The Delphi Project on the Changing Faculty and Student Success. …………. The Imperative for Change | 1
The Imperative
for Change
Fostering Understanding of the Necessity of Changing
Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Policies and Practices
Adrianna Kezar, Daniel Maxey, and Lara Badke
A resource created by The Delphi Project on the Changing Faculty and Student Success
www.thechangingfaculty.org
The Delphi Project on the Changing Faculty and Student Success. …………. The Imperative for Change | 2
Additional resources and tool kits from
The Delphi Project on The Changing Faculty and Student Success
are available online at
http://resources.thechangingfaculty.org
Non-Tenure-Track Faculty on Our Campus: A Guide for Campus Task Forces to Better
Understand Faculty Working Conditions and Necessity of Change examines non-tenure-track faculty
practices and issues at the campus level. It has been prepared to accompany this guide, but is focused
more broadly on the whole campus and can be used as your efforts begin to expand to improve
conditions throughout your institution.
Non-Tenure-Track Faculty in Our Department: A Guide for Departments and Academic Programs
to Better Understand Faculty Working Conditions and Necessity of Change examines non-tenure-
track faculty practices and issues at the department level. It has been prepared to accompany this guide,
but is focused more narrowly on individual academic programs and can be used to collect information
from specific departments to produce a more clear understanding of how practices might affect faculty on
campus in different ways.
The Path to Change: How Campus Communities Worked to Change Non-Tenure-Track Policies
and Practices describes how several campuses have already initiated a dialogue about non-tenure-track
faculty practices and how different groups on each campus worked together to implement changes.
These examples can offer some ideas about how to pursue changes on your own campus.
The Delphi Project has received generous support from:
The Spencer Foundation, The Teagle Foundation,
and
The Carnegie Corporation of New York
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/.
The Delphi Project on the Changing Faculty and Student Success. …………. The Imperative for Change | 3
The Imperative for Change:
Understanding the Necessity of Changing Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Policies and Practices
By Adrianna Kezar, Daniel Maxey, and Lara Badke
In this document we outline the three major imperatives we see for the need to create
changes to policies and practices for non-tenure-track faculty:
1. The Student Learning Imperative
2. The Equity Imperative
3. The Risk Management Imperative
The Student Learning Imperative
Studies suggest rising numbers of non-tenure-track faculty in higher education are negatively
affecting student success (Bettinger & Long, 2010; Gross & Goldhaber, 2009; Eagan & Jaegar,
2004; Ehrenberg & Zhang, 2004; Harrington & Schibik, 2001; Jacoby, 2006; Jaegar & Eagan,
2009). The committed educators comprising the non-tenure-track faculty ranks – sometimes
referred to as adjuncts, clinical, or contingent faculty – are not to blame for these adverse effects
on student learning. Rather, poor working conditions and a lack of support diminish their
capacity to provide a high quality learning environment and experience for students. The
cumulative effect of working conditions constrains individual instructor’s abilities to interact with
students and apply their many talents, creativity, and subject knowledge to maximum effect
inside and outside the classroom. Leaders in academic affairs should be particularly concerned
with ameliorating non-tenure-track faculty policies and practices that have a deleterious effect
on efforts to serve our central mission with regard to teaching and learning. There are several
areas of critical concern that have been documented, which we have highlighted below.
Diminished Graduation and Retention Rates
Empirical research studies suggest increased reliance on non-tenure-track faculty has
negatively affected retention and graduation rates. Ehrenberg and Zhang (2004) and Jaeger
and Eagan (2009) found that graduation rates declined as proportions of non-tenure-track
faculty increased. Increases in part-time faculty employment, in particular, have been found to
have the greatest impact on graduation rates, as well as retention rates (Harrington and Schibik,
2001; Jacoby, 2006).
The Delphi Project on the Changing Faculty and Student Success. …………. The Imperative for Change | 4
Reduced Faculty Student Interaction and Accessibility
Most studies highlight the substantial effects of diminished faculty-student interaction on student
learning outcomes. Contact time and interaction between traditional faculty and students have
been shown to foster greater student success (Benjamin, 2003). However, research suggests
that the inaccessibility of part-time faculty to students due to time constraints, a lack of office
space, and because many hold jobs at multiple locations has an inverse, negative effect on
student outcomes (CCSSE, 2009; Eagan & Jaeger, 2008; Jacoby, 2006).
Diminished Use of High-Impact Teaching Practices
Studies comparing tenure-track to non-tenure-track faculty have identified that non-tenure-track
faculty, particularly those holding part-time positions, make less use of teaching practices that
are associated with better student learning outcomes such as service learning, undergraduate
research, active and collaborative learning, problem-based learning, and student centered or
multicultural approaches to teaching (Baldwin, & Wawrzynski, 2011; Umbach, 2007). There are
various explanations for why this is the case, ranging from fears that experimenting with
innovative strategies will negatively affect teaching evaluations to a lack of professional
development limiting instructors’ exposure to high-impact practices and pedagogies. Since full-
time non-tenure-track faculty work more closely resembles that of tenure-track faculty, they may
be more likely than their part-time peers to utilize high-impact practices and innovative teaching
strategies.
Decreased Transfers from Two-Year to Four-Year Institutions
Gross and Goldhaber (2009) found that students at two-year colleges who had greater exposure
to full-time, tenured faculty were more likely to transfer to four-year institutions. Their research
found a 4% increase in transfers to four-year institutions per each 10% increase in the
proportion of tenured faculty members. Eagan and Jaeger (2008) similarly found increased
proportions of part-time faculty were correlated with lower transfer rates. This issue of adverse
effects on transfer rates to four-year institutions becomes particularly important in light of the
fact that non-tenure-track faculty account for approximately 80% of the instructional faculty –
although sometimes more – among community colleges in the United States.
Part-Time Faculty Have a More Pronounced Negative Effect on
Outcomes
Full-time non-tenure-track faculty practices often parallel those of tenured and tenure-track
faculty (Baldwin and Wawrzynski, 2011). Most studies focusing on the differences in effects on
student learning find that the more negative outcomes are tied to part-time faculty, who have
limited opportunities for faculty-student interaction and for participation in curriculum design.
They also have limited access to instructional resources, support staff, and professional
development opportunities (Eagan & Jaeger, 2008; Harrington and Schibik, 2001; Jacoby,
2006).
The Delphi Project on the Changing Faculty and Student Success. …………. The Imperative for Change | 5
Growing reliance on part-time faculty has a pronounced negative effect on first-year students,
specifically. In a study of college freshmen, Harrington and Schibik (2001) found that increased
exposure to part-time faculty was significantly associated with lower second semester retention
rates, lower GPAs, and fewer attempted credit hours. Bettinger and Long (2010) found early
exposure to part-time faculty also had a negative effect on students’ major selection.
The Equity Imperative
While the impact on student learning should be an imperative for all educators, many campus
leaders and faculty are also concerned about inequities in their profession and the far-reaching
consequences of such unsustainable practices. Human resource professionals are tasked with
examining issues of equity and fairness in employment practices. There are several key areas
where equity issues need to be carefully examined on college campuses such as salary,
benefits, governance, professional development, and rehiring.
Salary
Though part-time and full-time non-tenure-track faculty are both paid less than tenured and
tenure-track faculty, part-time faculty are customarily paid significantly less than even full-time
non-tenure-track faculty for the same work. One national study found that full-time non-tenure-
track faculty typically make 26% less than tenured faculty, but that part-time faculty earn
approximately 60% less than comparable full-time, tenure-track faculty when their salaries are
expressed on an hourly basis (Curtis, 2005; Toutkoushian & Bellas, 2003). Hollenshead and
others (2007) found the low end of per-course compensation for full- and part-time non-tenure-
track faculty to be comparable ($3,171 for part-time and $3,523 for full-time), but called attention
to the disparity on the high end. The highest paid part-time faculty in the study earned only
$5,564 per course, as compared to $7,978 for their full-time non-tenure-track faculty peers
(Hollenshead et al., 2007).
A more recent study conducted by the Coalition on the Academic Workforce (CAW, 2012) found
the median per-course compensation for part-time faculty, $2,700, to be far lower than what
tenure-track faculty are paid when standardized to reflect compensation for instruction in a
three-credit course. Also, although the CAW study did find there is a wage premium for part-
time faculty who hold doctoral or other terminal degrees, their rate of pay still falls far below that
of full-time non-tenure-track and tenure-track faculty. Length of service to an institution, another
factor that typically contributes to increases in compensation, was similarly found to not result in
higher levels of compensation for part-time faculty or pay rates comparable to other faculty
members. Part-time faculty are often ineligible for salary adjustments (which were available to
them at only 50% of institutions in a national sample), promotion opportunities, or evaluation
(Hollenshead et al., 2007). Having a formal evaluation process in place can create a means for
determining that faculty should be considered for salary increases, rehired, or offered
opportunities for promotion. But, without any record of their performance, such arguments are
difficult to make.
The studies above point out how faculty compensation is often inequitable when considered on
a per course basis, but it is also important to consider that, even by this standardized measure
The Delphi Project on the Changing Faculty and Student Success. …………. The Imperative for Change | 6
(e.g., per course, standardized to reflect a three-credit course), faculty workloads are often not
balanced. The workloads of non-tenure-track faculty are usually defined by their teaching, but
consideration is not always given to the time faculty must spend preparing for classes, holding
office hours, giving feedback on assignments, and communicating with students (Kezar & Sam,
2010). Non-tenure-track faculty members working for the same institution may even have very
different teaching loads or responsibilities, but receive the same rate of pay. While lesser
course loads might make sense for teaching-intensive courses such as writing, there are also
variations that have no such rationale or justification.
Benefits
Only 51% of part-time faculty are provided some form of benefits from their institution. Typically
these are health benefits, although the packages offered to part-time faculty are not usually the
same ones given to full-time faculty, which may also include life insurance, retirement, and
access to paid sick leave (Hollenshead et al., 2007). Gappa and Leslie (1993) also discovered
that institutions frequently do not rehire part-time faculty if or when they might become eligible
for benefits, for example, when they have been working for the institution for a defined,
continuous period of time. Inside Higher Ed has begun to report on cases where institutions are
capping the teaching loads of part-time faculty in order to avoid providing them health care
benefits that are required by the Affordable Care Act (Flaherty, 2012). As a result of these
decisions, part-time faculty may not just have to pay out of their own pocket for health
insurance, but they may also be paid less in upcoming terms because of the limits that are
placed on the number of hours or courses they can teach.
Participation in Governance
Part-time faculty have consistently been shown to be excluded from shared governance at
institutions and are often not allowed to attend departmental or institutional meetings open to
other faculty (Hollenshead et al., 2007). Baldwin and Chronister (2001) found that full-time non-
tenure-track faculty are more actively involved in governance. Approximately 50% of the
institutions in Balwin’s and Chronister’s sample allowed full-time non-tenure-track faculty to
participate in the faculty senate and other forms of governance alongside their tenured and
tenure-track colleagues. They found that about 75% of these faculty were allowed to participate
in departmental meetings and decision making. Although the researchers note that there are
restrictions the participation of non-tenure-track faculty in formal governance structures and
processes, many report they are involved in less formal governance tasks. For example, they
may be asked to contribute to more local decision making or be asked informally for their
advice.
Generally, increased participation rights do not necessarily equate to having a voice in shared
governance or power on campus. Even on many campuses where non-tenure-track faculty are
allowed to participate in governance, they have no voting rights or are only afforded partial
voting rights (Kezar & Sam, 2010). They may also not have proportional representation, as
compared to their tenured and tenure-track colleagues. For example, non-tenure-track faculty
might only be apportioned two representatives on a faculty senate with more than 90 members
or one position on a committee with around 20 members, even when they comprise a significant
majority among the full faculty (Kezar & Sam, 2010). So, they are typically given only a token
The Delphi Project on the Changing Faculty and Student Success. …………. The Imperative for Change | 7
status – without equal voting rights or proportional representation. In all of these types of
circumstances, non-tenure-track faculty have a limited or no voice to raise concerns within the
governing structures and processes of the institution, not just about the inequities inherent in
their own experience, but also about practices and policies related to teaching and learning.
Professional Development
Many institutions do not provide professional development for non-tenure-track faculty, which
affects their performance and ability to stay current on knowledge in their disciplines, as well as
emerging and innovative pedagogies and classroom strategies. This not only constrains their
ability to offer the very best educational experience for their current students, a goal to which
they are often very committed, but also shapes their ability to succeed when they apply for
tenure-track positions. Professional development on campus is often limited, if it is offered at
all, but it is even less common for non-tenure-track faculty to be eligible for or receive funds to
travel off campus for conferences, workshops, or to conduct research (Baldwin & Chronister,
2001; Gappa & Leslie, 1993). This aspect of their work experience differs from that of most
tenure-track faculty, who can participate in conferences and professional development of their
own choosing and can routinely allocate the necessary funding and time. Even when
professional development is available to non-tenure-track faculty, it is typically offered at times
when they are unable to participate or they are not paid for their time, so in order to participate
they have to do so on their own time and at their own expense.
Job Security and Rehiring
There is often no process in place to ensure non-tenure-track faculty will be rehired or to notify
them in advance, even when they perform in an excellent manner. One problem noted above is
that they do not always receive a formal evaluation, leaving no official record of their
performance (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Gappa & Leslie, 1993). There are also no due
process rights for non-tenure-track faculty in the rehiring process on many campuses. They can
often be terminated or their appointments can be discontinued for no reason and with very little
notice. During any given semester, a non-tenure-track faculty member may not know whether
or not they will have work for the next semester and may forgo other offers of employment.
The Risk Management Imperative
Administrators and legal professionals on campuses are tasked with examining the potential risk
management factors related to faculty and their working conditions. However, many
administrators may not have examined legal issues that may arise from the current working
conditions for non-tenure-track faculty. A tight academic job market, poor working conditions,
significant inequities, power imbalances, and often adversarial relationships with colleagues and
administrators leaves aggrieved non-tenure-track faculty with little recourse than to resort to
litigation in efforts to protect their perceived rights (Burnett & Matthews, 1982, Gajda, 2009). As
the number of non-tenure-track faculty grows, so does the amount of litigation on related issues
(Euben, 2004).
The Delphi Project on the Changing Faculty and Student Success. …………. The Imperative for Change | 8
Fair Employment and Affirmative Action
Perhaps the most significant issue is whether the practice of re-hiring non-tenure-track faculty
continuously violates the spirit of the fair employment laws. If administrators have an ongoing,
routine need to employ non-tenure-track faculty, but do not hire them on a full-time basis, they
may be in violation of fair employment guidelines, placing them at greater risk of becoming
involved in a class-action lawsuit related over their employment practices (Kaplin & Lee, 2008).
Most institutions routinely rehire non-tenure-track faculty members on an annual basis, which
many legal scholars suggest violates fair employment laws.
Additionally, since many non-tenure-track faculty are not hired through regular hiring procedures
such as those used for filling tenure-track or professional staff positions, they often do not utilize
affirmative action and other standards to ensure fair employment. Instead, it is more common
for department chairs and faculty informally hiring people they know personally, without
considering other candidates or advertising an open position (Hollenshead et al., 2007; Kezar &
Sam, 2010).
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act Violations
Hiring practices are not the only area where there are potential threats for risk management.
The working conditions of faculty also present many problems for institutions. For example,
since most part-time faculty are not provided private office space, they may be routinely meeting
with students in places that are not appropriate for conversations about student coursework or
performance and violate requirements of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
(FERPA). Noncompliance with FERPA not only places institutions at risk of being sued, but can
also result in a full withdrawal of all federal funds received. When faculty members do not
receive any orientation to campus policies and procedures, as is often the case for non-tenure-
track faculty, they may unintentionally violate important policies on campus (FERPA and
otherwise), which places the campus at greater risk of facing legal action.
Misclassification of Workers
Increasingly, institutions are failing to demonstrate any differences in the work carried out by
non-tenure-track faculty and tenure-track faculty. Non-tenure-track faculty may be involved with
conducting research, sharing administrative work, and carrying out service obligations. If there
is no difference between the work of these two groups of faculty, why should one be designated
non-tenure-track and the other tenure-track, especially considering the dramatic differences in
the quality of support their receive and their working conditions? The lack of a distinction in the
roles of faculty may result in lawsuits about misclassification of employees’ contracts or status.
Such misclassification also exposes institutions to a greater threat of discriminatory practices on
the basis of disparate impact. While there may be no intent on an institution’s part to
discriminate against a protected group of people – as evidenced by seemingly neutral
employment practices – a pattern of unintentional discrimination could emerge. For example,
salary or wage discrimination resulting from the misclassification of groups of non-tenure-track
faculty on the basis of their gender, race or ethnicity, religion, or national origin could provide
grounds for a successful disparate impact claim (Toma, 2011).
The Delphi Project on the Changing Faculty and Student Success. …………. The Imperative for Change | 9
Academic Freedom
While institutional policies often promise to protect academic freedom, the ability of non-tenure-
track faculty to assert their academic freedom rights in pursuing controversial work is typically
unrealistic. Those who are perceived as being “troublemakers” are unlikely to receive contract
renewals (Toma, 2011). Increasingly, non-tenure-track faculty who speak out about institutional
issues, and sometimes those who make statements or actions unrelated to the institution, are
being fired or are not rehired because they espoused certain views (Kaplin & Lee, 2008). The
Chronicle of Higher Education has profiled dozens of cases where non-tenure-track faculty have
taken legal action as a result of having their academic freedom rights violated in this manner.
Academic leaders are often unaware of or are not attuned to the meaning of academic freedom
as it relates to non-tenure-track faculty, specifically.
Bullying and Harassment
In recent years, there has been a rise in academic literature highlighting bullying and
harassment in the academy. While occurrences of bullying and harassment are often difficult to
prove, the uncivil way that many non-tenure-track faculty are treated is often well known and
has been documented through earlier research. So, this may emerge as an greater source of
harassment claims in the future (Lester, 2013). Several studies of the workplace experiences of
part-time faculty suggest that tenure-track faculty often express antagonism toward these
contingent faculty (Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Leslie, Kellams, & Gunne, 1982). Evidence from case
studies of campuses suggests that tenure-track faculty perceive part-time faculty as posing a
threat to the sustainability of the institution of tenure, having lesser qualifications and being poor
teachers, having a negative impact on the collegial environment of departments, and lowering
the overall educational quality of their institution (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Cross &
Goldenberg, 2009; Gappa & Leslie, 1993). Even full-time non-tenure-track faculty have been
found to treat their part-time colleagues with animosity, largely because they feel they compete
with them for courses and that their job security is threatened (Kezar & Sam, 2009). These
feelings espoused by tenured and tenure-track faculty, but sometimes also full-time non-tenure-
track faculty, have led some individuals to lash out at non-tenure-track colleagues. As the
numbers of non-tenure-track faculty on campuses continue to rise, this growing antagonism may
result in greater instances of bullying and harassment. Such a hostile work environment,
retaliation, and failure to accommodate may expose the university to additional lawsuits.
Rehiring and Due Process
Because non-tenure-track faculty do not routinely receive evaluations, contracts that do not
specify the criteria for rehire or do not exclude the possibility of being rehired may increase the
threat of legal action (Kezar & Sam, 2010). While due process is usually not designated for
non-tenure-track faculty, the lack of clear processes around hiring and rehiring do expose
institutions up to increased scrutiny of legal concerns and potential legal action (Toma & Palm,
1999).
The Delphi Project on the Changing Faculty and Student Success. …………. The Imperative for Change | 10
Opportunity for an Equal Education
Students may also reasonably claim that their opportunities for receiving a high-quality
education are being violated by institutions that rely heavily on non-tenure-track faculty.
Research in recent years has shown that non-tenure-track faculty are constrained by
institutional policies and practices, preventing them from providing the same quality education
experience students might expect to receive in a course taught by a tenure-track or tenured
faculty member (Kezar & Sam, 2010). Minority students, who are more likely to be enrolled in
introductory and remedial courses, may be taught almost exclusively by non-tenure-track
faculty. Many of the ways that working conditions can impact a faculty member’s ability to teach
were presented above in The Student Learning Imperative. Students who could be adversely
affected in this way could potentially form a class action lawsuit on the basis of disparate impact
if they could establish a pattern of (even unintentional) discrimination by the university and
document the adverse effects of over-exposure to non-tenure-track faculty instruction for their
academic progress and success.
Policy Implementation
Across a variety of studies, a major concern raised by non-tenure track faculty is the
inconsistency in the application of policies (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Kezar & Sam, 2010).
Gappa and Leslie (1993) describe a multitude of policies for part-time faculty that are
inconsistently applied within institutions. They include hiring processes, orientation, participation
in governance, contract terms, salary, evaluation, promotion, and a host of other working
conditions, policies, and practices that vary from one department to another and sometimes
even from person-to-person, which raises questions about risk management.
With the overlapping of different institutional policies, which are being applied in an inconsistent
manner, and with institutions creating rules that may be either too broad or too narrow, the
ability to standardize policies across an institution becomes jeopardized. Such inconsistency
diminishes the expert subjective and qualitative judgments of peers, exposing the institution to
increases in discrimination, litigation, and reputational risk. It is becoming increasingly difficult
to interpret employment contracts as the faculty workforce is reconfigured. Institutional norms –
often relics of an earlier era when there was a mostly tenure-track faculty workforce – provide
less practical guidance for resolving disputes internally under today’s circumstances. Externally,
the application of judicial precedent to cases regarding non-tenure-track employment becomes
even less clear, state statutes are more ambiguous, and institutional provisions appear all the
more inconsistent (Toma, 2011).
Collective Bargaining and Unionization
Collective bargaining is typically most developed among employees with the least influence,
such as non-tenure-track faculty. While academic unions have been slow to organize non-
tenure-track faculty, they are now organizing them on campuses much more actively. Also,
non-academic unions are also unionizing faculty. With universities becoming more managed
and hiring greater numbers of non-tenure-track faculty, the institution risks the introduction of, or
The Delphi Project on the Changing Faculty and Student Success. …………. The Imperative for Change | 11
increase in, collective bargaining units. Collective bargaining has been shown to transform
relations, reducing collegiality among colleagues and increasing adversarial and heated
relationships between faculty and administrators, which often leads to lawsuits (Burnett &
Matthews, 1982; Rhoades, 1996; Toma, 2011).
Practicing Preventative Law
Campus preventative law represents one of the most pressing imperatives for higher education
(Algers, 2008; Gajda, 2009; LaNoue & Lee, 1987; Santora, 2004). Comprehensive training and
guidebooks are typically provided for new tenure-track faculty when they are hired to explain
complex academic legal issues and provide tips for minimizing liability (Gunsalas, 2006; Lucas
& Murray, 2007; Toma & Palm, 1999). Non-tenure-track faculty, like other faculty, often
encounter situations in the course of their daily work that carry legal implications for their
institutions and them, personally. Yet, they are not provided the same, if any, preventative
training to be able to recognize and avoid violating the law or turning up in the center of
contentious legal battles. The exclusion of non-tenure-track faculty from orientations or training
on this topic exposes them and their institutions to greater risk and potential for litigation.
Increased Judicial Scrutiny
Traditional deference to academic decision-making is threatened when universities increasingly
assume more characteristics and activities of corporations, losing the customary features of an
educational social institution. As the faculty employed on campuses becomes less traditional
and more contingent, universities may open themselves up to greater judicial scrutiny and more
legally actionable rights. Courts may become more prone to imposing opinions that contradict
the more traditional values of higher education institutions, upsetting seemingly reasonable
academic decisions that were arrived at through appropriate internal processes (Burnett &
Matthews, 1982; Gajda, 2009; Toma, 2011).
While many of these legal issues are just now emerging, they represent a wide range of difficult
challenges that campuses may encounter, but can address by systematically examining their
polices and practices. Campuses should reconsider their policies and practices – including their
inconsistent application to different types of faculty – related to hiring, rehiring, due process,
affirmative action, evaluation, academic freedom, basic working conditions, and protection from
a hostile work environment.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there are a variety of reasons to be concerned about the policies and practices
related to non-tenure-track faculty. There is a great need for institutions to systematically review
their policies and procedures to better understand their impact on student learning, equity, and
risk management. Whenever possible, the review of policies and practices and planning for
their revision or replacement should be part of a collaborative process, where non-tenure-track
faculty and other stakeholders can voice their concerns and contribute to efforts to resolve them.
The Delphi Project on the Changing Faculty and Student Success. …………. The Imperative for Change | 12
Resources
Alger, J. A. (2008). Legal issues for academic leaders. Effective Practices for
Academic Leaders, 3(2), 1-14.
Baldwin, R. G., & Chronister, J. L. (2001). Teaching without tenure. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Baldwin, R. G., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2011). Contingent faculty as teachers: What we know;
What we need to know. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(11), 1485-1509.
Benjamin, E. (2003). Exploring the Role of Contingent Instructional Staff in Undergraduate
Learning. New Directions for Higher Education (No. 123), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bettinger, E. & Long, B. T. (2010). Does cheaper mean better? The impact of using adjunct
instructors on student outcomes. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(3), 598-613.
Bettinger, E. & Long, B.T. (2004). Do college instructors matter? The effects of adjuncts and
graduate assistants on students' interests and success. National Bureau of Economic Research,
Working Paper No. 10370.
Burnett, C. W., & Matthews, W. L. (1982). The legalistic culture in American higher education.
College and University 57(2), 197-207.
Coalition on the Academic Workforce. (2012). A portrait of part-time faculty members: A
summary of findings on part-time faculty respondents to the Coalition on the Academic
Workforce survey of contingent faculty members and instructors. Retrieved December 16, 2012,
from http://www.academicworkforce.org/CAW_portrait_2012.pdf
Community College Survey of Student Engagement. (2009). Making connections: Dimensions of
student engagement. Austin, TX: Community College Survey of Student Engagement.
Cross, J. G., & Goldenberg, E. N. (2009). Off-track profs: Non-tenured teachers in higher
education. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Curtis, J. (2005). Inequities persist for women and non-tenure-track faculty: economic status of
the profession, 2004-5. Academe, 91(2), 19-98.
Eagan, M. K., & Jaeger, A. J. (2008). Effects of Exposure to Part-time Faculty on Community
College Transfer." Research in Higher Education, No. 0361-0365.
Ehrenberg, R. L., & Zhang, L. (2004). Do Tenured and Non-Tenure Track Faculty Matter?
National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 10695.
Euben, D. R. (2004). Legal watch: Contingent faculty and the courts. Academe. Retrieved from
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2004/JF/Col/lw.htm
The Delphi Project on the Changing Faculty and Student Success. …………. The Imperative for Change | 13
Flaherty, C. (2012). So close yet so far. InsideHigherEd. Retrieved from
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/11/20/college-cuts-adjuncts-hours-avoid-affordable-
care-act-costs
Gajda, A. (2009). The trials of academe: the new era of campus litigation. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Gappa, J. M., & Leslie, D. W. (1993). The invisible faculty: Improving the status of part timers in
higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gross, B., & Goldhaber, D. (2009). Community college transfer and articulation policies: Looking
beneath the surface. Center on Reinventing Public Education, Working Paper No. 2009_1.
Gunsalas, C. K. (2006). The college administrator’s survival guide. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Harrington, C., & Schibik, T. (2001). "Caveat Emptor: Is there a Relationship Between Part-Time
Faculty Utilization and Student Learning Retention?" Association for Institutional Research Files
On-Line, 91.
Hobbs, W. C. (1974). The “defective pressure cooker” syndrome: Dispute process in the
university. Journal of Higher Education, 45(8), 569-581.
Hollenshead, C., Waltman, J., August, L., Miller, J., Smith, G., & Bell, A. (2007). Making the best
of both worlds: Findings from a national institution-level survey on non-tenure-track faculty. Ann
Arbor, MI: Center for the Education of Women.
Jacoby, D. (2006). "The Effects of Part-Time Faculty Employment on Community College
Graduation Rates." Journal of Higher Education, 77(6), 1081-1103.
Jaeger, A. J., & Eagan, M. K. (2009). Unintended Consequences: Examining the Effect of Part-
time Faculty Members on Associate's Degree Completion. Community College Review.
Kaplin, W. A. (1995). The law of higher education: A comprehensive guide to legal implications
of administrative decision making (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kaplin, W. A., & Lee, B. A. (2008). The law of higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2010). Understanding the new majority of non-tenure-track faculty in
higher education: Demographics, experiences, and plans of action. ASHE Higher Education
Series, 36(4), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
LaNoue, G. R., & Lee, B. A. (1987). Academics in court: the consequences of faculty
discrimination litigation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Leslie, D. W., Kellams, S. E., & Gunne, G. M. (1982). Part-time Faculty in American Higher
Education. New York: Praeger Publishers
Lester, J. (2013). Workplace bullying in higher education. New York: Routledge.
The Delphi Project on the Changing Faculty and Student Success. …………. The Imperative for Change | 14
Lucas, C. J., & Murray, J. W. (2007). New faculty: A practical guide for academic
beginners (2
nd
ed.). New York, NY: Pelgrave.
Munn, R. L. (1998). The attorney-administrator relationship: A perspective on
institutional decision making and power. NASPA Journal, 36(1), 35-47.
Rhoades, G. (1996). Reorganizing the faculty workforce for flexibility: Part-time
professional labor. Journal of Higher Education, 67(6), 636-670.
Santora, K. C. (2004, June 25). Pressing legal issues: 10 views of the next 5 years. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, p. 4.
Toma, J. D. (2011). Managing the entrepreneurial university: Legal issues and
commercial realities. New York, NY: Routledge
Toma, J. D., & Palm, R. L. (1999). The academic administrator and the law: What every dean
and department chair needs to know. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report 26(5).
Toutkoushian, R. K., & Bellas, M. L. (2003). The effects of part-time employment and gender on
faculty earnings and satisfaction: Evidence from the NSOPF: 93. The Journal of Higher
Education, 74(2), 172-195.
Umbach, P. (2007). How effective are they? Exploring the impact of contingent faculty on
undergraduate education. The Review of Higher Education, 30(2), 91-123.
The Delphi Project on the Changing Faculty and Student Success. …………. The Imperative for Change | 15
This resource was created by
The Delphi Project on The Changing Faculty and Student Success
Additional resources are available online at
http://resources.thechangingfaculty.org
Project Description
The nature of the American academic workforce has fundamentally shifted over the past several
decades. Whereas full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty were once the norm, more than
two-thirds of the professoriate in non-profit postsecondary education is now comprised of non-
tenure-track faculty. New hires across all institutional types are now largely contingent and this
number will continue to grow unless trends change. The purpose of this project is to examine
and develop solutions to change the nature of the professoriate, the causes of the rise of non-
tenure-track faculty, and the impact of this change on the teaching and learning environment.
Project Team and Partner Organizations
Adrianna Kezar, Ph.D. Daniel Maxey, M.Ed. Hannah Yang, M.Ed.
Director and Principal Investigator Co-Investigator Project Associate
University of Southern California University of Southern California
In partnership with the Association of American College and Universities
AAC&U is the leading national association concerned with the quality, vitality, and public standing
of undergraduate liberal education. Its members are committed to extending the advantages of a
liberal education to all students, regardless of academic specialization or intended career.
Founded in 1915, AAC&U now comprises more than 1,250 member institutions - including
accredited public and private colleges, community colleges, and universities of every type and
size.
Pullias Center for Higher Education
701 Waite Philips Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90089-4038 Phone: (213) 740-7218 Online @ pullias.usc.edu
The Delphi Project on the Changing Faculty and Student Success. …………. The Imperative for Change | 16
Project Funding
The research for the Delphi Project on the Changing Faculty and Student Success is funded
through generous support from The Spencer Foundation, The Teagle Foundation, and the
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
The Spencer Foundation was established in 1962 by Lyle M. Spencer. The Foundation is
committed to investigating ways in which education, broadly conceived, can be improved around
the world. From the first, the Foundation has been dedicated to the belief that research is
necessary to the improvement in education. The Foundation is thus committed to supporting
high-quality investigation of education through its research programs and to strengthening and
renewing the educational research community through its fellowship and training programs and
related activities.
The Teagle Foundation intends to be an influential national voice and a catalyst for change in
higher education to improve undergraduate student learning in the arts and sciences. The
Foundation provides leadership by mobilizing the intellectual and financial resources that are
necessary if today's students are to have access to a challenging and transformative liberal
education. The benefits of such learning last for a lifetime and are best achieved when colleges
set clear goals for liberal learning and systematically evaluate progress toward them. In carrying
out its work, the Foundation is committed to disseminating its findings widely, believing that the
knowledge generated by our grantees— rather than the funding that enabled their work—is at
the heart of our philanthropy.
The Carnegie Corporation of New York, founded by Andrew Carnegie, was
envisioned as a foundation that would “promote the advancement and diffusion of
knowledge and understanding.” In keeping with this mandate, our work incorporates an
affirmation of our historic role as an education foundation but also honors Andrew
Carnegie's passion for international peace and the health of our democracy. Mr.
Carnegie dedicated his foundation to the goal of doing “real and permanent good in this
world” and deemed that its efforts should create “ladders on which the aspiring can
rise.” In our current-day grantmaking we continue to carry out this mission through
programs and initiatives that address today’s problems by drawing on the best ideas
and cutting-edge strategies that draw strength from deep knowledge and scholarship.
History guides us and the present informs us, but our work looks always toward the
future.
The Delphi Project on the Changing Faculty and Student Success. …………. The Imperative for Change | 17
Pullias Center for Higher Education
The Pullias Center for Higher Education is an interdisciplinary research unit
led by Director, William G. Tierney, and Associate Director, Adrianna Kezar.
The Center was established to engage the postsecondary-education
community actively, and to serve as an important intellectual center within the
Rossier School of Education; it draws significant support and commitment
from the administration.
With a generous bequest from the Pullias Family estate, the newly named
Earl and Pauline Pullias Center for Higher Education at the USC Rossier
School of Education has been established (the center was previously known
as the Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis). The gift allows one of
the world’s leading research centers on higher education to continue its
tradition of focusing on research, policy, and practice to improve the field.
Dr. Earl V. Pullias was one of the founding faculty of USC’s department of
higher education in 1957. He was the author of more than 100 research
articles, primarily focused on philosophical issues in higher education, and
the author and co-author of numerous books.
Mission
The mission of the Pullias Center for Higher Education is to bring a
multidisciplinary perspective to complex social, political, and economic issues
in higher education. The Center is located within the Rossier School of
Education at USC. Since 1996 the center has engaged in action-oriented
research projects regarding successful college outreach programs, financial
aid and access for low- to moderate-income students of color, use of
technology to supplement college counseling services, effective
postsecondary governance, emerging organizational forms such as for-profit
institutions, and the retention of doctoral students of color.
Goal
The goal of the Pullias Center is to provide analysis of significant issues to
support efforts to improve postsecondary education. Such issues intersect
many boundaries. The Center is currently engaged in research projects
regarding effective postsecondary governance, emerging organizational
forms such as for-profit institutions, financial aid and access for students of
color, successful college outreach programs, the educational trajectories of
community college students, and the retention of doctoral students of color.
The Delphi Project on the Changing Faculty and Student Success. …………. The Imperative for Change | 18
Association of
American Colleges and Universities
The Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) is the
leading national association concerned with the quality, vitality, and public
standing of undergraduate liberal education. Its members are committed to
extending the advantages of a liberal education to all students, regardless of
academic specialization or intended career. Founded in 1915, AAC&U now
comprises more than 1,250 member institutions—including accredited public
and private colleges, community colleges, and universities of every type and
size.
AAC&U organizes its work around five broad goals:
• A Guiding Vision for Liberal Education
• Inclusive Excellence
• Intentional and Integrative Learning
• Civic, Diversity, and Global Engagement
• Authentic Evidence
Through its publications, meetings, public advocacy, and programs, AAC&U
provides a powerful voice for liberal education. AAC&U works to reinforce the
commitment to liberal education at both the national and the local level and to
help individual colleges and universities keep the quality of student learning
at the core of their work as they evolve to meet new economic and social
challenges. With a nearly one-hundred year history and national stature,
AAC&U is an influential catalyst for educational improvement and reform.
Mission
The mission of the Association of American Colleges and Universities is to
make the aims of liberal learning a vigorous and constant influence on
institutional purpose and educational practice in higher education.
(Approved by the Board of Association of American Colleges and
Universities, 1997).
The Delphi Project on the Changing Faculty and Student Success. …………. The Imperative for Change | 19
The Delphi Project on the Changing Faculty and Student Success. …………. The Imperative for Change | 20
The Changing Faculty
The Delphi Project on
Student Success
and
