3History of Law & Higher Education US federal labor law creates distinct categories of employee organizationsConsiderable debates as to role of faculty (Hendrickson, 1999)Managers or employees?Union eligible or exempt?
4History of Law & Higher Education National Labor Rights Act provides individual states the freedom to regulate labor relations with public employees (Cloud, 2011)Language in act excludes public colleges & universities from this coverage.Public institutions are governed by state laws regarding employee rights to organize and bargain collectively (Cloud, 2011)Ability to bargain is based on state legislation (Hendrickson, 1999)
5History of Law & Higher Education Employee reaction to organizing and bargainingVarying degrees of reactionPennsylvania faculty utilized Internet to educate faculty for a potential strike (McCollum, 1999)Full-time faculty at Cuyahoga Community College cast vote of no confidence in their president (Farkas, 2010)
6Research IssueCarl Sandburg College has a joint bargaining unit where both faculty and staff are represented by one union.Are the interests of both constituents adequately represented during collective bargaining?How does the bargaining unit function as a whole?
7Purpose of StudyExplore the success and challenges of a joint bargaining unit, representing both faculty and staff, at a public two year community college.
8Research QuestionsWhat is composition of leadership of joint bargaining unit?How is union (Sandburg Education Association – SEA) officer representation determined?Who is involved in the preparation for contract negotiations?What is involved in composing both SEA and Board of Trustees (BOT ) negotiation teams?What interpersonal relations are developed prior to negotiations?What are the strengths and weaknesses of composition of team?
9Research QuestionsWhat is involved in preparing for collective bargaining sessions?How are needs of both faculty and staff collected?How are needs of BOT collected?How are negotiation teams comprised?What type of interaction occurs between BOT representation and SEA?
10Research QuestionsWhat is depth of involvement of both faculty and staff during negotiation sessions?What is role of faculty representation when staff interests are discussed?What is role of staff representation when faculty interests are discussed?What is role of staff and faculty during combined interests?
11Research QuestionsWhat are interpersonal relationships after contract ratification relative to interactions during collective bargaining?How do team members interact with each other in the workplace after contract ratification?How do team members interact with administration who represented BOT in the workplace after contract ratification?What is the level of satisfaction of the outcome of collective bargaining session?
12Research QuestionsWhat constructs are unique to contract negotiations of a unified collective bargaining unit representing both faculty and staff?How does the institution function relative to collective bargaining?What are the perceptions of the effectiveness of the joint bargaining unit?
13Review of the Literature Chapter 2Review of the Literature
14Review of LiteratureContract – protecting the terms & conditions of employment (Boris, 2004)Contract in higher education – the distinguishing achievement of an organized faculty (Boris, 2004)
15Review of LiteratureLegal challenges to reach current day collective bargaining status (Shaw, 2000; Castro, 2006; Hendrickson, 1999)Public community colleges have highest concentration of union representation at 94% (Castro, 2006)Overwhelming majority of collective bargaining units in higher education are at 2- year colleges (Boris, 2004)
16Review of LiteratureInitial attitude toward unionization was fear for loss of traditional academic rights – protesting unionization (Boris, 2004)
17Review of the Literature Current environment – need support of unions in times of uncertaintyIncreasing number of retireesPositions being filled with adjunct facultyWhat is role of adjunct faculty?EqualityMembership rightsRole in union leadership
18Review of the Literature Other topics to reviewHistory of CollegeLitigation in 1993 to allow formation of joint bargaining unit.State of IL denied another institution the same type of bargaining unit years later.Types of bargaining methodsPositionalInterest-basedHistory of Collective Bargaining at College2 strikesWhy is joint bargaining unit unique?Explore and uncover nuances of this type of bargaining unitTo date, researcher cannot find any other institution in the United States with this type of bargaining unitSymbolic Interactionism
20MethodologyIn-depth narrative qualitative case study exploring unique aspects of joint bargaining unit.Provide insight on issues and philosophy of organizational structure from collective bargaining participantsMulti-method design combining focus groups and in-depth interviewsProvides synergistic link
21Methodology Theoretical paradigm Interpretive Develop an understanding of the effectiveness of the uniqueness of a joint collective bargaining unitExamination of dramaturgyExamining individual social experiences as a process of performance (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011)How does unified collective bargaining unit affect people’s behavior?What areperceptions of participants in joint bargaining unit when considering uniqueness?
22Methodology Type of study Oral history / narrative (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, & Creswell, 2008)Invite participants of collective bargaining to tell their stories of involvement in negotiationsStudy the individual experience of social changeIn-depth interviews (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011 & Creswell, 2008)Gather rich qualitative data from the perspective of participants of negotiationsFind emerging patterns of resultant culture from collective bargaining
23MethodologyTwo phases – research questions require both breadth & depthFocus groups – provides greater range of responses in short period of timeIn-depth interviews –provide greater depth from individual participants
24Methodology Explore aspects of Preparation for negotiations Interaction with colleagues throughout negotiationsPersonal impressions of involvement in bargaining unitContributions to negotiation process / outcome
25MethodologyAssess perceptions of successes and challenges of joint bargaining unitPay particular attention toOpinionsShrewdnessDetails related to fear, job insecurities and distrustTeamworkAssess various forces impacting procedures in the workplace and resulting events
26MethodologyParticipants – 6 from 2009 collective bargaining session; both SEA & BOT representationSampling methodPurposive / Purposeful sampleParticipants are “information rich” (Creswell, 2008)3-4 members representing SEADuplication of participants is very little; very few have served during more than one negotiation2-3 members representing BOTMajority of participants have served during several negotiations
27Methodology Location of study Public two-year public community college in Midwest
28MethodologyData Collection (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011 & Creswell, 2008)Multi-method focusing on focus groups and in-depth interviewsFocus Groups – all sessions will be audio recorded with preference of video recording to capture nonverbal expressions; allow researcher to observe group dynamics; allow participants communally to reflect on collective bargaining environment and experiencesParticipants representing SEA & BOT will gather separately to recount their experiences of collective bargainingParticipants from both the SEA and BOT will gather to recount their joint experiences of collective bargaining.
29Methodology Focus Groups (cont) Data from focus groups will: Expose themes from group dynamicsIdentify the language, definitions, and concepts the participants find meaningful (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011)Help design focus of in-depth interviews with individual participants
30MethodologyIn-depth interviews - all sessions will be audio recorded with preference of video recording to capture nonverbal expressionsAll 6 participants will be interviewed independently in a safe, comfortable setting where participant can share storiesInterviews will be semi-structured – relying on certain set of questions and let the conversation guide the reset of the questionsExplore new topics relevant to each interviewee
31Methodology In-depth interviews (cont) Identify markers from interview – make note to examine closer when appropriateProbe markers to gain further responseData from in-depth interviews will:Expose themes of attitudes and valuesExpose possible “agendas” of intervieweeAllow the researcher to develop hunches for further follow-up
32Methodology Coding of data (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011) Review audio and video recordingsDevelop transcript from recordingsLocate segments believed to be importantDevelop categories for codes – stay open-endedThemes will be identified, concepts, or dimensions of concepts will be examined looking for common patterns of behavior
33Methodology Coding of data (cont) Descriptive codes (literal codes appearing in recordings) will be establishedAnalytical codes (rely on researcher’s insights) will be establishedFocus will be on coding procedure (build clear working definition of each concept producing a name for each)
34Methodology Coding of data (cont) From the focus group recordings, the researcher will make notes indicating:Agreement, disagreement, consensusBody languageLeaders, followersInitial theoriesFrom the in-depth interviews, the researcher will make notes indicating:Agreement, disagreement of data collected from focus groupsDifferences in responses of individual from focus group to in-depth interviewContinuing theories
35ReferencesBoris, R. J. (2004). Collective bargaining and community colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges, (125), 41-49Castro, C. R. (2000). Community college faculty satisfaction and the faculty union. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2000(105), 45
36ReferencesCreswell, J.W. (2008). Educational Research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. 3rd Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Farkas, K. (2010). Cuyahoga community college full-time faculty vote 'no confidence' in president Jerry Sue Thornton. Retrieved July 23, 2012, 2012, from uyahoga_community_college_ful.html
37ReferencesHendrickson, R. M., & Education, L. A. (1999). The colleges, their constituencies, and the courts. second edition. monograph series, no. 64
38ReferencesHesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2011). The practice of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE PublicationsMcCollum, K. (1999). A faculty union uses the web as a tool in a labor dispute. Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(11), A57Roberts, C.M. (2010). Dissertation Journey A Practical and Comprehensive Guide to Planning, Writing, and Defending Your Dissertation (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.