Date of Award
Spring 2026
Document Type
Open Access Dissertation
Department
Educational Leadership and Policies
First Advisor
Christian Anderson
Abstract
This study examines the antecedents and perceived outcomes of faculty No-Confidence Motions (NCMs) at major research universities in the United States. Drawing on Construal Level Theory (CLT), the Social Identity Model of Collective Action (SIMCA), and Contentious Collection Action frameworks, it analyzes how psychological distance, grievances, and participation shape faculty engagement in NCMs and their evaluations of outcomes. Survey data were collected from faculty across 11 R1 institutions where NCMs were passed between January 2023 and November 2025. Quantitative analyses included logistic and linear regression and one-way ANOVA; open-ended responses were thematically analyzed. The study addresses limited empirical research on faculty NCMs, which have largely been discussed in journalistic accounts or assessed by leadership turnover.
Results show that lower psychological distance significantly predicts participation in an NCM. Issues perceived as professionally relevant are more psychologically proximal, and concerns that directly affect faculty work and voice more strongly predict action compared to governance principles. Participation is positively associated with perceived outcome significance, and support for the motion is associated with more favorable evaluations of outcomes. Contrary to expectations, direct mobilization (being asked to vote) did not predict participation, although engagement in NCM activities was strongly correlated with voting. Although administrative experience was unrelated to psychological distance, faculty senators reported lower distance than non-senators, suggesting that representative roles generate greater proximity to governance conflict. Findings also reveal variation across disciplines, faculty ranks, institutions, and issue types.
Qualitative findings indicate that NCMs often reflect accumulated grievances and are viewed as a last resort to defend shared governance, even when material change is considered unlikely. Faculty reported strong emotional responses—anger, fear, solidarity, validation, disappointment, and disillusionment—before and after the vote. Although some leadership departures followed, many perceived limited institutional change. Nonetheless, supporters described NCMs as necessary to mobilize faculty and formally register dissent, emphasizing their enduring symbolic significance within shared governance systems.
Rights
© 2026, Amita Verma
Recommended Citation
Verma, A.(2026). Contested Authority in Higher Education: Faculty No-confidence Motions, Their Antecedents, Outcomes, and Futures of Shared Governance. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/8901