The Changing Landscape of the Academic Profession

Front matter

STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Monan Professor of Higher Education Lynch School of Education, Boston College

A ROUTLEDGE SERIES

Contents

List of Tables ix Acknowledgments xi

PARTI: THE CHANGING LANDSCAPE OF

HIGHER EDUCATION 1 Chapter One The Contours of Higher Education 5 Chapter Two Mapping the For-Profit Terrain 19 Chapter Three A Case Study Approach to Faculty Culture 49 PART II: PERSPECTIVES FROM WITHIN 69 Chapter Four Distance Learning University 73 Chapter Five Pacific-Atlantic University 95 Chapter Six Miller College 117 Chapter Seven

Chapter Eight Looking Beyond Each Institution 155 PART III: A DISTINCT PERSPECTIVE OF FACULTY

WORK LIFE 171 Chapter Nine A Cross-Institutional Analysis 173 Chapter Ten Re-Evaluating Faculty Culture 191 Appendix A Interview Protocol 205 Appendix B E-mail Invitation 207 References 209

Index 217

List of Tables

Table 1: Faculty Culture as a Collective of Subcultures 33

Table 2: | Number of Faculty Members Invited vs. Number Who Participated, by Institution 57

Table 3: Distribution of Faculty Participants by Employment Status and Institution 58

Table 4: Distribution of Faculty Participants by Academic Field and Institution 60

Table 5: A Comparison of Part-time and Full-time Faculty Working Conditions, by Institution 70

Table 6: Distribution of Faculty Participants from Distance Learning University by Discipline Status, and Terms of Service 74

Table 7: Distribution of Faculty Participants from Pacific-Atlantic University by Discipline, Status, and Terms of Service 96

Table 8: Distribution of Faculty Participants from Miller College by Discipline, Status, and Terms of Service 118

Table 9: Distribution of Faculty Participants from Miller College by Campus Location and Discipline 122

X

Distribution of faculty participants from Southeastern College by discipline, status, and length of service

Common Elements Across All Four Institutions Represented in the Study

A Summary of the Six Major Themes Emerging from the Data

Highest Degrees Held by Faculty Participants, by Institution

Number of Undergraduate and Graduate Degrees Offered, by Level and Institution

Faculty Participation in Various Types of Governance Activities at Traditional vs.

For-profit Colleges and Universities

A cComparison of Faculty Culture at Traditional vs. For-profit IHEs

Areas Influenced by the Culture of the Industry

List of Tables

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank all of the faculty members who agreed to participate in the study for allowing me to explore their work lives. I was impressed by their commitment to students and education. They are all dedicated educators, many of whom chose to pursue a teaching career despite having the knowledge and skills to be employed in their respective, and higher paying, fields. I would like to thank the four institutions represented in the study, along with their senior administrators, who agreed to allow a relative stranger critically examine their organizations.

I am grateful to my dissertation advisor, Bill Tierney, who was instrumental in assisting me to shape this study. He has been a wonderful mentor and will continue to be a valued friend and colleague. Guilbert Hentschke provided valuable input throughout my graduate career, and challenged me to think about the for-profit higher education industry in new and innovative ways. Dean Campbell, Karri Holley, Kristan Venegas and my colleagues from the Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis also provided valuable support, feedback, and constructive criticism on the original manuscript.

Although I am considered the author of this text, there are a number of individuals that must be acknowledged for the encouragement and support they provided as I wrote what was to become this book. I am indebted to my brother Patrick who has become a wonderful friend over the years, and who stepped in at a moments notice to assist me with completing my research. I am grateful to Jaime Lester, who provided invaluable feedback and was a constant source of personal and professional support. My lifelong friend Jaime Cabrera, whom I consider a brother, would give me the shirt off of his back if he thought it would help sell more books.

In addition, I would also like to acknowledge my mother and father Magdalena and Vicente R. Lechuga who, even though they were never xi xii Acknowledgments given the opportunity to complete high school, are wise beyond their years. The dedication they show to their children made it possible for my siblings and I to obtain a college education. Merle and Sarah Jaque and the rest of the Jaque and Lechuga families also provided constant encouragement and moral support throughout the years. Lastly, I would like to thank my wife Diana Jaque. My dissertation and the resulting book would not have been possible without her constant encouragement, moral support, as well as her extraordinary research and editing abilities. This book is as much her endeavor of love as it is mine, and I will always be grateful to her for that.

Part I The Changing Landscape of Higher Education

Higher education institutions are unique organizations in that they comprise one of the largest industries in the nation, but operate in ways that are foreign to most corporations (Birnbaum, 1988). Baldridge (1980) describes colleges and universities as complex institutions with fragmented professional staffs that deal with non-routine problems using a wide range of skills. Higher education institutions are comprised by variety of stakeholders; each constituency is involved, to some extent, in the governance process. Decision-making authority is decentralized and is determined by rank or status (Clark, 1963). For example, deans have considerable authority due to their rank and standing within the organization. Status within the institution also is determined by one’s prominence within a discipline.

Colleges and universities are dominated by highly trained faculty members who require considerable autonomy and freedom from supervision in their work (Baldridge, Curtis, Ecker, & Riley, 1977). By and large, faculty members possess extensive knowledge and expertise within a given specialty or field, which accords them substantial decision-making authority within the institution. Rosovsky (1990) describes faculty members, as well as administrators and students, as ‘owners’ of the institution. Faculty involvement in governance activities is tied to academic freedom through the university’s unique mission of both creating and disseminating knowledge. Academic freedom is a construct of the tenure system; tenure is the mechanism that protects this freedom.

Higher education institutions are characterized by decentralized decision-making structures; governance activities are shared. Decisions are made through informal interaction among peers, and through formal collective action of the faculty (Clark, 1963). Colleges and universities display elements of “independent” and “captured” firms (Baldridge et al., 1977). In other words, they are autonomous organizations, having considerable freedom to operate with moderate oversight from external entities, yet are economically dependent and highly vulnerable to the external environment (Tierney, 1998).

Over the last decade, higher education has witnessed the entry of a new breed of postsecondary education providers. For-profit postsecondary education institutions have reshaped the traditional views of the function and purpose of higher education. These institutions provide a small but rapidly growing segment of the student population with the knowledge and skills required to compete in the current job market. As new technologies continue to emerge, education is increasingly important to employees seeking to upgrade their skills and to employers in search of individuals who possess the necessary expertise and training to help their organizations succeed. Given the increasing monetary returns associated with additional postsecondary schooling, education is no longer an option individuals exercise at a particular point in life. It is an ongoing, life-long process necessary to remain viable in an increasingly competitive job market.

This text and the study from which it was derived are intended to provide the reader with a foundation from which to understand two interconnecting phenomena. The first relates to the rapid rise and success of for-profit colleges and universities. The second and most important aspect of the text examines the work lives and working conditions of faculty members at for-profit institutions; arguably the most visible of all employees. I begin the text by presenting the distinctive elements that define institutions of higher education (IHEs) as organizations, and offer a context from which to view the constantly changing landscape of higher education. Additionally, I discuss the rise of for-profit postsecondary education in the US along with the underlying principles that define the academic profession. The bulk of the study consists of four case studies that explored various aspects of faculty work life. This is followed by an analysis of the data and the study implications. I also have provided below, a set of definitions that aid the discussion for the remainder of this book.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

Traditional Higher Education Institutions—The term “traditional” refers to the prototypical two- or four-year college or university, which is either a public or private, regionally accredited institution that awards associate, bachelor, master, and/or doctoral degrees.

The Changing Landscape of Higher Education 3

For-Profit Higher Education Institutions—To alleviate any confusion that may arise, the term “for-profit institution” is narrowly defined here as proprietary institutions that award associates, bachelors, masters, and/or doctoral degrees in addition to certificates. Additionally, the institutions represented in this study were nationally and/or regionally accredited. I did not include unaccredited institutions and institutions that offer certificates only in this study. Corporate universities that offer courses and training to their employees are also excluded.

Contingent Faculty—The term “contingent” refers to faculty members who are appointed off the tenure-track on either a part-time or full-time basis. The term includes adjuncts, which are generally compensated on a percourse or hourly basis, as well as full-time non-tenure-track faculty members who receive a salary. Many contingent faculty members are reappointed to the same position for a number of years, therefore the term “contingent” does not imply employment on a temporary basis—although this is an important aspect of these appointments (Benjamin, 2003).

Chapter One The Contours of Higher Education

Traditional colleges and universities are complex institutions that differ in many respects from organizations in business and industry. Traditional IHE are unique in their function and purpose, organized to create and disseminate knowledge. They ostensibly regard knowledge as an intangible, or “invisible substance” (Clark, 1983, p. 7) that is neither intended to be a product nor a service; it is the means by which to promote citizenship and democracy (Tierney and Lechuga, in-press). Higher education institutions also are paradoxical in nature; they are hierarchical organizations, yet are designed to provide individuals with autonomy and decision-making authority. Duderstadt (2000) describes the traditional 4-year university as a residential institution with a classroom-based curriculum consisting of about 120 credits. The traditional undergraduate experience consists of academic programs that are enhanced by extracurricular activities; the development of the ‘individual’ is part of the educational process. Students range age in from 18-24 years of age, and attend school full-time. Graduate education at traditional IHEs is designed around academic disciplines, with professional schools dominating the landscape, and professors engaging in research and publishing alongside their students.

In recent years, enrollments of non-traditional aged students at many non-profit colleges and universities have increased. For example in 1999, NCES (National Center for Education Statistics) shows that 43% of higher education students were over the age of 25, and 25% of students attending degree-granting institutions in the 1999-00 academic year were over the age of 30 (NCES, 2000b). Many of these students typically do not partake in the conventional college experience, i.e. living on campus, attending full-time, etc. As the median age of the college student population increases so, too, will the enrollments of older students (Munitz, 2000). Yet regardless of their student populations and due to their unique missions and goals, traditional colleges and universities operate in ways that deviate from large corporations.

DISTINCTIVE ELEMENTS

Traditional higher education institutions are unique as a result of the interrelated roles, structures, authority of individuals and constituencies throughout the institution (Birnbaum, 1984). There are distinctive elements that separate colleges and universities from other types of organizations (Baldridge, et al. 1977; Birnbaum, 1988). Cohen and March (1974) introduced the theory of organized anarchy as relating to traditional higher education institutions. In an organized anarchy, the organization is “a collection of choices looking for problems, issues and feelings looking for decisions ..., solutions looking for issues..., and decision-makers looking for work” (Cohen and March, 1974, p.81). From afar the organization tends to look as though it is in chaos. Yet, there is an inherent structure within the chaos.

Cohen and March (1974) outline four fundamental ambiguities facing leaders of higher education institutions; ambiguity of purpose; ambiguity of power; ambiguity of experience and; ambiguity of success. These essential characteristics are fundamental to understand organized anarchy; they explain the distinctive organizational nature of traditional IHEs. Baldridge et al. (1977) expands on these ambiguities by presenting five specific elements that describe the unique characteristics of colleges and universities: (1) goal ambiguity, (2) client service, (3) problematic technology, (4) professionalism, and (5) environmental vulnerability.

Traditional colleges and universities are marked by ambiguous goals; they create and disseminate knowledge, they educate the public, produce citizens, provide services to the local community, etc. They accomplish these goals using problematic or unclear technologies. Generally speaking, organizations use standardized practices when manufacturing a specific product, yet, professors use different teaching methods and research techniques that cannot be standardized. IHEs serve clients with specific needs on a temporary basis and are vulnerable to the external environment. Although students flow in and out of the institution, they demand a voice and contribute to the institutional decision-making process. Faculty members are skilled professionals that perform a range of tasks that require specialized training. Fluid participation is a component of a professional organization; faculty members expect to be included in decision-making activities and at the same time demand to work autonomously without strict supervision (Clark, 1963).

LOOSELY COUPLED SYSTEMS.

Scholars have described colleges and universities as ‘loosely coupled’ systems (Birnbaum, 1988; Cohen and March, 1974; Weick, 1979). Birnbaum (1988) defines ‘coupling’ as the interaction between various subsystems and elements within a system. The degree to which systems are coupled depends upon the strength of the variables and number of activities they have in common (Glassman in Weick, 1979). In a traditional higher education setting, coupling can refer to the interaction or interconnectedness between the faculty and administration, the governing board and the president, and the office of admission and the business department.

Colleges and universities can be characterized as having a set of ‘sensing mechanisms’ that allow each academic department to adapt to change as well as isolate problematic areas of the system without affecting the rest of the institution. Glassman (1973) argues that loosely coupled systems allow parts of an organization to persist by permitting individual subsystems to react to changes swiftly. That is to say that a business department can adapt to the changes and needs in the business field by adding new courses or creating new programs without greatly affecting the institution as a whole. The loosely coupled operational structure of today’s colleges and universities is not characteristic of the earliest postsecondary institutions. Colleges and universities have evolved since the establishment of higher education in the US during the 17 Century. Throughout the history of American higher education, changes in the academy have resulted in changes to the academic profession.

THE CHANGING LANDSCAPE OF HIGHER EDUCATION

The evolution of postsecondary institutions has shaped the type of responsibilities associated with the professorate. The earliest colleges such as Harvard, William and Mary, and Yale originally were religiously affiliated, residential institutions. The role of the faculty member was to teach the religious doctrine and to prepare an educated clergy (Nuss, 1996). The late 18 and early 19% Centuries gave rise to the development of numerous small religious institutions and, later, the liberal arts colleges.

Following the Civil war, the 1862 Morrill Act aided the expansion of public higher education institutions, such as the University of Michigan and University of California, whose missions were to educate the sons and daughters from ordinary families (Clark, 1987a). Land-grant universities were established as charitable, non-profit, tax exempt institutions that solidified the idea of higher education as a public good (Pusser & Turner, 2004). Alongside the development of the university was the emergence of normal schools, public institutions established for teacher education. Normal schools gave way to teachers colleges; many are known today as state colleges. The relatively recent development of the community college increased the number of postsecondary degree-granting colleges and universities in the US to over 4,100 (NCES, 2001). The vast array of postsecondary educational institutions—and faculty expectations associated with each institutional type—make it difficult to clearly define the academic profession.

Higher education is in a state of flux yet again. Birnbaum (1984) asserts, “neither organizational nor institutional characteristics of colleges and universities should be thought of as ‘given’. In fact, these characteristics evolve in response to the changing social, economic, and political environments in which institutions function” (p.1). As the academic profession evolves so, too, do the types of opportunities that are available to future academics. The proliferation of part-time and full-time non-tenure-track faculty members over the past twenty years is a well-documented phenomenon (Leatherman, 1997; Foster and Foster, 1998; Schnieder, 1999; Baldwin and Chronister, 2001; Leslie and Gappa, 2002). During the twenty year period between 1975-1995, part-time faculty appointments increased by 103%; non-tenure-track appointments increased by 93% (Benjamin, 2003). An increased reliance on non-tenure-track, or contingent, faculty is partially attributed to the fiscal and financial constraints many institutions have and will continue to face due to declining state appropriations and budget cuts to higher education (National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, American Association of State Colleges and Universities, 2002; Selingo, 2003; Symonds, 2003). Moreover, new postsecondary educational providers are redefining the academy by treating education as a commodity, offering programs that focus specifically on job training, and exclusively employing contingent faculty members.

A NEW UNIVERSITY

Higher education has witnessed the tremendous growth of the for-profit, higher education market over the last decade. In 1988-89, the number of 2- year for-profit institutions represented 19% of all 2-year postsecondary institutions in the US, and the number of 4-year for-profit institutions represented only 3% of all 4-year IHEs. A decade later in 1998-99, 2-year for-profit institutions represented 28% of all 2-year colleges and universities, corresponding to a 78% increase. There was also a dramatic increase in the proportion of 4-year for-profit institutions during the same decade. In 1998-99, data from the Education Commission of the States (ECS) show that the proportion of 4-year for-profit institutions rose from 3% to 8% of all 4-year IHEs, representing an increase of 266% (ECS, 2001). By the 2002-03 academic year, 4-year for-profit institutions represented 11% of all 4-year and above institutions and 19% of all degree-granting institutions in the US (NCES, 2003b). For-profit higher education providers will continue to grow, most notably by expanding into international markets (Farrell, 2004).

For-profit, postsecondary education providers encompass a wide range of organizations. Corporate universities, such as Motorola University and University of Toyota, provide training and professional development opportunities to their employees, i.e., education is an auxiliary, not core, mission of these organizations. Vocational and trade schools offer certificates and diplomas in diverse fields ranging from automotive repair to information technology. Many for-profit colleges and universities offer degree programs ranging from the associate degree level thru the masters and doctoral levels, in addition to diplomas and certificates. These institutions are the focus of this study.

For-profit education is not a novel concept to the education arena. Kirp (2003) asserts that American proprietary schools date back to the 17% century, teaching illiterate adults to read, write, and do arithmetic. In the 19" century, the Industrial Revolution brought with it the need to train individuals for specific trades; proprietary institutions provided much of the training. By the 20" century, proprietary education gave way to publicly supported higher education institutions. However, the 1972 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act provided students with federal financial aid to attend proprietary schools. In the 1980s, trade schools were held in poor regard. They operated with few constraints with respect to the recruitment and training of students, and most offered less than 2-year diploma programs (Bailey, Badway & Gumport, 2001). High default rates and fraudulent recruiting practices led to tighter restrictions and regulation of the for-profit postsecondary industry. By the early 1990s, Congress made it tougher for for-profit IHEs to receive federal financial aid dollars by decreasing institutional dependence on federal funds and mandating an increased percentage of outside funding sources.

Over the last decade, a new breed of proprietary institution entered the market. These institutions are nationally and/or regionally accredited, offering degree programs that mirror those at traditional non-profit colleges and universities. Much of what is known about this new type of for-profit institution is based on anecdotal evidence rather than empirical research. Ruch (2000), an experienced administrator in both traditional and for-profit institutions, characterizes for-profit IHEs in much the same way one would describe traditional colleges and universities, with some exceptions. Donors become investors, endowments become private investment capital and corporate management practices replace shared governance. These institutions exhibit other characteristics akin to traditional IHEs (Goldstein, 2000). They display similar hierarchical structures, with presidents atop the organizational chart, subsequently followed by vice presidents, deans, and staff members. They serve the public by educating students to enter the workforce. And faculty members comprise a large proportion of the institution’s personnel.

Enrollments at for-profit colleges and universities represent only a small percentage of total enrollments at all institutions in the US, 4.7% for Fall 2001 (NCES, 2003). Nevertheless, for-profit institutions are a prominent fixture in higher education today and will likely become a permanent fixture in the future. A significant factor that distinguishes for-profit IHEs from traditional colleges and universities is the belief that education is considered a private, rather than a public, good (Pusser & Doane, 2001). In particular, for-profit THEs do not rely on public subsidies to operate. They shift the burden of paying for a postsecondary education to the individual. Moreover, these institutions focus on enhancing an individual’s employment opportunities by providing the education and skills required to compete in the job market.

Unlike traditional non-profit institutions, for-profit institutions are managed by individuals with corporate experience (Ruch, 2000). Their organizational models combine the economies of scale found at large public universities with corporate sector marketing and organizational practices (Pusser & Turner, 2004). Degree programs are designed to follow the current trends in the job market and fulfill employers’ needs. This approach to education stimulates institutional growth and reduces the financial risk to the institution by offering students the types of programs and training that are currently in demand. A basic component of the for-profit education business model includes employing an overwhelming majority of contingent faculty members. With few exceptions, these institutions do not offer tenure. Full-time faculty members comprise only a small percentage of the faculty. The unique characteristics that define these institutions likely result in work environments that depart from the norms of traditional institutions.

For-profit IHEs challenge traditional notions of the academy such as shared governance, tenure, and academic freedom, creating distinctive institutional cultures. This study will provide an increased understanding of faculty culture at for-profit institutions by examining the working environments of faculty members. The intent of the study is neither to bemoan nor celebrate the rise in prominence of for-profit colleges and universities. Rather, the aim is to provide a lens from which to consider faculty work and faculty culture at this distinctive type of higher education institution.

The Contours of Higher Education 11 THE ACADEMIC PROFESSION

Since the inception of Harvard in 1636, the American academic profession has taken on numerous forms. The clerics who served as resident tutors in the early years of Harvard College did not dominate the institution, nor did they have control over what would be taught and who would teach it. These faculty members were empowered to act in loco parentis. That is to say that faculty were empowered (and expected) to act as surrogate parents.

With the development of graduate education at the turn of the century, institutional authority slowly began to shift away from trustees to presidents and administrators (Clark, 1987b). As specialized research and advanced training began to dominate higher education institutions, the production of knowledge and the training of graduate students—future professors—became a key responsibility of the professorate. Moreover, faculty ties to their respective disciplines became increasingly fervent, as evidenced by the rise in prominence and power of disciplinary associations (Clark, 1996).

Until recently, basic assumptions about the professorate could be made with some certainty (Finkelstein, 1984). Following the end of World War II, formal academic life in the US consisted of several facets categorized under teaching related activities, service to the academic community, and research and publishing (Finkelstein, 1984). Traditional colleges and universities continue to favor this multi-faceted vision of faculty work life. Yet, faculty members’ priorities with regard to these various duties are a reflection of the norms and values of the institutions that employ them. At the nation’s most prestigious universities, for example, faculty members spend the majority of their time focusing on the latter. At less prestigious regional colleges, faculty may focus more of their efforts on the teaching rather than the research component of the profession. Moreover, many community college faculty members are not required to perform research or to publish. They instead spend the majority of their time focusing on their teaching and service to their institution.

Given that faculty work life reflects an institution’s values and culture, it cannot be explored without considering the institutional context and culture in which faculty work takes place. In other words, the social settings in which faculty work occurs shape the academic profession (Clark, 1987b). Bolman and Deal (1997) assert that culture is a combination of product and process within the organization. Hence, faculty work is a key process in the organizational culture of colleges and universities. The primary faculty responsibilities—teaching, research, and service—are entrenched values of the academy that contribute to faculty culture at most traditional higher education institutions (Campbell, 2003). These deeprooted values of faculty work manifest themselves in the fundamental principles that define the profession and the academy.

A NEW FACULTY

Faculty members at traditional IHEs live and work in a number of conflicting cultures, including that of the academic profession, the institution, and their discipline (Austin, 1990). Until recently, a basic assumption of faculty work life is that typical faculty members are appointed to full-time, tenure-track positions. Certain aspects of the professorate are tied to this basic notion and are assumed to be inherent to the profession. More specifically, full-time tenure-track faculty members have the right to participate in the institution’s governance and decision-making processes and have the protection of academic freedom, which is guaranteed by the tenure system.

However, such images of the professorate do not necessarily reflect academic life for a growing number of faculty members. Part-time faculty members provide an increasing amount of the instructional services at traditional colleges and universities; these faculty members make up over 43% of the professoriate (NCES, 1998). Individuals appointed to part-time positions, by definition, are non-tenure-track faculty members. Part-time faculty generally earn no benefits and are paid a fraction of what their full-time tenured and tenure-track counterparts earn, comparatively.

Additionally, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) asserts that more than 50% of all new appointments in higher education are non-tenure-track hires, also known as off-track hires (AAUP, 2003). Such faculty appointments were virtually unheard of thirty years ago; they accounted for only 3.3% of all full-time positions in 1969 (AAUP, 2003). Although numerous debates continue as to whether higher education institutions damage the principles of the academy by relying on an increasing number of contingent faculty, little empirical research on the topic exists.

Colleges and universities hire part-time and full-time off-track faculty as a money-saving tactic that allows administrators to keep full-time, tenured and tenure-track faculty salaries competitive while maintaining low levels of tuition for students. Traditional institutions continue to hire increasing numbers of part-time faculty due to institutional budget cuts resulting from decreasing state appropriations to higher education. The main controversy regarding contingent faculty centers on the idea that the nature of this type of appointment undermines the basic tenets of the academy, i.e. shared governance, tenure, etc. With the advent of for-profit postsecondary institutions, debates regarding a growing dependence on contingent faculty persist as their numbers continue to increase. It is unclear how this new faculty workforce will affect the future of the academy. This study intends to provide insight into the issues that confront contingent faculty at for-profit IHEs, and explore the challenges, roles, and responsibilities associated with faculty work at these institutions.

At issue are the roles and responsibilities of this new, and financially viable, faculty workforce. A major assertion is that the increasing number of contingent faculty threatens the fundamental values of the academy and has a dramatic effect on the practice of shared governance, collegiality, and the role of the faculty in developing curricula. Contingent faculty are vulnerable to subjective hiring and firing; such decisions often are made based on enrollment figures and other arbitrary factors (Buck, 2001). Since off-track faculty members are not eligible for tenure, these appointments result in the loss of academic freedom and strengthen the role of the administration.

As contingent employees, their provisional status may limit their capacity to deliver course material in the way they see fit. A statement issued by the American Association of University Professors regarding contingent faculty members asserts that, “contingent faculty members have minimal influence in the governance and decision-making process.” It also states:

The excessive use of, and inadequate compensation and professional support for, such contingent faculty exploits these colleagues and undermines academic freedom, academic quality, and professional standards... Improving the professional status of the growing number of non-tenure-track faculty members is unpopular with most administrations... (AAUP, 2003)

While the number of part-time and non-tenure-track appointments continues to increase, researchers ponder the benefits and detriments of employing contingent faculty (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Breneman, 1997). The economic benefits of employing contingent faculty result in an increased number of credit hours of instruction per dollar invested, and allow institutions to accommodate larger enrollments with a limited budget. However, an increased reliance on non-tenure-track faculty affects the nature of academic work. By and large, full-time tenure-track faculty members at traditional institutions are responsible not only for teaching, but for research and scholarship activities. Critics of off-track appointments are concerned that faculty who do not perform research cannot be as effective in the classroom as research-oriented faculty members.