Organizational Capacity and Political Activities of Canadian University Faculty Associations

Interchange, Vol. 29/4, 439-461, 1998.©Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Organizational Capacity and Political Activitiesof Canadian University Faculty Associations

BARBARA ANDERSONBrock University

and

GLEN A. JONESOntario Institute for Studies in Education

University of Toronto

ABSTRACT: In this study we examine the organizational capacity and politicalactivities of Canadian university faculty associations in the development of highereducation policy. We attempt to describe, from the perspective of the facultyassociations, their political role both internal and external to the university and theextent to which faculty associations perceive themselves as being able toinfluence issues of policy. We report the findings of a national survey ofuniversity faculty associations including data on organizational structure, finance,perceived influence on institutional and provincial government, policy, servicesand programs, and other factors related to their role as political pressure groups.

KEYWORDS: Higher education, faculty, university, Canada, facultyassociations, government.

IntroductionIn this study we examine the organizational capacity and political activities ofCanadian university faculty associations in the development of higher educationpolicy. We attempt to describe, from the perspective of the faculty associations, theirpolitical role both internal and external to the university and the extent to which facultyassociations perceive themselves as being able to influence issues of policy.

There is little research to date concerning the political activities of facultyassociations on higher education policy, particularly those originating at the provincialgovernment level. Research on faculty associations has tended to focus on the impactof collective bargaining and unionization related to such institutional issues as overalljob security, participation in governance structures, protection from financial exigency,and procedures of due process (Penner, 1978-79; Savage, 1983; Cameron, 1991).Although government lobbying may be an important priority to national organizations

440 BARBARA ANDERSON and GLEN JONES

like the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) and to provincial bodieslike the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA) there islittle data concerning the extent to which individual faculty associations engage insimilar activities.

Faculty associations may be thought of as political pressure groups. Pross (1986)defines pressure groups as "organizations whose members act together to influencepublic policy in order to promote their common interest" (p. 3). Certainly, facultyassociations perform this function in their institutions. As a faculty voice, their purposeis to improve the welfare and economic conditions of their membership, as well as toprovide academic leadership. Whether unionized or not, faculty associations areessentially "political academic organizations" (Guttman, 1988, p. 137) in their relationswith university administrations.

What further distinguishes pressure groups from other interest groups is thedegree to which they satisfy five basic criteria: organization, membership, substantialautonomy in the use of resources, common interest, and a desire for influence (Pross,1986). To date, there is little in the literature on faculty associations which discussestheir organizational capacity on the basis of such a framework.

Methodology and ProceduresSince our intent was to collect data describing the organizational capacity and politicalactivities of faculty associations from the perspective of association leaders, it seemedmost appropriate to elicit such information on a national basis using a questionnairesurvey. A national survey downplays potential indiosyncrasies found in individualinstitutions or associations and, since "there is a relationship between politicalbehaviour and the nature and structure of the political system" (Jones, 1993, p. 463)provides a broader view of the political interests and activities associated with theseorganizations than might be the case in a province-specific study.

A questionnaire was designed to solicit a wide range of information beginningwith some basic data concerning the structure and make-up of the faculty association,availability of support staff, and overall financial situation. To this were added itemsdesigned to examine what objectives, if any, the faculty association may have towardsinfluencing issues of policy on three levels: (a) with respect to their individualinstitution, (b) with respect to their particular provincial association, and (c) withrespect to their provincial government. The second relationship was seen as importantin order to ascertain the degree to which individual faculty associations might rely ontheir provincial association to represent their interests to the provincial government asopposed to doing so directly.

A bilingual questionnaire was mailed to the president or senior executive officerof all Canadian university faculty associations listed as members of the CanadianAssociation of University Teachers (CAUT) or the Fédération Québecoise des

ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY AND POLITICAL ACTIVITIES 441

Professeures et Professeurs d'Université (FQPPU), or listed within the universitytelephone directory prepared by the Association of Universities and Colleges ofCanada (AUCC). Members of FQPPU who are without direct affiliation to CAUTwere listed in the CAUT directory. However, an AUCC directory was necessary sincethere are some associations, other than those of FQPPU, who are not members ofCAUT.

A total of 78 questionnaires were distributed in January, 1994. It was hoped thatthe timing would augment the response rate by avoiding the busy Decemberexamination and grading schedule for faculty. Further, since the term of office for afaculty association president normally begins in summer, the January timing wouldmean that the president would have at least some experience in office before beingasked to address the issues in the survey. A follow-up mailing was completed inMarch, 1994.

A primary limitation of this study is that while the questionnaire addressed issuesrelating to the degree to which faculty associations perceive themselves as beinginvolved in influencing policies at institutional and/or government levels, we made noattempt to measure the success of these endeavours. Prior research in this area has alsorecognized this limitation (Jones, 1993). An additional limitation is that this studyfocuses on the perceptions of individuals. Different responses may have been obtainedhad the entire membership of each faculty association been surveyed. Further,perceptions may change over time and therefore the survey responses should beinterpreted in the context of the current political and economic climate. Despite theselimitations, however, surveying the perceptions of association leaders makes asignificant contribution towards understanding how faculty associations positionthemselves in the arena of political activity.

FindingsDemographic Description of Respondents

Forty-four of the 78 questionnaires were returned for a response rate of 56%.Responses were received from at least one institution in every province. With respectto response by region, 27% (12) of all respondents were from the Western provinces,23% (10) were from Ontario, 23% (10) were from Quebec, and 27% (12) were fromthe Eastern provinces. Of the total number of questionnaires mailed to each of theseregions, 63% responded from the Western provinces, 45% responded from Ontario,53% responded from Quebec, and 67% responded from the Eastern provinces.

In terms of institutional size, 64% of respondents were from universities withenrolments of less than 10,000 full and part-time students, while 23% were from thosewith enrolments of 20,000 or greater. Only 14% of respondents were from universitiesof between 10,000 and 20,000 full and part-time students.1


Organizational Characteristics of the Faculty Association

Membership is a key characteristic in defining pressure groups. However, unlike somepressure groups which allow anyone the opportunity to become a member, aninstitutional-specific pressure group like a faculty association will have a membershipwhich is limited to individuals affiliated with the university. Further, individual facultyassociations can differ in how they define who is eligible within their institution formembership in their organization. In this survey, 89% (39) of all respondents reportedthat all full-time faculty are eligible for membership in the faculty association. Of theother 11% (5), membership is limited to individuals meeting specific conditions suchas a minimum course load requirement. In one case, this factor determines not whetherthe faculty member is eligible to join the faculty association but whether the individualcan become a member of the bargaining unit or not. In addition, for some facultyassociations, membership is also extended to groups such as librarians and labinstructors.

Of the 44 respondents, 25 (57%) reported that part-time faculty are also eligiblefor membership in the association. However, some respondents noted that eligibilityis contingent on such factors as the part-time faculty member having a permanentcontract or having to teach a certain number of courses. One noted that the individualmust be put forward at a general meeting. There was also at least one instance notedamong the remaining 19 (43%) where part-time faculty were currently taking steps tojoin the association.

There were substantial differences in the size of memberships reported byinstitutions, ranging from 29 to 2080 members. The average membership size for allinstitutions was 467 members, for small institutions 178 members, and 678 and 1193for mid-size and large institutions respectively (though the standard deviations for eachof these were quite large). In all cases, at least 80% of all those eligible were in factmembers of the organization. Smaller institutions tended to report closer to 100%membership.

Almost 60% (26) of all respondents reported that their association is a certifiedbargaining unit under their provincial labour law. A higher proportion of certifiedrespondents tended to be from the Eastern region, while fewer certified associationswere included among those responding from the West and Ontario.2 Thirty-four (77%)respondents also reported that their associations are members of the CanadianAssociation of University Teachers (CAUT).

Forty-three of the 44 respondents (98%) charge a fee for membership. Themajority of these (25 or 60%) determine this fee as a percentage of salary, while 26%(11) have a set fee. Examples of other methods listed by the remaining 14% (6)include: mill rate on the average salary of each rank, mill rate times actual salary, anda set amount plus mill rate. There was some variation in the way in which respondentsreported the average annual fee for membership. Ten gave a percentage of salary, the


mean of which was 1%. The rest reported fees ranging from $25 to $1000, with amean of $414.

Respondents were also asked to give an approximation of the total fee revenueobtained by their association the previous year. These ranged from $775 to $985,000,with an average of $240,732. The averages across enrolment sizes were $98,405 forsmall (range – $775 to $360,000), $359,498 for mid-sized (range – $108,490 to$950,00), and $515,917 for large (range – 185,487 to $985,000) institutions. Usingthese figures as guidelines, the responses were grouped into three revenue categories;low (< $100,000), medium (between $100,000 and $300,000), and high (> $300,000).In doing so, 32% (11) of respondents fell into the low revenue category, 39% (15) inthe medium, and 29% (12) in the high category. Not surprisingly, the smallerinstitutions tended to report having a much smaller revenue base than the largerinstitutions (in part, a function of membership size). Institutions from the Atlanticprovinces were also more likely to report revenues of <$100,000 (there are, however,a large number of small universities in the Eastern provinces).

Twenty-nine (66%) respondents said that their association employs paid staff. Ofthose employing full-time staff (22), 11 have one staff member, five have two staff,one has three, and five employ four. Those with part-time staff (12), averaged one staffmember per association (five institutions employ some combination of full and part-time staff). As might be expected, those associations with a large revenue base tend tobe more likely to employ paid staff. Similarly, those from larger institutions also tendto report having more paid staff. For example, the four universities who reportedhaving four paid full-time staff all have enrolments of 20,000 or more students.

For 91% (40) of the respondents, the president or chief executive officer of thefaculty association is chosen by election, with an average of 45% of the totalmembership voting in the last association election (a few made note that the presidentis usually acclaimed). The other 9% (4) elect or appoint the individual by a committeeor council. Thirty-four (77%) respondents reported that their current faculty associationpresident is male.

In order to assess the priorities given activities engaged in by faculty associations,the questionnaire asked respondents to rate, in their opinion, the importance of each ofeight activities in terms of the work of the association. Each activity was rated on ascale of 0 (not important) to 5 (very important). Mean ratings of each activity by regionand enrolment size are presented in Table 1. Similarly, mean ratings of each activityby certified and non-certified associations are presented in Table 2.


Table 1. Mean Ratings of Association Activities

Activity Mean Rating

Small Mid-Sized

Large West Ont. Que. East ALL

Negotiate salaries & benefits

4.5 4.8 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.3 5.0 4.7

Assistmemberswithgrievances

4.4 4.8 4.7 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.5

Influenceuniversitypolicies

4.5 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.5

Provide memberswithinform-ation onpolicies &procedure

3.4 3.4 4.2 3.7 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6

Negotiateacademicissues

3.6 2.8 3.1 2.4 3.8 4.1 3.3 3.4

Influenceprovincialgovern.policies

3.0 4.2 3.1 3.2 3.1 2.8 3.3 3.2

Provideprofessiondevelop-mentactivities/materials

1.9 1.3 1.8 1.5 2 1.9 1.6 1.8

Providesocialactivities/ opportun.

2.0 0.2 0.7 1.5 1.1 1.5 1.6 1.5


Table 2. Mean Ratings of Association Activities for Certified and

Non-Certified Associations

Activity Mean Rating

Certified Non-Certified All

Negotiating salaries and benefits 4.9 4.4 4.7

Assisting members with grievances 4.7 4.3 4.5

Influencing university policies 4.5 4.4 4.5

Providing members with information onpolicies and procedures

3.5 3.8 3.6

Negotiating academic issues 3.8 2.7 3.4

Influencing provincial government policies 3.2 3.2 3.2

Providing professional developmentactivities or materials

1.9 1.6 1.8

Providing social activities or opportunities 1.6 1.3 1.5

"Negotiating salaries and benefits for your membership" was given the highest meanrating (4.68), with 91% (40) respondents rating this activity as "very important."Almost identically rated were "assisting individuals with grievances related to thepolicies of your university" (mean rating – 4.51) and "influencing the policies of youruniversity which relate to the interests of your membership" (mean rating – 4.47). Bothwere rated as "important" to "very important" by over 85% (38) of respondents.

Given a wider distribution of rating, but still averaging a mean rating of over threewere "negotiating academic issues" (mean rating – 3.36), "providing members withinformation on the policies and procedures of your university" (mean rating – 3.63),and "influencing provincial government policies which relate to the interests of yourmembership" (mean rating – 3.19). There were no significant differences between anyof these six items and enrolment size or region, or between certified and non-certifiedassociations.

Items receiving the lowest ratings were "providing professional developmentactivities/materials for your membership" (mean rating – 1.77), and "providing socialactivities/opportunities for your membership" (mean rating – 1.47). Almost 60% of allrespondents saw this last item as being of "little" or "no importance," and only fourrespondents rated this item above three. Again, there were no statistically significantdifferences observed between these items with respect to enrolment, size ofmembership, region, or certification.


Respondents were also asked to list what (if any) services or programs wereoffered by the association for the benefit of their membership. Twenty-five (57%)reported that they did offer such services, largely in the form of occasional seminarsor workshops (see Table 3). By far the most often cited service or program related toretirement, pension and financial planning, along with workshops on tenure andpromotion (one noted a workshop for tenure and promotion committee members).Other items listed included sessions on grievance counselling, salaries and benefits(i.e., insurance, faculty/dependent scholarship plan), harassment, merit assessment,orientation for new faculty (i.e., providing an introduction to the collective agreement),and discussions of teaching improvement, various academic topics, andacademic/career growth. One of only two universities which ranked the provision ofsocial activities as a "very important" function of their association offered examples ofthese activities under the section for additional comments. These included events torecognize the artistic talents of members and their families (i.e., artwork exhibitions,the launching of new books), the recognition of faculty for promotion and for twentyfive years of services, and the introduction of new faculty.

Table 3. Services or Programs Offered by Associations (n=25)

Activity/Workshop Topic No. RespondentsReporting Activity

Retirement 12

Tenure and Promotion 10

Financial Planning 6

Pensions 5

Salaries and Benefits 3

Grievance Counselling 3

Insurance 3

Academic Growth/Teaching Improvement 3

Harassment 2

Orientation for New Faculty/Intro. to Collective Agreement 2

Academic Topics 2

Merit 1

Taxation 1

Equity 1


The Faculty Association and the University

One function of this questionnaire was to examine the relationship between the facultyassociation and their individual institution, particularly with respect to their objectivestowards influencing university policy. All but one respondent (98%) said that theyregularly monitor the policies of their university relating to the interests of theirmembership. Thirty-four (77%) also said that representatives of their universityregularly ask for advice or assistance on policy matters from representatives of thefaculty association. When asked if representatives of the association sit as votingmembers on the major decision making committees of their university, 23% (10) saidthat they sit on all of such committees. Nineteen percent (8) said that they sit on most,39% (17) sit only on some, and 19% (8) sit on none of these committees.

Not one of the respondents reported that there were daily meetings or contactbetween representatives of their association and the university to discuss policymatters. Twelve (28%) reported meeting one or more times each week, 23 (54%) meetone or more times each month, and 8 (19%) meet one or more times each year.

All (44) respondents reported that their association does attempt to influence thepolicies of their university which relate to the interests of their membership. While noassociations reported having "very little" or "no" influence, only two (5%) perceivedtheir influence as "very strong." Fifteen (34%) said that they have "strong" influence;27 (61%) reported having "some."

The final question in this section asked respondents to list the three majoruniversity issues their association is concerned with at this time. This question eliciteda wide range of answers from all but one respondent (see Table 4). Approximately40% of these respondents specifically listed budget and funding cutbacks as one of theissues. Related items listed were departmental reviews and financial exigency (e.g.,some listed specific departments or programs that were currently being threatened withclosure), restructuring plans, and faculty renewal (particularly the replacement oftenured faculty with part-time or limited term instructors).

A second major issue that emerged concerned the negotiation, or for some,renegotiation, of collective agreements. Again a wide range of related issues wereelicited, many of which are also directly connected to the issue of budgetary restraint.These included a concern with salaries, the "social contract" in Ontario, grievancearbitration, retirement and pensions, tenure and promotion, equity and harassmentpolicies, teaching evaluation and academic freedom. Also mentioned were thedeterioration of faculty/administration relationships (particularly in terms of non-consultation in the decision-making process) and changes to university governance(e.g., one noted a specific threat to Senate powers).

A third major issue, again closely tied to the others, was that of faculty workload.Many expressed concern with the implications of an increasing student to faculty ratio,


the quality of teaching and the quality of students. The changing balance betweenteaching and research was also noted.

Table 4. Major University Issues of Current Concern to Respondents (n=43)

Issue No. of Respondents

Funding/Budget Restraints 19

Wages/Salary Freezes 11

Employment Equity and Harassment Policies 10

Negotiation of Collective Agreements 9

Grievance Arbitration 8

Faculty Workload 8

Teaching Evaluation 7

Faculty Renewal/Hiring of Part-Time Faculty 6

Faculty-Administration Relations (non-consultation) 6

Financial Exigency/Department Reviews 6

Retirement and Pensions 6

Academic Freedom 4

Social Contract 4

Status of Faculty/Career Growth 4

Restructuring 3

Tenure and Promotion 3

Governance 3

Research/Teaching Balance 2

Graduate Fellowships 1

Community Standards 1

Sabbaticals 1

Quality of Students Admitted 1

Systemic Discrimination 1

Priority of New Building Over Teaching Conditions 1


The Faculty Association and the Provincial Association

Another section of the questionnaire focused on the relationship between theuniversity faculty association and the provincial association (where one exists). Thirty-eight of the respondents (86%) belong to a provincial association, with the followingeight provincial associations represented in the sample: Confederation of AlbertaFaculty Associations (CAFA), Confederation of University Faculty Associations ofBritish Columbia (CUFA/BC), Fédération Québecoise des Professeures et Professeursd'Université (FQPPU), Federation of New Brunswick Faculty Associations (FNBFA),Manitoba Organization of Faculty Associations (MOFA), Nova Scotia Confederationof University Faculty Associations (NSCUFA), Ontario Confederation of UniversityFaculty Associations (OCUFA), and the Saskatchewan Association of UniversityTeachers (SAUT).

When asked "to what degree does your association rely on this provincialassociation to represent the interests of your membership to the provincialgovernment," 44% (17) responded "always," 44% (17) said "often," and 10% (4) said"occasionally." Only one respondent reported that the association "never" relies ontheir provincial association in this way.

The Faculty Association and the Provincial Government

A third section of this questionnaire examined the relationship of the facultyassociation to the provincial government. Seventy-nine percent (34) reported that theirassociation regularly monitors the policies of the provincial government which relateto the interests of their membership. However, only 9% (4) said that representatives ofthe provincial government regularly ask for advice or assistance of policy matters fromassociation representatives.

Twenty-nine (66%) said that their association attempts to influence provincialgovernment policies that relate to the interests of their membership. The degree towhich the faculty association relies on their provincial association to represent theirinterests and whether or not the association itself attempts to influence provincialpolicy was not found to be significant.

Not one respondent claimed that their association has either a "very strong" or"strong" influence on provincial government policy, and only eight (21%) said thatthey have "some influence." Rather, the majority reported having "very little" (23 or61%) or "no influence" (7 or 18%). There was no clear relationship between revenuebase, region or institution size, and degree of influence with the provincial government.

To see if faculty associations tend to "pool their resources" in their attempts toexert influence on the provincial government, respondents were asked if theirassociation works with other faculty associations and/or other interest groups. Thirteen(30%) said that they "often" work with other faculty associations, 18 (41%) do so"sometimes," and 13 (30%) do not work with other associations in attempting to


influence government policy. Only four (9%) work "often" with other interest groupsin attempting to influence government policy, while 22 (50%) do so "sometimes," and18 (41%) do not work at all with other interest groups. Associations with a higherrevenue base tended to report working more often with other faculty associations thandid those with a medium or small revenue base.

Less than 10% (4) of respondents said that association representatives havemonthly meetings or contact with representatives of the provincial government todiscuss policy matters. The majority (27 or 61%), said such communication occursonly one or more times per year. The remaining (13 or 29%) said that such contactnever takes place.

Finally, respondents were asked to list what they perceive to be the three majorprovincial issues of current concern to their association. As with the university issues,this question elicited a diversity of responses (see Table 5). Overwhelmingly, however,the number one issue cited was university funding. Of the 39 who responded to thisquestion, 35 included this as one of their issues.

The remaining responses were more widely distributed. One recurrent themeinvolved post-secondary education issues, the role of the university, accountability, anduniversity integrity and autonomy. University governance (or the perceivedinadequacies of university governance) was another recurrent response. Someconcerns were province specific, as is the case in Ontario with the "social contract,"and harassment and equity policies. Many were concerned with restructuring andprogram rationalization; some with the affiliation or amalgamation of universities (forexample with community colleges). Tenure and job security, retirement and pensions,workload, tuition and student aid, and research support issues were all mentioned bymore than one respondent.

Table 5.Major Provincial Issues of Current Concern to Respondents (n=39)

Issue No. of Respondents

University Funding 35

Autonomy/Integrity/Role of University 9

Employment Equity and Harassment Policies 7

Wages/Salary Freezes 7

Restructuring 5

Rationalization of Programs 5

University Governance and Administration 5


Affiliation/Amalgamation of Institutions 4

Education Reviews (Commissions) 4

Social Contract (Ontario) 4

Tenure 3

Workload 3

Retirement and Pensions 3

Accountability 2

Tuition and Student Aid 2

Research Support 2

Taxation 1

Emphasis on Skills vs. Liberal Education 1

Attack on Collective Bargaining Process 1

Personnel Policies 1

DiscussionThe purpose of this study was to collect data describing the organizational capacity andpolitical activities of Canadian university faculty associations from the perspective ofthe association leaders. In light of this objective, the discussion begins with an analysisof the organizational capacity of faculty associations within Pross’s (1986) frameworkof a pressure group, followed by an examination of three specific issues orobservations which emerged from the findings: (a) the nature of the policy issuesconcerning faculty associations, (b) the provision of services by faculty associationsto their memberships, and (c) the similarities between certified and non-certifiedfaculty associations.

Faculty Associations as Pressure Groups

Pross (1986) suggests that full-fledged pressure groups can be distinguished from otherforms of interest groups on the basis of five criteria: organization, membership,substantial autonomy in the use of resources, common interest, and a desire forinfluence. Do faculty associations meet the test of these criteria?

Faculty associations are clearly formal organizations. To use Pross’s ownterminology, they possess "organizational continuity and cohesion" and have a "fairlyclear delineation of responsibility and well-defined channels of communication" (1986,p. 115). There is a hierarchical structure to the associations which is overseen by the


president (normally an elected individual) and usually members of an executivecommittee. Specific tasks and responsibilities are carried out by various sub-committees, depending on the size of the organization.

In terms of the criterion of "membership," the data from this survey demonstratesa wide variation among Canadian institutions in terms of faculty associationmembership size. This largely reflects the wide variation among overall institutionalsize in that respondents ranged from those of some of the largest universities inCanada, to some of the very small institutional affiliates. While ideally pressure groupsmight be inclusive of everyone in the interest community (Pross, 1986, p. 9) facultyassociations are somewhat more restrictive of their membership, setting conditions ofeligibility that differ to some extent from university to university. Membership of part-time faculty, as well as that of librarians and lab instructors, appears to be the mostdistinguishing factor between institutions. For example, only 57% of respondents notethat part-time faculty are currently eligible for membership in their association.

Despite this, however, individual faculty associations appear to be arepresentative "faculty voice." As Pross (1986) notes:

A legitimate pressure group must be able to show that it speaks for an entireinterest community or that it can elicit the support of a significant part of thatcommunity. Membership statistics are an important aspect of its claim (p. 9).

Despite differences in the way eligibility for membership is defined, the politicallegitimacy of the association to act as the "faculty voice" is strengthened by the factthat membership is usually voluntary and yet the vast majority of those eligible havedecided to become members of the association. One would also expect thatmembership is fairly stable, with the rewards of collective bargaining and otherbenefits providing "secondary inducements" over the political aims of the grouptowards maintaining membership (Pross, 1986, p.115).

In terms of human resources, while 67% of respondents employ paid staff, thenumber and status of staff (whether full or part-time) varies considerably. As noted inthe findings, a relationship exists between both size of institution (and therefore sizeof membership) and size of revenue base, with the ability of the association to employpaid staff. One respondent from a small uncertified association with a small revenuebase (and one part-time employee) noted that it is forced to depend more heavily onCAUT services as a result of a having fewer resources. However, the ability to drawon substantial human or financial resources is not necessarily indicative of an effectiveorganization. As Pross (1986) points out: “the quality of the staff available ... and themanner of their deployment, are critical factors. In many cases groups with extremelylimited financial resources have been able to make a disproportionate impression onpublic policy” (p. 10).


We found no evidence to suggest that revenue base has any significantrelationship to the degree to which respondents perceive that they are able to influenceeither institutional or provincial policies.

With respect to the fourth characteristic, common interest, there is evidence fromthis study to suggest that associations do determine their own individual goals, as takenfrom their ratings of the importance of various association activities, the provision ofservices or programs to their membership, and their lists of specific universityconcerns. This same data also suggests that individual faculty associations, to a largeextent, share common interests and objectives, as evidenced by the commonality inratings among the various activities, and the marked similarity among programs andservices offered (e.g., the number offering seminars on retirement and pensions). Inaddition, although somewhat differently expressed, respondents appeared to share verysimilar concerns both with respect to university and provincial-related issues.

The final test criterion is that of a desire for influence. On an institutional level,faculty associations clearly aspire to influence the policies of their university whichrelate to the interests of their membership; a question to which 100% of respondentsanswered affirmatively. All but one respondent said that they regularly monitor suchpolicies. In terms of being assigned a more formal role in the decision-making process,only 43% said that association representatives sit on "all" or "most" of the decision-making committees, while 38% sit on only "some," and 19% on none. Interestingly,some respondents added that while there are faculty who are members of theassociation sitting on the major decision-making committees, they do not do so asrepresentatives of the association. This point is illustrated by Penner (1994) who notesthat:

At the University of Manitoba, UMFA has a single "assessor" on each of theBoard of Governors, the Senate, and the key Presidential Budget AdvisoryCommittee .... There are, it is true, other faculty members serving on thesebodies, but they are spokespersons for their faculty’s interests and not forUMFA (to which they may or may not belong). (p. 51)

The majority (79%) of respondents reported that faculty association representatives areconsulted regularly for advice or assistance by the university administration on policymatters (although a few respondents noted that this is occurring with less frequency inrecent years). Yet, no more than 29% of the sample report contact between theassociation and university representatives to discuss policy matters as occurring oneor more times per week (there was no report of daily contact). The majority (51%)report the frequency of such contact as being one or more times per month. Thequestion of who initiates the contact or what the association would deem as anacceptable amount of contact cannot be answered with this survey data. What the datadoes suggest, however, is that the interaction between the two groups is somewhatlimited both in the amount of contact and the "formality" of the contact (i.e, the numberof major decision-making committees having faculty association representation).


Indeed, several respondents consider an overall lack of consultation in faculty-administration relations to be a major university issue of concern (see Table 5).

In terms of level of influence on university policy, 96% of respondents perceivetheir associations as having "some" to "strong" influence. While only 5% report having"very strong" influence, not one reported having "none." One respondent suggestedthat the level of influence is dependent on the issue involved, noting that a facultyassociation can have tremendous influence on issues, for example, that are covered intheir collective agreement. Faculty associations may have considerably less influenceon non-negotiated issues, as was the case during the 1980s on the issue of sexualharassment when "many faculty associations failed to negotiate and found themselvesfaced with administrative edicts" (Savage, 1994, p. 60).

There is a similar desire for influence at the provincial policy level in that 81% ofrespondents claim to regularly monitor the policies of the provincial governmentwhich relate to the interests of their membership. Almost two-thirds (64%) ofrespondents indicated that their association makes an attempt to influence provincialpolicy, but only 10% are asked for advice or assistance on policy matters byrepresentatives of the provincial government. Contact is infrequent, with 62%reporting communication to discuss policy matters as occurring only one or more timesper year, and 29% as never taking place. Given this, it is not surprising that themajority of respondents perceive themselves as having "very little" (58%) to "noinfluence" (21%) on provincial policies.

It is reasonable to suggest that the lack of contact and involvement betweenindividual faculty associations and the provincial government is tempered by theexistence of provincial faculty associations. Eighty-six percent of this sample aremembers of such a provincial association, associations on which they rely on, if not"always" (46%), at least "often" (43%) to represent the interests of their membershipto the provincial government. Comments suggested that any attempts to influence theprovincial government were, indeed, made through the provincial association. Inaddition, while 72% claim to work "sometimes" to "often" with other facultyassociations, several respondents noted that this was largely done through theirprovincial association, and in some cases, CAUT.

This finding, in combination with some association with other interest groups,suggests that faculty associations do not operate in isolation in their efforts to influencepolicies at the provincial level. However, the nature of the relationship between facultyassociations and their provincial associations warrants further investigation in thisrespect. Savage (1994) also raises an interesting question as to why, in light of sharingseveral common interests (such as a concern with under-funding), faculty associationsand university administrations fail to engage in joint action in the area of lobbyinggovernments concerning policy issues. This too, was not a question addressed by thissurvey.


Given the above discussion, faculty associations clearly satisfy the test of alegitimate pressure group in that they possess organization, membership, substantialautonomy in the use of resources, common interest, and a desire for influence. Whatemerges is an overall "picture" of faculty associations in terms of their organizationalcapacity and their perceived political roles both internal and external to their institution.

Faculty Associations and Policy Issues of Concern

The discussion thus far has concentrated on describing the organizational capacity andpolitical activities of faculty associations in terms of the degree to which they perceivethemselves as having influence on university and provincial policy issues. But whatis the nature of those policy issues that faculty associations find of such concern totheir memberships? The postulation that faculty associations might now be focusingtheir attention on issues outside of their institutions with the aim of influencinggovernment policies on universities was derived from literature suggesting that manyof the economic or "bread and butter" issues that once preoccupied the attention offaculty have been largely settled through collective bargaining (Guttman, 1988). Whilethere has been some concern that faculty would expand their scope of bargaining toinclude issues traditionally considered the responsibility of university senates (Newson& Buchbinder, 1988; Baldridge & Kemerer cited in Ponak, Thompson & Zerbe, 1992),evidence to support this claim has been contradictory (Ponak, Thompson & Zerbe,1992).

It is clear from the data collected for this study, that the attention of facultyassociations is still primarily focused on the institution. In rating the importance ofactivities engaged in by the faculty association, "negotiating salaries and benefits,""assisting individuals with grievances," and "influencing the policies of youruniversity which relate to the interests of your membership" were rated by at least 85%of respondents as being "very important" to "important." In addition the services orprograms offered by some to their membership tended to center on similar issues,specifically workshops on retirement and pensions, tenure and promotion, andgrievance counseling. This suggests that there is still a concern with "bread and butter"issues; if not in securing these issues, then at least in ensuring their stability in the faceof economic uncertainty. For example, one respondent noted that the association hasbeen forced to concentrate its efforts on these types of issues because of an extremelypoor provincial labour climate.

Certainly the items listed by respondents as being the major university issuessuggest strongly that the implications of budgetary restraints and cutbacks areconsidered a threat to the current conditions of employment for faculty. Theseconcerns include institutional declarations of financial exigency, academicrestructuring, and the proliferation of part-time and contract instructors being hired byuniversities.


What also emerges is support for the assertion that there are "grey areas" ofbargaining, including workload, class size, and faculty-student ratios, that relate bothto conditions of employment and to maintaining academic quality (Berland, 1972).Each of these issues was raised as a major university issue by several respondents andover 80% of the sample rated "negotiating academic issues (such as class size,workloads)" as having moderate to high importance in terms of the work of theirassociation. How well these issues are balanced between the faculty associations andsenates was not addressed, however, as Jones (1992) suggests "the legitimacy of thesenate as the senior academic body of the university is less clear. Many observers ...agree that collective bargaining has weakened the university senate (p.18)." Additionalresearch focusing on this relationship is warranted.

Institutional issues of concern to faculty associations are not unrelated to theircurrent provincial concerns. In many ways, institutional concerns simply derive fromthese more global provincial issues. That under-funding of post-secondary educationis perceived as the root of most other problems is evident from the overwhelmingnumber of respondents listing this as a priority concern. Other issues listed byrespondents reflect the implications and/or effects of this under-funding on post-secondary institutions. From the broad to the specific, respondents expressed concernthat the role of universities is being redefined, for example, through increasedaccountability, weakened structures of university governance, restructuring andprogram rationalization, and threats to long-term conditions of employment.

However, the extent to which faculty associations direct their attention outside oftheir institutions appears to be mediated by a reliance on their provincial associations.In other words, while faculty associations are distinctly aware of government policiesthat have a direct or indirect effect on their members, efforts to influence such policiesseems to be channeled through the provincial associations. Again, with littleinformation on the nature of this relationship it is difficult to speculate as to whatdegree faculty associations are satisfied or comfortable with this arrangement.

It may be the case that association members find other ways of becominginvolved politically. For example, data from a recent study of faculty at the Universityof Toronto found that approximately 26% of respondents had, as individuals,attempted to influence Ontario government policy in the previous year (Jones, 1993).Interview data suggested that faculty were motivated by such things as personalcircumstances outside of their work environment (i.e., involvement in political parties),involvement in policy areas related to their area of study (i.e., being asked for adviceby government officials), and involvement in service or research-related activities forthe government.


Provision of Services to the Membership

That the attention of faculty associations remains focused on the institution has alreadybeen noted. What has not been discussed is the kind of attention that facultyassociations center on their own membership. The data in this study suggests thatfaculty associations are preoccupied to some extent with financial and labour-relatedissues, and that these issues supercede their ability or desire to provide other kinds ofservices or programs to their membership.

While it may be the case that faculty associations do not feel an obligation to offeradditional programs or services to their members, it may also be that facultyassociations are simply unable to expand their services to include such programs. Thedaily operations of any faculty association in the administration of a collectiveagreement must be very time intensive. For example, arbitrations can, and often are,very lengthy and costly processes (Savage, 1994). Under current economic restraints,it is not unreasonable to expect that maintaining and improving the financial andlabour-related standards and welfare of the membership continues to be a high priority.

Faculty associations are also somewhat restricted in terms of the size of theirhuman resources. In this study, less than 70% (22) of respondents employ paid staffon either a full or part-time basis. At the very most (four respondents, in this survey),a faculty association might have four full-time staff members.3Other associations havea much smaller paid staff, if they have one at all. Even with a range of committees, theextent of human resources is limited. Individual faculty members have their owncommitments and responsibilities to attend to with respect to teaching, research, andpossibly some form of university or community service beyond that of their associationrole. Given the concern with increasing workloads expressed by respondents, facultymembers are already feeling overextended.

For the 57% (25) of respondents who do offer services or programs to theirmembership, the frequency of these offerings was not addressed. However, theimpression from some of the descriptions is that these seminars or workshops aregiven on an infrequent or occasional basis (i.e., annually or semi-annually). Themajority of these sessions also reflect the current nature of faculty association work inthat they are largely finance-related (i.e., dealing with retirement, pensions, benefits)or labour-related (dealing with grievances).

The low rating found with respect to both "providing social activities/opportunities for your membership" (mean rating – 1.47) and "providing professionaldevelopment activities/materials for your membership" (mean rating – 1.77), coupledwith an almost non-existent reporting of the provision of such services stronglysuggests that these are not primary activities for faculty associations. While a fewassociations did report offering some professional development workshops (e.g., onteaching large courses), the betterment of faculty as teachers is obviously not a priority.However, this is not to infer that faculty associations are callous in this respect. It may


be a function, in part, of their inability to provide such a broad scope of activities totheir membership due to both human and financial resource constraints. It may also bethe case that these kinds of needs are attended to by other areas or offices within theuniversity. For example, the university may have some form of InstructionalDevelopment Office that offers programs for professional development.

Regardless of the motivation, however, it is clear that the current organizationalcapacity of Canadian faculty associations (particularly with respect to humanresources) is somewhat limited and, therefore, not conducive to offering anencompassing scope of services. The notion that faculty associations do not viewprofessional development and social contact activities as part of their role, or of beingvery high in their work priorities, is reasonable given the other demands placed uponthem within the current university climate.

Certified vs. Non-certified Faculty Associations

One observation of interest from these findings, is that in terms of characteristics oforganizational capacity, ratings of activities and issues of concern (both institutionallyand provincially) there were no real differences found between associations that arecertified bargaining units under provincial labour law, and those that are not certified.Given the history and reputation of unionized faculty associations, this may besomewhat of a surprising outcome.

The notion that differences might exist between certified and non-certifiedassociations derives, perhaps, from lingering concerns with the whole concept ofcollective bargaining and faculty unionization in Canadian universities. Theunionization of faculty associations was not widely, nor immediately, embraced(Cameron, 1991). Opposition, or at least a certain wariness, of its adoption wasfounded on concerns that faculty unions would lead to: (a) the creation of adversarialroles (an employer vs. employee relationship), (b) a decline in collegiality, (c) a morerigid decision-making process (creeping legalism), (d) an inappropriate use of strikes,and (e) a weakening of senates. Although few empirical studies have been done on theimpact of collective bargaining:

One can say with confidence that, on a wide range of bread and butter issues... faculty unions have: (1) made substantial gains for their members ... (2)negotiated first rate workable contracts ... (3) proven to be a boon toadministrative vice-presidents in terms of personnel administration; (4)generally, become (at least on major administrative issues relating to termsand condition of employment) the major powerbroker on campus along withthe senior administration cohort. (Penner, 1994, p. 50)

With little in the way of supporting research data, it is difficult to do more thanspeculate as to why certified and non-certified associations in this study, are virtuallyindistinguishable. Penner (1994) suggests that the gains made by unionizedassociations concerning salaries, job security and issues of due process, have also


benefitted non-unionized faculty associations. For example with respect to facultyunionization and wage differentials, Skolnik and Woodford (1987) found that between1972-1973 and 1984-1985, the average salary increases of unionized faculty (adjustedfor age) were not significantly greater than those of non-unionized faculty. This may,in part, be due to non-certified associations having emulated the settlements of certifiedassociations. Certainly, as Skolnik and Woodford suggest, the potential for contactbetween bargaining team members of both types of associations would allow for acomparison of strategies or outcomes.4 It is also worthwhile to note here that Canadianfaculty associations have the alternative of "special plan bargaining" which fallssomewhere between certification and consultation (Ponak & Thompson, 1984). Specialplan arrangements, for some, could mediate potential differences between the othertwo options.

This is not to suggest that the unionization of Canadian faculty associations is nolonger a controversial issue. For example, one respondent said that pro-union and anti-union feelings at the university still run high. Another respondent from a non-certifiedassociation reported that not being unionized was causing considerable problems forthe association in the face of roll-backs and rationalization. It is also interesting to notethat respondents from certified and non-certified associations were almost identical inhow they rated the importance of eight association activities, with the exception of"negotiating academic issues." As shown in Table 2, the mean rating on this item bycertified associations was 3.8. For non-certified associations, the mean rating was 2.7.Although not statistically significant, it would appear that certified associations placea slightly greater importance on influencing issues that may encroach upon thetraditional academic grounds of university senates.

While certified and non-certified associations were found to be no different in thedegree to which they perceive themselves as having influence on policy issues(institutional or provincial), the questionnaire did not address their approach toinfluencing these issues. It could be that unionized associations lead the way or aremore active in the ways in which they attempt to influence policy issues (as they werein securing economic and job security). There is no indication from this study,however, that unionized faculty associations rely any less on their provincialassociations to represent their interests to the provincial government. Nevertheless,more information on the ways in which faculty associations attempt to influence policyissues is needed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTAn earlier version of this paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the CanadianSociety for the Study of Higher Education, June, 1994. The authors are grateful for thefinancial assistance provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council ofCanada.


NOTES1. For the purposes of later discussion, those institutions with enrolments of less than10,000 full and part-time students will be categorized as being "small," those withenrolments of between 10,000 and 20,000 as "mid-sized," and those with enrolments of over20,000 as "large."2. A chi-square analysis was used to determine if the relationship between region ofrespondent and certification was significant. While a significant difference was found(p<.05), this result should be viewed with caution. Due to the relatively small sample size,the use of chi-square analyses on these data produced several findings where more than 20%of the observations were less than five. As a result, major differences between cross-tabulated variables are expressed as trends or tendencies in the data.3. One of these staff members is likely the association president who may be given fullteaching release time for the duration of service. Not all association leaders, however, havethis advantage. For example, one respondent, from an association with no paid staff, notedthat having no time off at all for association business resulted in poor service to theirmembership and a difficulty in getting good people to serve in the association.4. Provincial associations often play a major role in disseminating information to allmember associations on issues like salaries. CAUT also has committees and other meansof distributing this kind of information.

Authors Addresses:

Barbara AndersonAssociate Registrar (Admissions)Office of the RegistrarBrock UniversitySt. Catharines, Ontario, CANADA L2S 3A1

Glen Jones, ChairTheory and Policy StudiesOISE/University of TorontoToronto, Ontario, CANADA M5S 1V6

REFERENCESBerland, A. (1972, Winter). Notes on some values to be considered in relation to formal

collective bargaining. C.A.U.T. Bulletin, 41-45.Cameron, D.M. (1991). More than an academic question: Universities, government, and

public policy in Canada. Halifax: The Institute for Research on Public Policy.Guttman, M.A.J. (1988). Faculty unionization and its impact on government policy toward

universities: The case of OISE. In C. Watson (Ed.), Readings in Canadian HigherEducation (pp. 120-139). Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Jones, G.A. (1992, Feb.). University governance in the 1990’s: An issues paper.Unpublished manuscript, Higher Education Group, Ontario Institute for Studies inEducation. Prepared for the Association of Universities and Colleges Canada.

Jones, G.A. (1993). Professorial pressure on government policy: University of Torontofaculty. The Review of Higher Education, 16(4), 461-482.

Newson, J., & Buchbinder, H. (1988). The university means business: Universities,corporations and academic work. Toronto: Garamond Press.

Penner, R. (1978-79). Faculty collective bargaining in Canada: Background, developmentand impact. Interchange, 9(3), 71-86.


Penner, R. (1994). Unionization, democracy and the University. Interchange, 25(1), 49-53.Ponak, A. & Thompson, M. (1984). Faculty collective bargaining: The voice of

experience. Relations Industrielles, 39(3), 449-463.Ponak, A., Thompson, M., & Zerbe, W. (1992). Collective bargaining goals of university

faculty. Research in Higher Education, 33(4), 415-431.Pross, A.P. (1986). Group politics and public policy. Toronto: Oxford University Press.Savage, D.C. (1983). An insider’s view of Canadian bargaining. Academe, November-

December, 16-20.Savage, D. C. (1994). How and why the C.A.U.T. became involved in collective

bargaining. Interchange, 25(1), 55-63.Skolnik, M.L., & Woodford, G. (1987) Faculty unionization and salary differentials in

Ontario universities. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 27(2), 9-25.

Documents

Organizational Capacity and Political Activities of Canadian University Faculty Associations