Universities were forced to move instruction online and send residential students home due to the pandemic, resulting in financial shortfalls. Governing boards, administrators, and governments made decisions including eliminating faculty and staff, and programs yet these decisions were rarely inclusive of university stakeholders or innovative. This study’s purpose is to examine and compare viewpoints of stakeholders in relation to addressing the financial impact of the pandemic in hopes of capturing innovative and effective pathways for universities. Because the purpose involved describing and comparing these viewpoints, the researcher selected a unique mixed method, Q methodology [Q] for this study. In Q, participants sort statements related to the topic into a grid such that their Q-sort provides a snapshot of their subjectivity. Participants’ sorts are grouped empirically into factors, each representing unique viewpoints. Three distinct viewpoints emerged: 1) Focus on teaching mission and students, 2) University as a business, and 3) University as community. Views 1 and 3 were dominated by university faculty while View 2 was dominated by non-faculty including administrators and staff. Q’s determination of distinguishing statements within each view provides the ability to compare these views’ uniqueness. The three views and consensus among the views represent rejection of decisions to lay off faculty or close programs, among others, in order to balance university finances. The importance of tenured faculty in relationship to shared governance and academic freedom is especially stressed by two of the viewpoints. Implications for higher education policy, innovation, democratic problem-solving, and governance are discussed.

由于大流行，大学被迫将教学转移到网上并将寄宿学生送回家，导致资金短缺。理事会、管理人员和政府做出了包括取消教职员工和项目在内的决定，但这些决定很少包括大学利益相关者或创新。本研究的目的是检查和比较利益相关者在解决大流行的财务影响方面的观点，以期为大学捕捉创新和有效的途径。由于目的涉及描述和比较这些观点，因此研究人员选择了一种独特的混合方法，即 Q 方法 [Q] 进行本研究。在 Q 中，参与者将与主题相关的陈述分类到一个网格中，这样他们的 Q 排序就可以提供他们主观性的快照。参与者的类别根据经验分组为因素，每个因素代表独特的观点。出现了三种不同的观点：1）专注于教学使命和学生，2）大学作为企业，3）大学作为社区。观点 1 和 3 由大学教职员工主导，而观点 2 则由包括管理人员和工作人员在内的非教师主导。Q 对每个视图中的区别陈述的确定提供了比较这些视图的独特性的能力。这三种观点和观点之间的共识代表了拒绝为了平衡大学财政而裁员或关闭项目等的决定。有两种观点特别强调了终身教职员工在共同治理和学术自由方面的重要性。讨论了对高等教育政策、创新、民主解决问题和治理的影响。