Faculty Participation in Voluntary Consortia

2 8 FACULTY PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY-CONSORTIA* Norman S. Kaufman University of Utah Two polar opposite trends, the rapid expansion of American higher education during the decade of the sixties and its re­ trenchment during the seventies, have stimulated the growth and development of cooperative efforts among colleges and universities. One form-, the voluntary, multipurpose consor­ tium, has emerged as a growing format and vehicle for interinstitutional cooperation. In the forty-year period between 1925 and 19.65, nineteen consortia were founded in the United States (Patterson, 1967). In. contrast, eighty-seven new con­ sortia were formed during the ten - year period between 1965 and 1975 (Patterson, 1975). Although several consortia disbanded during this period, the trend in recent years has been dis­ tinctly in the direction of increased rates of consortium formation. During the years of growth in higher education, consortia and other types of formal cooperative arrangements among colleges and universities tended to concentrate on the develop­ ment of new academic programs and other expansionary activities in areas where individual institutions lacked the fiscal re­ sources to institute these programs on their own. Examples of the types of programs initiated include overseas study centers, cooperative work-study programs, or off-campus centers. Fritz Grupe (1975) notes that external funding often was instrumental in the creation of these consortia and that these consortial arrangements flourished among similar types of institutions. One exception to this trend of associations, among like insti­ tutions were those consortia founded under the provisions of Title III of the Higher Education Act of 1976 (P.L. 89-3 29). This Act sought to stimulate the growth of "developing insti­ tutions" and their emergence into the mainstream of academic life by fostering cooperative linkages between well-established universities and small, "struggling to survive," teachingoriented institutions (Grupe, 1975). In contrast to the period of growth in higher education during the 1960's, the leveling -off during the 1970’s seems to have marked a new era for consortium formation. Grupe (1971) notes that this phase is characterized by more hetero­ geneous groupings of colleges than the earlier periods. Many * Revised paper presented at the annual meeting of the Associa­ tion for the Study of Higher Education, March.20, 1977, Chicago, Illinois. 2 9 new consortia have been formed along geographical lines while mixing institutional types. In addition, v/hile outside funding is often sought, these newer consortia tend to rely more heavily on a pooling of their own institutional resources (Grupe, 1971; Lancaster, 1969). Recent legislative efforts at instituting external coordinating bodies have stimulated growth of con­ sortia as a means for seeking cooperative responses to issues regarding program articulation, resource allocation and other federal and state priorities. Against this backdrop of the evolution and growth of voluntary consortia have been several assessments of the degree of success of consortia in performing these varied missions (Swegan, 1972; Grupe, 1971; Johnson, 1967; Nelson, 1972). Franklin Patterson states that " . . . neither of the two prin­ cipal doctrines or ideological impulses that inform the consortium movement is yet fully fulfilled . . . " He continues: The first of these doctrines is that through coopera­ tion the academic programs available to students can be substantially enriched andmade more diverse. This doctrine is realized only on a modest scale even among the best consortia, and it would not be accurate to say that enrichment of academic pro­ grams has yet been generally achieved by the con­ sortium movement (Patterson, 1974, p. 5). The second area, that of economic gains through coopera­ tion, "turns out," in Patterson's words, "to be even more a matter of shadow than substance" (Patterson, 1974, p. 5). One of the most complex problems facing consortia, and one which most consortia appear to skirt in their early or­ ganizational stages, is the issue of institutional autonomy and its historical impact on the ways in which colleges and universities function. A major component of institutional autonomy is the freedom of faculty within their respective disciplines, and the organization of departments and divisions within the institution which reflect these disciplinary orien­ tations and structure the spheres of faculty interest and influence. Thus, many faculty members see cooperative acti­ vities as a drain on their...