Professional Documents
Culture Documents
An Unforeseen Division
Nikita D. Patel
Author Note
Abstract
This discourse community analysis paper investigates the brainstorming and networking
goal was to identify the genres of communication that the student representatives and
administrators employed in order to inform one another of their major initiatives, concerning
improvement of undergraduate education and life; however, this field of study integrated with a
broader conversation about the role of faculty in administrative activities and growing student
representation within and beyond classrooms. I analyzed over four published articles to examine
the structure and its functional effectiveness of higher education governance at American
institutions from the 20th centurythe Golden Era of Progressive Education to the 21st
centurythe Golden Era of Social Media. Scholarly publications and former CUAB student
representatives critically emphasized the absence of direct communication and its underlying
impact between college administrators, undergraduate students, and faculty due to a perception
gap. Furthermore, the myth of shared governance, which continues to persist in a contemporary
university, has generated a false trichotomy between these three parties. How?1) Structural
transformation within academic communities (i.e. bureaucracy) and 2) Altering character of the
former Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi to foster communication between the student body and
administrators (CUABs Assembled to [], 2013). This liaison, I believe, was a step towards
initiating an intellectual conversation between these two parties in order to construct an educational
platform that embodied inclusivity of all opinions and identitiesa shared goal among CUAB
and the administration. In a span of 7 years, this Board is now composed of 12 student leaders,
including 2 Student Assistants to the Chancellor. Each student leader represents a specific
department, a student organization, and a perspective on academic and campus affairs for
undergraduates; on the other hand, the Student Assistants serve as the coordinators and facilitators
for the committee, the Chancellor, and other administrative representatives (CUABs Assembled
to [], 2013). Furthermore, these Student Assistants, who are the co-facilitators of CUAB, are
members of a broader, interconnected discourse community (see Figure 1.0); this is a striking
governance at UC Davis.
THE CHANCELLORS UNDERGRADUATE ADVISORY BOARD 4
sections: To what extent is this systematical development effective with respect to sharing
information and ideas between different departments and the head executive of this institution? Is
the shared goal, inclusivity of all opinions and identities, exercised beyond CUAB and the
administration?
Before I dissect the brainstorming and networking processes of CUAB, we should deepen
our knowledge of the educational past and the ways it enriches our understanding of the
educational present (Donato, et. Al, 2000, p. 13). The structure of higher education has
now titled, contemporary academia. One scholar exclusively asserts that the processes of
the culture of the organizations [within American universities] (Waugh, 2003, p. 86). Waugh
states that university presidents are not prioritizing academic goals in their administrative agenda;
they are rather serving in executive positions to fulfill management goals, which were established
by external constituencies [] involved in hiring them (2003, p. 84). Executives from private
sectors are conflicting with the traditional values of higher education governance due to adopted
management processes from the business world. The increasing number of recruits from private
sectors lack experience in academic administration, instigating not only financial pressures, but
THE CHANCELLORS UNDERGRADUATE ADVISORY BOARD 5
also stray relationships between administrators, faculty, and students. University presidents, in
particular, become less and less accountable to the student body and its professors through their
entrepreneurial efforts and administrative language, which its attributes will be described in
following sections.
education governance; more specifically, to indicate the trends and modifications that it
experienced before the rise of contemporary academia, and to better comprehend CUABs and
our present administrations shared objectives and communication methods. A research educator
in the late 1960s exemplified the model of organization for a college or university [as a]
bureaucratic one, a concept well described by the German sociologist, Weber. It assumes an
administrative structure resembling a vertical pyramid with the decision-making authority at the
top and the communication in the form of orders and directives flow (Henderson, 1968, p. 79).
If student participation is restricted in the governance of a university, then students will never
acquire and hold authority over their education; furthermore, administrators will never
be inclusive of all opinions and identities. Moreover, by interacting with faculty, administrators
can gain direct insight into students academic/emotional performance levels, AND
beings whose work has been specialized and totally different from that of most of the other persons
on students civil liberties correlates with the views of Waugh and McGarth. Notice the
THE CHANCELLORS UNDERGRADUATE ADVISORY BOARD 6
(McGarth, (Henderson,
(Waugh, 2003)
1940) 1968)
Administrators have conformed to the existing practices and structures throughout major war
periods. Meanwhile, the federal government became directly involved in higher education, as
social changes accompanied political and economic changes. Reform efforts gradually shifted
authority over academic goals from educators to business leaders and policymakers; the
enhancement of state-school connections was the central focus for this shift, not the learning
the public are three of various factors that have contributed to this unquestioned conformity.
Although a ready-made educational model continues to persist today, how has this reform
structure impacted the collaborative efforts between CUAB and the administration at UC Davis?
Overview of CUAB:
According to the current Executive Director of CUAB and Community Resource and
Retention Centers for UC Davis, the purpose of this Board is to advise the administration on
major initiatives that impact the academic student experience on a variety of topics, which include
but are not limited to student enrollment, research and creative activity, diversity, international
experiences, academic advising, and other aspects of undergraduate student life (Atkinson, 2017).
In order to achieve this purpose, CUAB embodies all six characteristics of discourse community:
1) Common public goals, interests, and values, 2) Communication methods among members, 3)
Method:
THE CHANCELLORS UNDERGRADUATE ADVISORY BOARD 7
two administrators, two former student members, and one Student Assistant to the Chancellor via
Email. Each individual held different positions on CUAB; thus, their experiences in this discourse
community varied. Their concern for the future of UC Davis resides in the dividing relationship
between undergraduate students, faculty, and administrators. Moreover, they also provided input
on how to improve the network channel between these three parties. As I analyzed CUAB and
its social circle more in-depth, I discovered that I am studying an intricate system, in which
multiple sources manage academic and campus affairs. The shared goal, inclusivity of all
opinions and identities, becomes increasingly difficult to exercise due to the multiplication of
departments and specialists; furthermore, Waugh asserts that the levels of conflict also tend to
escalate as both sides [faculty and students] become more frustrated in their
interactions [with academic administration] (2003, p. 92). The line of direct communication
remains a blur
Genres of Communication:
According to the five interviews, CUAB maintains communication with its members and
the Administration through emails, Facebook-messaging, and in-person meetings (once a month)
at Mrak Hall. Gary Sandy, a Project Manager for the Office of the Chancellor, stated that the
Administration has relied on the Student Assistants to the Chancellor (SACs) to provide ongoing
communications and guidance. The SACs are encouraged to provide frank feedback to the
administration on undergraduate needs and issues. The SACs also provide outreach to
undergraduates by holding listening sessions, appearing at social and educational events and
by acting as representatives of the administration (2017); this statement contradicts the words
of a current SAC, Alexandra Camil San Pablo, who is uncertain how to connect with undergraduate
THE CHANCELLORS UNDERGRADUATE ADVISORY BOARD 8
students on campus. He asserted that having many platforms is necessary in order for students to
be aware of on-campus projects (2017). Furthermore, a former student member of CUAB, Natalia
Custodio, supplemented this concern by sharing there was no formal communication of what we
were up to that went to the students; due to the outcomes of Katehis administration, some in-
person meetings with members of ASCUD were held (2017). These student responses indicate
there is no fixed method of communication between CUAB and undergraduate students; there is a
discrepancy between the relationship that an administrator believes to exist and a student struggles
to form. Ideas will never lead to actions, and actions will never form compatibility between CUAB
and undergraduate students; the Board will merely fail to execute its purpose.
Although CUAB and the Administration share a desire for openness, candor, respect, and
transparency (Sandy, 2017), a former student member, Nicholas Zhu, stressed the lack of
a result of three parties not communicating or understanding each others needs (2017). Project
Manager Gary Sandy, on the other hand, deems the increasing pace of technological innovation
and its use by students an ongoing challenge; furthermore, he asserts that efficient and effective
message delivery will always be an issue with such a large student body (2017). In order to
improve the network channel between students and the Administration, more direct forums
between the Chancellor and members of the administration should be scheduled; an example of
such forum includes the current Student Leadership Development seminars, which focus on
individual issues, such as the Long Range Development Plan, the budget, diversity, etc. (Sandy,
2017). In addition, through the Academic Senate or the Academic Federation, faculty inform the
Administration of learning trends and issues that are prominent in classroom settings (Sandy, 2017).
THE CHANCELLORS UNDERGRADUATE ADVISORY BOARD 9
To fulfill the universitys core missions of research and teaching, a collaborative form of student
AND faculty involvement is necessary; both parties advocate for increased program support and
undergraduates including extensive use of social media, student leadership networks, and more
conventional means such as press releases and e-mails (Sandy, 2017), students struggle to
understand the structure of the university and how it operates; thus, student participation in
discussions about educational policy and practice should be encouraged, not avoided. The
language of higher education is increasingly punctuated with references to cost and revenue centers,
customer-driven programs, and other terminology more common to the business (Waugh, 2003,
p. 92). Once CUAB and the undergraduate population learn administrative language, they will
propose ideas, concerns, and questions to the purpose behind policies, how and where expenditures
are made, and how pressing issues are addressed. Being the sole authoritative figures of their
education, they will directly convey their opinions to their on- and off-campus community: peers,
development of goals and learning methods at a university, will not be merely stated, but also
Final Thoughts:
governance structure (Gerber, 2007, p. 5). Scholastic abilities, academic interests, social
backgrounds will continue to evolve, as will the changing roles of university presidents; however,
if students variable experiences and perspectives are overlooked, a university will never
authentically represent the diversity of intellectual minds that it possesses. Students, who are the
THE CHANCELLORS UNDERGRADUATE ADVISORY BOARD 10
firsthand observers of the educational process, contribute to the learning experiences that are
formed in and outside of a classroom through their input (Henderson, 1968, p. 74); their input
varies and is essential in all aspects of a university from the effectiveness of a professors course
collaboration can reinforce pedagogy knowledge and can enhance learning experiences within
classrooms. Due to a recent change in leadership, CUAB did not have administrative support to
exercise its purpose, such as initiating actions for improvement of undergraduate life. Although
direct communication with the Administration was available through Student Assistants to the
Chancellor (SACs), administrators did not grasp a holistic understanding of students academic
and personal adversities; this aroused frustration, creating doubt in CUABs ability to lead UC
Davis to higher grounds. As described by my interviewees, to make informed decisions within and
beyond the realm of academia requires collaborative efforts not only between CUAB and the
Administration, but also undergraduate students; if students are constantly referred to individuals
who do not understand academic enterprise, the perception gap between all three parties will
continue to enlarge. This perception gap is a result of the systematical development of higher
education governance, which has prolonged indirect communication in the 20th century to the 21st
References
Donato, R., & Lazerson, M. (2000). New Directions in American Educational History: Problems
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1176628
Gerber, L. (2007). Defending Shared Governance. Change, 39(5), 5-6. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40178064
4560.1945.tb02701.x/abstract
Patel, N. (2017). Email Interviews: Sheri Atkinson, Gary Sandy, Nicholas Zhu, Natalia Custodio,
Strategic Planning Steering Committee (2013). Student Affairs: Strategic Plans, 9: 1-10.
planning-documents/documents-folder/SA-StrategicPlan-FinalDraft2013.pdf
https://theaggie.org/2013/01/16/chancellors-undergraduate-advisory-board-assembled-to-
organize-projects-throughout-school-year/
Academic. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 585, 84-