Adjunctivitis

New England Journal of Higher Education, The, Summer 2001 by Hirsch, Deborah

Teaching Without Tenure: Policies and Practices for a New Era, Roger G. Baldwin and Jay L. Chronister, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001, $32.50

As colleges and universities of all kinds struggle to maintain financial resources and staffing flexibility, they increasingly turn to both part-time and non-tenure-track faculty.

Education scholars Roger G. Baldwin of the College of William and Mary and Jay L. Chronister of the University of Virginia describe the growing cadre of full-time, non-tenuretrack faculty and its impact on higher education as well as institutional policies aimed at integrating these faculty into the academic community.

The authors conducted a national study of the growing use of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in four-year colleges and universities. They examined 1988 and 1993 national studies of postsecondary faculty in addition to their own survey of higher education institutions, and conducted extensive interviews on 12 campuses.

Their study reveals the diversity of interests and motivations, career goals and aspirations among the one-fifth of all full-time faculty at four-year institutions who are non-tenure-track. Baldwin and Chronister offer a typology of these faculty members based on their roles and educational attainment.

One type are the "teachers." With teaching their primary activity, they are less likely to have doctorates, serve on fewer committees and tend to publish less than their tenured or tenuretrack colleagues. They are more likely to be women and to be paid less. Some are women on the "mommy track" or "trailing spouses."

In contrast, the group referred to as the "researchers" are more likely to be young males. About 20 percent of them are minorities. They are prolific scholars in terms of publications. Some are conducting research funded by a grant, others are recent graduates hoping to move into a tenure-track position.

The third category of non-tenuretrack faculty, the "administrators," teach, but also maintain administrative responsibilities such as directing projects or programs. They tend to be more involved in institutional service and sit on more committees than any other group.

Finally, Baldwin and Chronister classify those who don't fit any of these groups as the "other academic professionals." They often come from technical or professional fields and bring real-world experience to connect theory with practice. These faculty may coordinate field programs, serve as principal investigators on grants and oversee special student populations such as minority or international students.

Clearly, some faculty don't fit neatly into any of these categories, but the typology seems to capture the variation among the groups. Baldwin and Chronister offer compelling fictional portraits of these faculty based on their interviews.

The researchers suggest a similar typology to describe the institutional approaches to incorporating nontenure-track faculty into the academic community. Though it is likely that elements from more than one of the models exist on a given campus, the categories are helpful in thinking about the range of approaches available for working with these faculty.

Institutions characterized by the "marginalized" model view non-tenuretrack faculty as ways to cut costs and maintain flexibility. As a result, these faculty are not well-integrated within the institution. They have little voice in institutional decision-making and departmental activities. They are usually hired on annual contracts, carry heavy teaching loads and are paid less than tenure-track faculty. They are considered less than "real faculty."

Institutions following the "integrated" model use non-tenure-track faculty to maximize resources as well, but think of them as a way to enhance program offerings and faculty qualifications. These faculty are viewed as bringing special skills and interests to the institution and, therefore, tend to be better integrated into the academic community.

A growing number of institutions are exploring an "alternative career track" model based on a contract system with built-in benefits, status and respect that serves as a complete alternative to tenure. Though they do not have tenure, these faculty are viewed as equal to their tenured colleagues in all respects.

Not surprisingly, Baldwin and Chronister find that differences in institutional models and faculty roles correspond to the satisfaction level of faculty members and the degree to which they are integrated into campus life. Faculty who fall into the categories of "tenure hopeful" or "trailing spouse" tend to be particularly frustrated as they find themselves stuck in positions with no opportunities for advancement. In contrast, faculty who are enjoying a second career or who are non-tenure track by choice find that they are able to pursue professional interests and meet personal needs through these positions.

One of the most disturbing findings in the study is that the full-time, non-tenure-track category faculty are more likely to be women and minorities. Often occupying a disadvantaged or second-class, these faculty typically do not have equal opportunities for professional development, advancement, salary and benefits or input into institutional governance. They become stigmatized because they don't publish as much (often due to heavier teaching loads) and are not hired by means of a national search. This is particularly troubling at a time when many institutions are working to diversify their faculties.