graduate student.
I remember sitting in his new office in the Student Union, the items listed under
the heading “To Do” on his dry erase board catching my attention:
buy two new suits
grown-up bag instead of backpack
review university budget packet
haircut
get new over-21 license
turn in graduate school acceptance deposit
review board constitution
sign up for etiquette class in Career Services
1
call Communications Office to schedule training
drop off graduation gown deposit.
I wondered whether the chair of the faculty senate had a similar list in his office,
and whether the board members appointed by the Governor had to do lists for their first
meetings, too. James’s desk was covered with the flash cards we had made the previous
week displaying each of the board members’ photos and biographies, so he would know
something about his colleagues before the first meeting. Alongside a stack of class
textbooks was a guide to the state’s sunshine laws. It was in this office that I first
recognized the complexity of the role of the student trustee, with voting rights and
executive privileges, at a four-year public institution of higher education.
The range was further highlighted by a color-coded calendar with trustee
responsibilities in one color, academic commitments in another, fraternity activities in yet
another and personal obligations in a fourth color. I found myself wondering how the
role of student trustee impacted how James saw himself and those around him. Would it
change how he felt about the institution? Did he see himself differently now than he had
before the election? How would he see himself in his first board meeting? I wondered if
he would view me any differently as his student government advisor, since as a student
trustee he would have access to more information than I—or my boss or even my boss’s
boss—would have. I remember standing in his office thinking I had a responsibility to
prepare him as best I could to be an engaged and contributing member of the board,
something at the time I was not sure how to do.
It was such interactions, throughout my career, with exceptional and dynamic
student trustees that led me to undertake this study. For I was struck at that moment by
2
the juxtaposition of a college student’s traditional rites of passage, such as turning 21 and
applying to graduate, with the need to simultaneously learn the laws of state government
and review the institution’s budget packet. It is not hyperbole to suggest that these two
sets of activities represent two distinct worlds. The unique challenges and experiences
that result from the student trustee phenomenon captured my interest then and have
sustained over time my passion for exploring student trustee leadership development in
shared governance.
Working with student leaders is an absolute honor: watching students step outside
their comfort zones, take risks, develop resiliency, and gain confidence. I have learned
through my 14-year career in student affairs that the role of student trustee both presents
some of the greatest and most complex challenges for students and offer some of the
most significant opportunities for growth and development. This is not to diminish the
importance of leadership roles in other areas, such as student government, student
organizations, Greek life, or athletics, or the value of positions such as orientation leaders
or resident assistants. But the role of student trustee, by definition and design, assigns
students two very different and often conflicting identities: that of a student and that of a
trustee.
Statement of the Problem
Student trustees have access to the senior leadership at both the institution and the
state levels. They are empowered to play critical roles in governance and thus possess
power that is unparalleled among their fellow student leaders. However, little research
has explored the issues of student trustees, with few studies over the past decade and only
two since Miller and Nadler (2006) published their research. Yet today student trustees
3
have become a fixture in the governance of many institutions of higher education,
particularly at public colleges and universities (Rall & Maxey, 2015). It is imperative to
understand how and why students choose to pursue leadership positions at the trustee
level, how the experience may impact their leadership development, and how the role of
student trustee influences students’ academic success, career choice, and affinity for the
institution.
Higher education in the United States has a long and rich history in which new
voices and programs are consistently integrated into the enterprise. U.S. higher education
emphasizes values of scholarship, responsibility, civic leadership, diversity, and
community service, producing educated and informed citizens who are prepared to
become leaders in their professions and in their communities. “The learning outcome of
leadership development has long been espoused in institutions’ mission statements”
(Astin & Astin, 2000, p. 14). In this context, shared governance comprises a distinctive
feature of American higher education (Hearn & McLendon, 2012). It is at this
intersection of student leadership development and shared governance that a new
research opportunity presents itself: the need to investigate the impact on leadership
development of serving as a student trustee within shared governance.
Janc (2004) observed that the student role in undergraduate education expanded
during the 20th century, moving beyond engagement in basic co-curricular activities to
the realm of participatory roles in institutional governance. Yet despite this significant
shift, the literature on student trustees has not kept pace with the proliferation of such
opportunities. “Compared to the numerous books and articles providing attention to the
roles of faculty, administrators, alumni, elected officials, and business leaders, the role
4
and potential effectiveness of student trustees is relatively obscure in the higher education
policy and governance literature” (Davis, 2006, p. 81).
Because “most institutions aim to prepare future leaders, it is important to
understand the impact that both in class and out of the class experiences have on the
leadership development of students” (Hall, Forrester, & Borsz, 2008, p. 125). Kuh and
Lund (1994) emphasized the considerable influence wielded by student trustees, noting
that “this elite group of students has greater impact on charging the future of their
institutions than even the most powerful tenured faculty member” (p. 14). These
compelling assessments of the significance of such roles, for individuals as well as
institutions, support the need for further research on student trustees. This study seeks to
address the gaps in the literature regarding the leadership development and overall
experiences of student trustees.
Research Purpose and Questions
The purpose of this phenomenological study was to explore the lived experiences
of student trustees serving in leadership positions within the institutional shared
governance structure at four-year public institutions. The following research questions
guided this study:
1. What meaning do the students ascribe to their leadership experiences as
trustees?
2. How do student trustees perceive shared governance and their role within it?
3. How do student trustees perceive and enact their identities as leaders?
5
Methodological Approaches to the Study
This study was conceived within the phenomenological and critical framework
and systems of inquiry (Lukenchuk, 2013; Moustakas, 1994; Schütz, 1932). Using
Husserl’s phenomenological process as a foundation, this study seeks to understand the
lebenswelt, or lifeworld, of the student trustee participants (Schütz, 1932). Schütz (1932)
explained that lebenswelt represents the idea that the body and mind are interdependent
and must therefore be considered in combination to be fully understood. To understand
the phenomenon of student trustees, this study uses a critical framework to examine the
political and power relations within the board structure and their roles and to identify
patterns that emerge from among the students’ experiences. Within this framework, the
students’ experiences in shared governance both in terms of mind (their perceptions) and
body (their lived experiences), as well as within the power and political framework that
exists within the board, will be of particular interest.
The critical framework underscores dynamics of power and politics when
investigating individual experience. In this regard, Kincheloe and McLaren (2003)
explained that discovering the “truth” requires understanding the rules and identifying
how those rules of both power and politics give greater agency or value to some
statements than others. Within the context of this study, it will be important to examine
the participants’ understanding of their own power as student trustees within the board’s
rules and political environment. This study explored how student trustees understand
their exercise of whatever power and influence they perceive they have in this role.
The study examined whether or not student trustees experience the effects of
power play among various institutional constituencies, and if they do, how such power
6
play affects their understanding of who they are and how the perceive their roles in the
larger decision making process within the board. In addition, it explored whether and
how university politics, broadly speaking, impact how students serve in and fulfill their
leadership roles within complex university governance structures. By attending to the
power and politics within the student trustee role and illuminating the constantly shifting
views of reality present in the perceptions of participants’ lifeworlds, this study created
new knowledge about the student trustee experience to be shared with a current trustees,
board chairpersons, university senior leadership, student affairs staff and with students
considering the student trustee position for themselves.
Significance of the Study
Institutions of higher education are arguably facing the highest level of public
scrutiny they have ever confronted (Altbach, 2011). As a result, today’s board of trustees
must be far more than simply a figurehead that represents the institution in political and
social purposes Institutions must respond to calls for transparency and increased
accountability from diverse constituents and stakeholders, and boards must therefore take
a proactive approach to best position their institution to meet such demands (Altbach,
2011).
Recognizing that these heightened expectations may directly impact all members
of the board, including student trustees, this study sought to fill a gap in the existing
literature by investigating the subjective experiences of student trustees. While local,
regional, and national conversations center on higher education priorities and goals, the
board of trustees, including its student members, will remain a central part of the dialogue
in responding to stakeholders and constituents. Given that “the development of student
7
leaders remains a central goal for institutions of higher education as evidenced by
mission statements and the increased presence of leadership development programs on
college campuses” (Dugan, 2006, p. 335), this study investigated what students
themselves reported having gained from holding a leadership position within shared
governance.
Terrell and Cuyjet (1994) enumerated three key benefits of student governance in
higher education:
First, when student leaders are given training and experience in collegiate
governance, their education and development are enhanced greatly. Second,
student leaders, as representatives of their constituents, can provide a vital
resource in the formation of effective institutional policy. Third, student
participation in shared governance affords greater acceptance of and support for
policy decisions. (p. 1)
These powerful statements suggest the need to capture the lived experiences of student
trustees in order to identify the most effective ways that board chairs, current trustees,
university senior leadership and student affairs staff can support these unique student
leaders.
This study addresses a number of the limitations within the previous research in
this area. First, researchers have typically employed quantitative research methods,
providing little insight into the reflective and rich experiences of the participants. Next,
the majority of previous studies focused either on leadership development positions
generally, or on specific student leadership roles that have not included executive
privileges and voting rights, two significant characteristics of student trustees at four-year
8
public institutions. Lastly, the existing research is dated. Bray (2006) suggested that
bulk of the research was conducted over two decades ago and does not accurately depict
the contemporary experiences of student leaders in governance in 2006. Current research
is certainly not representative of student experiences in 2016.
By illuminating the ways participation in shared government impacts student
trustees’ leadership development, this study can benefit university presidents, current
trustees, student affairs staff, state legislators, senior university leadership, aspiring
student trustees, and alumni relations staff. University alumni and advancement officers
can also benefit from this study by better understanding how to support student leaders
who as alumni could potentially take on significant ambassador roles. Leadership
development programs may benefit as well by achieving a deeper understanding of the
factors that influence students’ decision to engage in leadership roles in shared
governance. Moreover, identifying the barriers to meaningful leadership experiences that
student trustees perceive can allow institutions to create opportunities for greater success
for these student leaders by providing more effective orientations, increasing support, and
role clarification.
Experience as a student trustee can also influence students’ academic success,
career choice, and self-efficacy. Student trustees acquire intimate knowledge of how an
institution runs; gain access to high-ranking university administrators, alumni, and local
officials; and serve as a voice for their peers at the highest levels of decision making.
This study provides insight for the student affairs staff typically entrusted with the
advising and development of student trustees during their tenure on how to best support
them in these complex and highly public roles. This study can also serve as a resource to
9
assist current board chairs and non-student trustees in effectively integrating students into
the larger board goals and activities. As institutions entrust their futures to institutional
guardians in the form of the board of trustees, higher education as a whole benefits from
understanding the unique experiences of each of those guardians, including the student
trustees.
10
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
This chapter reviews the history and evolution of higher education governance to
provide a context for investigating the role of student trustees at four-year public
institutions. The history and evolution of higher education governance in the United
States is well documented, dating back to the founding of Harvard University in 1636 and
the College of William and Mary in 1693 (Altbach, 2011). Today student trustees have
become a fixture in the governance of many higher education institutions, particularly
among public colleges and universities (Rall & Maxey, 2015). Yet little is known about
their experiences. Surrounded by local business leaders, influential alumni, friends of the
legislature, and the most powerful faculty on campus, student trustees hold a distinctive
role among the board membership. However, while there is substantial research on
college student leadership development, few scholars have examined what could be
considered the most complex student leadership role on a college campus: the role of the
student trustee.
A review of the relevant literature on student trustees has identified three key
themes to explore: (a) the evolution of governance in higher education, (b) the role of
trustees in U.S. higher education, and (c) leadership development among college
students. These themes and their intersections provide the foundation for this study, its
purpose, and its research questions. By eliciting the experiences of former student
trustees we can begin to answer critical questions and achieve a better understanding of
11
the phenomenon of the student trustee role, advancing previous scholarship and
contributing new perspectives on student trustees’ leadership development in shared
governance.
Evolution of Governance in U.S. Higher Education
History of the Board of Trustees
Kerr and Gade (1989) noted that “Boards of lay trustees as we know them in the
United States originated in the Protestant Reformation” (p. 17). While the structure of
contemporary academic governing boards of trustees is unique to the United States, the
earliest documentation of a student role in a lay governing board can be traced back not
only to the Protestants, but even further, to medieval German and Italian universities.
“Prior to the Reformation, many mid-fourteenth century Italian and German universities
were controlled by students holding administrative roles and were replaced by
townspeople and the professoriate in a short time” (Elfreth, 2011, p. 7).
In the 16th century, John Calvin’s Academy, founded in Geneva in 1559, was the
first of the Reformation colleges to establish a lay governing board (Elfreth, 2011; Kerr
& Gade, 1989). It was three different factors, Calvin’s theory of moderation, the need for
a vehicle for social control as well as republican viewpoint that led to lay participation in
the governance of two key social structures: the church and the university. Leyden
University, established in 1575 in the Netherlands, appointed the mayor of the city as an
ex-officio member of a board comprised of nobles; similarly, the University of
Edinburgh’s board was under direct city control in 1583 (Kerr & Gade, 1989).
In 1593, Trinity College in Dublin adopted a bicameral legislature comprised of
the internal board that owned the college and a board of seven (lay) visitors (Elfreth,
12
2011; Kerr & Gade, 1989). Trinity College became particularly important to the history
of governing boards as it was the first to create bicameral oversight, in the U.S. when the
first governing board for Harvard, the Board of Overseers, was established in 1642,
drawing its members from male leaders within the colony in Harvard (Kerr & Gade,
1989). The Protestant immigrants to the American colonies, many of whom had
graduated from institutions such as Cambridge and Emmanuel that were rooted in
Calvinist theory, believed that the public interest of public institutions should be in the
hands of the citizens rather than hierarchical governing bodies selected by one individual
(Elfreth, 2011). In 1650, after facing challenges trying to pull the group together on a
consistent basis, President Dunster of Harvard “persuaded the Overseers to seek a charter
from the colonial government which provided for two boards, one internal and one
external, as at Trinity College in Dublin” (Kerr & Gade, 1989, p. 19). Dunster believed
that two boards would provide the institutions the expertise of the faculty to address key
academic issues and non-university representatives to tend to the over administrative
functions such as budget planning and construction. The external board members’ lack
of motivation to serve on the board manifested in creating challenges with the
governance structure. The external board members lacked a formalized relationship to
the institution prior to their appointment; they were not invested in the institutions’ future
and did not have an affinity for the institution which all resulted in their apathy.
The College of William and Mary, established in 1693, also started with dual
boards, one comprised of leading men in Virginia, most notably Thomas Jefferson, and
the second board comprised of a group of faculty. “Thomas Jefferson helped to steer the
College towards a single lay board structure and the remaining colonial colleges followed
13
this guide” (Elfreth, 2011, p. 8). There are still holdovers from the colonial colleges in
today’s governance; for example, the governor of New Jersey serves as an ex-officio
member of Princeton’s Board (Kerr & Gade, 1989). Both political and social forces have
influenced the evolution of college and university boards throughout history.
Following the American Revolution, a number of public colleges emerged that
were chartered by states and therefore accountable to them through their boards. Many
states reserved the right to amend institutions’ charters; even those that did not formally
maintain this right often attempted to make changes without institutional or board
approval. Such actions led to a critical Supreme Court case decision in Martin v. Hunter
Lessee 1816 (Altbach, 2011). The Supreme Court found that the New Hampshire
legislature did not have the right to alter the contract between Dartmouth College, which
was considered a charitable organization, and members of its board of trustees (Kerr &
Gade, 1989). “The Dartmouth College decision paved the way for what we now think of
as a basic distinction in higher education between “public” vs. “independent” (or
“private”) institutions” (Kerr & Gade, 1989, p. 22). Moreover, “That judgment ensured
the independence of such (independent) institutions and shaped the course of American
higher education” (Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges
[AGB], 2014b, p. 3).
This distinction of public and private manifests itself today in the ways board
structures vary depending on the type of institution. Moreover, the role of student
trustees also differs distinctly at public and private institutions. Notably, six of the
original 13 states chartered public universities before or shortly after the Civil War; their
charters reflect a private model for their boards and “generally incorporated a self-
14
perpetuating board of trustees, often heavily under the control of the dominant religious
group in the state” (Kerr & Gade, 1989, p. 22). Those six states are Georgia (1785),
North Carolina (1789), South Carolina (1805), Maryland (1812), Virginia (1819), and
Delaware (1821). Over time these public boards have moved away from both dominant
religious control and self-perpetuating trustees; however, they have retained the single lay
board structure (Elfreth, 2011; Kerr & Gade, 1989). Following approval of the 1862
Morrill Act by the U.S. Congress, the growth of land-grant universities and state colleges
also impacted the responsibilities of boards of trustees through additional opportunities to
build new institutions, acquired new pieces of land that needed to be developed and
created enhanced the relationship between public research institutions and their state
government officials (Martorana, 1963).
Changes in the American political and social landscape were also manifested in
higher education administration. Prior to World War II, private institutions enrolled a
majority of college students in the country; however, the creation of the G.I. Bill in 1944
and the large baby boom population led to rapid growth in public colleges (Altbach,
2011). Some states, looking for new ways to manage the dramatic growth, combined
smaller regional institutions, while other states expanded their higher education systems.
As a result of this process, state legislatures were increasingly entrusted with the
governance of public universities. Thus, as Elfreth (2011) noted, “prior to 1940, nearly
70 percent of public colleges and universities had lay governing boards” (p. 8), yet “by
the mid-1970s only about 30 percent of public colleges and universities answered to their
lay board” (Elfreth, 2011, p. 9).
15
U.S. higher education governance often employs a system structure, which refers
to multiple campuses operating under the umbrella of a singular governance model. The
first iteration of this type of system can be traced back the Regents of the University of
New York, which was established in 1784 (Kerr & Gade, 1989). The system model also
saw growth with the expansion of land-grant universities following 1862 (Bowen &
Tobin, 2015). In the 1920s, the City University of New York was created as a multi-
campus system (Kerr & Gade, 1989). Following the Great Depression another early
pioneer of the system, North Carolina, created a state system that encompasses all four
public state universities now (Kerr & Gade, 1989). The system trend saw significant
growth following World War II and the expansion of public universities in the U.S.
One element of the evolution of governance in U.S. higher education has been a
shift away from the trustee with specific religious views. Specifically, “In the post-Civil
War period, businessmen and alumni took the place of clergy on private and public
college and university boards” (Kerr & Gade, 1989, p. 23). There have also been
changes in who holds the power within the board. “From the Civil War to World War I,
strong boards along with strong presidents reigned supreme” (Kerr & Gade, 1989, p. 23).
With the establishment of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) in
1915, the professoriate became its own separate, powerful force in governance (AGB,
2014b).
Students also emerged as a powerful force in governance, as they began to be
treated like adults and higher education embraced a shift away from in loco parentis.
Students interested in how universities were governed began to form student government
organizations during the late 1960s. “One legacy of the 1960s has been an increased but
16
small number of student trustees, either full-fledged members of boards or official
observers” (Kerr & Gade, 1989, p. 24). Boards have changed greatly over their 350-year
existence, and the gap between boards of public and private institutions has widened.
“The worlds of private boards and public boards are moving apart as systems now
dominate the public sector and as sunshine laws change methods of operation for public
institutions” (Kerr & Gade, 1989, p. 29). As the board has evolved throughout the years,
significant historical events—such as wars, federal legislation and changes in the college
population—have impacted the way current boards are shaped. Quality and effectiveness
are core values in U.S. higher education, and boards of trustees today remain central to
upholding those values (Kerr & Gade, 1989).
Authority of the Board
Every institution of higher education has a board of trustees at the top of its
organizational hierarchy (Kaplin & Lee, 2006). The name of the governing board varies.
Examples could be board of regents, board of visitors, board of governors or just the
board. For this study “board of trustee” will be used to note the governing board for the
institution. Each board’s authority originates in the charter, statute, constitution, or other
legal and incorporating documents granted by the state in which it resides for public
institutions (Birnbaum, 1998; Kaplin & Lee, 2006). The size of the board, how trustees
are selected, and the term limits for the members are outlined in the board’s charter (Kerr
& Gade, 1989). States have the power to support, create, and dissolve public institutions
as well as to grant charters to private institutions and recognize their authority to grant
degrees (Kaplin & Lee, 2006). The federal government also has leverage to influence the
actions of such boards by granting or denying access to federal aid, ensuring institutions
17
are compliant with federal laws, and authorizing the accrediting bodies that evaluate
institutions (Kaplin & Lee, 2006). ).
A board’s responsibilities may include a range of tasks, including hiring and
firing presidents, creating or approving strategic plans, establishing fundraising goals,
revising the institutional mission statement, approving university budgets, and approving
university policies. Collis (2004) argued that a board’s most important and challenging
role is establishing the long-term direction for the institution. Similarly, Bowen (1994)
explained that a board is responsible not only for long-term planning but also for
upholding the institutional mission that drives such planning.
Lyall (2001) highlighted the emerging responsibility of public trustees to serve as
accountability agents. The Association of Governing Boards of Universities and
Colleges (AGB) argued in a 2014a article that trustees have responsibility as well for
preventing sexual assault on college campuses, noting, “boards must ensure that their
institutions have policies and procedures in place that serve to protect students and keep
them safe” (para. 2). Most recently, Johnson (2015) noted that “a trustee board is the
only group with the explicit fiduciary rights and responsibilities for an institution” (p. 3).
Trustees’ wide range of responsibilities may place them in a variety of complex
situations; for example, they may be called on to mediate between internal constituents
such as students and administrators on decisions to raise tuition, between the president
and faculty regarding new contract terms, or between the legislature and the institution to
allocate state funding.
Board members are unpaid volunteers who typically have established extremely
successful careers outside of education (Kerr & Gade, 1989). Trustees are entrusted with
18
a high level of responsibility and the authority to chart the future of the institution they
serve. They are charged with ensuring that institutions maintain their accountability to
their campus constituents while also complying with state and federal laws. The trustees’
portfolio of diverse responsibilities is coupled with the vital role of navigating the various
levels of leadership and politics on their campuses. Notably, both the AAUP (2006) and
AGB (2010) have indicated that boards must leave not only the teaching and research,
but also the day-to-day management and administration of the university, to the senior
administrators and faculty, indicating the value of shared governance from the board.
AAUP and AGB recognition that administrators and faculty must have a voice in the
decision making and management of the institution represents the value of shared
governance where multiple parties play a role in managing the institution. Despite their
wide-ranging duties, however, the responsibility and power of trustees is often
underestimated when reviewing university governance.
Shared Governance
As the role of boards has evolved over time, so has their composition.
“Governance is the term we give to the structures and process that academic institutions
invent to achieve an effective balance between the claims of two different, but equally
valid, systems for organizational control and influence” (Birnbaum, 2004, p. 5). The two
earliest systems referenced by Birnbaum are a board comprised of faculty members only
or a board comprised of laymen only. In 1858, President Tappan of the University of
Michigan noted that faculty participation in governance should be limited to dealing with
academic program and faculty matters; this view was widely popular amongst university
senior leadership (Birnbaum, 2004). Subsequently, however,
19
the increasing professionalism of the faculty during the early decades of the
twentieth century, accelerated by the academic revolution following World War
II, led many institutions to accept not only faculty control over the curriculum but
also a strong faculty voice in other education related matters. (Birnbaum, 2004, p.
5)
The term shared governance emerged to capture the distinct ways in which multiple
constituents are involved in managing universities. “The concepts of academic freedom
and free inquiry and the tradition of shared governance that are integral to the academic
community are virtually unknown elsewhere” (AGB, 2014b, p. 4).
In 1915 “in a response to a number of cases during the previous decades in which
faculty members believed that academic freedom had been violated, a group of notable
scholars came together to form the American Association of University Professors
(AAUP)” (Pierce, 2014, p. 9). The AAUP advocates for the rights of university faculty
in relation to issues of academic freedom, tenure, and their roles in governance. In 1967
the AAUP, the AGB, and the American Council on Education (ACE) released the
“Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities,” commonly referred to as the
“Joint Statement.” This document formally established the role of faculty in governance
for the first time (AGB, 2014b; Altbach, 2011; Birnbaum, 2004; Bowen & Tobin, 2015;
Hendrickson, Lane, Harris, & Doran, 2013; Kerr & Gade, 1989; Martorana, 1963; Pierce,
2014).
The Joint Statement represents an important milestone for university governance,
legitimizing the role of faculty in the management of the university. Birnbaum (2004)
identifies three key parties involved in academic governance: the trustees, the
20
administration, and the faculty. “Effective governance requires that the viewpoint of
each group should be considered in making decisions” (Birnbaum, 2004, p. 17).
Birnbaum goes a step further, quoting W. H. Cowley’s view that “academic governance
is far too important to be left entirely in the hands of professors or entirely in the hands of
boards of trustees. The enterprise requires the participation of both” (Cowley, as cited in
Birnbaum, 204, p. 17). It is important to note that the Joint Statement makes no mention
of the role student trustees plays in shared governance.
There is an “overwhelming diversity of opinions regarding what shared
governance means and how it should be practiced on the ground” (Duderstadt, 2000, p.
32). This multiplicity of perspectives is clearly reflected in the literature regarding shared
governance in higher education. In 2003, William Tierney and James Minor published
Challenges for Governance: A National Report, highlighting the key obstacles to shared
governance: lack of trust, multiple viewpoints on who should be at the decision making
table, and a variety of opinions on how to operationalize leadership at institutions of
higher education. The report also pointed out that every institution is unique and no two
institutions share identical governance models. “Shared governance systems vary
between institutions of the same Carnegie Classification and across all U. S. higher
education institutions” (Hendrickson et al., 2013, p. 271). Each institution is looking to
develop the board governing structure that is appropriate for their institutions which
could include faculty, students and even alumni. “The movement to include students in
governance is also a part of a general movement to revitalize the model of shared
governance on college and university campuses” (Tierney, 1998, p. 32). As institutions
21
look to identify what parties should be included in the board of trustees the debate over
shared governance at institutions will continue.
The concept of shared governance can be found at the center of many debates on
effective university management. Gary Rhoades (2013) voiced concern that today, “most
colleges and universities lack or have experienced a decline in genuine shared
governance, either formally or in practice” (p. 31). Rhoades (2013) went on to say that
“the professoriate is part of the system of collegial checks and balance that is so essential
to good university governance” (p. 32). Rhoades and others argue that faculty
participation has been historically, and continues to be, critical for effective management
of the university.
Wergin (2004) conducted action research on his campus to identify best practices
for faculty to become involved with the faculty senate, the entrée into shared governance
at his institution. Reflecting on his personal experiences of shared governance, William
Mallon (2004), a former university president, noted the palpable tension that
characterized interactions among faculty, administrators, and government appointees on
his institution’s board. Robert Birnbaum (2004), in his essay entitled, “The End of
Shared Governance: Looking Ahead or Looking Back,” suggested that given the financial
constraints confronting American higher education, shared governance will expand to
welcome both federal and state legislators to the decision-making table. There is a dearth
of both qualitative and quantitative research in illuminating the experiences, opinions,
and impact of those serving in shared governance.
22
Student Governance
As in shared governance, the nature and practices of student governance have
evolved since its inception. “College students have been involved with different aspects
of running higher education since the rise of student nations at Bologna” (Miller &
Nadler, 2006, p. 9). Student power can be traced back to medieval universities in Europe
four hundred years before making its way west. During the colonial period, U.S.
institutions of higher education did not always have the financial resources to meet the
academic and social needs of students, leading to the birth of student self-governance
(May, 2010). The earliest examples of student self-governance took the form of literary
societies; subsequently these evolved to incorporate honor systems, followed by student
assemblies, class councils, student councils, and finally present-day student associations
(May, 2010). According to Miller and Nadler (2006), “in the late nineteenth century,
student governance began in earnest, arising somewhat out of the formation of an elective
system that allowed students more choice” (p. 9). Students formed governance bodies
outside of the formal institutional structures when they were not pleased with how the
institutions were managing the residence halls or societies.
The concept of student governance is often associated with the contemporary
form of American student government (Elfreth, 2011; May, 2010; Miller & Nadler,
2006); however, this phenomenon in reality has a much longer history. Bryn Mawr
proudly claims to be the first U.S. institution of higher education “to give students
responsibility not only for enforcing rules of behavior upon themselves, but also for
deciding what those rules should be” (Bryn Mawr College Self-Government Association,
23
n.d., para. 2), which they did in 1892. Other early forms of student government emerged
in the early 1900s and were strongly tied to the social experience for students.
It was not until the 1960s that student government organizations began to impact
institutional governance (Miller & Nadler, 2006). Representative national organizations
emerged, including the U.S. National Student Association, which at its peak represented
500 campuses committed to encouraging “more student participation in the decision-
making at the country’s colleges and universities” (Hodgkin, 1971, as cited by Miller &
Nadler, 2006, p. 10). During the 1970s, student governance hit its all-time peak for
prominence during the Vietnam War, as students demanded a voice in the way their
universities were run (Elfreth, 2011; Miller & Nadler, 2006). Groups of students seeking
to represent their residence hall, their graduating class, their major, and their athletic
teams have taken on roles of student governance. College students seeking to express
their views on university governance have often found creative means of insuring that
student voices will be considered in university decision making. “Student governance
has become largely accepted throughout higher education, in part due to the potentially
valuable element it adds for decision making within the campus community” (Miller &
Nadler, 2006, p. 10).
Governance in higher education is unquestionably complex, incorporating
multiple constituents and institutional levels. According to Legon, Lombardi, and
Rhoades (2013), “the best governance model is one that is collaborative and forward-
looking, engaged and aware, open and transparent, inclusive and forceful” (p. 25). The
authors described an effective governance structure as one that “performs like an
orchestra in perfect harmony. When it is out of tune, its audiences—students, parents,
24
corporate and policy leaders, the news media and the public—notice publicly” (p. 25).
Just as each member of the orchestra is vital to accomplishing the collective effect
created by the whole, so do the members of a board of trustees fill critical roles that
together yield successful institutional governance.
Trusteeship in U.S. Higher Education
Current Trustee Landscape
Boards of trustees are the ultimate decision-making bodies for their institutions.
They make decisions about policies and hiring the most senior level university officials,
have overall fiscal oversight, and set and support the strategic plan for their respective
institutions. “The practice in the United States is strikingly different from that in other
nations not only in the high decentralization of authority for higher education, but in the
fact that the holders of that authority are laymen” (Martorana, 1963, p. 3). The governing
board of the institution, often called the board of governors, visitors, trustees, regents , or
supervisors, is “an organized group of people with the authority collectively to control
and foster an institution that is usually administered by a qualified executive and staff”
(Houle, 1989, p. 6). Board members, in partnership with university liaisons and senior
leadership, work collectively to advance the institutional mission. Traditionally board
members viewed themselves as guardians of the institution; however, more recently
boards have become more engaged in issues related to rising costs and faculty
productivity (Kezar, 1999). As the expectations for universities change, the role of the
board in helping institutions respond to such expectations must shift as well.
Dika and Janosik (2003) observed that “Trustees play a primary role in ensuring
quality and effectiveness in higher education in the United States” (p. 272) and board
25
members often view themselves as responsible for ensuring intuitional effectiveness
(Michael & Schwartz, 2000). Boards help institutions fulfill their mission by helping to
shape policy, supporting strategic planning, and ensuring strong resources for the
institution.
Helping shape the institution’s mission, recruiting and supporting strong senior
leadership, garnering and nurturing adequate resources, enhancing ties between
campus and community, and helping the institution respond to inevitable
challenges and opportunities—these represent the less obvious but vital
dimensions of trusteeship. (AGB, 2014b, p. 1)
Boards themselves are complex, required to respond to a diverse group of
constituents that varies based on the type of institution. Board structures also vary based
on the type of institution. The greatest differences are evident when comparing public to
private institutions. How a trustee is selected for the board—whether through an
election, institutional appointment, or legislative appointment—is just one example
(Elfreth, 2011; Kerr & Gade, 1989). Martorana (1963) explained that “there are four
ways whereby persons are selected for membership on boards of trustees: (a) election, (b)
appointment, (c) co-optation, and (d) ex-officio selection” (p. 40).
In a 1989 study of trustees, Kerr and Gade (1989) estimated that there were
41,500 trustees who are entrusted, at various levels, to chart the course of American
institutions and ultimately shape the enterprise of higher education in the United States.
Given that the study is now 27 years old, it’s likely that the number of trustees has
increased and this fact highlights the need for new research to be conducted that reflects
the current population of trustees. The trustee experience is extremely varied from
26
institution to institution, in details ranging from the path to selection for the board to the
length of the term of service. Yet there is not enough information available to compile an
accurate profile of those serving as trustees within U.S. higher education. In 2007, USA
Today released the unremarkable finding of a Chronicle of Higher Education survey that
“1,478 trustees were mostly white, wealthy and male, based on trustees at 1,082
institutions” (Marklein, 2007, para. 5). There is little qualitative or quantitative research
identifying the experiences, opinions, and impact of those serving in shared governance.
The Trustee Role
A substantial amount of research has found that once an individual joins a board,
an orientation is critical for the new member’s success (AGB, 2014b; Elfreth, 2011;
Kezar, 2006; Legon et al., 2013; Rall & Maxey, 2015). Nevertheless, “many institutions
are not sufficiently intentional or purposeful about orientation” (Pelletier, 2013, para. 1).
Pelletier (2013) posited that
among all the programs and events that a college or university conducts in a given
year, the orientation of new board members probably ranks relatively low in the
amount of attention and planning it gets from top administrators. But that might
be a tactical or even strategic error. (para. 7)
This and similar studies suggest that orientation for new board members should be
intentional and thorough. In an article titled “Orientation and Professional Development
of Trustees,” Davis (1997) discusses Vaughan and Weisman’s (1995) finding that “only
14 percent of boards require new trustees to participate in a structured orientation to the
board” (p. 21). Moreover, “for 70 percent of the boards, new trustee orientation is
27
voluntary, and 16 percent of the boards do not provide new trustees with formal
orientation” (Davis, 1997, p. 21).
Dika and Janosik (2003) found that “in the opinion of trustees, political leaders,
and educational leaders, there are inadequacies in current appointment and training
processes” for boards of trustees (p. 274). Dika and Janosik (2003) argued further that
“while there is near universal agreement on the necessity of training and orientation, very
few studies have looked at the availability and effectiveness of training opportunities for
trustees” (p. 276). Recognition of the importance of trustee orientation is woven
throughout the research in this area. Dika and Janosik (2003) went on to state that
information about training and orientation practices “is necessary to examine
relationships between appointments, training, and board effectiveness” (p. 276).
The trustee onboarding experience, from placement to orientation, is essential to
each individual’s successful transition to the board, which subsequently impact the entire
board. Legon et al. (2013) asserted that the best practices for governing boards include a
“comprehensive orientation program for new members and continuing education for all”
(p. 26). The importance of board member preparation has been a topic in books,
scientific studies, and even the national media. A Chronicle of Higher Education report
found that “4 in 10 trustees surveyed described themselves as ‘slightly’ or ‘not at all’
prepared and fewer than 15% said they were very well prepared when they joined the
board” (Marklein, 2007, para. 2). Kerr and Gade (1989) explained that “almost
universally, once selected, new board members are not given adequate orientation” (p.
47). Kerr and Gade offered examples of what should be included in an effective
orientation program: “At minimum, new members should receive a set of basic
28
documents, an introduction to top officials of the campus or campuses, an insight into the
traditions and operating methods of the board, and an orientation to the legal
responsibilities” (p. 47).
The issue of trustee preparation has even made its way to the floor of state
legislatures. In the past three years, Massachusetts, Alabama, Illinois, and Texas all
considered legislation that would mandate training and orientation for trustees; Texas’
approval of this legislation made it the fifth state to require such training, with Arkansas,
Virginia, West Virginia, and Oklahoma (Woodhouse, 2015). Sherri Fulford, the
executive director of government affairs at Auburn University in Alabama, explained the
importance of orientation and training, noting, “we think it’s valuable for [new board
members] to understand more about the expectation of being a public official”
(Woodhouse, 2015, para. 18). Understanding one’s role and the expectations that
accompany it are critical components in the onboarding process for trustees.
In his 2013 book, Asking the Right Questions: A Guide for College and University
Trustees, Nathan Dickmeyer drew on his own work with higher education trustees to
offer guidance and help prepare them for service. Dickmeyer posed key questions facing
higher education and then provides answers. He explains, “the answers will help trustees
understand the complexity of colleges and universities, allowing them to give further
assistance to their institutions” (Dickmeyer, 2013, p. 103). In a similar vein, AGB
produced Effective Governing Boards: A Guide for Members of Governing Boards of
Independent Colleges and Universities to cover key board responsibilities in relation to
areas such as finance, overall effectiveness, working with the president, and strategic
29
planning (AGB, 2014b). This book further demonstrates the need for orientation and
training to help trustees learn to successfully serve in their roles.
Martorana (1963) also emphasized the critical role of training for board members,
pointing out that “the large majority of individual members of these boards are not
professionally engaged in the business of higher education” (p. 2). Kerr and Gade (1989)
argued that based on their research findings, both “new and experienced board members
benefit from periodic opportunities to step back and look at the role of the board, at the
appropriate behavior for its members, and at their personal interactions” (p. 47). Their
work suggests that orientation should be the first, but not the only, step in the training and
professional development of trustees.
One reason for the importance of orientation to the trustee experience is that no
two universities assign exactly the same roles and responsibilities to their trustees, and
significant differences exist among the policies and procedures that apply to trustees at
various institutions. For example, the length of the term for which trustees can vary from
one year to a lifetime appointment, depending on the institution (Elfreth, 2011; Kerr &
Gade, 1989; Rall & Maxey, 2015. Martorana (1963) found that “the range of the term is
from one year to an indefinite authorization, but the median number of the years with
definite terms ranges from three to six” (p. 49).
This variance in term length has significant implications for what trustees can
accomplish during their tenure. “It takes time (at least two years) to gain a deep
understanding of such complicated institutions as college and university campuses and to
develop an attachment to them, if such an attachment does not exist” (Kerr & Gade,
1989, p. 48). This finding highlights the learning curve new trustees face when
30
transitioning into a leadership role in the complex higher education enterprise. For this
reason, Kerr and Gade recommended a six- to eight-year term for public board trustees.
The length of term has a significant impact on the trustee experience and comprises a key
variable when examining the student trustee experience.
Student Trustees
In his 1963 book College Boards of Trustees, Martorana identified the ideal
public board structure recommended by Hubert Beck in his 1947 article, “Men Who
Control Our Universities.” Beck advocated including on the board “eight representatives
of the public and five from the university, which includes two faculty, two alumni, and
one student” (Beck, as cited in Martorana, 1963, p. 99). The role of the student trustee
has been documented throughout the history of university governance as the placement of
student trustees has increased. A 1974 survey conducted by the Association of Governing
Boards of Universities and Colleges found that 20 states had student members on the
governing boards of their public universities (Woods & Nason, 1977). In a 1975 follow-
up survey, the AGB found that 17 of the 58 land-grant universities in the U.S. entrusted
their student trustees with full voting rights (Woods & Nason, 1977).
Shelton (1976) noted that the passage of the 26th amendment in 1971, which
lowered the voting age to 18, fueled students’ desire to be incorporated into the university
decision making process. In turn, some institutions began to recognize the value of
student participation for both the university and the students themselves. A former
university president of a large public research institution in the Midwest shared, “I
believe board membership is valuable for students. I have seen them grow and think
many of them will return to the trustee role later on” (Woods & Nason, 1977, p.13).
31
Schlesinger and Baldridge (1982) noted that following the rise of student activism
in the 1960s and 1970s, in the 1980s, many students refocused their attention on studying
and career planning and student participation in academic governance declined.
Moreover, many (particularly private, independent) institutions resisted including
students on their boards. Martin (2003) expressed a commonly held view that “though
well intentioned, and in some states mandatory, policies that reserve board seats for
campus interest groups such as students or faculty produce conflicted boards of trustees”
(p. 31).
A 1976 AGB report notes that student participation on college governing boards
has always been and will always be controversial because students like faculty represent
a particular constituency on the campus rather than the total constituency of the
community (Shelton, 1976, p. 24). Nevertheless, the presence of student representation
on such boards has steadily increased over the last 30 years (Miller & Nadler, 2006) and
many in higher education, particularly at large public research universities, argue that the
positive impact on student learning outweighs the negatives (Martin, 2003). Today,
“student trustees have become a common fixture in the governance of many higher
education institutions, particularly at public colleges and universities” (Rall & Maxey,
2015, p. 3). The AGB’s 2010 survey of 691 schools found that 70.8% of public
institutions have at least one student trustee member, a significant increase from 20.5% in
1997 (Alvarez-Breckenridge, 2010).
The AGB survey results not only highlight an increase in the number of student
trustees but also capture the unique role they have played and continue to hold within
shared governance, as well as the benefits they glean from their participation. “Students
32
learn from their involvement . . . about politics, communication skills, reasoning, conflict
resolution, and so forth” (Miller & Nadler, 2006, p. 12). Miller and Nadler (2006) argued
that “higher education is heavily invested in preparing individuals for democratic
participation and citizenship, and working with a representative democracy on a college
campus is an excellent, and often lower-risk, laboratory for that to occur” (p. 12). Yet
such views are not universal. Kerr and Gade (1989) stated that they “oppose in principle
student and faculty board membership” (p. 46) because such members represent specific
interest groups, and because of the significant challenges presented by including
members of the university community on such boards.
A small number of studies have focused on student trustees. McLaughlin (1978)
interviewed student trustees for an AGB report and found that a one-year term limit led
student trustees to feel their time was too rushed. McLaughlin (1978) also found that
trustees who did not have voting power regarded their roles as “meaningless” (p. 41).
Lang’s (2002) study yielded similar results, leading her to conclude that if students are to
hold board seats they should also have full voting privileges. Lang noted, “students
should have a say in board decisions. Introducing issues for votes, having contact with
public officials more regularly, and discussing critical issues gives student greater
legitimacy and leadership development” (Lang, 2002, p. 94).
McLaughlin (1978) argued that it is essential for student trustees to participate in
training sessions designed to prepare them for their role on the board. Much subsequent
research (Alvarez-Breckenridge, 2010; Elfreth, 2011; Kerr & Gade, 1989; Smith, 2000;
Rall & Maxey, 2015) has confirmed the importance of this recommendation. These
scholars argue that given the preparation that typically goes into orientation for new
33
students, faculty, and staff, it is vital to invest equal effort in preparing new members of
the highest level of university leadership, the board.
Smith (2000) found in her qualitative study that the majority of student trustees
are elected to their roles. Smith also learned in her study that students benefited from
their participation on the board. One participant noted, “I learned a lot personally and
professionally and I have some really great business relationships as a result of my
service” (Smith, 2000 p. 74). A participant from Lang’s 2002 study shared, “I believe the
student trustee position has made me a better person. And I’ve learned how to be an
effective leader and how to be a better voice for my constituents” (Smith, 2000, p. 82).
Middleton (2010) noted that student trustees learn important leadership skills that serve
them post-graduation, as proven by how successful former student trustees have been in
diverse fields and communities.
Alvarez-Breckenridge (2010) noted that student trustees benefit from meeting
with the chair of the board to discuss their interest in committee assignments, and
recommended that student trustees have their own strategic priorities, evaluate their
experience on the board, and share their findings with their peer student leaders. Such
recommendations can serve as goals or learning outcomes for student trustees during
their term to promote maximum learning and development. Moreover, “by actively
including student trustees in board discussions and decision making, institutions can
benefit from the insights and reactions of current students while also possibly nurturing
some board leaders of the future” (Alvarez-Breckenridge, 2010, p. 6).
The limited data available indicate that student trustees face unique challenges
regarding orientation, the identity balance of student and trustee, and term lengths
34
compared to their non-student board colleagues. “Student and faculty trustees, with their
unique stake in board discussions and deliberations, add credibility and effectiveness to
the board, providing a broader perspective” (Middleton, 2010, p. 1). A 2010 AGB survey
found that half of students (50.3%) serving on public institution boards are granted voting
privileges (Schwartz, 2010), up from 20.5% in 1997. Yet, Rall and Maxey (2015) noted
that to date, “very little is known or understood about how [student trustees’] roles are
carried out or what their experiences are like while they serve in this distinctive and
unique leadership role” (p. 15).
Student trustees face some of the same challenges in successfully fulfilling their
roles as their non-student colleagues do (Elfreth, 2011). These challenges range from
understanding their roles and the expectations of the position to learning how to carry out
their jobs as trustees to managing the time commitment involved in this responsibility
(AGB, 1996, 2003, 2013; Alvarez-Breckenridge, 2010; Elfreth, 2011; Hartnett, 1969;
Hendrickson et al., 2013; Kezar, 2006; Longanecker, 2006; Nason, 1980). Elfreth (2011)
noted that the average age of a student trustee is 23 and over 95% serve a one-year term,
meaning that in the course of their term there are a small number of board meetings and
handful of events they will participate in while simultaneously learning and serving in
their roles. Elfreth believed these findings provide important context for understanding
these student leaders. The students are considerably younger than their laymen peer
trustees who are coming in into their leadership roles on the board with significant
personal and professional experience and serve multi-year terms compared to the single
year term the student trustee serves.
35
Rall and Maxey (2015) noted that the most pervasive challenge facing student
trustees was the limited term time of one year. One of their study participants shared that
“by the time you get settled in, you’re already out. By the time you can make a
difference, your term is done” (Rall & Maxey, 2015, p. 36). Another participant
described the experience as one of “dealing with much larger and more complex issues
than perhaps a 22-year-old should be dealing with, such as budgetary decisions, long-
term strategic planning, votes to increase student tuition, and the presidential search
process” (Rall & Maxey, 2015, p. 36).
The experiences of student trustees must be further unpacked if higher education
is to benefit from the unique role student trustees play on the team of university stewards.
With the majority of student trustees serving one-year terms, the availability of an
effective orientation becomes essential in preparing new trustees to begin serving on day
one of their term. Rall and Maxey (2015) and Elfreth (2011) found that students
benefited greatly from orientations that helped them understand the culture, mission, and
purpose of the board as well as their role in representing the student voice. Statham
(2011) noted that 40.7% of student trustees in his study received no formal training from
the outgoing student trustee prior to starting their tenure, while 30% indicated that they
received some formal training from the university or system (p. 35). Of the students in
Statham’s study who received training, 59.3% indicated they felt the training was
effective and important to their success.
Just as orientation and training opportunities vary from one institution to another,
so do the selection method through which student trustees become board members.
Statham (2011) found that 48.1% of his respondents were appointed by the governor,
36
29.6% were elected by their peers, 11.1% were appointed by the board itself, and the
remaining 11.1% were selected under a different process. Statham (2011) recommended
that given the unique status and experience of student trustees, a “student-tailored”
training should be created in addition to any other trustee orientation and training
available (p. 59).
Rally and Maxey (2015) observed the following:
Among those individuals serving on the boards of higher education
institutions and systems, the experiences of student trustees are among the least
understood even though existing research suggests these individuals face a unique
set of challenges that may affect how they are able to engage in their roles. (p.
27).
The lack of research on student trustees has implications for shared governance, student
leadership development, and university leadership more broadly.
The paucity of research on student trusteeship and the experiences of
student trustees reflects a gap in our understanding of an important—and
sometimes, very influential—subset of actors who are contributing in meaningful
ways to the governance of our public colleges and universities. (Rall & Maxey,
2015, p. 33)
College Student Leadership Development
Theoretical Evolution of the Study of Leadership
Since the time of the ancient Greeks, societies and communities have been
interested in what motivates leaders, how people come to be leaders and what makes a
37
good leader. “Perhaps the first known analysis of leadership comes from the Greek
philosopher Plato’s Republic, in which the critical and salient qualities of leaders are
discussed” (Statham, 2011, p. 6). Scholars from across the globe have long studied the
characteristics associated with leaders, introduced leadership theories, and observed
leaders in their element. The history of the theoretical frameworks of leadership plays a
significant role in setting the context for the leadership development programs on college
campuses today. Research by the Kellogg Foundation on 31 college campuses
“demonstrated that colleges and universities can provide highly effective environments
for the development of future leaders” (Astin & Astin, 2000, p. vii).
In his 1841 book, On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History, Thomas
Carlyle (1993) introduced the “great man” theory, arguing that leaders are born and not
made. Carlyle noted that great leaders had strong moral values, superior intelligence, and
an energy that allowed them to influence others. Trait-based leadership theory emerged
next in the mid-1920s and similar to the great man theory, it posits that leaders are born
and not made. Trait-based leadership theory differs from the great man theory as it stems
from the specific traits or skills that make the leader most affective, rather than the idea
that you are either born an effective leader or not. Its premise is that leaders are endowed
with inherent traits that allow them to be successful when presented with the opportunity
to lead (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991).
Bass and Stogdill (1990), reviewed over 163 leadership traits and identified 11
key traits that effective leaders possess. These include adaptability, ambition,
assertiveness, cooperativeness, decisiveness, dependability, dominant, energetic,
persistence, self-confidence, and tolerance. Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) suggested that
38
an additional trait, charisma, should be added to this list as it is a “measure of a variety of
qualities that affect a person’s ability to influence others” (p. 52). In addition, McCall
and Lombardo (1983) identified insensitivity, ambition, and strategic impetuousness as
traits that inhibit effective leadership. The traits referenced by McCall and Lombardo
create barriers to allowing leaders to succeed for example an inability to be empathetic or
insensitive to those you lead create challenges for members to feel trust in their leader. In
addition ambition of a leadership must be tempered with good of the group and cannot
get in the way of humility when course correction in needed from the leader.
In contrast to the premises of the great man theory, situational or contingency
leadership theories are rooted in the belief that different situations require leaders to
perform different tasks, select different approaches, and demonstrate a variety of traits
and skills.
The Hershey-Blanchard Model of Leadership is rooted in the belief that
followers have differing levels of competence and development and leaders
should analyze the extent to which followers exhibit both attributes in order to
select the most appropriate leadership behavior for the specific situation. (Bolden,
Grosling, Marturano, & Dennison, 2003, p. 26)
Statham (2011) recognized the work of Fred Fiedler, whose contingency theory of
leadership states that the success of managerial leaders is based on the situation-specific
conditions of “leader-member relations, task structure, and position power” (p. 15).
Like situational and contingency leadership frameworks, behavioral theories of
leadership are grounded in the belief that leaders are made rather than born. “Under this
school of thought, the success of leaders depends on the behaviors on which they base
39
their leadership style” (Statham, 2011, p. 16). Emerging from the field of psychology,
behavioral leadership theories focus on leaders’ actions (Northouse, 2007), emphasizing
“that leadership is not who a leader is but what a leader does” (Komives, Dugan, Owen,
Slack, & Wagner, 2011, p. 39). Behavioral leadership theories can be traced to the work
of social psychologist Douglas McGregor, whose 1960 book The Human Side of
Enterprise presents two very different approaches to leadership. Identifying these
strategies as Theory X and Theory Y, McGregor (1985) outlined contrasting views of
employee motivation and behavior leading to two distinct managerial approaches.
Behavioral leadership theories paved the way for the participatory leadership
theories that emerged in the early 1970s (Northouse, 2007). Participatory leadership
theories invite multiple layers in an organization to make decisions and hold leadership
roles and are sometimes referred to as democratic leadership theories emerged from a
study by Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939) called “Leadership and Group Life.” In the
study, three groups comprised of members with similar talents, skills, and abilities were
each assigned a different type of leader: an autocratic leader, a democratic leader, and
laissez-faire leader. Lewin et al. (19390 found that
leaders who exhibit high levels of democratic—or participative—
leadership achieved the greatest success; that is, they had members who
contributed the most, were able to operate in the absence of a strong leader, and
developed the greatest functional and cohesive bond. (p. 294)
The tenets and values of participatory leadership lend themselves well to the
context of higher education or other organizations that invite multiple voices to the
decision making table. “Higher education institutions have a tradition of involvement of
40
faculty, staff, and students in university governance. The leadership style used in these
institutions is often participative in nature” (Statham, 2011, p. 20). Kouzes and Posner
(2001) stated that “the truth is that leadership is an observable set of skills and abilities
that are useful whether one is in the executive suite or on the front line, on Wall Street or
Main Street, in any campus, community, or corporation” (p. 1).
Statham (2011) noted that “while participatory leadership is often seen as a
hallmark of education institutions, relationship-based leadership plays an important part
in the successful execution and implementation of this leadership approach” (p. 22). A
number of relationship-based theories of leadership that focus on the social processes
between individuals that impact and empower leaders were introduced during the 1980s
and 1990s (Northouse, 2007). One of the key findings came from Bernard Bass, a
professor at the State University of New York (SUNY) – Binghamton. In his 1990
article, “From Transactional to Transformational Leadership: Learning to Share the
Vision,” Bass argued that transformational leadership styles yield higher levels of
personal satisfaction from followers, increase financial dividends for the organization,
and enable groups to achieve greater organizational success.
“The discussion of college student leadership development theories begins with
servant leadership, despite the fact that this theory was not designed specifically for the
collegiate population” (Komives et al., 2011, p. 43). Servant leadership looks at
leadership with the primary focus to serve the group they are leading, that the needs of
those you are serving in the leadership role are the primary focus. Robert Greenleaf is
the founder and expert on servant leadership expressed that both individuals and groups
could be servant leaders or reflect servant leadership (Northouse, 2007). As scholarship
41
on leadership development has evolved, higher education’s view of leadership has
likewise advanced and the field of college student leadership development has
established its own niche in the academy. “The transition from the concept of the ‘great
man,’ in which leaders were born and not made, to a trainable leadership philosophy
represents a major evolution in academic thought” (Statham, 2011, p. 25).
Collegiate Leadership Programs
The late 1990s saw an exponential expansion of leadership development programs
as specific co-curricular programs on college campuses (Dugan & Komives, 2007). As a
result, the study of leadership in higher education has likewise exploded, with hundreds
of studies conducted on individual campuses and with specific types of student leader
positions (i.e., resident assistants) as well as national or longitudinal studies seeking to
capture broader data. “Increasingly, higher education is being turned to as a source for
potential change given its significant role in developing leadership capacity among
today’s youth” (Dugan & Komives, 2007, p. 8). This represents an important shift in the
way co-curricular experiences are viewed in the context of the mission of higher
education. Whereas co-curricular engagement historically has been seen as peripheral to
higher education’s primary academic mission, student leadership development today is
viewed as an important aspect of creating educated individuals and is frequently
incorporated into university mission statements (Clark, 1985; Cress, Astin, Zimmerman-
Oster, & Burkhardt, 2001; Roberts, 1997). On the contemporary college campus,
“leadership development is more than a by-product of a college education” (Dugan &
Komives, 2011, p. 35).
42
Bass and Stogdill (1990) (as cited in Northouse, 2007) suggested that there are as
many definitions of the term leadership as there are those who have studied it. Kouzes
and Posner (1995) identified over 225 definitions of leadership throughout the literature,
highlighting the vast array of views on how leadership should be defined and cultivated,
as well as what effective leadership looks in action. As a result of the breadth and
diversity of these perspectives, the types of leadership programs and positions available
vary greatly across the enterprise of higher education. Institutions offer programs for
emerging leaders, leadership majors and minors, leadership certificate programs, and an
innumerable variety of student leadership roles. “Leadership should attempt to
accomplish something or change something. Leadership is purposeful and intentional”
(Komives, Lucas, & McMahon, 1998, p. 14).
What these varied approaches typically share is a broad view of the benefits
associated with student involvement in co-curricular and leadership activities and an
accompanying recognition of the difficulty of identifying specific benefits of particular
programs or leadership roles (Evans, Forney & Guido-DiBrito, 1998). Research indicates
that student involvement in leadership opportunities increases social and political
awareness, improves writing and interpersonal communication skills, strengthens
organizational skills, contributes to cognitive development, and is closely related to later
job success (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Terenzini, Pascarella & Blimling, 1996;
Whitt, 1994). “If colleges and universities are interested in aligning their mission
statements and goals for student learning and growth with tangible developmental
outcomes, leadership development activities offer such an opportunity” (Cress et al.,
2001, p. 26).
43
Leadership programs may be rooted in various theories and combinations of
theories, which are often selected based on their alignment with an institution’s mission
or values. Such programs seek to help students develop competencies that will enhance
post-graduate success and prepare them to contribute to the global community. Yet much
remains to be learned about the experiences of student leaders. “Additional qualitative
studies should further examine the components of successful leadership positions as they
differentially impact students within and across institutions, as well as identify
motivations for engaged in leadership” (Cress et al., 2001, p. 26).
Outside of studies by Rall and Maxey (2015) and Elfreth (2011), there is a
particular lack of research on the experience of student trustees with executive privileges
and voting rights at four-year public research institutions. Student trustees come away
from their experiences with an intimate working knowledge of their complex institutions,
relationships with senior-level administrators, and new professional networks. Student
trustees have some similarities with their peers in student government who also represent
constituents, work with senior-level university leaders, and serve in limited-term roles
(Miller & Nadler, 2006). Thus a deeper look at student government leaders provides a
useful context for exploring student leadership development in governance experiences.
Student Government Leaders
College students have always looked for ways to express themselves, spend their
time outside of the classroom in meaningful ways, and stake ownership in their collegiate
experience. Student government has long provided a means through which students can
engage with their institution in these ways; however, “there are relatively few recent
students that empirically show the effect of student governance involvement on those
44
students, or even seek to evaluate it” (Bray, 2006, p. 21). May (2010) noted that within
the current student association phase of history that is currently taking place, researchers
have paid special attention to minorities, including the experiences of both women and
students of color. Miles, Miller, and Nadler (2008) administered a survey to over 500
student government leaders to learn how to improve the experience. Using a Likert scale,
the research team identified constituent apathy, navigating the university bureaucracy,
and lack of resources as factors that frustrated student leaders and impacted their decision
not to run for a second term (Miles et al., 2008).
Through a qualitative case study research project at the University of Virginia,
Eramo (2010) dove deep into student self-governance at this institution. Eramo
interviewed seven student leaders in the University of Virginia student government
association to explore their lived experience. Eramo’s findings shed light on the moral
and ethical development that takes place while students serve in roles of self-governance.
In previous research, Kuh and Lund (1994) found that participation in student
government has a positive effect on women’s choice of science professions, significantly
and positively affects students’ perceived leadership competence, and positively affects
both self-confidence and persistence.
Few qualitative studies have examined specific groups of students—such as
women, minority men, and community college students—as leaders in student
government. Miles (2010) interviewed four former female student government
presidents to learn more about their service in male-dominated organizations. All
participants reported feeling that they must be extra prepared and polished because they
were one of a few women, or the only woman, in the decision making body. However,
45
the participants also identified significant growth in their communication and negotiating
skills as a result of this experience.
Laosebikan-Buggs (2009) studied the experience of the first African American
Student Government president (SGP) at a predominantly White institution (PWI).
Laosebikan-Buggs’ phenomenological study was conducted over the course of one year
and incorporated 16 individual interviews that sought to capture that year in the life of
that institution’s first minority Student Government president. The study showcased the
lived experiences of a trailblazer, capturing moments of celebration as well as great
frustration throughout his journey. Such perspectives from specific student government
leaders provide insight on how educators can best support diverse students who find
themselves on these specific leadership paths.
Summary
Given the frequency with which students participate in co-curricular leadership
programs during their college years, it is essential for institutions to investigate how
leadership development influences educational outcomes and post-graduate success.
Student trustees unquestionably gain a great deal, in terms of both skills and connections,
from this leadership experience. The student affairs profession can benefit significantly
from understanding what students encounter in a trustee experience and how to best
support and foster the growth of these student leaders. “A commitment by student affairs
to the task of developing student leaders is as old as our profession, and fortunate is the
institution where student affairs staff have been eminently involved in student
government leadership development” (Gold & Quatroche, 1994, p. 34). That same
46
commitment or, one might argue, an increased commitment should be made to the
leadership development of student trustees.
Significant research has explored the numerous ways the college experience can
impact students (Astin, 1997; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). However, few studies have
investigated how the programs, activities, and services of student governance affect those
students who participate at their institutions (Chickering & Dalton, 2001). There is a
particular gap in the research related to the impact on college students of participation in
shared governance, resulting in a missed opportunity to learn how to most effectively
recruit, train, and cultivate this critical and select group of student leaders. Critical
questions have yet to be asked: Do institutions design the student trustee opportunity as a
leadership development experience for students? Do institutions recruit potential student
trustees to these very important roles, and if so, what does this recruitment process entail?
While considerable research has examined general leadership development within
higher education, little attention has been paid to understanding specific leadership
positions such as those of student trustees. Moreover, no research has explored the
experiences of student trustees with voting rights and executive privileges at a four-year
public institution, creating an important place for this research. This study investigated
the preparation provided to students who serve in these roles, as well as the specific
advantages and challenges that voting rights bring to the leadership development
experience.
Lastly, previous research on student governance is limited and dated. Bray (2006)
observed that May (2010) emphasized the importance of directing greater attention to the
student governance experience.
47
As higher education in the United States has matured and expanded, so
has student self-governance, sustaining the argument that student governance is a
key component to this growth and will carry on as a fundamental element on
college and university campuses. (May, 2010, p. 218)
McIntire (1989) went one step further, arguing, “the role of influence of student
government bodies cannot be ignored when discussing governance” (p. 77). On some
campuses, student government leaders and student trustees can even be one and the same.
Eflreth’s (2011) research indicated that in states such as Florida, the student government
president at all public four year institutions also serve as a student trustee, a dual
appointment made through the campus-wide election process.
The landscape of American higher education is changing rapidly, as universities
face increased scrutiny and public demands for higher levels of transparency. This
context presented a unique opportunity to study the student trustee experience at a
complex historical moment, to identify the challenges student trustees face serving in the
highest profile student leadership role on campus, and to shed light on the best ways to
prepare and support these student leaders. It offered as well a chance to consider which
theoretical frameworks if any are most effective for designing a comprehensive and
effective student trustee leadership development program.
Elfreth (2011) provided a contextual foundation for student trustees within U.S.
higher education. She paints a clear picture of the current landscape inhabited by student
trustees at four-year public institutions, highlighting the added complexity faced by
student trustees who serve in a system wide board rather than an individual campus
board. However, Elfreth’s research did not explore the lived experience of student
48
trustees in great detail, nor did she examine the leadership development of student
trustees in her work.
Rall and Maxey (2015) built on Elfreth’s (2011) work by examining the specific
challenge student trustees’ face through the lens of social cognitive theory. Rall and
Maxey’s (2015) interviews with 30 current student trustees expose the complexities of
the students’ role in comparison to those of their non-student colleagues. However, we
do not learn from their study what motivates student trustees to assume this leadership
role, what impact the experience has on students’ leadership development, or how to
maximize this unique experience to help students become successful contributors at the
highest levels of institutional leadership. Rall and Maxey (2015) recommended
additional research to “investigate how student trustees navigate this duality [of being
both a student and a trustee] in order to fulfill their personal goals on the board as well as
any board specific goals” (p. 36).
This qualitative study dug deep into the student trustee phenomenon to offer
insight into the impact of this experience on students’ leadership development. One of
Elfreth’s (2011) participants shared the following view of the vital importance of
including students on the contemporary university’s board of trustees:
The majority of the board went to college during the Cold War, used a
record player, and had no idea what the Internet was. To have folks set policy in
a post-Cold War, post-digital age, when the Internet is now on our phones and not
just our computers would be inept if all generations were not at the table. (p. 82)
By presenting findings based on analyses of in-depth interviews with student
trustees from four-year public research institutions who recently completed their terms in
49
shared governance, this study can now serve as resource for universities developing a
new student trustee role on their campus or seeking to enhance the leadership
development experience of an existing role. Current student trustees have described their
experience as “the equivalent to a master’s degree in system management” or as a
“unique classroom of its own that equaled or surpassed my traditional education”
(Elfreth, 2011, p. 85). Such personal reflections highlight the transformational leadership
development experience inherent in the student trustee role.
Martin (2003) has noted that “though many institutions . . . have resisted
including students on their boards, many in higher education believe the positives of
creating a position for a student trustee outweigh the negatives” (p. 4). My study
provides a foundational understanding of the critical elements of the student trustee
experience that positively impact the leadership development of the students participating
in shared governance. My study also offers senior university leaders a better
understanding of how to work effectively with student trustees, while providing student
affairs staff with a deeper understanding of how to support students through their
transitions into their shared governance roles. At the same time, this study offers
university alumni and development officers insight into an elite group of alumni who
might be considered for future engagement opportunities.
As public institutions respond to calls for an increase in accountability and
transparency, boards will be asked to use proactive approaches to meet demands
(Altbach, 2011). This call to boards impacts the goals, actions, and experiences of the
board members, thus impacting the student trustee leadership experience. I believe this
study will serve as a resource to institutions and board officials to understand how to best
50
support student trustees and design specific leadership programs for trustees in the hope
of cultivating future institution and higher education ambassadors in their states,
something they are in desperate need of doing during this point in higher education’s
history.
51
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Van Manen (2014) observed that a good phenomenological study “almost starts
with wonder or passes through a phase of wonder” (p. 37). This chapter chronicles the
journey from wonder to discussion by providing a guide and a philosophical framework
for the study of my specific wonder. Rhoades (2013) argued that “student affairs
professionals and faculty need phenomenon-oriented studies to better understand how
students make meaning around their experiences” (p. 30). The purpose of this
phenomenological study was to explore the lived experiences of student trustees engaged
in leadership positions within the institutional shared governance at four-year public
institutions. The following research questions guided this study:
What meaning do the students ascribe to their leadership experiences as
trustees?
How do student trustees perceive shared governance and their role within it?
How do student trustees perceive and enact their identities as leaders?
Insights from this study can be particularly valuable to understanding the
firsthand experience of student trustees fully engaged in shared governance at four-year
public institutions, with access to voting rights and executive sessions. In an effort to fill
the gap in the literature related to student trustees’ experiences, this study highlights these
students’ lived experiences and provides insight on how institutions can support them in
this unique leadership role, a role that is high profile in nature and short term in
appointment.
52
Hearing student trustees’ firsthand accounts of their leadership experiences can
impact how institutions support students in the transition into these roles, influencing
future approaches to recruitment and training. It also sheds light on how students who
aspire to become trustees learn about, prepare for, and experience this role. Little is
known about what students believe they gain by participating in the student trustee
leadership position because few studies have focused specifically on student leadership
within shared governance. Consequently, this study allowed me to identify and interpret
the constructed meanings the former student trustees place on their leadership
development experience in shared governance.
Conceptualizing the Study through the Interpretive and Critical Paradigms
Qualitative research seeks to understand a specific phenomenon from the
perspective of the individual or group of individuals living the experience. It permits the
exploration of the human experience and provides rich, complex, and textual descriptions
in response to a specific research question. This study focused on the role of the student
trustee, a student leader who is positioned within an institution’s or systems larger board
of trustees. The role of the student trustee comes with power, given its place within the
university’s highest decision-making body. It is this power of the student trustee that
invites the critical inquiry positioned within the interpretive design for this study.
Any inquiry can be conceptually critical if the issue of power is raised or
considered; however, a critical design cannot stand alone. Interpretive and critical
paradigms may be used in qualitative research to provide a framework, lens, or guide for
a study. Lukenchuk and Kolich (2013) explained that within the six key paradigms used
in qualitative research, “interpretive is mostly closely linked to critical” (p. 70). Critical
53
inquiry is popular with educational researchers as it creates an opportunity to look at
research within a conceptual system, taking into account the environment and context
(Lukenchuk & Kolich, 2013). The qualitative interpretive design enables the exploration
of how student trustees experience leadership development, while the critical paradigm
supports the examination of the politics, power, and advocacy inherent in the student
trustee role.
This study was positioned as interpretive in that it “assumes the social world is
constantly being constructed through group interactions, and thus social reality can be
understood via the perspectives of social actors enmeshed in meaning-making activities”
(Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2010, p. 5). The student trustees serve as the “actors” in this
study, enmeshed in meaning-making activities through their leadership roles in shared
governance. Smith (1992) explained that “interpretive inquiry, as is the case with all
other forms of qualitative inquiry, focuses on understanding (interpreting) the meanings,
purposes, and intentions (interpretations) people give to their own actions and
interactions with others” (p. 102). The interpretive framework provides an opportunity to
gather rich insights into the student trustees’ interpretations of their interactions not only
with their fellow board members, but also with university and local leaders.
This study was also informed by critical inquiry, as it both explored and went
beyond the participants’ prevailing assumptions and understandings to consider the role
of power and social position within the student trustee role. Creswell (2012) explained
that within critical inquiry, “reality is based on power and identity struggles” (p. 37).
This study examined whether and how power influences the experiences of students who
54
hold what is arguably the most powerful student leadership position on campus, in the
most powerful segment of the institution.
Kincheloe and McLaren (2003) recognized that meanings and truths are uniquely
situated and implicated in relation to power. Therefore, to truly uncover the phenomenon
of the student trusteeship, the role of power must be considered. Critical inquiry urges
researchers to look at the world through a political lens in which certain individuals or
groups have power and influence over others. The board of trustees at an institution has
both power and influence over the academic community it has been entrusted to lead.
The critical inquiry design is further supported by Rall and Maxey’s (2015)
research, which highlighted the ways in which the dual roles of student and trustee
present developmental, identity, and power struggles for students in this leadership role.
As a research design informed by the interpretive paradigm and critical inquiry,
phenomenology best suits the purposes of this study, as it allows an exploration of
student trustees’ lived experiences to uncover essential structures of leadership
development. The interpretive paradigm also fits well with the research design, as this
study seeks to explore the lived experiences of student trustees in shared governance
(Creswell, 2012; Lukenchuk, 2013). By using phenomenology as the methodology for
this study, I was able to draw from multiple theoretical and philosophical approaches
associated with interpretive-phenomenological systems of inquiry.
Phenomenology
The term phenomenology has its origins in the work of G. W. F. Hegel in 1807
and Edmund Husserl in 1920 (Lukenchuk, 2013). These two philosophers are credited
with shaping the key elements of phenomenological research. In addition to Hegel and
55
Husserl, Schütz, Heidegger, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, and Freire have also had a significant
impact on the development of phenomenology (Ulysse & Lukenchuk, 2013). “The type
of problem best suited for this form of research [phenomenology] is one in which it is
important to understand several individuals’ common or shared experiences of a
phenomenon” (Creswell, 2012, p. 81). Phenomenology has become an increasingly
popular contemporary research methodology that seeks to better understand how people
experience specific phenomena (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011).
Phenomenology is a respected and distinct approach within the area of qualitative
research. Van Manen (1998) explained that phenomenological research is a key process
in strong qualitative studies; it captures lived experiences, structures of the experience,
and the essence of the experience. Phenomenological analysis seeks to “transform lived
experience into a textual expression of its essence—in such a way that the effect of the
text is at once a reflexive re-living and a reflective appropriation of something
meaningful” (van Manen, 1998, p. 36). In this study, a phenomenological design
provides the opportunity to take a deep dive into the individual student trustees’
experiences.
The aim of phenomenological inquiry is “to reveal and unravel the structures,
logic, and interrelationships that obtain in the phenomenon under inspection”
(Polkinghorne, 1989, p. 50). Through this design, this study sought to illuminate the
complex nature, structures, and interrelationships that characterize the student trustee
role. Phenomenology studies what participants have experienced and how they make
meaning of those experiences (Moustakas, 1994). The goal of this study was to
investigate “the essences and essentials of experiential states” (Saldaña, 2015, p. 10) of
56
former student trustees. Selecting phenomenology as a method for this study afforded
access to what is known and what is not yet known about the student trustee experience at
four-year public institutions.
Phenomenology is considered both a philosophy and a methodology. The focus
of phenomenology is lebenswelt, or the lifeworld, the idea that the body and nature
(participant and environment) are interconnected, interrelated, and interdependent and
cannot be understood in isolation from one another (Schütz, 1932). The concept of
lifeworld was developed by Husserl and is understood by phenomenologists as lived
experience (Saldaña, 2015). One of the key tasks of phenomenological inquiry is “to
describe phenomena as they appear to our consciousness and to endow them with
meaning” (Ulysse & Lukenchuk, 2013, p. 24).
To understand consciousness, we must examine the environment and context it
inhabits. Lebenswelt also suggests interconnectedness to meaning, such that as one’s
consciousness gives meaning to the context, so the context is also influencing individual
consciousness (Schütz, 1932). The researcher’s responsibility in a phenomenological
study is to attend to the individual’s consciousness, environment, and context to gain
genuine understanding and find the meaning in the phenomenon (Schütz, 1932).
Phenomenology is, therefore, about “revealing, uncovering, exposing, and
connecting” the lived experiences of individuals (Duncan, 2013, p. 237).
“Phenomenology is not only a philosophy but also a research method for capturing the
lived experiences of individuals” (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011, p. 19). The primary goal
of this study was to advance the understanding of the experiences of students who held
57
the leadership position of student trustee within shared governance at four-year public
institutions.
Social Phenomenology
While the philosophy of phenomenology, with its focus on consciousness, has a
long history, the effort to develop a sociological sector of phenomenology originated in
the more recent work of Alfred Schütz in the first half of the 20th century (Polkinghorne,
1983). Schütz, although never a student of Husserl, worked intensely to study the
sociology of understanding, resulting in a powerful first book called The Phenomenology
of the Social World. Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology served as a foundation for
sociologists to think beyond the singular relationship and comprehend the individual
subjective experience is more objective experience within the social world
(Polkinghorne, 1983).
Schütz was the first to attempt to explain how phenomenology could be used as a
lens to develop an understanding of the social world (van Manen, 2014). Within
phenomenological research, the lifeworld of a social construct is focused on how the
relationships with other people influence the lived experience (Ashworth, 2016). Social
phenomenology aims to understand the meanings as described by the individual and the
social worlds around them that influence them, or how lebenswelt is influenced by the
social demeanor of humans (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). Berger and Luckmann (1966)
explained that “man’s self-production is always and of necessity a social enterprise” (p.
51). How individuals understand themselves and their experiences does not exist in a
vacuum, but rather within a reality that they themselves have participated in creating.
According to Weber (as cited in Calvert & Calvert, 1992),
58
sociologists must try to “understand” the subjective meanings of social actions for
the actors he is studying. If he fails to understand correctly or adequately, his
theories and explanations will be based upon a misrepresentation of social reality
and will be scientifically of little value. (p. 18)
Meanings are created as a result of interactions between individuals and their
environments and are dependent on the actions of individuals. This study intended to
explore a complex set of relationships among the former trustees and their own lifeworlds
during their participation in shared governance on their campuses. The study raised
questions such as, what relevance did the social world have to the former student
trustees? What relevance did the social world have to the student trustees participating in
the world of shared governance? Using social phenomenology, this study sought a more
comprehensive understanding of the consciousness of the former student trustees as they
describe their experiences and relationships with their immediate surroundings.
Research Design and Participants
Phenomenology is committed “to descriptions of experiences, not explanations or
analyses” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 58). Phenomenology strives to gain a deep understanding
of a specific phenomenon, typically using a small sample that allows the necessary depth
to fully comprehend the participants’ experiences and meanings (Saldaña, 2015). “The
logic of qualitative research is concerned with in-depth understanding, usually working
with small samples” (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011, p. 22).
The selection of participants in phenomenological studies is purposeful. “In
purposeful sampling researchers intentionally select individuals and sites to learn or
understand the central phenomenon” (Creswell, 2012, p. 206). Recruiting participants
59
typically involves using convenience sampling techniques such as professional
networking to receive recommendations from other professionals. In the same vein,
snowball sampling leverages recommendations from the participants who have already
agreed to participate in the study. “Snowball sampling is a form of purposeful sampling
that typically proceeds after a study begins and occurs when the researcher asks
participants to recommend other individuals to study” (Creswell, 2012, p. 209).
The purposive sample for this study was comprised of former student trustees.
Student trustees are defined as students who were elected by their peers or appointed to
serve as full voting members on their institution’s board of trustees. The participants of
this study previously completed their terms at a four-year public institution as a student
trustee. The participants had been out of the role as a student trustee for no longer than
five years, to ensure that they were still able recall their trustee experiences in detail
throughout the interview.
Creswell (2012) noted that “it is typical in qualitative research to study a few
individuals” (p. 209). Creswell (2012) went on to explain that “this is because the overall
ability of a researcher to provide an in-depth picture diminishes with each new
individual” (p. 209). Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2011) also noted that small samples are
ideal for qualitative studies as they create an opportunity for in-depth exploration in
search of deeper understanding. Creswell (2013) suggested that phenomenological
studies should include a minimum of three and a maximum of 15 individuals. For this
study, I recruited nine former student trustees from public four-year institutions from
across the country.
60
The recruitment process began with an e-mail invitation to participate in the
study. The invitation was sent to (a) individuals I already knew; (b) individuals referred
me to through professional networks in the field; and (c) individuals identified through
Internet searches who met the study’s requirements. By responding to my invitation,
these individuals conveyed their willingness to participate in the study. I responded to
each prospective participant to ensure that they meet the criteria for participation. In
addition, I asked interested participants if they can recommend any additional trustees
who might be interested in participating in the study.
Data Collection Procedures
Creswell (2012) identified five steps to the data collection process in qualitative
research: (a) develop a sampling strategy and identify participants for the study; (b) gain
access to the participants and get their informed consent to participate; (c) consider what
types of information will best answer the research question; (d) design protocols to
collect and record the information; and (e) administer the data collection.
Phenomenological studies aim to explore a specific and unique phenomenon. They rely
on the researcher to collect rich and unedited descriptions and meanings of experiences.
It is important that the data collection strategy be rooted in the research question, have
clear sampling criteria, and be nimble enough to allow for meanings and context to
emerge (Miles et al., 2014). Unstructured or semi-structured questions, or a combination
of both, are typically used to gather data in phenomenological studies, and may be
supplemented by additional data collection methods (Creswell, 2012).
61
Interviews
Creswell (2012) pointed out that when it comes to interviewing, “the most time
consuming and costly approach is to conduct individual interviews” (p. 218). In-depth,
semi-structured interviews will serve as the primary vehicle for data collection and
analysis in this study. Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2011) noted the following:
The in-depth interview is important to qualitative research because it uses
individuals as the point of departure for the research process and assumes that
individuals have unique and important knowledge about the social world that is
ascertainable and able to be shared through verbal communication. (p. 94)
The participants and researcher play significant roles in this step in the qualitative
research process. “The process is a meaning-making endeavor embarked on as a
partnership between the interviewer and his or her respondent” (Hesse-Biber & Leavy,
2011, p. 94). The in-depth, intensive, and semi-structured interview approach for this
study was in keeping with the goal of providing minimal guidance to the participants as
they shared their stories. This study was designed to provide an environment in which
former trustees would share the details they deemed meaningful. “The goal of intensive
interviews is to gain rich qualitative data on a particular subject from the perspectives of
a selected group of individuals” (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011, p. 95).
Interviews for this study were conducted face to face with each participant. They
lasted for approximately 90 minutes and were audio-recorded, with each participant
providing consent (see Appendix A) prior to the interview. An interview guide (see
Appendix B) was used for each interview. Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2011) described the
interview guide as “a set of topical areas and questions that the interviewer brings to the
62
interview” (p. 103). Given that phenomenological interviews are rooted in deep
conversations with the participants, the guide was created to keep the interviews focused
on the issues specific to this study. The goal of the interview guide was to yield the data
needed to address the research purposes and questions while not establishing a strict
infrastructure that might prevent participants from sharing their rich and meaningful
experiences. Moreover, as Moustakas (1994) noted, “the interviewer is responsible for
creating a climate in which the research participant will feel comfortable and will respond
honestly and comprehensively” (p. 114).
Once the interviews were conducted, a professional transcriber was hired to
transcribe each interview. A transcript was generated from each interview and shared
with the participant to review for accuracy and authenticity. Creswell (2012) referred to
this as “member checking” (p. 299) and posited it as a best practice in the qualitative
research process. In summary, this study was designed to support the recommendations
of both Merriam (2002) and Moustakas (1994) that to understand an experience, a
researcher must pursue that understanding through the eyes of those who have lived it,
which will be possible through this interview design.
Reflective and Observational Notes
Interview data were supplemented by observational and reflective notes that were
taken throughout the study. Creswell (2012) suggested that taking brief notes throughout
each interview provides a backup to the transcript, allows the researcher to note non-
verbal actions, and highlights aspects of the participants’ experiences that the researcher
may want to explore later in the interview. In a similar vein, Hesse-Biber and Leavy
(2011) discussed field notes as observational or “on the fly” notes that can “consist of key
63
words or phrases to help you remember important events or ideas that occur” (p. 216).
Following each interview, I found a quiet space in which to reflect on what I heard. The
notes reflected my initial thoughts and impressions. I also recorded my ideas about
emerging intersections and the notes also served as a journal for the research.
Once the data were collected for this study, every possible measure was taken to
keep the data confidential. To protect the participants’ anonymity, I created pseudonyms
for each individual that were used throughout the study. The transcripts and my notes
were stored in a locked cabinet and will remain there for at least seven years, then be
destroyed if they are no longer needed. All electronic files were kept on a secure and
password protected server, both measures suggested by Creswell (2012) as best practices
in the qualitative research process. The dissertation director and other committee
members, upon request, had access to the data, which was protected by the pseudonyms.
Data Analysis
This study used Moustakas’ (1994) design for the phenomenological process of
analyzing data from lived experiences. “The deepest currents of meaning and knowledge
take place within the individual through one’s senses, perceptions, beliefs, and
judgments” (Moustakas, 1990, p. 15). Moustakas (1990) modeled his data analysis steps
in a similar fashion to Husserl’s design, focusing on the whole of the experience and the
search for the essences and meanings of the experience. This process includes five steps:
epoche, horizonalization, clustering for meaning, imaginative variation, and synthesis of
meanings and essences. With each phase of the process, a new level of information and
understanding about the phenomenon is uncovered. “This requires a passionate,
64
disciplined commitment to remain with a question intensely and continuously until it is
illuminated or answered” (Moustakas, 1990, p. 15).
In this process of analysis, I was provided with the infrastructure to discover the
deepest level of understanding. Moustakas (1994) explained that “evidence from
phenomenological research is derived from the first-person reports of life experiences”
(p. 84). Through this design, this study reached deep levels of understanding of the
leadership development of student trustees in shared governance.
Epoche
The first step in the phenomenological analysis is “that of Epoche” (Patton, 1990,
p. 407). This first step requires the researcher to reflect on any prior personal experiences
with the phenomenon, with the goal of putting personal experiences and feelings aside
during the research process. Moustakas (1994) explained epoche as follows:
I see it as a preparation for deriving knowledge but also as an experience
in itself, a process of setting aside predilections, prejudices, predispositions, and
allowing things, events, and people to enter anew into consciousness, and to look
and see them again, as if for the first time. (p. 85)
By identifying the assumptions the researcher brings to the research topic, the
“bracketing” process can take place (Creswell, 2013; Moustakas, 1994; Patton, 1990;
Polkinghorne, 1989). The process can be described as transcendental because the
researcher strives to “see the phenomenon freshly, as for the first time” (Moustakas,
1994, p. 34). The researcher is “firmly in all aspects of the research process and essential
to it” (Dwyer & Buckle, 2009, p. 61). By clearing my mind in the epoche process, I
recalled and bracketed my own experiences with student trustees in shared governance
65
over the past decade, enabling me to set aside my preconceived ideas and more clearly
and genuinely hear the participants’ experiences in shared governance.
Horizonalization
Following the bracketing process, it is important for the researcher to spend
considerable time with the data. Moustakas (1994) advised that during horizonalizing,
when the researcher is looking at every piece of the data and being open to each piece
having the same value, “every statement initially is treated as having equal value” (p. 97).
Thus, I identified statements in the interview transcripts that related information about the
phenomenon under study. In this step no values or codes were assigned to the
statements; rather, they were simply collected to help me identify the range of the
experiences shared (Moustakas, 1994). By examining each statement or horizon, I
sought to understand the complex lived experiences of the participants (Moustakas,
1994).
Clustering for Meaning
During this phase of the data analysis process, I examined the significant
statements that emerged during the horizonalization phase and grouped these statements
into theme categories (Moustakas, 1994). I looked for connections among the
participants’ lived experiences and created a framework for understanding the holistic
student trustee experience from the participants’ viewpoints. Through clustering the
themes in this phase, I was able to see how the distinct individual horizons from the
previous phase came together to create meaning.
66
Imaginative Variation
Moustakas (1994) explained that the “task of imaginative variation is to seek
possible meanings through the utilization of imagination, varying the frames of reference,
employing polarities and reversals, and approaching the phenomenon from divergent
perspectives, different positions, roles, or functions” (p. 97). During this phase of
analysis, the researcher seeks to identify “what” was experienced by the participants and
“how” the experience took place (Moustakas, 1994). This step provided me with the
opportunity to reflect on the context of the data, with the goal of arriving at a “structural
description of the experiences” (Moustakas, 1994). As a result, I was able to deeply
explore a number of possible meanings of the experiences (Creswell, 2012). By going
beyond superficial meanings of the themes in the imaginative variation phase, I had the
ability to uncover the textual and structural descriptions to define the phenomenon.
Synthesis of Meanings and Essences
The final step in the analysis process is “the intuitive integration of the
fundamental textural and structural descriptions into a unified statement of the essences
of the experience of the phenomenon as a whole” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 100). This step
generated a roadmap that encompassed the meaning given to the student trustee
experiences by the participants. “One learns to see naively and freshly again, to value
conscious experience, to respect the evidence of one’s senses, and to move toward an
intersubjective knowing of things, people, and everyday experiences” (Moustakas, 1994,
p. 101). Using Moustakas’ (1994) approach, I stitched together the varied experiences of
the participants into a comprehensive quilt that would tell a single, rich story.
67
Validation of Qualitative Research
Qualitative research findings are typically validated using measures of
trustworthiness, member checking, authenticity, and reflexivity, among others. Lincoln
and Guba (1985) explained that credibility, dependability, authenticity, and transferability
all relate to the trustworthiness of the study, the ultimate goal for the qualitative
researcher. Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2010) explained that “validity is a process whereby
the researcher earns the confidence of the reader that he or she has gotten it right” (p. 48).
The researcher’s goal in this study was to ensure that the participants’ stories were
captured and recorded accurately. Hesse-Biber and Leavy also pointed out the important
role that reflexivity plays in the qualitative interview process. They described reflexivity
as “the sensitivity to the important situational dynamics between the researcher and
reached that impact the creation of knowledge,” (p.114). Throughout the interview
process, I was mindful of how I interacted with the participants and made sure to note
any situational dynamics in my memos following each interview.
Creswell (2012) suggested that member checks strengthen a study’s validity; the
researcher used both methods in this study. The data for this study came from face-to-
face interviews, memos, and my observational and self-reflective notes. I conducted
member checks with the individual participants following each interview. The sample
size of the study and the in-depth, lengthy interviews supported the credibility of this
study. Lincoln and Guba (1985) defined the trustworthiness of a study based on its
ability to be seen as credible, dependable, and confirmable. Using multiple sources for
data collection and conducting member checks to ensure the accuracy of the data
enhanced both the credibility and the authenticity of this study.
68
Researcher’s Self in a Phenomenological Study
In a phenomenological investigation, “the researcher has a personal interest in
whatever she or he seeks to know; the researcher is intimately connected with the
phenomenon” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 59). In addition to being deeply interested in the
leadership development experiences of student trustees who participate in shared
governance at four-year public institutions, as the researcher, I had a number of roles in
this study that I needed to fulfill. First and foremost, researchers must acknowledge their
own participation in the study as well as any researcher bias within the study (Merriam,
1998). Consistent with the thoughts of Merriam (2002) and Creswell (2012), I was an
active participant in this study. Rubin and Rubin (2005) explained that the relationship
between the researcher and the participants evolves into a partnership throughout the
experience, with each playing an important role within the study.
Acknowledging that the researcher’s personal characteristics and identities could
impact the interactions with participants is critical. Just as the participants’ personal
characteristics and identities played an important role in this study, I recognized the role
my identity and personal characteristics played in this research as well. I acknowledged
that as a self-identified White, heterosexual, middle-class, female educator, my
background and perceptions might be factors that could potentially impact data collection
and analysis in this study. Therefore, enacting reflexivity throughout the study was
paramount to me. Moreover, I was highly involved as a student leader during my own
collegiate experience and stumbled upon a career in higher education as a wonderful
accident. Immediately after graduation I went on to complete a master’s degree in
College Student Personnel Services; since then I have never looked back. I have spent
69
my entire career in the higher education community, the majority of that time at four-year
public research institutions. I have been fortunate enough to interact with, advise,
supervise, and observe thousands of student leaders during this time, including student
athletes, fraternity and sorority leaders, student organization leaders, resident assistants,
student employees, student government leaders, and student trustees. It is these
interactions and observations that provided the motivation and impetus behind this study.
The second role of the researcher is to develop a relationship with the participants
(Merriam, 1998). The literature indicates that to elicit the participants’ genuine
reflections on their experiences, I needed to gain their trust and establish a strong rapport
with each of them (Moustakas, 1994; Rubin & Rubin, 2005). Mather and Winston
(1998) explained that “the interviewer is an element of the research instrumentation,
forming judgments throughout the process, making decisions about when and how to
employ probes and when to encourage digressions from the interview guide” (p. 37). As
a student affairs professional and a current trustee advisor with over 12 years of
experience working with student leaders, I am familiar with the role of student trustees,
which helped me tremendously to establish a strong rapport with each participant. The
third role of the researcher is to be immersed in the research literature, in this case as it
pertains to college student leadership development, shared governance, and student
trustees (Merriam, 1998). Following an exhaustive review of the literature for this study,
I am confident that I have a strong background in the existing research and data regarding
student trustees. Manning and Saddlemire (1996) suggested that the researcher must dive
into the data generated from the interview process. This means to look at the data from
various angels, look at each participant individually, and then look at the collective group
70
of the participants. The fourth and final role of the researcher, according to Merriam
(1998), is to bring together the results of the interviews with a personal understanding of
the literature to interpret the participants’ experiences and the meanings they place on
them. These roles of a researcher are integral to a successful phenomenological study.
My experience and background enabled me to design a study that provided the
opportunity for participants to share their personal experiences and discover the meanings
and essences of those experiences. My professional association involvement within the
field of higher education, coupled with my experiences at multiple institutions, helped me
in recruiting participants, being comfortable in the interview process, and succeeding in
the data collection and analysis stages of this study. Creswell (2012) emphasized the
importance of reflexivity, “in which the writer is conscious of the biases, values, and
experiences that he or she brings to a qualitative research study” (p. 216). For the past
four years, I have been working at a four-year private institution, and I found through the
epoche phase, that I had achieved the space and perspective to counterbalance my
previous experiences working with student trustees to allow me to see these experiences
now “as if for the first time.”
I have learned so much about student leadership, organizational dynamics,
institutional policy, and myself throughout my tenure in higher education. I have learned
that self-reflection is a powerful tool and impacts the way individuals view experiences
and interactions with others. This study provided me the opportunity to learn from the
experiences of former student trustees, who have held the largest and most complex
student leadership role in the academy.
71
This study served my desire to understand, from the most unbiased position
possible, the unique experiences of student trustees with executive privileges and voting
rights at four-year public institutions. I hoped to capture the true essence of what it
means to be a student trustee within shared governance at their respective institutions.
This study provided the opportunity for me to bring the lives of these student leaders to
my readers and to increase understanding among audience members with the ability to
positively impact the leadership development experience of student trustees in shared
governance. This study invited former student trustees to be vulnerable and share their
experiences of serving in the most complex student leader role on the campus. I
recognize that it was a privilege to participate in this study and to hear my participants’
stories. My goal is to positively impact future generations of student trustees by
capturing these lived experiences in ways that encourage prospective student trustees to
explore this opportunity, current student trustees to reflect on their own leadership
experiences, and university leaders to strengthen leadership development and support for
this elite group of students.
72
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANYALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
Introduction
The journey of a student trustee with voting rights at a four-year public institution
is unique to a handful of students across the U.S. On average, approximately 40 students
nationwide serve in the role of a trustee each academic year (Elfreth, 2011).
Nevertheless, the influence of student trustees is growing. The percentage of student
board members granted a vote more than doubled between 1997 and 2010, increasing
from 20.5% to 50.3% (Merrill, 2010). This most elite group of student leaders
experiences their institutions with a level of intimacy unmatched by their peers and even
by many faculty and administrators.
This chapter presents an analysis of the experiences of nine student trustees
representing six institutions in four states. It provides their profiles, presents their stories,
and offers a composite description of the meaning of their experiences. In
phenomenological terms, the intention is to convey “how the human being experiences
the world” (van Manen, 2014, p. 58), capturing the essence of what it means to be a
student trustee at a four-year public institution. Through the participants’ vulnerability,
honesty, and trust, their personal stories recall memories of their journey, highlight
lessons learned, and illuminate the impact of the role of student trustee on their personal
and professional development.
73
Participant Profiles
All interviews for this study took place in June and July, 2016. I had relationships
with two of the participants prior to the interviews, but the majority was completely new
to me. Through introductory e-mail communication, scheduling conversations, and the
interview process itself, I was able to establish a rapport with the participants. The
following are brief profiles of the nine participants and their insights into the interview
process. Table 1 presents an overview of the nine participants by their pseudonym, with
demographic information for each trustee and data on their public institution. An asterisk
denotes participants who served their term during their graduate/professional studies.
74
Table 1
Participant Overview
No Participant Name
Race/Ethnicity
Academic Program Institutional Type & Size
Region Voting Privilege
Length of Term
1 Will* Latino Bachelor of Arts in Journalism/Masters in Entrepreneurship
Public, 50,000 +
South Yes 1 Year
2 Gwen* Caucasian Bachelor of Arts in Political Science/ Master’s of Arts in Business
Public, 50,000+
South Yes 1 Year
3 Samantha Caucasian Bachelor of Arts Political Science & International Relations
Public, 50,000+
South Yes 1 Year
4 Beth* Caucasian Master’s in Public Administration
Public, 30,000-40,000
Midwest Yes 2 Years
5 Jon Caucasian Bachelor of Arts in Political Science
Public, 50,000+
South Yes 1 Year
6 David African-American
Bachelor of Arts in Communications
Public,0-10,000
Midwest Yes 1 Year
7 Molly* Caucasian Bachelor of Arts in Political Science/ Master’s of Science in Management
Public, 50,000+
South Yes 1 Year
8 Nick Latino Bachelor of Arts in Political Science & International Affairs
Public, 40,000-50,000
South Yes 1 Year
9 Alexis Latino Bachelor of Arts in Political Science & International Studies
Public, 40,000-50,000
South Yes 1 Year
75
Will
Will was one of the two participants I knew prior to this study through his
involvement as a student leader and my work in student affairs. Will returned his consent
form and pre-interview questionnaire on the same day I officially invited him to
participate in my study. He was excited to hear about my research interests and eager to
set up our interview. The energy in his e-mails was highlighted by both exclamation
points and smiley face emojis.
I scheduled Will’s interview first, as I was a bit nervous about starting the
interview process and figured a familiar face would help calm my nerves. We exchanged
a handful of e-mails leading up to the interview, catching up on each other’s lives since
the last time we had talked, about a year earlier. I have worked with hundreds of student
leaders in my career through my jobs at multiple universities as well as through my
involvement with professional associations. Reconnecting with Will reminded me of
how fortunate I am to be in a profession where I have the privilege of working alongside
tomorrow’s leaders, who will shape our country’s future.
Will’s smile, positive energy, and eagerness to help with my research instilled a
sense of calm and confidence in me as I began the interview process. Will had been
elected by his peers to serve a one-year term as student body president and student trustee
for his Southern institution of over 50,000 students. Our conversation went well; the
questions flowed easily and as Will responded, I found myself envisioning some of the
scenarios he described. He was articulate and open, and checked with me to make sure
his answers were clear. His nonverbal communication—his smile, wide eyes, and the
intensity in his voice—conveyed his absolute pride in his student trustee experience. He
76
willingly shared personal stories and provided rich, detailed examples. Will’s
combination of confidence and humility were refreshing; hearing his story reinforced
how important and impactful co-curricular opportunities can be for college students.
Gwen
Gwen was the other participant I knew prior to my study. Similar to Will, I knew
Gwen through her involvement as a student leader and my work in student affairs. I
scheduled her second, in hopes of eliminating all of my interview anxiety before I
interviewed participants I had never met before. Her response, which arrived less than 24
hours after I sent the invitation, thanked me for including her in my study, using multiple
exclamation points for emphasis. Gwen’s humble nature was evident in this reply, given
the fact that I was the one grateful for her willingness to speak with me.
Gwen suggested a few times that worked well with my schedule and we set up
our interview with ease. It was clear that Gwen was both thoughtful and extremely
organized. She said that she wanted to select a date and time when she could commit to
being present both physically and mentally, which I greatly appreciated. She had a series
of trips planned prior to our interview and wanted to give herself enough time to get
home and settled before our interview.
In the interview, Gwen spoke with a dynamic combination of calm and
confidence; she occasionally paused to reflect before speaking, an indication of her
intentional nature. Gwen had been elected from a student population of over 50,000
students at a Southern university to serve a one-year term as student body president and
student trustee. I learned that Gwen’s faith in God’s plan and her strong moral compass
guide both her decision making and her leadership. Gwen shared vivid descriptions and
77
personal stories with an even and consistent tone and very little non-verbal
communication, with the exception of a smile when she discussed what she was proud of
during her time as student trustee. She was succinct and gracious, and I left our interview
with no more anxiety about the data collection process.
Samantha
Samantha had been advised by one of my former colleagues during her
involvement in student leadership roles in college. In our initial e-mail conversation, she
shared that my former colleague had already told her that she had given me Samantha’s
contact information for my study. Samantha was in the middle of traveling when we
interviewed and I was thankful she was able to make the time for the interview.
Samantha was polite, a bit shy, and excited to start the next chapter in her life, with a new
position beginning just days after our interview. She had recently completed her term as
a student trustee and graduated from college, and was now transitioning into her first
professional role. It was clear during our conversation that these major life transitions
had been weighing heavily on her mind.
Our professional connection provided a comfortable starting point for our
conversation. Samantha was elected by her peers to serve as a student body president and
student trustee for a one-year term at a Southern institution of over 50,000 students.
Samantha was reflective throughout the interview; she was soft-spoken but clear in her
responses, taking a moment before each answer to consider what she wanted to say.
Samantha’s responses as well as her career plans conveyed her genuine, deeply-rooted
commitment to helping others, and her passion for service and giving back.
78
Beth
Beth was my fourth interview and the only one of my participants who was
selected solely by the Governor to represent her distributed university in the Midwest,
which is home to over 30,000 students. Beth has a very busy schedule, so we ended up
emailing back and forth a number of times before agreeing to set up her interview in the
middle of her work day. She was coming from a meeting before the interview and had to
ensure that we would finish in time for her next meeting.
Beth was my oldest participant at 28 and her life experience shone through in the
interviews, giving her a unique perspective. She was one of four participants who served
while she was a graduate student, and the only participant who worked full time for five
years before returning to graduate school and her role as student trustee. She spoke very
fast, but with specificity and directness. Beth seems like a person who wants to make the
most of any situation, and it felt like she wanted to share all she could with me before
having to go to her next meeting.
Beth was the only participant in my study who served a two-year term, and this
extended timetable in comparison to her peers gave her the opportunity to focus on a
wider variety of issues. I would say she had a poker face, showing little or no emotion
throughout the interview except in response to the last question, when I asked whether
there was anything I had not asked her that she thought I should know. She smiled, even
giggled slightly, then shared insight that she felt the Governor of her state should
consider.
79
Jon
Jon was the fifth of nine interviews for me, marking the halfway point in my data
collection. Jon was also referred to me by a former colleague of mine. During our initial
e-mails, he noted that due to his travel schedule, one specific July weekend date would
work best for his schedule. Jon sent his consent form and pre-interview questionnaire on
the same day he accepted my invitation to participate. I appreciated the thoughtfulness in
his e-mails and really looked forward to speaking with him. My former colleague spoke
very highly of Jon, which built my anticipation for our interview even more.
Jon’s southern upbringing immediately caught my attention; he called me both
“Ma’am” and “Miss” within the first minute of our conversation. He was charismatic
and laid back and our conversation was very comfortable. It was early on a Sunday
morning and we both came prepared with coffee. Throughout our conversation, I was
struck by his sincerity and his humor; Jon does not take himself too seriously.
Jon was elected by his peers to serve a one-year term as student body president
and student trustee at a Southern institution with an enrollment of over 50,000 students.
He was kind and spoke with deep respect for his institution and the people he interacted
with during his term. Jon provided historical context for his answers when he thought it
would be helpful and followed up several times to make sure I was following his
answers. In Jon’s interview I felt the most at ease; his calm demeanor and humility made
our interview feel like an enjoyable chat with a friend over coffee.
David
David’s communication with me prior to his interview conveyed excitement and
lots of energy. He had a fairly busy schedule, as he was completing an internship and
80
searching for a job while also engaged in volunteer work. We decided on a Thursday
morning for our interview, but on that day we had to move it to later in the evening. The
change made me a bit apprehensive and I hoped the rescheduled interview would not fall
through. I had taken the day off work and was truly hoping I had not both wasted a day
and potentially lost a participant.
To my relief, the energy and excitement in David’s e-mails were equally evident
in person. He was dynamic and enthusiastic, and had we spoken for several hours longer
there would likely not have been a moment of silence. His path to the student trustee role
differed from that of the other participants. David was elected by his peers on his campus
of fewer than 10,000 students, one of several campuses that comprised a multi-campus
university. Of the three student trustees on the board, David was appointed by the
Governor to serve as the single voting student trustee for a one-year term.
David’s down-to-earth personality permeated the interview. He was open and
honest, and seemed genuinely happy to be able to help with my study. He described
himself as being in an “in-between phase” in his life; he humbly shared that an
opportunity he was hoping for did not go his way, and he was now considering the best
steps to take next. As the interview came to a close, David checked in with me to make
sure I had everything I needed from him. He also warmly urged me to be safe in the
intense rainstorm that had developed during our interview.
Molly
Molly was detailed and extremely positive in our early communication. She
offered 10 options for interview times, seven more options than any other applicant
provided. Molly checked in after sending her consent form and pre-interview
81
questionnaire on Friday, then e-mailed me again on Monday morning to make sure I had
received them. She replied to every e-mail I sent, including the interview confirmation
and my thank you e-mail following the interview; she typically included at least one
smiley face in every e-mail. As a result, I was really looking forward to our
conversation.
Molly exuded openness, positivity, and a can-do spirit. She trusts and respects
those around her and genuinely looks for the good in people. I found Molly to be
refreshing and authentic. She cares deeply about her institution and was ecstatic that she
had recently been invited to join an alumni association committee and would be returning
to her alma mater in two weeks to attend the first meeting. Molly had recently started a
new job in a completely different sector from her previous work, and it became clear in
the interview that she was looking for places and opportunities that were congruent with
her values. She seemed cautiously optimistic after just two weeks on the job that it was a
very good move for her.
Molly’s sincerity and authenticity moved the interview along so quickly, I
remember looking at the time and realizing we had been speaking for over two hours
before I began to wrap up our conversation. Molly was elected to serve a one-year term
as student body president and student trustee, representing the more than 50,000 students
at her Southern institution. Molly’s husband had also served as a student trustee and
Molly volunteered that he would be available for an interview if I needed additional
participants. It was her thoughtful and sincere concern for others that really shone
through during my time with Molly.
82
Nick
Nick was elected to serve a one-year term as student body president and student
trustee for the more than 30,000 students at his Southern university. I was referred to
Nick by the current student trustee at his institution whom I had reached out to, hoping to
connect with one of his predecessors. Nick and I exchanged just three e-mails, the fewest
of any participant, prior to our interview. He was thorough, direct, and very formal in his
emails, addressing me as “Ms.” I was nervous that Nick might be hard to connect with
during our conversation, given the brevity of our emails and the small number of
messages we exchanged. Nick was in the middle of transitioning to a new job and was
gracious enough to make time for an interview during this fairly hectic time in his life.
Within the first five minutes of our interview I felt at ease with Nick. When he
offered to pull up his resume to make sure he did not miss anything regarding his high
school or college leadership involvement, I realized that not only was he going to be
open, but he also wanted to make sure I got all the information I needed for my study.
The conversation flowed easily, and Nick’s genuine nature was refreshing. His eyes
were extremely expressive, getting big every time he got excited about answering a
question. As the interview came to a close Nick thanked me for doing my study, further
reflecting his kind nature.
Alexis
Alexis’s interview was the final step in my data collection, which was fitting
given that she e-mailed me a month after my formal invitation to inquire about my study.
I had already secured all eight of the interviews required by my study’s design and had
interviewed three of my participants when Alexis responded. She was detailed and asked
83
a number of questions in our early communication regarding confidentiality, where the
study would be published, and how the data would be secured. We exchanged three or
four e-mails in which she asked questions and I responded; I offered to talk on the phone
if that was easier, but when she did not take me up on the offer, I assumed she was no
longer interested in participating. When she e-mailed me a week later and asked to
schedule an interview, I was shocked. I quickly checked with my dissertation director to
see if I could add another participant to my study and when she approved, I scheduled an
interview with Alexis.
Alexis had just moved to start a graduate program and was deeply immersed in
her transition to a new program and a new geographic location. We decided the best time
for the interview would be on a Sunday morning. I was not sure what to expect from my
interview with Alexis. She had asked very specific questions regarding the process and
purpose of my study and it was unclear to me how much she would be comfortable
sharing in our interview. I approached this interview with anxiety, although I wanted to
end my data collection on a high note.
To my delight, Alexis was an exceptional participant. She was open and
vulnerable, provided rich examples, and humbly shared her experience as student trustee.
During our discussion, it became clear that it was Alexis’s deep and profound respect for
her institution and the role she held that had prompted her initial questions and
apprehensions; her primary concern was to protect her school and the legacy of the
position she held. Adding Alexis to my study turned out to be a wonderful idea.
Alexis was animated, speaking with her hands throughout the interview, and our
conversation flowed well for the entire interview. She was elected to serve a one-year
84
term as student body president and student trustee, representing the over 50,000 students
at her Southern institution. She shared a number of challenges she had faced in her role
with a grace and respect that I deeply admired. Alexis is passionate and clearly not afraid
to speak her mind; however, it was evident that she finds ways to diplomatically and
intentionally shed light on issues she believes need attention. The interview was so
intense that I remember taking a deep breath as our interview closed. Alexis’ inquisitive
nature permeates all she does; during the member check process, she was the only
participant to ask questions about the storage of the transcripts and exactly who would
see them.
Post-Interview Process
Following the interviews, my participants’ experiences remained vivid in my
mind. I sent the recording of each interview to my transcriber the day the interview took
place. Once I received the typed transcript back, I e-mailed it to the participant to review.
Once I received the participants email approval that they transcripts accurately reflected
their thoughts I began to review the transcripts. I then moved into the data analysis
process, spending hours and days reviewing each of their journeys, rereading their
recollections of and reflections on their service as a student trustee with voting rights at a
four-year public institution. I reviewed their individual and shared lived experiences. I
dug deeply into each participant’s personal story to more fully understand the
phenomenon of this exceptionally unique student leadership role.
Data Analysis Process
My approach to the data analysis process relied on Moustakas’ (1994) five steps:
epoche, horizonalization, clustering for meaning, imaginative variation, and synthesis of
85
meanings and essences. Each step in the process uncovers a new layer of information
about the phenomenon. Saldaña (2015) explained that through this process, the
researcher can “Peel away the complexity and unnecessary details to get at the core
meanings of what you’re investigating” (p. 75). This iterative process of reading, re-
reading, and discovering enabled me to reach the deepest level of understanding.
Epoche
The first step in the phenomenological analysis process is epoche (Moustakas,
1994), which refers to the suspension of judgment. “Phenomenology asks you to set
aside (or bracket) your own perceptions and experiences of the phenomenon you’re
studying to see it from the participants’ point of view” (Saldaña, 2015, p. 74). To clear
my mind before embarking on my interviews, I reflected on my experiences working
with student trustees at multiple institutions through my work, and around the country
through my involvement in professional associations. In addition, each interview I wrote
a detailed and self-reflective memo that assisted me in the data analysis process.
Through reflection and bracketing I sought to open myself “to the world as we experience
it and [to] free ourselves from presuppositions” (van Manen, 2014, p. 220).
Horizonalization
Moustakas (1994) suggested that during horizonalization, the researcher should
spend significant time looking at each individual piece of data as having the same amount
of value. I read each interview transcript, taking no notes on the first reading so as to
engage with the data without distractions and with a clear mind. In the second reading of
the transcripts I worked with a pencil, keeping in mind the research questions and
86
underlining the statements or thoughts for each participant that struck me as meaningful
and related to the phenomenon explored in the study.
Clustering for Meaning
To approach clustering for meaning, I read each transcript looking for patterns in
the participants’ responses and looking for statements that had a more significant
meaning. While looking for connections and intersections, I developed a list of key
words and phrases that were woven throughout the individual lived experiences. Where
the same key word or phrase was present, I made a small tick mark to the right of the
word. The result of this stage of analysis was a list of 127 codes that reflected the
concepts, experience and emotions of the nine participants (see Appendix C). Miles,
Huberman, and Saldaña (2014) referred to this as “first cycle coding,” in which the
researcher identifies patterns that range from single words to full paragraphs. The
process is iterative and upon the second review of this preliminary list of codes, I was
able to cluster together similar statements to reduce the list to 66 codes (see Appendix D).
Further, I placed each of these 66 codes on note cards and began to group them in clusters
based on similar thoughts, concepts, and sentiments. During this process, 18 themes
emerged (see Appendix D). Miles et al, (2014) explained the purpose of this second
cycle coding as “a way of grouping those summaries into a small number of categories,
themes, or constructs” (p. 86).
Imaginative Variation
During this step of data analysis, I searched for both what the participants
experienced and how the experiences took place as described by Moustakas’s (1994)
design. I reviewed the passages and quotes again, looking beyond superficial meanings.
87
By digging more deeply into the transcripts, I was able to unpack the data and illuminate
the “structural descriptions of the experiences,” the underlying meaning of the
individual’s experience (Moustakas, 1994). This process included mapping 66 codes
onto the 18 themes (see Appendix D) to encapsulate the student trustees’ leadership
development experiences and their reflections on these experiences.
Synthesis of Meanings and Essences
The final step in the data analysis process requires the researcher to develop “a
unified statement of the essences of the experiences of the phenomenon as a whole”
(Moustakas, 1994, p. 100). My intention was to develop a roadmap that encompasses the
meanings participants give to their student trustee experiences. I created an Excel
spreadsheet that included the 66 codes and 18 themes, including one outlier theme, and
identified five main themes. I was able to achieve this through “careful reading and
reflection on [the phenomenon’s] core content or meaning” (Miles et al., 2014, p. 73). I
reviewed my interview and research notes one more time during this process to ensure
that I had not overlooked anything.
By stitching together the varied experiences of the nine participants, a
comprehensive quilt emerged that explicated the core meanings of the student trustee
experience at four-year public institutions through the following five themes: (a)
leadership is in their DNA, (b) the student trustee hat, (c) student perception of the state
influence on university governance, (d) trusteeship is a life-changing experience, and (e)
desire to give back. Bringing together the experiences of the nine participants allowed
for the discovery of what motivated them to take the role, what they gained as a result of
serving, and how this experience has impacted what they are doing today.
88
Leadership Is “in Their DNA”
All of the participants’ leadership journeys began well before their term as a
student trustee. Their ascension to what is arguably the most powerful student leadership
role on their campus was no surprise in light of their individual leadership paths. Will’s
leadership roles began even before high school: “Just growing up I was always the person
giving speeches, the person that was at the podium and leading events.” Will noted that
his parents had a significant impact on his leadership journey: “Leadership is something
that’s been ingrained in my DNA because of my parents.” Will, like the rest of the
participants, held significant leadership roles while in high school.
High School Leadership Roles
From honor societies to athletic teams to student government or class council, the
nine participants recalled significant leadership roles from their formative years in high
school. The majority of these roles came from athletics and student governance
organizations such as student government or class council, with a few participants
holding leadership roles in community service groups, national honor societies, and the
arts. Samantha recalled, “I was actually in Student Council all four years in high school.”
Molly explained, “I was the freshman class president, lettered in seven different sports,
and was the soccer captain all four years.” Molly even shared her recollections of
leadership stretching back to sixth grade: “I always really wanted to give back and lead
even when I was in sixth grade when I ran for class council.”
Gwen was the class representative her sophomore and junior years, went on to
serve as the student body president her senior year, and was a three-sport varsity athlete.
Alexis was the senior class president and a member of the executive boards for both the
89
English and Spanish national honor societies. Beth held leadership roles in the theatre
department and in the honors association at her school. David served as a peer mediator
in high school and was the captain of the chess team. Nick did not get involved in high
school until his last two years, but he completed school as the senior class vice president.
Will held numerous leadership roles in high school and reported, “I was the president of
the whole school my senior year and was also the captain of all my sports teams.”
Leading their peers, setting an example, and being a role model were not new
ideas for these participants when they arrived at college, but rather a natural extension of
their high school commitments. Leadership roles were part of their resumes, their
personal stories, and their identities. The nine participants’ extensive leadership
involvement in high school laid the foundation for equally strong leadership roles in
college prior to assuming the role of student trustee.
College Leadership Roles
The participants’ college leadership journeys were rich and robust before they
assumed the student trustee role. Their individual journeys shared common themes such
as involvement and leadership in Greek life, student government, community service,
cultural organizations, and responsibility for allocating student fees. Will shared, “I
wanted to get involved with student government right away because I had done it all my
life.” Will’s determination to get involved quickly was echoed by the majority of
participants, who also reporting getting involved in college beginning in their freshman
year.
Will and Nick began their involvement in the summer session before their first
fall semester as freshman. Nick recounted his experience:
90
I interviewed with the current student body president at the time and I remember I was given the position of summer senator from that session to the fall session. So that launched my involvement during my freshman year.
Similarly, Will applied for student government his freshman summer. Because he was
not successful in securing a position, however, he focused his leadership engagement on
the fraternity he joined his freshman year before the semester even started.
These responses highlighted the participants’ early leadership involvement in
college and increasing leadership responsibilities over time. The majority held roles in
student government in addition to other key areas of leadership such as Greek life,
community service, and cultural organizations. Eight of the nine participants played
significant roles in allocating student fees by chairing committees, leading the student
government senate, or serving as student body treasurer.
David’s leadership journey in college started early in his freshman year through
the residence hall association, a student governance organization within residence life.
He went on to serve as a resident assistant and president of the Black Student Union,
taking on the role of student trustee his senior year. Nick’s leadership in student
government remained consistent because his early summer start led to subsequent roles in
the senate and on the executive committee as well as leadership roles in his fraternity and
in the Hispanic Latino Student Union, culminating in his role as student body president
and student trustee his senior year.
Jon’s leadership involvement started in student government as well; he served as a
representative in the senate, chaired committees, and served as senate pro tempore and
finally senate president before becoming student body president and student trustee his
senior year. Jon also held leadership roles in his fraternity, on the homecoming
91
committee, and for a national philanthropy organization dedicated to serving children.
Gwen’s leadership in college began when she served as a student government senator her
freshman year, subsequently assuming higher levels of leadership as a committee chair
and senate president before becoming student body president and student trustee in the
first year of her master’s program. Gwen also held numerous leadership roles on the
homecoming committee and in her sorority.
Molly’s path also began in student government, where she served as a senator,
committee chair, president pro tempore of the senate, senate president, and finally student
body president and student trustee in the first year of her master’s program. Molly also
held a leadership role for two years with a non-profit student organization that provided
relief for countries impacted by natural disasters, held multiple leadership roles on the
homecoming committee, and held leadership roles in her sorority in her freshman and
sophomore years.
Alexis’s leadership journey in college began as an ambassador for a cultural
office on her campus. Alexis, too, was involved in student government: “I was a senator
for two years, on the budget committee and was also the treasurer of the Hispanic Student
Association and the vice president of the Hispanic Student Association.” Alexis was also
a dancer in a student organization on campus and held an on-campus job all four years, in
addition to serving as the student body president and student trustee her senior year.
Samantha’s leadership involvement began with her role as a student government
senator, while also leading an agency that focused on volunteer work in the local
community. Samantha began assuming more significant leadership roles in student
government: “I was the speaker of our senate, which is our huge fiscal branch that does
92
all the allocation, and I served as the head of the legislative branch my junior year.” She
served in minor leadership roles in her sorority and served for three years in the student
government senate before becoming student body president and student trustee her senior
year.
Beth, like Molly, Gwen, and Will, served while enrolled in a master’s program at
their institution. Beth’s involvement as an undergraduate included leadership roles
working with international students, mentoring students, and helping welcome new
students to the university. She was also the director of the committee responsible for
disbursing student fee money on her campus. After completing her undergraduate
degree, Beth took a five-year break from school before returning to pursue her master’s
degree and serving as the student trustee for two years.
Will held leadership roles in his fraternity first, then was elected to student
government as a senator. He went on to chair the budget committee and serve as the
elected student body treasurer. During the first year of his master’s work Will was
elected student body president and student trustee: “I was so excited to be student body
president and I had no idea how big of a thing student trustee was.” Will described the
role of student body president at his school: “[As] chief executive of a really large
organization, you have a huge (student) body and over $18 million budget from activity
and service fees and the student government budget itself was around five million
dollars.”
The participants’ individual journeys reflect early leadership involvement long
before they were in college, sustained leadership engagement, and increasing leadership
responsibility throughout their college and graduate work before serving as student
93
trustees. Responsibility for allocating student fee money prior to their terms on the
board, as well as holding dual titles as student body president and student trustee, emerge
as themes for these students who have “leadership in their DNA.”
The Student Trustee Hat
Samantha recalled her orientation: “At [trustee] orientation, they said you wear
multiple hats and at times you might wear the trustee hat, and that didn’t really make
sense to me at first.” Molly reflected on multiple roles: “Yes, I was a trustee, but I was a
student and I was the only one that had the student hat on at the same time.” The
participants recognized that serving as a student trustee was truly a unique experience and
a role that required a certain level of juggling of multiple “hats” or identities. Their
emotionally rich stories of their time on the board, the notion of being the only one, and
the support they received from “cheerleaders” emerged as salient experiences within this
theme. In addition, while in the trustee role, the students learned about the complexities
of their organizations, the basic elements of board governance, what it meant to be the
voice of the students, and the role of their peer board members as educators. This theme
sheds light on the participants’ understanding of shared governance, how student trustees
experience leadership when engaged in shared governance, and how they perceived and
enacted their identities as leaders.
Range of Emotions
From frustration to the tension between one’s identity as a student and trustee, to
being overwhelmed by responsibilities, to the belief that student trustees are just like any
other trustee, the role of student trustee had an emotional impact on all the participants in
94
this study. Additionally, participants recognized that the student trustee role was unlike
any other leadership role on campus. According to Beth,
I certainly can’t speak for other institutions, but from my institution we worked incredibly hard at dispelling the myth that I was a student trustee. In actuality I was a trustee who happens to be student and my responsibilities are that of any other trustee on the board.
Will articulated a similar understanding: “You are not seen as a student trustee;
you are seen as a trustee.” Alexis described the journey of how she viewed herself as a
trustee:
Serving on the board impacted how I viewed myself because you are meeting these successful businessmen and businesswomen, and it is like you are kind of almost part of the same playing field as them in terms of your title, so, like, we are both trustees.
At each of the participants’ institutions, the other board members are referred to
simply as “trustees,” so the title “student trustee” presents them as different from the rest
of the group. While the participants noted that this difference is not necessarily negative,
it does create a clear distinction within the board structure. However, Jon noted that his
colleagues on the board made efforts to directly include him and did not push him aside,
which he was originally concerned about when joining the board. Will likewise
expressed a sense of belonging: “I never felt like I was a student trustee; I felt like I was a
part of the group.”
With the exception of Beth, who served with an additional student trustee, the rest
of the participants served without a student counterpart. Despite the positive experiences
reported by Jon and Will, a number of participants expressed frustration—with the
process, the politics, and the expectations—as a result of being the only one. Samantha
explained, “So every other day I felt like they would look at me and expect me to answer
95
for the thousands of students on my campus.” This was hard for Samantha, who knew
she could never speak for the over 50,000 students on her campus. She understood this
was her role on the board, but nevertheless found it a frustrating responsibility at times.
Alexis expressed frustration at the way the board at her institution received
information:
There is a control of information, because the only information we received is the information that is compiled by the vice presidents and provost. So they can decide what type of picture they want to paint of the University at the board of trustees meetings. So I sometimes felt that it wasn’t really an independent board that was going to oversee the school.
Alexis also voiced frustration at how the board set its standards for performance: “I was
like, why are we comparing ourselves to other universities when we should be the best
that we can, and that if we know that we can do better, then we should do better.”
A variety of variables contributed to the participants’ agitation and frustration.
Alexis was by far the most critical of her institution among the participants. Will
expressed his frustration at knowing that a portion of the student body he represented
would not support the decisions he made. Jon’s frustration stemmed from efforts to
balance the board requirements with his academic responsibilities as a student. After
being told by an instructor that he could not reschedule a test that conflicted with an
upcoming board meeting, Jon fumed, “Well, I am going to tell the chief of staff (for the
president) that you won’t let me out of this test.”
Jon’s example highlights the tension that can result from managing the two
distinct identities of student and trustee. David shared that after becoming a trustee, there
were “very rare moments [when] people saw me having fun.” He believed that fulfilling
the responsibility and upholding the honor of the trustee position required not getting
96
caught up in any typical college behavior that might reflect negatively on the board. Nick
likewise described the pressure he felt:
Knowing that your trustee hat never comes off, and so if you are on campus, anything that you do and anywhere that you go or anything you do off campus or around the university, you are a still a trustee.
It took Nick some time to adjust to and feel comfortable with this responsibility.
I would definitely say it limits your ability to be a normal college student while are you are the student trustee. So that is something you have to sacrifice, but it is worth it in the end; at least for me it was.
Nick gave the examples of drinking, going to parties, or just letting loose as “normal
college things” he no longer felt free to do.
David bluntly and honestly shared that “being the student trustee can be
overwhelming.” Alexis noted that the politics in particular became overwhelming at
times for her: “Did I like to see all the political complications? No, because I think
education is a public good, especially when you talk about public universities and that
was overwhelming for me.” Alexis felt her personal beliefs were being overshadowed by
the political undertones of the discussion and the consequent actions of the board. Alexis
also shared that she was nervous about this role and put a lot of pressure on herself to do
a good job.
Similarly, Molly expressed, “I was completely overwhelmed; I never thought we
[the student voice] could be successful in passing block tuition.” The inherent pressure
of the role of student trustee, coupled with both internal and external political pressures,
can lead student trustees to feel overwhelmed by their role. The participants, with the
exception of Beth, fulfilled a one-of-a-kind leadership role on campus. As a result,
participants reported a strong emotional response to the reality of being the only one.
97
How and when this feeling manifested itself differed among the participants, but the
isolation was present for all.
According to Will, “no one else really understands what you are going through.
Not a student organization president, not an athletic team captain, not an RA, and not
even a fraternity or sorority president. You are really the only one on campus.” Will
noted that as a result, he was extremely grateful for the mentoring and support he
received from his predecessor in the role. At Samantha’s school, she and the faculty
senate chair were the only trustees elected by constituents at the university rather than
appointed by the governor. Yet Samantha observed that the faculty senate chair “didn’t
understand what I was going through either.”
David shared that it was important to have a “small trusted circle” to talk to
regarding things he struggled with, because none of his peers really understood his
experiences. Alexis expressed, “I think it’s hard to think about that there is only one
voice for over 50,000 students and I am that one voice.” Beth noted another aspect of
being the only one: “You know, the challenge, of course, is always that on average you
are, you know, anywhere from 30 to 50 years younger than the high-level individuals you
are working with.”
In the same vein, Samantha and Alexis both referenced being the only trustee with
“on-the-ground experience on campus” during their terms on the board. Several
participants also referenced the impact of being the only one in regard to voting
decisions. Samantha observed, “When my view didn’t match up with their political
agenda, they didn’t want to hear it as much on a vote from me.” This feeling of isolation,
however, did not stop Samantha from voting against the group in the situation she
98
referenced. Samantha declared, “I let them know that I was proud and happy that I still
voted the way I felt, because I never strayed away from my true beliefs.”
Gwen, Jon, and Molly all spoke at length about the importance of the mentoring
they received from their predecessors in helping them prepare to be the only one. Molly
explained:
The beauty of being a student trustee at my school is the distinctive membership that comes with it. The trustee before me was by far the biggest help ever. He prepped and trained me to be prepared in this role that no one else understands on campus.
Samantha shared:
One thing he [her predecessor] told me is no one else can relate to what you are going through. Not your vice president, not anyone you work with, not even your advisor sometimes, so I would call him from time to time while I was serving.
Because the student trustee role has no peer group on campus, the feeling of being
the only one rang true for all the participants in variety of ways. Will’s thoughts may
summarize it best: “You don’t really understand how unique the role is until you are
actually in it yourself.” The uniqueness of the role, coupled with the weight of the
responsibilities carried by the student trustees, evoked a wide range of emotions from the
participants in discussing the impact of wearing the trustee hat.
Universities Are Complex Organizations
In sharing their personal stories and journeys, participants did not always use the
exact same phrases to describe their experiences. However, all nine participants at some
point in our conversation described their universities as complex, comprised of numerous
layers of shared governance. Beth observed, “my university is complex, and soft
relationships are necessary to get work done.” Through serving as a trustee, Jon
99
discovered the complexity of the role: “To look at the finances of the University, see
what our investment portfolios were, what our building plans were, the faculty hires, all
these different policies, was extremely complex.”
Alexis explained, “I think I definitely understood the intricacies and complexities
of a university by being on the board." Alexis went on to share, "I didn’t realize I was
going to learn so much about so many different aspects of our university while serving on
the Board.” Gwen expressed her thoughts: “The board is complex; the institutional
leadership structure is complex; and the state government is complex,” noting that, from
her experience, the complexity of the board was just one of the organizations she was
experiencing with high levels of complexities. Gwen’s answer indicates her sophisticated
understanding of the multiple elements of shared governance at her institution. Molly
shared that, “people don’t realize how many issues institutions deal with, it’s super
complex.” Samantha pointed out:
While sitting in the Finance and the Facilities Committee meetings, I realized just how complex the institution really was. I was like, whoa, I thought I knew a good amount of information about my school, but really I knew very little about some parts of the organization.
Will was somewhat surprised:
I knew from my role as student body treasurer that things were really intricate, but I was surprised that the university was actually more complex than I thought. After serving as student trustee, I just learned so much more about it.
Serving in a complex organization requires a certain degree of navigational skills,
according to the participants. Beth shared that when looking to gather information,
“filling in the blanks can really come down to a matter of who you know and how able
you are to find them in a quiet moment off to the side.” Gwen explained, “in order to do
great work for your constituents, you really have to do a great job of navigating around.”
100
Will shared the lesson that “when you’re navigating around campus, don’t cut political
deals to clear easier paths; it’s not worth it.”
Alexis expressed, “as a result of my year as a student trustee I learned how to
navigate through a large and complex organization.” Jon noted:
My student government advisor was extremely helpful; I trusted his perspective and he know how to advise me on how to navigate my ways across campus and through a number of tricky situations I found myself in during my term.
The participants learned about the complexity of institutions of higher education while
also developing the necessary skills to successfully navigate their own organizations.
Learning to navigate the institution also speaks to how student trustees experience
leadership while engaged in shared governance.
Board 101
As a result of wearing the student trustee hat, the participants learned the basic
elements of board governance and responsibilities and achieved a strong grasp of the
purpose and function of the board. Additionally, they indicated they had general
knowledge regarding shared governance although not directly naming shared governance,
rather by addressing the components, the challenges within the structure and the
relationship their state entities. The participants also clearly articulated their specific
roles in the shared governance structures.
Powerfully, all nine participants confidently defined their role on the board as
being the voice of the students. Gwen explained, “My job as the student trustee was
representing the students at the university and state level.” Beth shared, “I met with
student associations, student government, served on panels—it was important to make
sure I know what students were struggling with to accurately represent the needs to the
101
board.” Samantha explained, “Every time I got up to the podium to speak at [board]
meetings I wasn’t there just speaking for myself, but rather I was speaking on behalf of
the over 50,000 students I represented.” Molly observed, “My job was to represent the
voice of the students even when I did not necessarily believe in it, and that was hard.”
Alexis stated:
My position [as student trustee] means that I not only have to represent [the students] but I have to be your communicator and your liaison between you and the people that I have access to that you might not necessarily have access to.
Will reported, “My role was to represent the will of students and to have their best
interest for decisions that we voted on and made.” Will was not alone in connecting the
role of the student trustee with the need to represent student voices when voting. All nine
participants had full voting rights on their boards. Voting was a part of their jobs they
took very seriously, and they acknowledged the significant responsibility it entailed. Will
went on to explain, “Voting is very public. And the fact that the student trustee has a
vote on our board is so important.” Molly echoed, “I think that [voting] makes a big
difference, because a lot of universities don’t do that and I think that plays a huge role in
the trustee life.” Jon explained:
You all have one vote; that is it. So just because they [fellow trustees] are 40 years older than you and are a CEO of company and they are on the same level when it comes to the Board of Trustee vote, and that is really powerful.
Gwen indicated that her responsibility extended to more than just the vote: “You actually
can vote on things, make motions, and then you realize your school really values the
student voice, and that is powerful.”
Samantha gave an example of the difficulty of representing the best interests of
students: “I voted for an increase in tuition and some students were really mad at me, but
102
in order to get the resources students needed there was no way around it.” For Alexis, the
vote provided a platform. Alexis noted, “My voice was heard because I had a vote on
important board discussions such as the concerns about the decrease in black student
enrollment and the need for more gender neutral bathrooms on campus.” Nick, too, made
a connection to the voice he had because of his vote:
On issues like increasing student tuition and the need for diversity and inclusion committee on campus, my ability to vote on board issues also guaranteed the student voice was also heard in discussions, and that is as important as the final vote itself.
Similarly, David shared, “Because I was a full voting member that also gave the space to
bring issues to the board and add agenda items, which during my term was really critical
given the racial tensions that existed on our campuses.”
Beth made a different observation regarding her voting responsibilities: “As a
voting member of the board I also served on many committees, which was an extremely
powerful experience.” All nine participants referenced the importance of serving on
board committees. Each student trustee served on a minimum of two committees and a
maximum of four during their term. The committee meetings were addition to the board
meetings and required significant time for preparation, including time out of the
classroom. The participants served on the Finance, Facilities, Curriculum, Long-Range
Planning, Accreditation, Diversity, Audit, Development, Crisis Management, Presidential
Search, and Student Life Committees. They sometimes spent entire days in committee
meetings. Yet despite this heavy time commitment, Molly, Gwen, Will, and Jon
expressed gratitude for the opportunity. As Jon observed, “To have a student be a part of
the 30-year plan for the university I think is very impactful and useful.”
103
In terms of the board members’ duties, one commonly noted responsibility was
the hiring and firing of the university president. Nick described members of the board as
“kind of like the boss of the president.” Similarly, Will noted, “One of the most
important things is that the board does hire and fire the president, because the president at
the university is the captain of the ship.” David described the board as responsible for
“pushing the administration and president to fulfill their duties.” Alexis noted that “the
board is there to guide and advise the president,” and Samantha agreed that “the board
needs to manage both the president and his cabinet.”
Participants also identified the board’s responsibility for the financial well-being
of the institution. Molly, Gwen, Beth, Nick, Samantha, and Will all used the same
language to note that “the board has fiduciary responsibility for the institution.” Alexis
illustrated the challenges inherent in this responsibility:
Out-of-state students bring in more tuition money and the board was making them a priority because of that, which frustrated me because as a land-grant institution I thought we should be focusing on the in-state students. But I understood the financial benefit of the out-of-state students; I just didn’t agree with it.
Another of the board’s responsibilities was establishing the vision for the
institution. This responsibility was particularly salient in relation to creating a strategic
plan, ensuring that the institution was fulfilling its mission, and setting the pace for the
school. David described the primary responsibility of the board as twofold: “To vision
build and protect the interests of the university.” Beth included the responsibilities to the
state as well:
The role of the board is to make the decisions that are in line with best practice and most strategically advantageous to the state in order to serve it and prepare its students to serve the state and its reputation well.
104
Gwen stated simply, “The board’s job is to move the institution forward.”
Another theme related to the board’s responsibilities is the need to represent a
wide range of stakeholders. Alexis pointed out:
But you know I have to really appreciate [the shared governance structure at her school], and whether you believe we were a perfect shared governing system, I like that the faculty chair and student body president were on the board; I think it is necessary to represent all of the diverse university stakeholders.
Nick explained that board members
know that there is a separation of powers that the university and his vice presidents and his staff and everyone at the university has a role to do and that they don’t need to step in unless something is going wrong. The board has responsibilities to a lot of different stakeholders they need to uphold.
Samantha expressed that “the main goal of the board is to represent the university
well to all of its many stakeholders.” Jon explained that the trustees “bring the realities
of the world, business, and leadership and kind of bring a different prospective. So I
thought it was extremely valuable because we serve such diverse constituents on the
board.” Gwen added, “The trustee represents different stakeholders and I represented the
students.”
Participants also spoke of the importance of being organized to insure that the
board would be successful. From the use of Robert’s Rules of Order to well-developed
board packets and intentionally designed meeting agendas, Molly shared, “Organization
is essential to the board’s success. Making sure everything is set up and planned
correctly cannot be overlooked.”
Participants in the study also emphasized effective communication as essential for
board success. Nick recalled:
I remember as a trustee member I had received a phone call at 7:00 in the morning if anything major had happened at the university and they were making
105
their rounds for each trustee to let them know. So we would know everything before the press knew it, before it was released, as soon as it happened, and that was really helpful.
David noted, “Transparent communication was key for our board in order to
effectively build relationships and trust each other.” Will also emphasized the
importance of transparency: “The board should be as transparent as possible, as much as
the open government laws allow for in terms of communication.” In their roles as
trustees the participants learned a great deal about both the responsibilities of the board
and what it takes for a board to be successful.
Trustees as Educators
Overwhelmingly, the nine participants reported that their fellow trustees had a
significant impact on them during their time on the board. Some viewed the trustees as
mentors and advisors, others expressed admiration for their accomplishments, while still
others noted that they learned a lot from the trustees due to their considerably greater life
experience. “I have these wonderful relationships with powerful CEOs and visionary
ambassadors because of my time on the board and I am extremely thankful for that,” Beth
shared. Alexis explained, “I wanted to make a good impression on the trustees; I knew
they were coming in with outstanding professional experiences and I wanted to be seen as
someone who could also make contributions to the board.”
Will noted, “The coolest thing was sitting on the board with all these strategic
minds and these incredible people and learning from them.” Will continued:
I mean [the trustees] had such a wealth of experience and knowledge, and you know there were such hard workers and such diligent, humble people. You would never tell that they had all these amazing accomplishments and I just learned so much from them.
106
As a result, Will concluded, “I was able to learn from [the trustees] and see how they
impacted the world with their resources.”
Nick described his fellow trustees as “extremely helpful. They answered
questions about their careers, offered me advice, and even took calls outside of board
meetings to help me regarding job opportunities I was considering.” David explained
that he was assigned a fellow trustee as a mentor, noting that “he was really helpful. Our
relationship gave me some confidence and he was extremely helpful in guiding me as I
explored career options.”
Samantha highlighted the impressive life experience of the trustees. “They were
more knowledgeable, more experienced, and helped me see perspectives I would not
have not considered.” Jon shared, “I was 22 years old. I learned an immense amount of
things from the trustees and there were a few relationships that were particularly
impactful on me.” Gwen echoed similar sentiments:
At 22 or 23 you have nothing in common with a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, but yet you do because you serve on the board together. It was great experience to work closely with the trustees and learn from them.
Their fellow trustees unquestionably had an impact on the participants’ perceptions of
themselves and their roles on the board. The trustees also influenced the participants’
experiences of leadership while serving in the institution’s shared governance structure.
Cheerleaders
The trustees were not the only people who had a significant impact on the
participants during their terms. Other individuals on their campuses also provided
essential support while they served as student trustees. The participants conveyed an
overwhelming sense of gratitude for the individual supporters and broader support
107
networks they had on their respective campus. The participants relied on these support
systems for formal training, as sources of advice, and as spaces in which they could
freely discuss ideas and concerns. These “cheerleaders” might include general counsel,
student affairs staff, the president and president’s staff, the board chairperson, and former
student trustees, each of whom served an important function for the student leaders in the
unique role of student trustee.
Discussing the board chair, Beth explained, “He gave me the sense I had a full
seat at the table, and that was extremely powerful.” Similarly, Jon shared, “The board
chair initiated a relationship with me and encouraged the other trustees to connect with
me, and that was really important.” Molly noted, “The chair always went out of his way
to make me feel comfortable and I think that is something that made the board so much
stronger.” Will expressed his gratitude for his chair as well: “The board chair was really
inclusive and wanted my opinion, which was really cool and made me feel like an
important member of the group.”
Will also emphasized that “mentorship from the former student trustee is so
important. Sometimes he was the only one I could talk to about things.” Will was not
the only participant who highlighted the importance of former student trustees. Nick
noted that “the former student trustee was a great mentor to me in my role.” Samantha,
too, expressed gratitude towards her predecessor: “He was extremely helpful. He gave
me lots of advice and wished me luck.” Molly shared, “I was able to reach out to the past
few former student trustees for advice and help and these were critical to my success.”
Beth likewise described her predecessor as “extremely resourceful to her.” Gwen
explained:
108
My predecessor was extremely helpful in transitioning me into my role. I actually went with him to my first board meeting when I was considering the role. He was able to provide me really important insight on how to approach the role.
Gwen went on to note, “I had monthly meetings with the president, biweekly
meetings with the vice president of student affairs, and general counsel was always
working with us on different issues. I had a wonderful support team at my school.”
Similarly, Jon explained that his student government advisor “was always there to listen
and I trusted his perspective.” Samantha shared, “The vice president for student
development, my schools version of a vice president for student affairs, was always there
for me.” Alexis echoed the importance of the vice president for student affairs’ role:
“The VP for student affairs was really good at making sure I knew what was going on
and that was important for my success.” Molly shared a similar experience:
The vice president for student affairs was a critical part of my success. We met twice a month, he brought me into important conversations and made sure to check in on me to make sure I had the information I needed to best represent the students. I really felt like he believed me, which was a huge boost in my confidence.
Molly also felt a lot of support from the president at her institution: “The
University president was my biggest proponent and how many students can say that.”
Nick shared that it was the president and his team that were really supportive: “The
president’s staff would call or email to check in to see I needed anything, and I really
appreciated that.” David shared that president’s staff “always helped me figure things
out.” Samantha explained, “I always sat next to the president at the board meetings and
that provided a sense of confidence at each and every meeting.” Jon stated, “The
president’s chief of staff would sit down with me to review stuff which was super
109
helpful.” Will also shared, “The president, his whole team, and even general counsel
were people that I depended on all the time while I served as student trustee.”
The general counsel provided another source of support for a number of
participants. Jon reported, “general counsel would sit down with me and explain
everything.” Alexis also shared:
The student affairs advisor really didn’t transition me into the position like I thought. It was the general counsel who actually told me this is your job and this is what it will entail, which was really important. I went back to her throughout my term with questions.
Molly stated that her general counsel
was really helpful; she even answered my emails at like midnight and made sure I wasn’t breaking any laws. Her support was a huge surprise to me; I never thought the lawyers would be a support system for student leaders.
Whether through phone calls, e-mails, meetings, or words of encouragement, it is clear
how important it was to the participants to have a support network, a team of
cheerleaders, during their terms as student trustees.
Gender and Student Trusteeship
Five of the nine participants in this study identified as female. Four of the five
female participants discussed gender in the context of their interviews. Samantha, Beth,
Molly, and Gwen noted the impact of gender in relation to serving on a board that is
predominantly male and under male institutional leadership, and noted that the position
of student trustee itself was historically held by men. Although this study was not
designed to explore the impact of gender on the leadership development of students
engaged in shared governance, this impact was nevertheless significant and presents an
opportunity for future research.
Beth discussed how the student trustee role helped improve her self-confidence:
110
We are seeing a lot of literature about introverted women not rising to the level of the leadership that they should be or are necessarily capable of, and not because of mobility but because of certain characteristics or certain boundaries that are placed on them. This role has really taught me to be more bold and confident.
Samantha raised the issue of gender several times during her interview. Samantha
noted that “the first chair of the board was female, which was comforting because I was
only the third female student trustee in the school’s history.” However, after a change in
leadership in the chair role occurred during Samantha’s term, “I was then only one of two
females at the table.” Samantha experienced frustration during her term and sought
support from the vice president of student affairs, another female. “Why does he [board
chairman] always talk down to me and down to you at meetings?” When probed a bit
more about the concern, Samantha explained:
She would shake her head and she would smile because that is still her colleague. But just having someone that is a higher authority would understand that I was frustrated because he was treating me differently because I was female was really helpful.
Samantha’s experience of being one of the few females in the student trustee role
at her school also resonated with Gwen and Molly. Molly explained, “Over 100 years of
student government leaders at my school and I was just one of four women ever elected
to the role.” Molly continued:
I think that especially for me, being a female, at my school it wasn’t common at the time. But I just always had the drive to do a good job and represent well not only for me but for other women, since it was such an uncommon thing to have a student trustee.
History appears to be changing, as Molly explained, “There were only four in the first
100 years and since my term, three of the five have been women and that is just
phenomenal. So thankfully the male trend is changing at my school.” Molly had
111
recently met with the three women who came before her in the role and the one who
followed. “We got together and had dinner. We talked out different experiences and it
was just really, really interesting to see the changes in time, so that was cool.”
For Gwen, being female was a part of her identity she feared might limit her
ability to accomplish what she wanted to on campus: “It looked like it might be hard for
me since we recently had a female trustee. That worried me because I felt I was the most
qualified.” Gwen went on to explain, “I didn’t want my gender to be the deciding factor
in me getting the position; I wanted my qualifications to be the determining factor. It was
frustrating.” Gender was a salient part of these participants’ experiences as student
trustees; in addition, although Alexis did not explicitly discuss gender, it should not be
assumed that this was not a factor in her leadership development without further
exploration.
Student Perception of the State Influence on University Governance
The former student trustees all recognized that within the shared governance
model they, their boards, and their institutions were accountable to those beyond campus.
The shared governance structure at public institutions is interwoven with state influences
in its membership, responsibilities, and governance. Whether specifically mentioning the
governor, current legislators, state laws, or the importance of the state’s political climate,
each participant’s leadership development was impacted by the fact that they served at
four-year public institutions.
The student trustees’ experiences of shared governance were also impacted by the
state they resided in. It quickly became apparent to some participants that serving as a
student trustee was more than just another leadership role. Alexis explained:
112
One of the biggest things I had to get training on that she (General Counsel) actually gave me the most training on was the sunshine state laws because it impacted me as I was considered an elected official of the state now. I was not expecting that.
When the former student trustees described the experiences, they visualized shared
governance as being largely influenced by the state.
Elected Official Status
The majority of participants noted that they had to learn the state open
government laws to serve in their student trustee roles. The open government laws in this
case particularly pertain to rules regarding communicating with other elected officials,
such as their fellow trustees or even local and state politicians. Alexis said, “You are a
student, but this is a serious role when it comes to having legal implications to what you
are doing; you have to be aware. All communication must be open.” Will explained,
“You can’t talk to each other on the board because of the open government laws, so a lot
of the communication had to go through members of the university administration to get
the work done.”
Nick recalled his surprise at learning that “trustees can’t discuss business with
each other outside of meetings. So I had to get used to that, since that is what I had done
previously with student government.” Samantha reported, “I had to learn about state
regulations, open government laws, open door meetings, and I even had to read our
state’s regulation manual.” Beth pointed out, “I had to learn about the appropriate spaces
and ways that I could communicate in the role of student trustee.”
Molly explained:
You can’t have trustees talking outside, but I talked to this person in the administration and he tells the other trustee and that is allowed. So just learning some of the ways that they [the board] operate was very interesting.
113
The Governor
The participants also highlighted the impact the governor had on their time on the
board. Molly shared that the governor “really wanted block tuition, and even though all
of the research indicated it did not improve graduation rates or retention, he still pushed
really hard for it.” During Jon’s term as student trustee, the governor of his state
made it very well known that he did not want student fees raised, yet we desperately needed a new student union. That was hard because all of the trustees were appointed by the governor, so the new student union became a non-starter.
The governor of Nick’s state, similarly, “did not want student fees to go up, but
this was a challenge because we were going to have to find the money somewhere.”
Alexis also highlighted the relationship between the trustees and the governor:
Being on the board is a political position first and foremost. You are like appointed by the governor, so you have to be like super buddy-buddy and from the same party as the governor at the time.
Will expressed his frustration with the governor: “He was too fiscally
conservative, which constrained the way the board could direct the institution.”
Samantha also expressed some frustration with her governor: “The matrix from the
governor that our institution was judged on doesn’t show the holistic impact on the
student, and that was really frustrating to me.” Gwen pointed out that “the governor was
clear he wanted to see what the return on investment would be for any new program or
initiative.”
Beth interviewed extensively with the governor of her state before being selected
to the board; she was the only participant to be chosen for her role solely by the governor.
Beth shared:
114
I think a big piece of advice I would give the governor would be, we have had a number of the highest academic achieving students serve as trustees, but you don’t want somebody who is just going to be another brilliant person because the [board] room is already filled with brilliant people. You need someone in the student trustee role who is going to contribute. And so there needs to be more of a consideration on actual personality, because my predecessor was probably one of the smartest people I have ever met, but she only spoke publicly at one meeting over her two-year term.
State Funding
The participants were keenly aware of the state funding issues that impacted their
roles as student trustees. Given the fiscal landscape in higher education over the past
three to five years, it is no surprise that student trustees serving at four-year public
institutions were aware of the fiscal constraints of their states. Alexis, Nick, Jon, David,
and Gwen all referenced lobbying the state legislature for money for their respective
schools. Jon observed, “I did not realize when I became a trustee part of the job would be
to go to the capitol and lobby for more money for our school.” Similarly, David shared,
“Our budget kept shrinking so we continued to go to the capitol on our school’s behalf
for more funding.”
Another component of state funding ties university funding allocations to student
performance. A majority of the participants commented on the performance-based
funding process in their state. Alexis expressed some frustration with this model:
I think it is hard to measure successful students. You are not going to see success two, three years down the line. You are going to see [success] 10 to 15 years down the line, and you might even see it within the next generation.
Samantha, too, expressed concern about the performance-based metric. “I think the
whole student should be looked at more than just the GPA or the earnings after college.”
Will observed, “We were competing with the other public schools in the state for
money, and the competition for funding was very real.” In a similar light, Gwen shared,
115
“We reached the highest ranking in the state, but then that meant we needed to maintain
the status to keep our funding.” Nick explained:
The governor wanted to keep jobs in the state, so if we were preparing students to be great employees and have the skills needed for the work then we would get our funding, but he wanted to see we were doing our job to develop great employees for the jobs.
Jon added, “It wasn’t just about the metrics when we went to the capitol to lobby; it was
also telling more about the student experience at our school, beyond the dashboard
metrics.”
The participants in the study came away with new knowledge not only about their
schools, but also about their states. They learned about open government laws and what
it meant to be an elected official in their state, and saw firsthand the implications of state
funding for public higher education. Moreover, all had interactions with or opinions
about the governor in their state as a result of their experience in shared governance.
Trusteeship Is a Life-Changing Experience
Serving as the student representative on the board of trustees was a powerful
experience for these participants. “Serving on the board changed my life in so many
ways,” Will noted. Gwen shared, “It was a life-changing experience for me. I overnight
became a leader.” The participants identified specific skills they gained as result of the
student trustee role, discussed the impact their tenure on the board had on their career
paths, and described how serving expedited their development and helped them adapt to
transitions.
Life and Leadership Skills
Several former student trustees highlighted the self-confidence they gained as a
result of serving on the board. “I felt way more comfortable in my own skin at the end of
116
my time on the board,” Samantha said. Similarly, Jon shared, “I felt more assured of
myself after the student trustee experience.” Alexis explained, “You have to kind of just
let people know where you stand, that you are kind of not moving from this position. I
learned to be confident.”
Gwen also developed greater self-confidence by learning that “you always have to
do what is right because at the end of the day, all you have is your integrity and your
reputation, so you had to develop the confidence in yourself.” Will stated, “You become
so much more self-aware and self-confident during your term; it’s really cool.” Beth
likewise observed, “This role has really taught me to be more bold and more confident,
and in that way it really did help me professionally, but it also helped immensely in a
personal sense.”
In addition to self-confidence, the majority of participants reported developing
stronger public speaking and presentation skills during their time on the board. Nick
shared:
I didn’t think I would get the professional skills anywhere else, just like, you know, in the standard class they would teach you communication skills or public speaking skills. So like this was real like experience for me, speaking at graduation or different ceremonies or meeting different professionals. My communication skills greatly improved.
Similarly, Samantha noted, “I had to give 10- to 15-minute presentations all the
time while I served on the board, and my public speaking skills really improved as a
result of that.” Gwen went a step further:
Whenever I gave my report at the board meetings, I brought in a pamphlet of my goals; I wanted to make sure they remembered the key points of my report. I use that approach today in my job and it still serves me really well.
117
Beth noted that serving on the board “improved my strategic thinking and
speaking skills.” Other participants reported similar benefits. Nick shared, “Serving as
the student trustee really helped me develop my big picture thinking skills.” Will
explained, “Serving on the board taught me how to really think strategically. It also
taught me the importance of delegating and being on time.” Molly expanded on this:
I learned how to think about things on the macro and on the micro levels. I also learned how important it was to be able to take a step back and see if what we were proposing on the board was in line with our strategic plan we were supposed to be following. This has been an essential skill for my current career.
In reference to her time on the board, Samantha shared, “I had to get to a point
where I could adapt, adjust, and be open-minded. I had to think more big picture than I
was used to; it was really good for me.” Nick summarized his experience: “My general
leadership skills were greatly enhanced by serving as the student trustee.”
Influence on Career Path
Serving on the board of trustees impacted all the nine participants’ career paths.
For some, it confirmed their future plans, while others changed their minds about their
career paths as a result of serving. There was also a shared sentiment of future political
aspirations following the participants’ tenure on the board. Alexis explained, “Serving on
the board definitely made me more passionate about education than ever before, so I
always knew I wanted to be something in social policy.” Samantha had a similarly
career-affirming experience: “I am a huge proponent that education can lead where you
want to go, and after serving on the board, I knew I want to find a way to make sure
education is accessible to everyone.”
118
Beth reported, “Serving on the board confirmed that coming back for a master’s
was the right move to achieve my professional goals. I am definitely on the right track.”
Nick shared:
So after talking with them [the trustees] and being a trustee, I realized that I wanted to be a chief marketing officer for a corporation one day. I knew when I started the trustee role I wanted to be in a leadership role running a corporation; now I know the role I want to be in.
In contrast, for other participants, serving on the board changed their career plans.
Will explained:
I was like, oh my gosh, instead of going to law school, you know, going to work on the Hill and maybe running for office one day, you know, why don’t I go to the private sector and see if I can do something really cool like all of the these people [the trustees] have done? And that way I have the resources to give back to my alma mater in terms of scholarships.
David shared, “Serving on board altered my career path in a good way. I have
more direction now, which is really important.” Gwen explained:
If you asked me five years ago, I would have said I aspired to be a rep or senator. But after serving on the board, it definitely made me more determined to be in the business world as opposed to the political world.
For some participants, future political aspirations linger when they think about
their future. “I still think one day I might want to be a politician, maybe even the first
Latino President of the United States,” Will said. Nick stated, “I want to be involved
with the political process; I just don’t know how quite yet.” Jon shared, “I just got done
interning at the White House and I don’t think my time in Washington is done.” Molly
explained, “I have political aspirations on a local level, maybe school board level or local
government level, maybe. It is important for me to be involved civically in my
community.” David also did not rule out public office: “There are a lot of things I want
119
to do and holding a public office to represent my constituents is still definitely an option
for me in the future.”
Expedited Development
During what some described as the life-changing experience of being a student
trustee, the majority of the participants had an overwhelming sense that their
development was expedited. A majority of participants noted that this could be due in
part to the short, single term they served (with the exception of Beth). These one-year
terms were packed with opportunities, challenges, and growth. The participants also
noted a sense of being polished at the end of their term as a student trustee.
Nick noted that the student trustee role “really helped me polish my skills.” Beth
explained, “Serving as a student trustee greatly enhanced my maturity, essentially
becoming more polished as a result of time on the board.” Jon stated, “I felt like a big
change in myself and the respect I had from other people after my time on the board.”
Samantha confirmed, “I think it made me grow up a little.”
Molly offered a specific example of a valuable lesson she learned from this
experience: “If you have a different opinion you can still respect someone, even if they
have a different opinion than you, and I think that was a huge learning experience for me
while on the board.” David indicated, “When it comes to how this experience shaped me
as an individual, I believe that I have become more professional.” Will shared that “the
student trustee [role] took my growth and leadership to a whole new caliber.”
Jon reflected, “I had grown a lot between my first meeting and my last meeting;
so much happens in just one year.” Jon also noted that “my term was really short, one
year and it goes by really fast.” Jon was not alone in acknowledging that the one-year
120
term impacted his student trustee experience. David remarked, “I couldn’t believe I just
had one year to get so much done.” Gwen explained, “I learned a lot of very high-level
life lessons very fast within one year.” Molly stated, “I had one year to achieve my
goals; one year—that’s all. That’s a really short amount of time so I had to be strategic in
order to get everything done that I wanted to.” According to Will,
by the time you learned your job, set your goals, and tried to adapt to all the curve balls being thrown at you your term was almost done. The short term length really required me to maximize every moment I had on the board.
Adapting to Transitions
Themes of moving into roles, moving through experiences, and moving out of
roles came up for all the participants. As part of moving into their board role, all nine
participants went through their institution’s version of board orientation, and all identified
this as a critical component to their success as student trustees. Molly recalled, “Board
orientation was great! It covered what I needed to know, who I needed to know, and how
I was supposed to do my job; nothing fancy but simple and to the point.” Jon’s
experience was a bit different: “I went to the board retreat first and then did a separate
orientation with the chief of staff and president. They were both immensely helpful in
getting me ready to serve.”
Gwen expressed gratitude for the onboarding support she received from her
institution:
My school does a tremendous job with training and preparing students to serve on the board. It’s really uncommon, I think, when you look at other universities, after speaking with my counterparts at other schools across the state and even across the country.
Beth shared, “I had a multi-day orientation, two very intensive days where I met with the
president and entire cabinet.” David described an orientation comprised of “individual
121
meetings with the president and his team and even the board chair to orient me to the
role.”
Alexis recalled, “During my orientation the general counsel kept talking about the
manual[open government law manual]; I felt like a lot of my orientation focused in on
learning the state governing laws.” Nick described his experience:
I had a two- or three-day, I can’t remember now, orientation that was relatively close to my first meeting. It went through everything a trustee should know from different areas of campus, how campus operates, and I was really lucky two new trustees were just appointed so I got to go through it with them, which was really cool.
Samantha also went through orientation with a peer: “The Faculty Senate chair
was elected to the board the same time I was, so my orientation included me, him, the
president’s chief of staff, the president, and then the board chair. I got a huge binder.”
Will recalled:
I had multiple orientation meetings, like with General Counsel, the president, his cabinet, the news office, and the board chairman. It was nice there in small chunks of time so I could focus in on what I needed to learn in each meeting. I also got this like ridiculously huge binder at every meeting; my orientation could have also been called lots of reading for me.
The participants also shared thoughts regarding their first board meeting. The
feeling of first meeting jitters or anxiety resonated with a majority of the participants.
Molly shared, “I was nervous; I was so honored to be there [at the first meeting] and I
just wanted to do a good job.” Samantha similarly explained, “At the beginning of [my
first meeting] it was nerve wracking. I didn’t really even know what I was voting for at
the first meeting because it went so fast, I was so nervous.” Jon stated that during his
first meeting, “I would say it was really intimidating being around all the different
122
trustees and meeting them because, you know, we had executive vice presidents and
CEOs and it was like all these people are huge leaders.”
Beth shared, “I remember my first meeting; of course I was like super nervous,
right, so I didn’t say a whole lot, you know, because it is televised and you know it’s a
big deal.” David, Will, and Gwen all expressed gratitude that they had attended a number
of board meetings before they served, which they found to be very helpful in reducing
anxiety at their first board meeting as a trustee. David explained, “I had been to a few
board meetings before I was elected. I obviously wasn’t in the executive sessions, but
being present for the public sessions really helped me feel prepared for my first meeting
as a trustee.”
The majority of the participants also highlighted the importance of their
predecessor in facilitating their transition into the role of student trustee, and their own
responsibility to the student who would follow them in that role. Alexis explained:
It was really important for me as I was transitioning out to be as supportive as I could be to the incoming trustee, even though she was from a different party, because I remember how much I would have appreciated my predecessor helping me transition in.
Jon had a similar experience: “My predecessor was pretty checked out. They weren’t
helpful at all; I promised I wouldn’t do that to the trustee who followed me.” Similarly,
Will shared, “Since there was a leadership gap with the guy who served before me, I
made sure to prep the next trustee as much as I could, and I think that really helped her a
lot.” Nick also commented on the transition to the next trustee:
I handed [the student trustee role] to someone else and it doesn’t matter who they are, you need to ensure that they are in the most capable hands [so] that they can do and continue all they work you have started.
123
Unlike Jon’s predecessor, Molly’s predecessor was extremely helpful. Molly
shared:
My predecessor was one of the main reasons I was successful in my role. He told me who and what to look out for and literally was my advisor throughout my entire term; I don’t know what I would have done without him.
Molly noted that she made “a huge transition binder” for the next student trustee,
explaining, “I wanted to make sure if he couldn’t get ahold of me, he had everything he
needed.”
Gwen also expressed gratitude for her predecessor: “He was great. He gave me
sound advice and told me that my job was also to be there for the next crop of leaders
after me.” Samantha’s predecessor was also helpful to her in the transition:
He gave me good advice, told me to reach out to him if I ever needed him, and reminded me that he knew I would do the job differently than him. He instilled a great level of confidence of me; we are actually really close to this day still.
During their one-year terms, a number of transitions and milestones occurred, including
first meetings, last meetings, orientations, and the election/selection of new trustees. Part
of the student trustees’ leadership development was adapting to these transitions during
their respective terms.
Desire to Give Back
The final major theme that emerged from the data analysis was the participants’
desire to give back. This desire was reflected in the participants’ motivation to run for
the position of student trustee; it inspired their desire to do their homework during their
term on the board; it resulted in a love and affinity for their school; and it ultimately
drove their commitment to their individual legacies on their campuses. Molly explained,
124
“You know, I was just really honored to have the opportunity to be a representative on
the board of trustees.”
Motivations for Role
Each of the nine participants went through their own evaluation process when
deciding whether to run or apply for the student trustee position at their institution. They
weighed the impact on their time and their coursework, and considered what they
potentially would gain as a result of serving in the role. The majority of participants had
begun to consider running for the role at least two years ahead of time, to try to get all the
experience necessary to be successful in the role. Molly shared:
I never expected I could be student body president and student trustee; maybe it was in the back of my head but you know I never thought it would be realistic. And then as I assumed higher levels of leadership within student government, specifically in the senate, I realized I might have a fighting chance of being elected.
Molly went on: “I just really cared about my school and I thought it was this [student
trustee] role where I could make the biggest difference.”
Jon’s situation was a bit tricky; he was studying for the LSAT, hoping to go to
law school right after he graduated:
I knew if I did the student body president and student trustee that I would have to sacrifice a lot, including not going to law school right after I graduated, but I felt I would do the most beneficial things for the student body and I just felt like this was just part of the journey and I wanted to finish it.
Nick declared, “I really wanted to be able to be that voice and to be there for other
students, so running was the right decision for me.” Similarly, Beth expressed, “I wanted
to give back and better the university.”
Alexis shared, “I always wanted to do something on campus to bring people
together and not divide them, and I couldn’t think of better way to do it than running for
125
the student body president and student trustee role on campus.” Samantha’s motivation
was twofold: “I really wanted to learn more about my school and I really wanted to give
back. The student trustee position would allow me to do both.” David also expressed his
desire to improve his campus: “I wanted to try and help solve issues for students that
were feasible. I wanted to be in a challenging role that would help me grow.” Will
shared, “I knew it was going to be a really cool thing to represent the students on the
board and you what, my expectations were completely exceeded in terms of what I
learned and what I gained from the experience.” Gwen clearly articulated the
participants’ desire to give back: “You should be doing [the student trustee role] purely as
a selfless act, making your area, your district, your school, and your constituents better.”
Do Your Homework
Once the student trustees were elected or selected to their roles, part of their
desire to give back manifested itself in a commitment to “doing their homework.” All of
the participants referenced big board packets and many hours spent preparing for the
position and researching issues. Molly explained, “When I get asked about advice for
serving on the board, I say do your homework. This is what I tell [current student
trustees] and it’s the best advice that was given to me and it’s simple.”
Will shared, “You have to come prepared and you have to put in significant time
into it in order to be a successful trustee.” Molly recalled her shock when she received
her first board packet: “The first agenda for the first meeting was 250 pages, and I was
like, whoa!” Samantha noted, “There were four book packets on the iPad I had to read
before our first meeting. I knew there would be a lot of reading, but not sure I expected
that much!”
126
Beth noted that “there were varying levels of preparatory materials I needed to
read and become familiar with before each meeting.” Jon explained:
You can’t just show up at the meeting and be like, all right, well here I am. You have to go through all the board books and look at the updates, see what you are discussing, and research some things. So that really caused me to be more thoughtful in my approach.
Nick shared, “I wanted to be super prepared for each meeting. I wanted to be
seen as someone who knew what he was doing, someone who cared.” Alexis expressed,
“I was so appreciative to the board for all the information I was given access to that I
definitely did not take it for granted, because it was information that is a big
responsibility.” As the trustees navigated through their time on their respective boards,
they developed a love for their school that further supported their desire to give back.
I Love My School
One of the most telling aspects of the interviews emerged when all of nine of the
participants responded “yes” when asked if they would serve on the board again if given
the opportunity. Molly declared, “Absolutely I would serve again if given the
opportunity. I was actually recently asked to serve on an alumni board and I was just so
honored!” Gwen shared:
The university did an amazing job of respecting my position and treating me with fairness and always coming to me when there was a student issue—I can’t emphasize that enough. Later on in my life I would serve again. I loved it. I have always said all I wanted to do was one day be successful enough to change lives of students at the University.
Samantha indicated that she, too, would serve again: “I was just humbled by my
term. I would definitely serve a second term if given the opportunity.” Nick expressed,
“See, you carry this love for your school. I would love to serve again and I want to be
more involved with our school’s alumni association.” Beth responded, “I would very
127
much be interested in serving again and in using it to successfully navigate what I suspect
will be a very interesting and challenging time in the coming years for higher education.”
Will recalled, “When I was on the board I was already thinking about how I could
get back on; it was my goal. [Being on the board] changed my life and I just want to give
back to the institution.” Even Alexis, who was the most critical of her institution among
the participants, replied, “I am super grateful for the exposure I was given. I honestly
feel grateful. I would love to be able to give back to the school.” This affinity for their
institutions also drove the participants’ desire to leave a lasting legacy while serving their
term as student trustees.
Legacy
The idea of leaving a legacy as a student trustee emerged repeatedly throughout
the interviews. Some participants directly addressed the concept of leaving a legacy,
while the others described what they would need to do to be proud of their work at the
end of their term. A few, notably, talked about how they were working on projects that
they would never actually see completed. Alexis shared, “If something doesn’t sit well
with you, you have to say something. You have to trust your gut; your legacy will
depend on it.” Nick explained:
Your leadership is meant to benefit everyone else and if it helps you grow as a leader and grow as a person and grow into someone that you want to follow, but you are actually doing it by giving back to them, that’s success. I am so grateful for the opportunity I had. I hope my legacy will reflect both my gratitude and my growth.
Molly highlighted the projects for the future she worked on:
I worked really hard on an initiative for an expansion of the student union and I won’t even be on campus for it. It was part of my legacy and when I go back to campus and see the new union, I am just overcome with pride.
128
Samantha voiced a similar perspective:
I wanted to try and leave a legacy for even students that would come after me. Students are going to walk around campus and the union will be there and they are going to say this is so awesome and I am so glad I am here. And I won’t be around to see it but I know that our hard work was worth it.
Gwen also shared a project example:
I was determined I knew I was going to get [money] and sure enough, I was able to convince the legislature to grant us $10 million in general allocations and then with the help of the president, we worked together on finding the other $5 million to make sure that the project was completed. Seeing students who followed me have still remembered what I did that year is really a powerful legacy.
Jon stated simply, “My goal was always to bring the legacy of respect back to the
student trustee role on campus.” Will shared:
I was just so grateful for the opportunity. I hope my legacy is reflected in the time I spent transitioning the next student trustee and in the time I spend with the institution alumni association in my current city. I am not sure I will ever be able to repay my school but I will try every day to give back.
A sense of humility, a spirit of gratitude, a love for their school, and a commitment to
leaving a legacy all motivated the participants’ overarching desire to give back.
Student Trusteeship: Composite Description
The nine participants in this study experienced leadership development in nine
unique ways during their time in shared governance at their institutions. Their leadership
journeys started early in high school and expanded in college before they took on the
most powerful student leadership role on their campus, that of student trustee. Given
their unanimous willingness to serve on their institutions’ boards again, it is vital for
universities to consider how they can maximize the contributions these former student
trustees, who have had life-changing experiences on the board, have to offer. Positively
impacted by their time on the board, the participants learned life skills, valued the time
129
with their fellow trustees, and found clarity on the next steps in their careers. Through
tenures filled with both challenges and successes they emerged from their roles with an
understanding of state politics, a love for their schools, and a comprehensive knowledge
of how boards work.
The themes and subthemes identified, described, and analyzed in this chapter
comprise the essential meaning of student trusteeship as the phenomenon investigated in
this study. This phenomenon can be visually represented by the lotus flower (see Figure
1). The lotus flower emerges from the water each morning as the sun rises. During their
terms, the student trustees go through cycles of reflection and retreat, reemerging each
time more prepared to serve their constituents. This process leads to significant growth
for the student trustees throughout their term.
The lotus flower has roots that lay deep in the soil of the pond. The student
trustee’s roots lay deep within the evolution of governance in U.S. higher education, at a
depth invisible to the average person. The lotus flower’s distinctive layered petals
surround its core where its seeds are contained. The core of the lotus flower represents
the student trustee phenomenon; its petals represent the major themes and subthemes that
emerge in the study. In each petal a distinctive feature of the phenomenon is unveiled
and the central phenomenon is understood. The five largest petals surrounding student
trusteeship are (a) leadership is in their DNA, (b) the student trustee hat, (c) student
perception of the state influence on university governance (d) trusteeship is a life-
changing experience, and (d) desire to give back. Meanwhile, the influencing subthemes
of this study serve as the second tier of petals for the lotus flower.
130
Students do not just fall into the position of student trustee; rather, they have long
and rich leadership journeys that begin during their formative development, just as the
lotus flower does not magically just appear in the water but grows from its roots to the
top of pond. The student trustee role serves as the pinnacle of student leadership on
college campuses. The student trustee hat that is worn by this elite group of student
leaders requires a level of agility, critical thinking, and vulnerability unparalleled in their
previous experiences. It is while wearing the student trustee hat that the participants
learn about the complexity of their institutions and the core functions of the board,
recognize the role of their fellow trustees as educators, and gain the support of a diverse
group of cheerleaders.
The next petal or layer of the central phenomenon is how the state influences
shared governance at four-year public research institutions. While the majority of board
appointments at state institutions are made by the governor, this is not the only impact the
state has on the student trustees’ experience of shared governance. Through learning
what it means to be an elected official, understanding the open government regulations,
and staying current on the state’s financial health, the student trustee role is significantly
influenced by the state.
Trusteeship was characterized as a life-changing experience by the nine
participants in my study. This petal represents its impact on their career paths, the skills
they developed or strengthened as result of their time on the board, their adaptation to
numerous transitions, and the enhancement of their personal and professional
development.
131
The final petal of the lotus is the student trustees’ desire to give back. This
feeling or calling was manifested through their love for their schools, their motivation for
running for the trustee position, their unwavering commitment to doing their homework
for the position, and their desire to leave a legacy. A lotus flower is an aquatic perennial
that resembles, but should not be confused with, a water lily. The water lily’s flowers
and leaves float on the surface of the water, while the flowers and leaves of the lotus rise
above the water, like the student trustee positions which rises above all other student
leader positions. By the same token, a student trustee holds a student leadership position
on college campuses that is distinct from any other student leadership role.
Figure 1. Representation of student trusteeship: The lotus.
132
CHAPTER FIVE:
FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND REFLECTIONS
Introduction
Statham (2011) noted that “student involvement in the governance of academic
institutions has a long and rich history” (p. 1). The roles and responsibilities of student
trustees on college campuses vary across the enterprise of higher education. “Critical
understanding of the way in which student leaders on university governing boards
develop is needed as a growing number of public and private universities expand their
governing boards to include representation of students” (Statham, 2011, p. 2).
Nevertheless, “The role of student trustees in shared governance has escaped the attention
of researchers, and remains poorly understood” (Schmidt, 2015, para. 1).
This phenomenological study aimed to gain a deeper understanding of what
student trusteeship means and how student trustees experience leadership development
within the university shared governance structure. In particular, this study focused on the
leadership development of student trustees with voting privileges at four-year public
institutions. Interviews with nine participants from six institutions in four Midwestern
and Southern states provided the data for this study. This chapter expands the discussion
of the findings, notes areas for future research, and presents the researcher’s reflections
on the process.
133
Discussion of the Findings
The findings of this study contribute significantly to the literature on trusteeship
in the U.S. and on college student leadership development, specifically building on the
topics of shared governance, student trustees, the authority of the board, student
government leadership, and the current trustee landscape in the U.S. This study aimed to
answer the research question: What meaning do the students ascribe to their leadership
experiences as trustees?
By identifying and exploring the themes that emerged from semi-structured
interviews with the nine participants, I sought to heighten awareness of how student
trustees experience leadership development while engaged with the university
governance structures at their respective institutions. The essential elements of their
student trustee experiences are reflected through five major themes: (a) leadership is in
their DNA, (b) the student trustee hat, (c) student perception of the state influence on
university governance, (d) trusteeship is a life-changing experience, and (e) desire to give
back.
Leadership Is in Their DNA
The existing literature on college student leadership development is broad,
encompassing a variety of theories and approaches to leadership education. Whether or
not the participants in the study would agree with Thomas Carlyle who back in 1848
argued that leaders are born and not made, they did refer to leadership as a considerable
part of their formative years in school and elsewhere (Goldberg, Brattin & Engel, 1993).
The participants held leadership roles in student council (or student government),
athletics, and community service groups in high school. The majority of the participants
134
were involved with student government in college for a minimum of two years before
becoming student trustees. Eight of the nine participants played a role in allocating
student fee money prior to their term as a student trustee, and a majority of the
participants also held leadership roles in fraternities or sororities. In Will’s words,
leadership seems to have been in their DNA.
Elfreth’s (2011) study on student trustees reported that
one hundred percent of student trustees interviewed were involved with
extracurricular activities before serving on the board. Most commonly, student
trustees had backgrounds in student government or statewide student association,
experience lobbying or interning on the state or federal level, Greek Life, or had
served or are serving as student body president for their institution. (p. 28)
Similar to Elfreth’s participants, in this study, eight of the nine participants were elected
to serve a dual role as student body president and student trustee. “Of the 17 student
trustees who gained access to the board through peer election, ten officially served in the
dual role of student trustee and either student body president or chair of the statewide
student association” (Elfreth, 2011, p. 63).
These positional leadership pathways led each of the nine participants to the most
powerful student leader position on their campus. This study’s findings echo Dugan and
Komives’ (2007) research that showed an increasing institutional commitment to
developing the co-curricular engagement of students in college leadership development
programs in fraternities, sororities, student government, residence hall governance,
student employment, and other student organizations. Previous research has found that
student involvement in leadership opportunities increases social and political awareness,
135
improves writing and interpersonal communication skills, strengthens organizational
skills, contributes to cognitive development, and is closely related to later job success
(Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Terenzini et al., 1996; Whitt, 1994). The self-reports of
participants in this study regarding their accelerated growth and development as a result
of serving as student trustees supports these findings. The participants all noted
significant growth and expansion of leadership skills as a result of their term on the
board.
Statham (2011) pointed out that “in order to understand how student governing
board leaders develop, it is critical that research evaluate the methods and models through
which student leaders received leadership development guidance” (p. 2). The
participants in this study went through a board orientation, which is a form of leadership
development program. In addition, each participant spoke candidly about their team of
cheerleaders—general counsel, former student trustees, the university president and his or
her staff, student affairs staff, and the chair of the board—who provided leadership
guidance and support during their time in office.
Gold and Quatroche (1994) affirmed the critical role of student affairs
professionals in developing student leaders, especially those involved in student
government. Thus, it is no surprise that student affairs staff were identified as an
important group of cheerleaders for this study’s participants. The participants discussed
the importance of having accessible staff who were willing to answer questions and offer
advice and feedback, providing yet another example of leadership development guidance.
136
In a study of 30 current and former student trustees, Rall and Maxey (2015)
highlighted the importance of identifying and providing the resources necessary for
student trustees to be successful:
The lack of research on [student trustees] and their roles, though, has
greater implications in that the student leaders serving in these roles and the
faculty, staff, and administrators who wish to support them often lack resources
that are designed specifically to address some of the unique challenges that
student trustees might expect to encounter in their work. (p. 33)
The participants’ leadership journeys began prior to their arrival at college. It was
through high school leadership roles and early and increasing collegiate leadership
involvement that the participants positioned and prepared themselves to assume the role
of student trustee.
The Student Trustee Hat
While the body of literature pertaining to student trusteeship in the U.S. has
evolved in recent years, there remains a lack of knowledge about the specific role of
student trustees. The limited literature from Elfreth (2011) and Rall and Maxey (2015)
addressed conflicting roles and identifies for the student trustees. The participants in this
study acknowledged the multiple hats or the multiple identities they held both in the
board room and on campus. Rall and Maxey (2015) found that student trustees viewed
their role as split between being a trustee and being the voice of the students. This is
consistent with the findings of this study in which participants saw one of their major
responsibilities within the shared governance structure as being the voice of the students,
137
while at the same time reporting that because of their vote, they felt they were just like
their peer trustees in some ways.
Rall and Maxey (2015) further asserted:
The message that reverberated from students was that in order to gain
credibility on the board they either had to be the “voice” of all the students at the
institution or the student, or they had to present themselves as “regular” trustee.
(p. 32)
Participants in Statham’s 2011 study also identified the important role of being the voice
of the students: “Most respondents noted they saw themselves as the direct connection
and primary source of communication between the board and the student body during
their term as student trustee” (Statham, 2011, p. 38). These two very salient pieces of
their identity can nevertheless create frustration for student trustees. “Many students
shared that they were conflicted between being the ‘student trustee’ and just a ‘trustee”
(Rall & Maxey, 2015, p. 36). Participants in the present study noted the clear differences
in life experience between themselves and the fellow trustees which made their title of
student trustee both accurate and challenging at the same time; this is consistent with the
aforementioned studies.
Rall and Maxey (2015) quoted one of their participants, who observed: “It is very
difficult at times because you know I sitting next to people in their 50s and 60s who have
accomplished a lot” (p. 21). Rall and Maxey further explained that participants did not
always know who they could talk to on the board about student concerns and when the
right time was to have that conversation. The age gap was also noted by Elfreth (2011),
who observed, “At the average age of 23, these students are placed amidst a board of
138
millionaires, former legislators and successful businesspeople, and are expected to both
conform and to stand out” (p. 2). Nevertheless, the participants in the present study
viewed their fellow trustees as educators, role models, and career advisors.
Within their relatively brief terms of service, the participants noted they learned
about the core functions of the board and how to navigate institutional politics. The one-
year term did not emerge as a major obstacle for this study’s participants, as it did for
participants in both Elfreth’s (2011) and in Rall and Maxey’s (2015) studies. The one-
year term was enough time for the participants to learn the functions of their board and
clearly articulate the board’s responsibilities. The participants in this study understood
the board’s responsibility to ensure that the institution adhered to its mission, that its
financial and legal matters were handled appropriately, and that the president and his or
her team was effectively managing the university. These core functions noted by the
participants in this study are consistent with Elfreth’s (2011) research:
Boards are the ultimate authority and the highest policymaking body for
the institution they serve. Broadly, their actions influence that direction and
health of higher education in the state and they hold a legal and fiduciary
responsibility to the welfare of the institutions they serve. (p. 11)
Wearing the student trustee hat evoked a variety of emotions that were shared by
the nine participants in this study. These emotions ranged from frustration to feeling
overwhelmed, from the sense of being alone or the only one to feelings of pride and
excitement. For example, all participants except Beth, who served with another student
trustee at her institution, expressed the impact of being the only one. Similar emotions
were highlighted in Rall and Maxey’s (2015) study in which respondents reported feeling
139
like a one-man team as a result of being the only student on the board. To address this
concern, Rall and Maxey (2015) recommended that institutions or statewide systems add
additional student members so as to create a greater sense of collegiality and provide a
cohort or support mechanism for the student trustees.
Another key subtheme that emerged from my study was the importance and
power of the vote for student trustees. In Elfreth’s (2011) study, former student trustees
described the absence of voting power as a shortcoming of their experience. “It is as if
[the institution] is saying, ‘We will give you degrees to go out and do important things
but we don’t trust you to vote on the direction of our university” (Elfreth, 2011, p. 83). In
contrast, the participants in the present study were full voting members of their boards,
and viewed representing the student voice through their votes as their most important role
on the board. These examples illustrate that it is not the student trustee role itself, but the
powers and responsibilities each institution bestows on that role that most significantly
impact leadership development. Elfreth (2011) concluded that “having the ability to vote
is important for the student trustee to be a full board member not only in sentiment but
also in name” (p. 77).
The issue of student trustee voting is being examined in the Ohio legislature in
response to the Ohio General Assembly’s June 13, 2015 decision to grant full voting
privileges to student trustees serving on The Ohio State University Board of Trustees
(“OSU student trustees,” 2016). This action has sparked interest from student trustees
across the state who seek the same voting rights. Mike Davis, a student trustee at the
University of Akron, argued, “I think that it is important for students to have a vote. It’s
140
one thing to have your voice be heard; it’s a whole other thing to have your opinion
count” (“OSU student trustees,” 2016, para. 9).
The Connecticut state legislature was reviewing a bill that would add two
additional student trustees to their 21-member board, which at the time had only one
student member (Constable, 2016). The bill passed the senate and house with only one
dissenting vote before Governor Malloy halted the legislation in 2015. The current
student trustee, Adam Kuegler, testified in favor of the legislation and has support from
the board. According to Constable (2016),
Rep. Gregory Haddad, D-Mansfield voiced his support for the legislation
and said he and fellow rep [Sen. Mae] Flexer would be willing to set up a meeting
between [Governor] Malloy and Kuegler to attempt to sway the governor on the
legislation. (para. 15)
In the fall 2015, the Governor Bruce Rauner of Illinois vetoed a bill that would
have granted a vote to both student representatives on the Southern Illinois Board of
Trustees; currently only one has voting privileges (Lukitsch, 2015). The student trustee
at the time, Allen Shelton, shared, “It’s disappointing to not have that vote. The reason
that we have a student is to get that student view” (Lukitsch, 2015, para. 4). On August
25, 2015, Governor Rauner stated that “having another student voting member was not
necessary or advisable” and recommended no change be made to the board’s composition
(Lukitsch, 2015, para. 5). Governor Rauner argued, “The current system allows students
to be adequately represented without diluting the insight gained from the other trustees’
years of professional experience” (Lukitsch, 2015, para. 5). The participants in this study
acknowledged that the student trustee hat is heavily influenced by the state.
141
Student Perception of the State Influence on University Governance
Through the influence of the governor, state funding cuts, performance metrics,
and open government or sunshine laws, all nine participants reported witnessing the
impact of their state through serving on the board of trustees. The participants noted that
part of their orientation into the position was learning the state laws regulating
communication about board matters and among board members. Kerr and Gade (1989)
discussed the impact of such regulations:
Sunshine laws may inhibit open discussion of alternative courses of action
and force the board to rely more heavily on administrative recommendations.
They may also make it difficult for board members to engage in self-education in
their roles, preventing private sessions where board members can candidly discuss
their concerns and bare their weaknesses without risking public exposure. (p. 25)
Kerr and Gade (1989) further explained:
The ability to function effectively depends on opportunities for members
to have exploratory discussions about important policies without having to
commit themselves in public before they have an opportunity to hear what their
fellow members have to say in frank and open discussions. (p. 76)
In addition to navigating state sunshine laws during their terms, the participants
also identified the navigation of both institutional and state politics as part of their
journey. Elfreth (2011) highlighted the influence of politics in such fundamental matters
142
as board composition: “The dominant model of selecting trustees for four-year public
institutions involves gubernatorial appointment followed by confirmation by the state
senate” (p. 18). The participants in Elfreth’s (2011) study “actively took part in
representing student interests in their state capitols, whether by lobbying, meeting with
legislators or testifying on bills” (p. 59). These activities, especially lobbying for more
funding, are consistent with experiences described by this study’s participants.
Levine (2016) argued the following:
In the case of public universities, governors can be powerful advocates for
intense trustee orientation and ongoing professional development and can
facilitate or even host the kind of substantial and ongoing training that makes sure
appointees are informed public servants. (p. 15)
Through the governor’s decisions and actions, states can and do have a powerful impact
on the student trustee experience. As a result, the student trustee experience can vary
widely from state to state. Miller and Nadler (2006) identified Minnesota and Oregon as
the two states in which student trustees have the greatest opportunity make an impact:
The best possibilities for significant student influence [on the board] are
found at the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Board where 3 of the 15
votes are from student [trustees] and the Oregon University System Board where
2 of the 11 votes are from students [trustees]. (p. 88)
When identifying key parties that should be involved in university governance,
Birnbaum (2004) noted the trustees, the administration, and the faculty, however, only
one of my participants, Alexis, mentioned the role and impact of faculty during her time
143
on the board. Moreover seven of the nine study participants served with a faculty senate
chair as a voting member of their board of trustees. Meanwhile, Tierney and Minor
(2003) noted that there are multiple viewpoints on who should be included on the board
for institutions. Most recently, Rhoades (2013) explained that universities are
experiencing a decline in what used to be considered shared governance and that faculty
have long been a party of university governance and should remain a part of the
governance structure. Even when all nine participants were asked to discuss shared
governance on their campus, they did not make the connection to faculty having an
overall impact or say in the process, whereas all nine mentioned the influence of the state,
which makes this particular theme interesting because it indicates that the state influence
has to be explored in the research.
Trusteeship Is a Life-Changing Experience
The nine participants in this study reported that their student trustee experience
changed their lives by developing their leadership skills, influencing their career paths,
expediting their development, and helping them adapt to transitions. Elfreth’s (2011)
participants found trusteeship to be a uniquely powerful experience, characterizing it as
“the experience of a lifetime,” “the equivalent to a master’s degree in systems
management,” and a “unique classroom of its own that equaled or surpassed my
traditional education” (p. 85). The experiences of the participants in this study also
underscored Statham’s (2011) finding that “many students identified the experience as
having direct impact on their career future” (p. 37). Statham (2011) noted, “Many
students indicated that they gained valuable experience and personal development in the
areas of leadership, business management and professional networking” (p. 42).
144
The participants in the present study also reported expedited development and
enhanced leadership and strategic thinking skills as a result of their time on the board,
which is consistent with Statham’s (2011) findings on student trusteeship:
[Trusteeship] trains you and teaches you how to be a social agent and a
social broker. Not only how to interact with people in influence and power but
how to gather political capitol and will across a broad spectrum of constituents
and how to speak to the issues of people without power or influence. (p. 51)
In addition to enhanced leadership skills, the majority of the participants in this
study reported heightened self-confidence as result of their term as a student trustee. This
finding aligns with Rall and Maxey’s (2015) assertion that “students articulated the
importance of establishing a presence on the board to not only build self-confidence but
also to build legitimacy with other members of the board” (p. 31). The types of skills
associated with the student trustee experience vary across the literature. For instance,
Miller and Nadler (2006) explained that the student trustee experience provides “a great
opportunity for students to gain leadership skills, communication skills and learn how
higher education works” (p. 96). The nine participants in this study reported developing
and advancing a wide variety of personal and professional skills.
Desire to Give Back
The participants in this study clearly and unanimously expressed their desire to
give back to their institutions. This desire manifested itself through their motivation to
run or apply for the position of student trustee, their commitment to doing their
homework, their goal of leaving a legacy, and their deep and abiding affinity for their
schools. Greenleaf (1970, 1977) proposed that leadership was actually granted to a
145
person by the nature of their service to others. Northouse (2007) described Greenleaf’s
work: “In fact, the way a person emerges as a leader is first by becoming a servant” (p.
349). Elfreth (2011) also noted the connection between service and leadership: “It is that
deep appreciation and passion for public service that draws many to the role of student
trustee in the first place” (p. 85).
Hellwig-Olson (2000) studied eight student body presidents and found they were
motivated to run for the position by their commitment to the university, which is
consistent with the participants’ responses in this study. Bialek and Lloyd’s 1998 study
on the post-graduation impact of student leadership found that students who participated
in leadership roles on campus came away with an increased sense of pride and connection
to the university. One participant in their study shared, “You come out of a university
experience like that with a whole new appreciation of the university” (Bialek & Lloyd,
1998, p. 6), while another participant noted, “I feel very connected right now to the
university in a lot of ways because of this organization” (p. 6). The participants in this
study expressed similar sentiments.
Kuh and Lund (1994) indicated that “participation in campus governance is linked
to desirable outcomes for individual students as well as to positive contributions to the
welfare of the campus community” (p. 13). A participant in Statham’s (2011) study
shared, “I think this has been the most important accomplishment of my life so far and
would expect it to be the same for most of us with this important opportunity” (p. 43).
The level of importance described by Statham’s participant was echoed by the
participants in this study as they discussed their work on the board.
146
The participants in this study emphasized the importance of being prepared for the
board meetings. In order to fully give back to their institutions and their constituents, it
took hours of work and research. Elfreth (2011), likewise, found that “a significant
number of student trustees were adamant that reading material, researching issues
thoroughly, and being well prepared for meetings was essential their effectiveness” (p.
54). Elfreth (2011) reported that “one student trustee advised another student trustee to
work hardest on the issues they have little interest or background knowledge in, such as
the more complicated fiscal matters facing the board” (p. 54).
The need for extensive preparation was also expressed by a participant in Rall and
Maxey’s (2015) study:
One thing for me personally while I was applying, and after I was
appointed and while I was preparing for interviews just prior to being appointed,
all of the board’s materials were online. So they had the minutes and they had
agenda items and all those posted publicly and very accessible . . . So I went back
for a couple of years, scanned through the minutes, tried to read a good portion of
the agenda items and really just embedded myself in what’s been going on. (p. 31)
Such an approach is consistent with the desire to give back expressed by participants in
this study. It was not just about fulfilling their job responsibilities, but doing their jobs
well with an ethic of care and integrity.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study sought to contribute to the existing studies regarding student trustees,
especially looking at the leadership development experiences of student trustees at four-
year public universities. The results of this study have direct implications for those who
147
pursue the role of student trustees and those who work directly with student trustees.
Little has been documented in the existing literature regarding the student trustee
adaptation to the numerous transitions they face during their brief one-year terms. In
addition, previous literature has not identified the desired leadership outcomes for student
trustees and whether they are consistent with the skills these students actually develop.
Moreover, the literature has not identified how institutional affinity is cultivated through
the role of student trustee, although the participants in this study confirmed that they
would serve on the board again and expressed a desire to stay involved with their
universities through their respective alumni offices. As this studied was designed with a
critical design to examine the power, politics and advocacy inherent in the student trustee
position no explicit data was uncovered, however through the participants stories
examples of where they struggled with the topics of power, politics and advocacy were
uncovered. A new study could specially look at the power, politics and advocacy
associated with the student trustee role and shed light on the power dynamics and
political forces that effect the student trustee’s leadership development. Finally, there is
no literature exploring how current trustees, board chairs, or the cheerleaders identified
by this study’s participants see their own roles impacting the leadership development of
student trustees at their institutions.
Further research could specifically explore the following:
1. A study could explore what the students voting for student trustees look for in
their chosen candidates.
148
2. Given that the student trustees in this study were involved with numerous
leadership opportunities on campus, a study could investigate what leadership
skills are explicitly tied to the student trustee experience.
3. There is an opportunity to understand how current trustees respond to the
concept of serving as an educator during their time on the board.
4. A study could explore how and if alumni development offices leverage the
relationships with former student trustees post-graduation.
5. Additional research could be done to understand how the student trustee
experience differs at four-year public institutions when they do not have
voting power.
6. Given that five out of nine participants of this study were female, another
study could take a deeper look at the role gender may play in the leadership
development of student trustees engaged in university governance.
7. It would be interesting to learn if the university staff member responsible for
advising the student trustee has developed specific learning outcomes for the
position and if the goals are being met.
Reflections on My Journey
As I have progressed through my career in higher education, I have had the
privilege of working with hundreds of student leaders, from resident assistants, student
athletes, orientation leaders, and leaders in Greek life to student organization leaders,
student employees, and student ambassadors. However, it is the student trustee role that
has most fascinated me. The simultaneous roles of student and trustee within the shared
governance structure at a four-year public institution provide an uncommon leadership
149
development opportunity for students. This unparalleled experience was highlighted by
the individual and collective stories of my nine extraordinary participants.
Over the course of this journey, I discovered that each participant’s leadership
story prior to assuming the role of trustee also had a significant impact on their
development. I learned that the student trustee role is unlike any other on a college
campus, a uniqueness that presents both great opportunities and great challenges. As a
result of their placement in a highly political environment, student trustees develop the
acumen to adjust to and navigate through complex organizations in ways that simply
cannot be taught in the classroom.
There is a power in listening to students’ stories, learning about their journeys,
and understanding who and what has impacted their development. This is not a new
lesson for me, but rather a reminder, because my career path may take me further from
the day-to-day advising of student leaders, that those of us working in higher education
are educators first and foremost. We have an amazing opportunity to shape future leaders
and a responsibility to do so with the ethic of care and the level of intentionality that our
students deserve.
As my nine participants discussed their team of cheerleaders, it was powerful to
see the diversity of offices and individuals who contribute to the development of student
trustees. By examining what I learned about my participants, I was also able to learn a
great deal about myself as an advisor to and cheerleader for this group of student leaders.
By exploring the essence of their experiences within the state political landscapes, I now
better understand the importance of conveying the influence of the state to students as
they explore the idea of running for student trustee. In their stories, I saw opportunities
150
for growth in my advising and for advocacy to my institutional peers on how best to
support and train students to serve in this elite leadership role.
This study provides an enhanced understanding of the experience of student
trustees with voting rights at four-year public institutions, while raising a number of
questions for future researchers seeking to learn more about the phenomenon. My
participants’ stories also raised a number of questions to consider in my own journey
through higher education. How do institutions prepare general counsel and their staffs to
support and develop student trustees? How can alumni relations and development offices
transform former student trustees into university ambassadors? Do institutions view their
trustees as educators—and should they? Do trustees view themselves as educators—and
should they? Have institutions designed learning outcomes for the specific role of
student trustee on their campus, and if not, should they? And finally, what is the impact
of gender on the student trustee experience, and are there other components of identity
that impact this experience as gender did for a portion of my participants?
The stories of these nine former student trustees will continue to motivate my
commitment to research and inspire me to engage in the work of student affairs with an
ethic of care. They will also serve as a reminder of how deeply lucky we are to be part of
the critical developmental stages that take place for students on college campuses. I will
move forward with Will’s contagious positive energy and pure love for his school,
Gwen’s graceful confidence and reflective nature, Samantha’s commitment and strong
desire to give back, Jon’s humble and strategic approach to reaching his goals, Beth’s
organizational skills that allow to her maximize every opportunity, David’s grateful
spirit, Molly’s unwavering desire to continue to mentor and support student trustees at
151
her institution, Nick’s quiet confidence, and Alexis’s ability to ask the tough questions in
ways that others can hear. Thanks to them this has been a journey not only of discovery
about the phenomenon of student trustees, but also of self-discovery, in which I learned a
great deal about myself and who I aspire to be within the field of education.
152
REFERENCES
Altbach, P. G. (2011). Patterns of higher education development. In P. G. Altbach, P. J.
Gumport, & R. O. Berdahl (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first
century (3rd ed., pp. 13–36). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Alvarez-Breckenridge, C. (2010). Making the best use of student trustees. Trusteeship,
18(4), 28–32.
American Association of University Professors. (2006). Policy documents & reports.
Washington, DC: Author.
Ashworth, P. (2016). The lifeworld—enriching qualitative evidence. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 13(1), 20–32. doi: 10.1080/14780887.2015.1076917
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (1996). Renewing the
academic presidency: Stronger leadership for tougher times. Report of the
Commission on the Academic Presidency. Washington, DC: Author.
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (2003). Merit screening
of citizens for gubernatorial appointment to public college and university
trusteeship. Washington, DC: Author.
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (2010). 2010 policies,
practices, and composition of governing boards of public colleges, universities,
and systems. Washington, DC: Author.
153
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (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 (State Policy Brief). Ingram Center for Public
Trusteeship and Governance. Washington, DC: Author.
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (2014a). AGB alert:
Trustees’ responsibilities in preventing sexual assault on campus. Retrieved from
http://agb.org/news/2014-09/agb-alert-trustees-responsibilities-preventing-sexual-
assaults-campus.
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (2014b). Effective
governing boards: A guide for members of governing boards of independent
colleges and universities. Washington, DC: Author.
Astin, A. W. (1997). The changing American college student: Thirty-year trends, 1966–
1996. The Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 115–135.
Astin, A. W., & Astin, H. S. (2000). Learning reconsidered: Engaging higher education
in social change. Battle Creek, MI: W. K. Kellogg Foundation.
Bass, B. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the
vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3): 19–31.
Bass, B. M., & Stogdill, R. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory,
research, and managerial applications. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of knowledge: A treatise in
the sociology of knowledge. New York, NY: Doubleday.
154
Bialek, S. C., & Lloyd, A. G. (1998). Post-graduation impact of student leadership.
Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED417669)
Birnbaum, R. (1998). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and
leadership (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Birnbaum, R. (2004, Fall). The end of shared governance: Looking ahead or looking
back. New Directions for Higher Education, 127, 5–22.
Bolden, R., Gosling, J., Marturano, A., & Dennison, P. (2003). A review of leadership
theory and competency frameworks. Exeter, UK: University of Exeter Centre for
Leadership Studies. Retrieved from
http://centres.exeter.ac.uk/cls/research/abstract.php?id=29 (accessed August 11,
2015).
Bowen, W. (1994). Inside the boardroom: Governance by directors and trustees. New
York: J. Wiley.
Bowen, W. G., & Tobin, E. M. (2015). Locus of authority. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Bray, N. J. (2006). Effects and assessment of student involvement in campus governance.
In M. Miller & D. P. Nadler (Eds.), Student governance and institutional policy:
Formation and implementation (pp. 19–32). Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishing.
Bryn Mawr College Self-Government Association. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.sga.blogs.brynmawr.edu
Calvert, P., & Calvert, S. (1992). Sociology today. New York, NY: Prentice-Hall.
155
Carlyle, T. (1993). On heroes, hero-worship, and the heroic in history. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Chickering, A., & Dalton, J. (2001, December). Assess the ineffable. Paper presented at
the Annual Assessment Conference of the American Association of Higher
Education, Boston, MA.
Clark, K. E. (1985). Teaching undergraduates to be leaders. AAHE Bulletin, 37(7), 11–14.
Collis, D. J. (2004). The paradox of scope: A challenge to the governance of higher
education. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), Competing conceptions of academic
governance: Negotiating the perfect storm. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Constable, K. (2016, March 3). Legislature considering bill to add two new student
trustees at UConn. The Daily Campus. Retrieved from dailycampus.com
Cress, C. M., Astin, H. S., Zimmerman-Oster, K., & Burkhardt, J. C. (2001).
Developmental outcomes of college students’ involvement in leadership
activities. Journal of College Student Development, 42(1), 15–27.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry research and design: Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Davis, G. (1997, Summer). Orientation and professional development of trustees. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 98, 21–31.
156
Davis, H. (2006). Involvement of student trustees in governance. In M. Miller & D. P.
Nadler (Eds.), Student governance and institutional policy (pp. 81–91).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Dickmeyer, N. (2013). Asking the right questions: A guide for college and university
trustees. Briarcliff Manor, NY: Chelmsford Press.
Dika, S. L., & Janosik, S. M. (2003, November). The role of selection, orientation and
training in improving the quality of public college university boards of trustees in
the United States. Quality in Higher Education, 9(3), 273–285. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1353832032000151139
Duderstadt, J. (2000). A university for the 21st century. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press.
Dugan, J. P. (2006). Involvement and leadership: A descriptive analysis of socially
responsible leadership. Journal of College Student Development, 47(3), 335–343.
Dugan, J. P., & Komives, S. R. (2007). Developing leadership capacity in college
students. College Park, MD: National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs.
Dugan, J. P., & Komives, S. R. (2011). Leadership theories. In S. R. Komives, J. P.
Dugan, J. E. Owen, C. Slack, and W. Wagner (Eds.), The handbook for student
leadership development (2nd ed., pp. 35–57). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Duncan, S. (2013). Locked gates and chain-link fences: A generational
phenomenological story of disability. In A. Lukenchuk (Ed.), Paradigms of
research for the 21st century: Perspectives and examples from practice (pp. 234–
250). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
157
Dwyer, S. C., & Buckle, J. L. (2009). The space between: On being an insider-outsider in
qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 54–63.
Elfreth, S. K. (2011). The young guardians: Students as stewards of the past, present, and
future of American higher education. Fort Collins, CO: Associated Students of
Colorado State University.
Eramo, N. P. (2010). Under construction: A case of student self-governance at the
University of Virginia. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia.
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college:
Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gold, J. A., & Quatroche, T. J. (1994, Summer). Student government: A testing ground
for transformational leadership principles. New Directions for Student Services,
66, 31–43.
Goldbern, M.K., Brattin, J.J., & Engel, M. (1993). On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the
Herioc in History. The Carlyle Encyclopedia, 359-62.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Indianapolis, IN: The Robert K.
Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate
power and greatness. New York, NY: Paulist Press.
Hall, S. L., Forrester, S., & Borsz, M. (2008). A constructive case study examining the
leadership development of undergraduate students in campus recreational sports.
Journal of College Student Development, 49, 125–140.
Hartnett, R. T. (1969). College and university trustees: Their backgrounds, roles, and
educational attitudes. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
158
Hearn, J. C., & McLendon, M. K. (2012). Governance research: From adolescence to
maturity. In M. Bastedo (Ed.), The organization of higher education: Managing
colleges for a new era (pp. 45–85). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.
Hellwig-Olson, B. A. (2000). Exploring the college student body president leadership
phenomenon.
Hendrickson, R. M., Lane, J. E., Harris, J. T., & Doran, R. H. (2013). Academic
leadership and governance of higher education. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2010). The practice of qualitative research (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Houle, C. O. (1989). Governing boards. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Janc, J. (2004). The meaning of the student advisory board leadership development
experience to the student board members (Unpublished master’s thesis).
University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
Johnson, M. A. (2015). On my watch: The role and responsibilities of American college
trustees (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Harvard University, Cambridge,
MA.
Kaplin, W. A., & Lee, B. A. (2006). The law of higher education: A comprehensive guide
to legal implications of administrative decision making (4th ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kerr, C., & Gade, M. L. (1989). The guardians: Boards of trustees of American colleges
and universities. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of
Universities & Colleges.
159
Kezar, A. J. (1999). Higher education trends (1997–1999): Faculty. Washington, DC:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.
Kezar, A. J. (2006, November/December). Rethinking public higher education governing
board performance: Results of a national study of governing boards in the United
States. The Journal of Higher Education, 77, 968–1008.
Kincheloe, J., & McLaren, P. (2003). The landscape of qualitative research: Theories
and issues (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kirkpatrick, S., & Locke, E. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy of
Management Executive 5(2), 48–60.
Komives, S. R., Dugan, J. P., Owen, J. E., Slack, C., & Wagner, W. (2011). The
handbook for student leadership development. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley &
Sons.
Komives, S. R., Lucas, N., & McMahon, T. R. (1998). Exploring leadership: For college
students who want to make a difference. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1995). The leadership challenge: How to keep getting
extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2001). Bringing leadership lessons from the past into the
future. In W. Bennis, G. M. Spreitzer, & T. Cummings (Eds.), The future of
leadership: Today’s top leadership thinkers speak to tomorrow’s leaders (pp. 81–
90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kuh, G. D., & Lund, J. P. (1994). What students gain from participating in student
government. New Directions for Student Services, 1994(66), 5–17.
160
Lang, K.C. (2002). The role of Student Board Members at Two-and Four-year
Institutions. A Dissertation Executive Summary.
Laosebikan-Buggs, M. (2009). An investigation of the impact of student government
involvement at one public historically Black university on the career choice of
African American student participants. University of New Orleans Theses and
Dissertations, Paper 1102.
Legon, R., Lombardi, J. V., & Rhoades, G. (2013, January/February). Leading the
university: The roles of trustees, presidents, and faculty. Change: The Magazine
of Higher Learning, 45(1), 24–32. Retrieved from http://www.changemag.org
Levine, J. P. (2016). Board tensions and activist trustees. Strategic Enrollment
Management Quarterly, 4(1), 35–44. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002./sem3
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in
experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271–
301.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Longanecker, D. (2006). The “new” new challenge of governance by governing boards.
In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), Governance and the public good (pp. 95–116). Albany,
NY: State University of New York.
Lukenchuk, A. (2013). Paradigms of research for the 21st century: Perspectives and
examples from practice. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
161
Lukenchuk, A., & Kolich, E. (2013). Paradigms and educational research: Weaving the
tapestry. In A. Lukenchuk (Ed.), Paradigms of research for the 21st century:
Perspectives and examples from practice (pp. 61–90). New York, NY: Peter
Lang.
Lukitsch, B. (2015, September 1). Rauner keeps student trustees in the dawg house. Daily
Egyptian. Retrieved from http://dailyegyptian.com
Lyall, K. (2001). Recent changes in the structure and governance of American research
universities. In W. Hirsch & L. Weber (Eds.), Governance in higher education:
The university in a state of flux (pp. 17–25). London, UK: Economica.
Mallon, W. (2004). Disjointed governance in university centers and institutes. New
Directions for Higher Education, 2004(127), 61–74.
Manning, M. L., & Saddlemire, R. (1996). Developing a sense of community in
secondary schools. NASPA Bulletin, 80(584), 41–48.
Marklein, M. B. (2007, May 7). College trustees feel unprepared. USA Today. Retrieved
from http://usatoday30.com/news/education/2007-05--06-college-trustees_N.htm
Martin, R. H. (2003). The problem with student and faculty trustees. Trusteeship, 11(4),
29–32.
Martorana, S. V. (1963). College boards of trustees. Washington, DC: The Center for
Applied Research in Education, Inc.
Mather, P. C., & Winston Jr., R. B. (1998). Autonomy development of traditional-aged
students: Themes and processes. Journal of College Student Development, 39(1),
33–50.
162
May, W. P. (2010). The history of student governance in higher education. College
Student Affairs Journal, 28(2), 207.
McCall, M. W., & Lombardo, M. M. (1983). Off the track: Why and how successful
executives get derailed (Technical report, No. 21). Greensboro, NC: Center for
Creative Leadership.
McGregor, D. (1985). The human side of enterprise: 25th anniversary printing. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Mclntire, D. D. (1989). Student leadership development: A student affairs mandate.
NASPA Journal, 27(1), 75–79.
McLaughlin, R. (1978). Inside student trusteeship. AGB Reports, 20(5), 41–2.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education:
Revised and expanded from case study research in education. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and
analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merrill, M. P. (2010). Board composition: Student and faculty trustee. Trusteeship, 24,
36-37.
Michael, S. O., & Schwartz, M. (2000). Perceived role of trustees: A study of higher
education institutions in Ohio. Library Consortium Management: An
International Journal, 2(2), 54–72.
Middleton, C. R. (2010). The virtues of student and faculty trustees. Trusteeship, 18(4),
24–27.
163
Miles, J. M. (2010). Why we lead: Reflections of female student government presidents.
Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED509395)
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A
methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miles, J. M., Miller, M. T., & Nadler, D. P. (2008). A national study of improving
participation in student self-governance leadership. Retrieved from ERIC
database. (ED503754)
Miller, M., & Nadler, D. P. (Eds.). (2006). Effect and assessment of student involvement
in campus governance. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Moustakas, C. (1990). Heuristic research: Design, methodology, and applications.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nason, J. W. (1980). Responsibilities of the governing board. In R. T. Ingram and
Associates (Eds.), Handbook of college and university trusteeship (pp. 27–46).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
OSU student trustees gain vote that UA’s still lack. (2016, September 6). the buchtelite.
Retrieved from http://buchtelite.com
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
164
Pelletier, S. G. (2013, January/February). Welcoming new board members: 15 tips for
better organizations. Trusteeship Magazine. Retrieved from
http://agb.org/trusteeship/2013/1/welcoming-new-board-members-15-tips-better-
orientations
Pierce, S. R. (2014). Governance reconsidered. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1983). Methodology for the human sciences: Systems of inquiry.
New York, NY: SUNY Press.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1989). Phenomenological research methods. In Existential
phenomenological perspectives in psychology (pp. 41–60). New York, NY:
Plenum Press.
Rall, R. M., & Maxey, D. (2015, March). A steeper hill to climb: The role and experience
of student trustees in the 21st century. Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association 2015 Conference, Chicago, IL.
Rhoades, G. (2013, January/February). Shared governance for enduring change. Change,
30–32. Retrieved from http://www.change.org
Roberts, D. C. (1997). The changing look of leadership programs. Concepts &
Connections, 5(2), 1–14.
Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Saldaña, J. (2015). Thinking qualitatively: Methods of mind. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schlesinger, S., & Baldridge, J. V. (1982). Is student power dead in higher education?
College Student Journal, 16(1), 9–17.
165
Schütz, A. (1932). The phenomenology of the social world. Evanston, IL: Northwestern
University.
Schmidt, P. (2015, April 23). A rare look at what makes student trustees effective. The
Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://www.chronicle.com/article/A-Rare-Look-at-What-Makes/229611/
Shelton, K. M. (1976). The growth of student trusteeship. AGB Reports, 18(2), 24–26.
Smith, C. (2000). Perspectives on the role of student trustees in California community
colleges. Retrieved from
http://www.ccleague.org/files/public/Publications/PerspST.pdf. board members
Smith, J. K. (1992). Interpretative inquiry: A practical and moral activity. Theory into
Practice, 31(2), 100–106.
Statham, R. D. (2011). Leadership development in student governing board members
(Unpublished master’s thesis). California State University, Fresno, CA. Retrieved
from www.proquest.com
Terrell, M. C., & Cuyjet, M. J. (1994). Developing student government leadership (No.
66). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E. T., & Blimling, G. S. (1996). Students’ out-of-class
experiences and their influence on learning and cognitive development: A
literature review. Journal of College Student Development, 37(2), 149–162.
Tierney, W. G. (Ed.). (1998). The responsive university: Restructuring for high
performance. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
166
Tierney, W. G., & Minor, J. T. (2003). Challenges for governance: A national report.
Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California Center for Higher Education
Policy Analysis.
Ulysse, B., & Lukenchuk, A. (2013). Presaging educational inquiry: Historical
development of philosophical ideas, traditions, and perspectives. In A. Lukenchuk
(Ed.), Paradigms of research for the 21st century: Perspectives and examples
from practice (pp. 3–30). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
van Manen, M. (1998). Modalities of body experience in illness and health. Qualitative
Health Research, 8(1), 7–24.
van Manen, M. (2014). Phenomenology of practice: Meaning-giving methods in
phenomenological research and writing. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Wergin, J. L. (2004). Leadership in place. The Department Chair, 14(4), 1–3.
Whitt, E. J. (1994, May). “I can be anything!”: Student leadership in three women’s
colleges. Journal of College Student Development, 35(3), 198–207.
Woodhouse, K. (2015, 7). States explore required training for university board members.
Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/07/07
Woods, G. P., & Nason, J. W. (1977). Student-faculty trusteeship: A short debate. AGB
Reports, 19(2), 12–14.
167
APPENDIX A
CONSENT FORM
168
APPENDIX A
Consent Form
Dear Prospective Participant:
You are invited to be part of the study, A Phenomenological Study of Student Trustee Leadership Development within the University Governance Structures at Four-Year Public Universities, conducted by Sarah Cunningham, a doctoral candidate in the Higher Education and Organizational Change (HEOC) program at Benedictine University. The purpose of this study is to investigate the leadership experiences of student trustees at four-year public universities. I seek to address the following research questions: What meaning do the students ascribe to their leadership experiences as trustees? How do student trustees perceive shared governance and their role within it? How do student trustees perceive and enact their identities as leaders?
Your participation in this study is strictly voluntary and you can withdraw from it at any time with no penalty to you. The study does not have any known or potential risks. You are invited to participate in an individual interview, which will last approximately two hours, at a location of your choice. You will be asked to respond to a series of questions about your experiences in the student trustee role at your institution. These questions will include topics of preparation, orientation, challenges, identity, power, governance, and leadership development during your term. Follow-up interviews may be requested depending on the research needs and purposes. The interview will be audio recorded (pending your consent) and transcribed. The transcription of the interview will be presented to you for verification of accuracy.
For confidentiality purposes, the interview transcripts and all files pertaining to your participation in this study will be stored in a locked cabinet for 10 years and destroyed afterwards if no longer needed. All computer files will be kept on a secure server. I will also maintain a copy of the data on a password-protected computer. Your actual name will be known only to the principal researcher (me). The interview will be given a secure code and a pseudonym will be assigned to your name to keep all the information fully confidential. Excerpts from the interview may be included in the final dissertation report or other later publications. However, under no circumstances will your name or identifying characteristics appear in these writings. If, at a subsequent date, biographical data were relevant to a publication, a separate release form would be sent to you.
This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of Benedictine University. The Chair of the IRB, Dr. Alandra Devall, can be reached at [email protected] or at (630) 829-6295.
This study is being conducted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for my Ed.D. degree in HEOC at the graduate school of Benedictine University in Lisle, IL. I would be
169
grateful if you would sign this form on the line provided below to show that you have read and agree with the contents.
If you have questions regarding this study, please feel free to contact me at [email protected] or at (703) 774-4508. You can also contact my dissertation director, Dr. Antonina Lukenchuk, at [email protected]; [email protected]; or (630) 310-6382.
You will be tendered a copy of your signed consent form. Please acknowledge with your signatures below your consent to participate in this study and for me to record your interview.
Thank you.
I consent to participate in this study
Name: Date:
____________________________ _____________________________ [Signature]
I give my permission to audio tape this interview
Name: Date:
____________________________ _____________________________[Signature]
170
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW GUIDE
171
APPENDIX B
Interview Guide
Leadership Experiences and Perceptions
1. Looking back at your formative years in high school, did you find yourself in
leadership roles? If so, please tell me a little about those experiences.
2. Describe any other college leadership experiences you had in addition to the role
of student trustee.
3. Tell me about your path to the role of a student trustee.
a. What or who motivated you to pursue this position?
b. What were you hoping to get out of the experience?
Leadership Development
4. Describe the preparation you received, if any, to serve on the board.
a. Did you receive any ongoing training while serving as a trustee? If so,
please describe it.
5. Did your experience as a student trustee enhance your leadership skills? If so,
how?
a. What specific skills were influenced or developed by this experience?
Identity and Leadership Roles
6. How do you describe yourself as a leader?
7. What do you believe your role was as a student trustee?
a. Describe your responsibilities as a student trustee.
8. How did your student trustee experience shape your sense of self?
9. Did serving on the board influence your career path? If so, how?
172
Perceptions of Trusteeship
10. What is the role of the board?
a. What does it mean to govern the university?
11. What do you see as the board’s role in governance?
a. What are some elements of effective board governance?
b. What are some challenges that your board faced?
c. After serving as a student trustee, how would you explain shared
governance?
12. What was your most significant and rewarding experience as a student trustee?
13. What was the biggest challenge you experienced as a student trustee?
14. Were you aware of any political or institutional pressures on the board during
your term? If so, what were they and where did they come from?
Looking Forward
15. What are your future leadership aspirations?
16. What advice would you give to (a) an aspiring student trustee; (b) a current trustee
who will be working with a student trustee; (c) the student affairs and
administrative staff who will be advising the student trustee directly; (d) other
university staff or faculty members who will be working with a student trustee;
and (e) the chair of a board with a student trustee member.
17. Is there anything I have not asked about your student trustee experience that you
want to tell me, or think is important for me to know?
173
APPENDIX C
PRELIMINARY THEME LIST
174
APPENDIX C
Preliminary Theme List
High school student council Collegiate student government Increased leadership roles leading up to trustee Responsibility allocating student fee money Greek experience Want to give back Gain real life experience on the board Orientation to the board Mentoring Need a support system University staff had a large impact on experience Lots of time required to prepare for board meetings Learned skills Big picture thinking/strategic planning skills Lots of transitions to pay attention to Servant leadership Serve on trustee committees Voice of students I was humbled Influenced my career path Trustees as educators/mentors Board is boss of president Not just seen as student Board chairman plays an important role Board needs to communicate State laws have a huge impact Separation of powers within shared governance Board sets vision Governor impacts what you can do Yes, I want to serve a second term Alumni association involvement Want to pay it forward on campus Universities are super complex Future political aspirations on the state level Love my school I was overwhelmed Huge life experience gap between the rest of the trustees and me
175
Only so much time in the term Tension between student and trustee titles Deal with real-life situations on the board Big board packets Point person to ask questions Lots of public speaking practice Nervous at first meeting Expedited my maturity Community service involvement in high school Student affairs advisor support No formal ongoing training, but rather conversations and meeting to support me Being a female trustee means something Frustrated at times on the board Lots of hours’ work put in for the board Board members should respect each other Board members should be objective State government leaders impact Working on projects you won’t see finished Legacy University president has huge impact Majority of board was “old white dudes” Trustees can be career advisors Gained self-confidence Do you what you believe in; you have to trust your gut Fellow student trustees across the state Impact of the former student trustee Life-changing experience Student union Shared governance is not always valued Respect Future political aspirations beyond the state Faith/God guide you Communication Transparency is really important No time for formal training Facilities projects on campus Voting really matters Changed my life forever Pride Morals/ethics, must not lose them while serving Held to a higher standard
176
Learn to be agile Board represents lots of constituents Performance-based funding metrics Student trusteeships is not about the special events, football games Have to attend special events High school athletic involvement Student governance is important Relationships/networking Feel like a kid in the boardroom, not a trustee Didn’t always vote with the majority Honored to serve Research skills Presentation skills Leveraging my Strengths from Gallup Advocating for student rights Organization needed for success Robert’s Rules of Order Balancing student and trustee hats Know so much about university now Commitment to next student trustee Civic engagement Voting is most important role a student trustee has Volunteer in community during college Cultural student organization leadership roles Go to a board meeting before you are elected Lobby the state legislature More polished now Board makes senior-level hiring decisions Student governance in the residence hall College leadership role before fall semester even started Had to sacrifice academics sometimes General Counsel President’s staff Strategic planning process Political party influence Put a lot of pressure on myself University is a business Navigating Out-of-state students bring in more money We are all trustees On-the-ground perspective
177
State your opinion powerfully and respectfully Access to lots of information Lobbying the federal government for more money Can’t make everyone happy Admire the other trustees Impact trustees that will follow you
178
APPENDIX D
FINAL CODING GUIDE
179
APPENDIX D
Final Coding Guide
Codes Main Themes Sub-Theme Outlier
Leadership is in their DNA
High school leadership roles
athletic teams
community service groupsstudent governance organizations
College leadership prior to trustee
engaged early in freshman year
student government/governanceallocating student fee rolesfraternity rolessorority rolescultural student organizationscommunity serviceincreasing leadership roles
Desire to Give Back Motivations for student trustee role
pay it forward
serve the institutionawesome opportunity
I love my school humbledgive back to institutionserve on the board again alumni association
Do your homework big board packetslots of hours of preparationresearching issues
Legacy work on initiatives I won’t see finishedtrust your gutgrateful
Student Perception of the State Influence on University Governance
Elected official status learning state open government laws
legally communicating with trusteesThe governor impact on student trustee role
political affiliations of peer trusteeswhat he will approve (increase in fees, expansion)selection/appointment
Funding performance-based funding metricslobbying on behalf of your universitydecrease in state funding
Trusteeship is a Life Changing Experience
Skills Self-confidence
big picture thinking skillspublic speaking and presentation
180
skillsInfluenced career path changed my mind as a result of
servingconfirmed my future plansfuture political aspirations
Expedited development more polishedone-year term
Adapting to transitions board orientation/retreat impactfirst meeting jittersno formalized ongoing training; instead, on-the-job trainingtransition amongst trustees
The Student Trustee Hat Range of emotions frustrationtension between student and trusteejust another trusteeonly oneoverwhelming
Universities are complex organizations
navigation skills
learned so much about my schoolTrustees as educators mentors/advisors
significant life experience gaplearned so much from themadmiration
Board 101 hires and fires presidentfinancial responsibilitysets visionnecessities for successrepresents a wide range of stakeholdersvoice of the studentsvote
Cheerleaders General CounselStudent AffairsBoard ChairpersonPresident and their staffformer student trustees
Gender Female gender identity
181