What Does It Take to Lead: The Hidden Curriculum of Qualifications for Service on Public Boards of Higher Education

Abstract

Background/Context:U.S. higher education governing boards have received enhanced public attention over the last decade in response to national media coverage and emerging governance scholarship. Despite the rise of attention on this topic and the maintained influence of board decisions, governing boards remain one of the least understood aspects of higher education.Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study:The qualifications required for board member service in higher education are a particularly understudied aspect of boards. Given the limited knowledge of board qualifications, our study aimed to understand what (if any) were the known requirements for service on U.S. public boards of higher education.Setting:A total of 95 public board bylaws representing at least one institution from each state were examined for any mention of the requirements or qualifications for the trusteeship. Both standalone institutional boards and system boards were investigated to account for the diversity of board types. Altogether, the bylaws of 95 boards that govern 842 public institutions in the nation were reviewed.Research Design:The study used qualitative document and content analysis methods to examine board bylaws.Findings:We found that very few boards have any defined (and publicized) requirements for public trusteeship in higher education. We evaluate the findings using a Critical Race Theory and hidden curriculum framework of analysis and discuss the implicit and explicit messages of the board bylaws. This study brings to the forefront that there are either hidden, ambiguous, or little to no requisites for arguably one of the most influential roles in higher education. The lack of transparency in this area may help perpetuate inequity in board representation.Conclusion/Recommendations:If institutions desire to enhance transparency and accountability, it is crucial to elucidate standard practices for filling board seats (including qualifications for board service, who gets to decide on these qualifications, and the ramifications of these practices on equitable board member representation). Boards, governors, and other influential decision-makers should contemplate establishing and sharing requirements for board service so that (a) boards enter into this position with a better understanding of what is required of them, and (b) there are more explicit guidelines to support why and how some groups are overrepresented on the board while others have been historically excluded.