In several projects, the Center is studying the question: who will decide which factions will be represented in the decision-making process. In the Campus Governance Project investigating the nature of governance, over 3,000 questionnaires were administered and 900 intensive interviews conducted at 19 institutions. The questionnaire was designed to identify problems of governance and determine which individuals were considered knowledgeable and influential in dealing with them and how they became so. It was generally found that today's governance is more complex, more involved with negotiated exchange among many internal and external factions than before. Presidents retain accountability for all that happens on their campus though their ability to control it has declined. Patterns are hard to change because: most academicians believe that practices adopted by other institutions are inappropriate to their own; most change occurs by accretion; self-interest rather than concern for the institution dominates decision making. Major sources of friction are the budget and distribution of information regarding it, delegation of authority, and the method of announcing decisions (particularly bad news). Extreme resentment was expressed against state education departments, presidents and deans of students. Among a number of suggestions for improving governance, the most widely adopted is that of a campuswide governing body composed of representatives from all factions. Despite complaints, however, changes might provoke even greater dissatisfaction. (JS)