University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Adjunct life in a full time world: evaluation of worklife experiences and risk for burnout in social work field faculty

(USC Thesis Other)

Adjunct life in a full time world: evaluation of worklife experiences and risk for burnout in social work field faculty

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: ADJUNCT LIFE 1

ADJUNCT LIFE IN A FULL TIME WORLD:
EVALUATION OF WORKLIFE EXPERIENCES AND RISK FOR BURNOUT IN
SOCIAL WORK FIELD FACULTY

by

Amber Lynn Ford

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2017

Copyright 2017 Amber Lynn Ford

ADJUNCT LIFE 2

DEDICATION

To my parents, Glenn and Tammy, for their unwavering love and support in all things and for
instilling the value of education deep in my heart.
To my one and only sister, Jenny, for always believing in me.

ADJUNCT LIFE 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you to my Dissertation Chair, Dr. Melora Sundt, for your irreplaceable guidance,
encouragement, and knowledge.
Thank you to committee member, Dr. Kimberly Ferrario, for your support and for helping me
find my academic voice in the first semester of this program.
Thank you to committee member, Dr. Elizabeth Pringle-Hornsby, for your support and for seeing
something in me I didn’t know was there. I truly would not be here without you.
Thank you to my Cohort 1 Trojan Family for sharing your lives and ideas with me. I am a better
person for knowing all of you.

ADJUNCT LIFE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 7
List of Figures 8
Abstract 9
Chapter One: Introduction 10
Introduction of the Problem of Practice 10
Organizational Context and Mission 13
Organizational Performance Goal 13
Related Literature 14
Importance of the Evaluation 17
Description of Stakeholder Groups 17
Stakeholder Group for the Study 18
Stakeholder Group’s Performance Goals 19
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions 20
Methodological Framework 21
Definitions 21
Organization of the Dissertation 22
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 24
Adjunct Field Faculty Burnout 24
Factors Influencing Adjunct Field Faculty Burnout 25
The Clark & Estes Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework 28
Summary 37
ADJUNCT LIFE 5

Chapter Three: Methodology 38
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions 38
Conceptual and Methodological Framework 39
Assessment of Performance Influences 40
Adjunct Field Faculty Worklife Conceptual Framework 40
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection 43
Data Collection 46
Data Analysis 48
Limitations and Delimitations 51
Summary 52
Chapter Four: Results and Findings 53
Overview of Findings 54
Findings for Knowledge Influences 59
Results and Findings for Motivation Influences 63
Results and Findings for Organizational Influences 65
Summary 67
Chapter Five: Solutions, Implementation, and Evaluation Plan 68
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences 68
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 77
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach 86
Limitations 86
Future Research 87
Conclusion 88
ADJUNCT LIFE 6

References 91
Appendices 98
Appendix A: Maslach Burnout Inventory Educators Survey 98
Sample Items
Appendix B: Areas of Worklife Survey Sample Items 99
Appendix C: Interview Protocol 100
Appendix D: Informed Consent 101

ADJUNCT LIFE 7

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Organizational mission, global goal, and stakeholder goals 19
Table 2. Assumed KMO Influences of Adjunct Field Faculty 36
Table 3. Assessment Methods for Assumed KMO Influences of Adjunct Field Faculty 42
Table 4. Demographic Summary-Gender and Ethnicity 55
Table 5. MBI-ES Subscale Scoring 56
Table 6. MBI-ES Subscale Means and Standard Deviation 57
Table 7. AWS Subscale Means and Standard Deviation 59
Table 8. Procedural Knowledge Gaps 61
Table 9. Professional Challenges of Adjunct Field Faculty & AWS Constructs 62
Table 10. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 69

Table 11. Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 72

Table 12. Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations 74
Table 13. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 79
Table 14. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 80
Table 15. Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 81
Table 16. Components of Learning for the Program 83
Table 17. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 84

ADJUNCT LIFE 8

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Adjunct Field Faculty Worklife Conceptual Framework 40

ADJUNCT LIFE 9

ABSTRACT

Adjunct faculty now represent a numerical majority in most U.S. colleges and universities. This
dynamic is also present within many Schools of Social Work. Research gaps remain regarding
the worklife experiences of adjunct faculty and their risk for burnout. Specific to social work,
little is known about the specific role of adjunct field faculty, or those responsible for teaching
within the field curriculum and assisting students throughout their field placement experiences.
This study used the Clark and Estes’ gap analysis framework to evaluate the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational barriers and strengths which influence the worklife experiences of
adjunct field faculty in a large School of Social Work. The study design included literature
review, surveys, and semi-structured interviews. Specifically, the Maslach Burnout Inventory
(MBI-ES) and Areas of Worklife Survey (AWS) were administered to assess the experience of
burnout and evaluate organizational risk areas.
Adjunct field faculty who participated in this study demonstrated strong metacognitive
knowledge and were self-aware regarding occupational strengths and challenges. Organizational
risk factors were most significant and included receiving mixed messages regarding work-life
balance and receiving minimal feedback regarding work performance. Overall, participants
reported minimal burnout and a consistently high sense of personal accomplishment.
Recommendations for organizational practice, program evaluation, and future research are
included.

ADJUNCT LIFE 10

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
The academic landscape in the United States has undergone frequent and rapid change
over the past twenty years. The increased use of technology, increased costs of operation and
attendance, and globalization of many programs have increased demand and competition for
quality post-secondary education (Bettinger & Long, 2010; Fagen-Wilen, Springer, Ambrosino,
& White, 2006; Hoyt, 2012; Maynard & Joseph, 2008). The increased demand for instructors
and organizational pressure to control costs have triggered shifts in the makeup of faculty who
are teaching college courses. Although structures may vary, most institutions of higher
education have multiple lines of faculty which can be delineated by two characteristics, full-time
vs part-time, and tenure line vs contract-based status.
Consensus around a definition for adjunct faculty has not been reached as each institution
selects titles for adjunct faculty such as instructor, lecturer, or professor. Organizational
administrators also determine what is considered a part-time teaching load (Duncan, 1999).
According to the United States Department of Labor, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) does
not provide a definition or clarification for part-time employees (U.S. DOL, 2017). However,
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) states, “a full-time employee is, for a calendar month, an
employee employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week, or 130 hours of service per
month” (IRS, 2017, para. 2). In addition, the IRS specifically includes adjunct faculty as a
unique group of employees whose worked hours may be difficult to determine, stating the
following:
Certain categories of employees have hours of service that are particularly challenging to
identify or track. In other cases, general rules for determining hours of service in the
ADJUNCT LIFE 11

employer shared responsibility regulations may present special difficulties. For these
workers, employers are required to use a reasonable method of crediting hours of service
that is consistent with the employer shared responsibility provisions. The preamble to the
employer shared responsibility regulations provides guidance for the following categories
on certain methods of determining hours of service that are reasonable and certain other
methods that are unreasonable. (IRS, 2017, para. 4)
U.S. institutions of higher education experienced a 104% increase in the use of part-time,
or adjunct, faculty between 1993 and 2013. The rate of full-time faculty grew by only 45%,
creating a mix of 51% full-time faculty and 49% part-time faculty nationwide (U.S. Department
of Education, 2015). The sizeable increase in the use of adjunct faculty has occurred in both
public and private institutions, with a greater increase being seen in the public sector (Kezar &
Maxey, 2013). The use of adjunct faculty in graduate social work education is even more
common and has steadily grown since 2009 (Council on Social Work Education, 2015). The
2015 Statistics on Social Work Education in the United States (CSWE) indicate an enrollment of
60,122 students across 242 graduate programs of social work with the breakdown of part-time
faculty and full-time faculty being 57% and 43%, respectively.
There remains significant debate in the academic community centered around the
advantages and disadvantages of the use of adjunct faculty. Research consistently cites the use
of adjunct faculty as providing an institution more staffing flexibility and cost savings, often in
the form of not offering benefits such as medical or dental coverage (Fagan-Wilen, Springer,
Ambrosino & White, 2006; Hoyt, 2012; Maynard & Joseph, 2008). For multiple fields,
including social work, the infusion of current practitioners into an academic setting can prove
worthwhile for students and curriculum development (Fagan-Wilen et al., 2006, Klein, Weisman,
ADJUNCT LIFE 12

& Smith, 1996). The use of adjunct faculty may help ensure tenure-track faculty are more
focused on research, which can affect institutional budgets focused on obtaining large grants.
Finally, the field of social work has seen a decline in Ph.D.-level professionals which has
furthered the use of adjuncts to teach practice and field courses (Fagan-Wilen, et al., 2006).
Although it provides more flexibility for a University, the use of adjunct faculty often
calls into question instructor quality and consistency. Further research on student outcomes in
the context of adjunct faculty use continues to grow; however, Kezar and Maxey (2014) have
evaluated a high volume of research, which indicates adjunct faculty may engage in less student-
centered teaching and provide less support which is correlated with student success. In addition,
many institutions are concerned about grade inflation. Adjunct faculty may fear negative student
evaluations, which may affect future course assignments and the associated income. However,
additional research demonstrates that grade inflation may be a symptom of a larger problem
which also extends to full-time faculty (Bettinger & Longer, 2010; Hoyt, 2012; Fagan-Wilen, et
al., 2006; Klein, et al., 1996).
The significant increase in the use of adjunct faculty, coupled with research gaps related
to the worklife experiences of adjuncts, renders an evaluation of these experiences, and burnout
risk, worthwhile for institutions of higher education, faculty, and students. The purpose of this
study was to evaluate the worklife experiences of adjunct field faculty in a large school of social
work and to identify the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors which are
contributing to, or protective of, burnout. The following chapter will review the organizational
context and mission of the organization, the organizational performance goal, related literature,
importance of the evaluation, description of the stakeholder group, project purpose and research
questions, the methodological framework, definitions for study terms, and organization of the
ADJUNCT LIFE 13

dissertation.
Organizational Context and Mission
The organizational context of the project site is a large private research University in the
United States. The Large University (LU) is a pseudonym and will be used throughout the
following discussion to provide anonymity to the host organization. The LU School of Social
Work (SSW) has two traditional on-campus centers and one online center. The School of Social
Work currently has hundreds of faculty and hundreds of Master of Social Work (MSW)
students.
1
The mission of the School of Social Work is to improve human well-being with a
focus on vulnerable or oppressed populations. The School also seeks to make a local, regional,
and global impact.
2
This Dissertation in Practice project focused on adjunct field faculty
members employed by the on-campus and online MSW programs.
Organizational Performance Goal
By May 2018, the LU School of Social Work will create a strategic plan to address the
burnout and engagement levels of adjunct field faulty. Further, by December 2018, 100% of
adjunct field faculty members will engage in the behaviors known to reduce the likelihood of
burnout 100% of the time. This goal was determined by the researcher with approval from
program administrators. This evaluation sought to establish a baseline for the experience of
burnout among adjunct field faculty. This information may be used to determine organizational
strengths and opportunities for growth and change, as well as be used for future research to
determine if a change in burnout levels has occurred.

1
Specific numbers of faculty and students are not provided to protect institution’s identity.
2
Source is LU website. Actual URL not provided to maintain anonymity.
ADJUNCT LIFE 14

Related Literature
The educational problem being addressed in this dissertation is the high risk of burnout
for adjunct field faculty members employed by Schools of Social Work. Burnout poses a
potential problem among adjunct field faculty because burnout is a syndrome characterized by
emotional and physical exhaustion which can negatively impact the physical and mental health
of faculty and their ability to provide adequate services to students or clients (Cox & Steiner,
2013; Maslach, 2003; Sprang, Clark, & Whitt-Woosley, 2007). For the purposes of the
following discussion, burnout will be defined as “a syndrome of emotional exhaustion,
depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment that can occur among individuals who
do ‘people-work’ of some kind,” (Maslach, 2003, p. 2).
The problem is important to address as the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics (2015), estimates that employment of social workers will increase by 19%
between 2012 and 2022. Social workers have historically served vulnerable populations and are
ethically bound to address personal or professional impairment, including burnout, of self or
colleagues (Workers, 2008). Although extensive research supports the notion that many social
workers may leave direct practice due to burnout, less is known about either the impact of
burnout on their departure from adjunct faculty roles or the risk posed to students should social
workers experiencing burnout enter the field of higher education (Kim & Stoner, 2008; Newell
& MacNeil, 2010).
Although the concept of burnout and approaches to prevention and treatment vary,
burnout is considered a global issue with far-reaching effects on the physical, mental, and social
health of the workforce (Schaufeli, Leiter, & Maslach, 2009; van Dernoot & Burk, 2009).
Maslach, a pioneer in the field of burnout research, began initial studies in the early 1970s before
ADJUNCT LIFE 15

the term had been identified or the concept of burnout was fully formed (Maslach, 2003).
Although initial research focused on human service workers, the experience of burnout has been
identified across professions, cultures, and multiple countries (Markos & Sridevi, 2010;
Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli, et al., 2009). Symptoms of burnout are varied and can
include cynicism, emotional detachment, avoidance of work or clients, low self-efficacy, and
depression. Experiencing burnout may also render workers more irritable, anxious, or less likely
to seek intimacy, thus creating risk for conflict in personal relationships (Harr, Brice, Riley &
Moore, 2014; Maslach, 2003; Newell & MacNeil, 2010).
Existing literature offers conflicting information regarding rates of faculty satisfaction
across the United States; however, there are multiple challenges faced by adjunct faculty which
place them at higher risk for burnout. Research clearly indicates three primary concerns across
fields and within social work: communication, salary and benefits, and professional development
(Bettinger & Long, 2010; Colby, 1998; Fagan-Wilen, et al., 2006; Hoyt, 2012; Klein, et al.,
1996; Maynard & Joseph, 2008).
Communication with faculty (employees) is highly linked to engagement which is
protective of burnout (Berbary & Malinchak, 2011; Dolan, 2011). Within University
communities, many adjunct faculty find themselves disadvantaged with regard to networking
with their colleagues and becoming involved in School committees and initiatives. Although
some institutions explicitly restrict adjunct faculty participation in certain activities, many simply
do not make efforts to seek their involvement or input (Strom-Gottfried & Dunlap, 2004; Wilson
et al., 2002).
Inequitable wages and a lack of employment benefits such as medical coverage,
retirement accounts, or opportunity for promotion are commonly cited issues among adjunct
ADJUNCT LIFE 16

faculty (Duncan, 1999). Although hiring adjunct faculty may provide cost savings for an
institution, many adjunct faculty feel undervalued which could negatively impact student
outcomes (Bettinger & Long, 2010; Kezar & Maxey, 2014). Fagan-Wilen, et al. (2006) reports
that adjunct faculty salaries in medium-sized schools of social work resulted in over 40% net
cost gain. University gains for full-time faculty lines were under half of this amount. Although
work satisfaction rates for full-time faculty and part-time faculty who have chosen a part-time
position is high, work satisfaction rates for part-time faculty who would prefer to work full-time
are significantly lower (Maynard & Joseph, 2008).
Closely related to direct compensation are resources related to professional development.
Full-time faculty are usually provided office space and needed supplies along with financial
support for research, education, and scholarly activities related to teaching and their specific
areas of expertise (Dolan, 2011; Fagan-Wilen et al., 2006). Cost savings for Universities
continue as institutions increase their use of adjunct faculty, often bypassing overhead costs
associated with on-campus resources. Many adjunct faculty are expected to maintain a high
standard of teaching despite a lack of practical and financial resources (Colby, 1998; Hoyt,
2012).
Adjunct faculty teaching within online programs face environmental challenges in
addition to concerns regarding communication, salary, and professional development. Even
further removed from the University community, adjuncts report that feelings of isolation and a
lack of recognition are common (Dolan, 2011). Additional research regarding the level of
burnout experienced among online faculty is needed to better understand the evolution of the
current higher education infrastructure. Existing conclusions indicate conflicting results such as
online instructors feeling less burned out as compared to on-campus instructors, yet online
ADJUNCT LIFE 17

instructors reporting a high degree of depersonalization, a significant risk factor for burnout.
Importance of the Evaluation
Research consistently suggests the professional consequences of burnout are clear across
practice areas and the prevention and management of burnout represents a shared responsibility
between Schools of Social Work and agencies employing social workers (Lawson & Myers,
2011; Didham, Dromgole, Csiernik, Karley, & Hurley, 2011). The increased demand to address
domestic and global human suffering, combined with diminishing resources, creates
vulnerability in a rapidly growing workforce of social workers who may not be able to sustain a
fulfilling career (Chaiklin, 2010; Florio, 2010; Adams, Boscarino, & Figley, 2006). Within the
LU SSW, addressing this issue could result in program improvements in multiple areas including
adjunct faculty satisfaction, student engagement, and organizational efficiency.
Description of the Stakeholder Groups
Stakeholder groups represent organizational members who contribute to or benefit from
achievement of organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Multiple stakeholder
groups exist within the LU School of Social Work and the School interfaces with many external
stakeholders such as field placement agencies and local communities where students reside.
Three primary stakeholder groups have been identified for the purposes of this discussion:
students, members of administration, and faculty.
Within the United States system of higher education, student satisfaction and outcomes
are paramount. Ultimately, students are the consumers of educational programs and represent
future generations of the workforce or members of the workforce looking to expand their
professional capabilities. The LU School of Social Work serves a high volume of students who
are pursuing their MSW degree and seeking expertise in human services. The student experience
ADJUNCT LIFE 18

is affected by using adjunct field faculty so mitigating burnout in this population is essential
(Bettinger & Long, 2010; Fagan-Wilen et al., 2006; Klein et al., 1996).
The administrative team at the LU School of Social Work comprises a key stakeholder
group responsible for overall operation of the MSW program. They have significant interest in
the areas of student outcomes, faculty satisfaction and retention, as well as program growth and
development. Achievement of the organizational goal set forth would likely contribute to
success in these areas. Program administrators also play a key role in supporting this research
and the application of future findings.
Social work faculty, particularly those who are adjunct, may stand to benefit the most
from the organizational goal. If burnout levels are assessed, interventions and supports can be
developed and implemented by the University to reduce risk and potentially prevent burnout.
Anticipated benefits would be increased engagement and work satisfaction, reduced stress levels,
and increased faculty retention.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
The stakeholder group selected for this study includes adjunct (part-time) field faculty
employed with the LU School of Social Work. All participants hold a minimum of a Master of
Social Work (MSW) degree along with a minimum of five years of social work practice
experience. On average, the adjunct field faculty members have significantly more than five
years practice experience and many are clinically licensed professionals. Further, some adjunct
field faculty members have additional specialty certifications across the field of social work or
other advanced degrees.
Within the LU School of Social Work, there are three main groups of faculty: research
faculty, teaching faculty, and field faculty. All stakeholders evaluated are designated field
ADJUNCT LIFE 19

faculty and will be classified as adjunct or part-time, working a maximum of 30 hours per week.
These faculty members typically teach only within the field curriculum and serve as a field
liaison for students while in field placement. The field liaison role is significant as it serves as a
bridge and supportive resource between the University and field placement sites where students
are assigned to complete their field practicum experience. In 2008, CSWE designated field
education as the signature pedagogy for the profession, thus elevating the importance of the field
practicum experience for students (Armenta & Linseisen, 2015). Because of the high level of
responsibility within the field curriculum, adjunct field faculty are key stakeholders in need of
support and resources to be successful.
Stakeholder Group’s Performance Goals
Table 1 describes the organizational mission and well as the organizational performance
goal identified for this study. In addition, specific stakeholder goals are also outlined within a
specific timeframe.
Table 1

Organizational mission, global goal, and stakeholder goals

Organizational Mission

The mission of the LU School of Social Work is to improve human well-being with a focus
on vulnerable or oppressed populations. The School seeks to make a local, regional, and
global impact (LU website).
Organizational Performance Goal
By May 2018, the LU School of Social Work will create a strategic plan to address the
burnout and engagement levels of adjunct field faculty members.
ADJUNCT LIFE 20

Regional Faculty
Goal:

By February 2017, a
minimum of 30% of
adjunct field faculty
will have participated
in a two
questionnaires which
include the MBI-ES
and AWS tools.

In addition, a
minimum of 10% of
adjunct field faculty
will have participated
in one-on-one
interviews with
researcher.
Administrative
Team Goal:

By January 2018, the
Administrative Team
will have reviewed
data from this study
and, in collaboration
with researcher,
developed a strategic
plan to address
burnout and
engagement levels of
adjunct field faculty
members. This plan
will be implemented
prior to
administration of
follow up
questionnaires.

Adjunct Field
Faculty Goal:

By December 2018,
100% of adjunct field
faculty will engage in
the behaviors known
to reduce the
likelihood of burnout
100% of the time.

Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this project was to identify the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors related to the experiences of burnout and worklife among adjunct field faculty members
employed with the LU SSW. Further, it sought to evaluate the degree to which the School of
Social Work is meeting its organizational goal. In addition, this study aimed to determine
strategies which can be used by department leaders to increase the level of engagement and
satisfaction among adjunct field faculty members and mitigate risk for burnout.
While a complete performance evaluation would focus on all stakeholders, for practical
purposes the stakeholders to be focused on in this analysis are all adjunct field faculty members.
Adjunct field faculty compose a core group of faculty assigned to teach within the field
curriculum and to provide guidance and oversight of students while in field placement.
As such, the questions that guided the study are the following:
1. To what extent is the organization meeting its goal of reducing burnout
ADJUNCT LIFE 21

experienced by adjunct field faculty members?
2. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that impact the
ability of adjunct field to engage in behaviors known to reduce the likelihood of
burnout?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources?
Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, a systematic, analytical method that helps to clarify
organizational goals and identify the gap between the actual performance level and the preferred
performance level within an organization, was implemented as the conceptual framework.
This project employed quasi-mixed method data gathering and analysis (Creswell, 2014). The
LU School of Social Work faculty performance in relationship to the organizational goal was
assessed using literature review, questionnaire data, and interviews. Research-based solutions
are recommended and a proposed plan for evaluation is presented in future chapters.
Definitions
Below are key terms that will be used throughout the following discussion. Definitions
are provided to ensure consistent understanding of various research constructs.
Community: As defined by Leiter and Maslach (2011), community refers to “the overall quality
of social interaction at work, including issues of conflict, mutual support, closeness, and the
capacity to work as a team” (p. 6).
Control: As defined by Leiter and Maslach (2011), the concept of control “includes employees’
perceived capacity to influence decisions that affect their work, to exercise professional
autonomy, and to gain access to the resources necessary to do an effective job” (p. 5).
ADJUNCT LIFE 22

Depersonalization: As defined by Maslach, Jackson, and Leiter (1996), depersonalization
describes the “unfeeling and impersonal response toward recipients of one’s service, care,
treatment, or instruction” (p. 4).
Emotional exhaustion: As defined by Maslach, Jackson, and Leiter (1996), encompasses
“feelings of being emotionally overextended and exhausted by one’s work” (p. 4).
Fairness: As defined by Leiter and Maslach (2011), fairness is “the extent to which decisions at
work are perceived as being fair and people are treated with respect” (p. 7). Fairness may relate
to multiple areas of work life including workload, compensation, promotion, or performance
evaluation.
Personal accomplishment: As defined by Maslach, Jackson, and Leiter (1996), “feelings of
competence and successful achievement in one’s work with people” (p. 4).
Reward: As defined by Leiter and Maslach (2011), “extent to which rewards —monetary,
social, and intrinsic — are consistent with expectations” (p. 6).
Values: As defined by Leiter and Maslach (2011), the concept of values within the workplace is
“the motivating connection between the worker and the workplace that goes beyond the
utilitarian exchange of time for money or advancement” (p. 8).
Workload: The relationship between the amount of work one must complete and the resources
available to complete this work (Leiter & Maslach, 2011).
Organization of the Dissertation
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provided an overview of key
concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about burnout among adjunct field
faculty members in Schools of Social Work. The organization’s mission, goals, and
stakeholders, as well as a review of the evaluation framework was provided. Chapter Two
ADJUNCT LIFE 23

provides a review of current literature surrounding the scope of the study. Potential influences of
adjunct field faculty burnout have been identified and organized by knowledge, motivation, and
organization. Topics of burnout, engagement, and the use of adjunct field faculty in Schools of
Social Work will be addressed. Chapter Three details the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational elements to be examined as well as methodology related to the choice of
participants, data collection, and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and results are assessed and
analyzed. Chapter Five provides solutions, based on data and literature, for closing the perceived
gaps as well as recommendations for an implementation and evaluation plan for the solutions.

ADJUNCT LIFE 24

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This literature review will examine the major factors identified as assumed causes of
adjunct field faculty burnout in Master of Social Work (MSW) programs. The review begins
with an overview of concepts related to employee burnout. Further, the review will include
specific examination of literature associated to the needs of adjunct field faculty, consequences
of disengagement for employees and employers, and special issues related to virtual faculty.
Finally, knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences will be identified which are
assumed to contribute to, or be protective of, adjunct faculty burnout. Potential assumed causes
will be introduced in this chapter and the process for assessment and validation further explored
in Chapter Three. A review of learning and motivational theory is introduced below and
discussed further in the next chapter.
Adjunct Field Faculty Burnout
There has been vast research conducted about the concept of burnout over the past 30
years (Schaufeli et al., 2009). Burnout has been studied across populations, professions, and in
many countries. However, research specific to adjunct members within Schools of Social Work
is lacking. There is information available regarding burnout and social workers providing direct
services to clients, faculty (in general), faculty teaching within online programs, and social work
students (Cox & Steiner, 2013; Didham et al., 2011; Harr et al., 2014; Hogan & McKnight,
2007). As Schools of Social Work seek to support faculty and students, understanding the needs
of adjunct field faculty could prove very worthwhile.

ADJUNCT LIFE 25

Factors Influencing Adjunct Field Faculty Burnout
Burnout in Social Work
Considering the framework developed by Maslach, Jackson, and Schwab (1986), there
are multiple studies which indicate social workers are at high risk for experiencing burnout
(Chaiklin, 2010; Kim, Ji, & Kao, 2011). In 2009, The National Association of Social Workers
(NASW) Center for Workforce Studies published a report which analyzed data collected from
3,653 NASW members who self-selected for participation in an online survey. Categories of
analysis include demographics, employment status, safety issues, workplace stressors, worker
salaries, and level of debt acquired from education. The report also highlights areas related to
worker satisfaction (Chaiklin, 2010).
Time pressures and workload. Of particular importance are responses related to work-
related stressors and stress-related health concerns. The top three work-related stressors were
found to be a) lack of time to do job (31%); b) heavy workload (25%); and c) salaries not
comparable to colleagues in related positions (69%). Twelve different stress-related health
issues were ranked by social workers based on area of practice (Chaiklin, 2010). Workload is
closely correlated with the emotional exhaustion dimension of burnout which can be mitigated if
workloads are not chronically overwhelming (Leiter & Maslach, 2011).
Fatigue. On average, 66% of respondents reported experiencing fatigue; 37% reported
psychological problems, and 23% reported presence of a sleep disorder. Kim, Ji, and Kao (2011)
conducted a three-year longitudinal study involving 406 California registered social workers.
Levels of burnout were evaluated along with self-reported health issues focused on sleep
disturbances, headaches, respiratory infections, and gastrointestinal infections. Strong
correlation was found between a higher level of burnout and worse physical health overall and
ADJUNCT LIFE 26

per each individual health issue. Although sleep disturbances were not found to be linked with
burnout in this study, an increase in headaches, respiratory infections, and gastrointestinal
infections were significant. These statistics provide a strong link to three dimensions related to
burnout: workload, rewards, and fairness (Leiter & Maslach, 2011).
Low salaries. Although salary is not the only measure of reward in employment, it has a
substantial impact on the financial health of social workers and contributes to burnout risk.
Unfortunately, social work salaries remain low and are not competitive with other professions
which typically require graduate level education. The NASW Center for Workforce Studies
report (Chaiklin, 2010) found that 72% of social workers employed full-time earned between
$20,000 and $60,000 per year, with 21% of respondents reporting “unmanageable” educational
debt. Social workers indicate a desire to assist, advocate for, and provide mental health services
to clients yet they may experience educational debt equal to or double their own yearly salary
(Chaiklin, 2010).
Lack of support for professional development. Employment-based rewards may also
include various benefits and professional development opportunities. The National Association
of Social Workers is the largest national body representing the interests of professional social
workers and currently has 132,000 members (NASW, 2017). There are multiple benefits to
membership including training and professional development which may help mitigate burnout.
However, 92% of the social workers participating in this study indicated paying their own
NASW dues. Only 6% of social workers had employer paid dues and an additional 2% of social
workers shared the cost with their employer (Chaiklin, 2010). At a minimum cost of $190 per
year, it is expected many social workers forego this opportunity if faced with already significant
debt and/or low salary levels.
ADJUNCT LIFE 27

Sense of purpose. Despite the multiple stressors faced by social workers, 93% of social
workers noted a level of satisfaction with their career overall (Chaiklin, 2010). Although this
level of satisfaction may appear counterintuitive, it may also be an indication of a mission driven
workforce positioned to identify and employ resources to remain engaged professionally.
Berbary and Malinchak (2011) note that engaged employees are “intellectually respected,
emotionally connected, actively involved, and meaningfully empowered” (p. 56).
Self-care. Multiple studies focus on more personal resources for the prevention and
treatment of burnout including compassion satisfaction, spending time with family and friends,
striving for a balance between personal and professional responsibilities, and healthy diet and
exercise (Harr et al, 2014; Lawson, 2007; Lawson & Myers, 2011). However, because research
suggests burnout is less a function of a social worker’s personal attributes and more related to
external factors, moving beyond standard self-care strategies may be important.
The literature suggests that the employing organization plays an important role in
reducing burnout and can institute multiple strategies to mitigate this phenomenon. Engaging in
active workforce development strategies will be critical to retaining a dedicated workforce while
recruiting new members. Increased organizational support for continuing education,
opportunities for growth, and fair and adequate compensation will all assist in this important
effort (Blosser, Cadet, & Downs, 2010; Whitaker, Weismiller, Clark, & Wilson, 2006).
Burnout in Social Work Faculty
Research gaps are present regarding the specific population of adjunct field faculty in
programs of social work; however, the risks described above are similar to those found in adjunct
faculty populations across professional arenas. It is the researcher’s goal to contribute to the
literature base regarding this specific population. Further, it was the researcher’s hypothesis that
ADJUNCT LIFE 28

unique experiences exist for adjunct field faculty as the role is comprised of teaching as well as
student advising which may mirror direct practice.
The Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes (2008) introduced a framework to analyze and address performance gaps
related to knowledge, motivational, or organizational issues. This framework asserts that all
performance gaps can be explained upon examination of these three areas. Institutional
stakeholders must possess appropriate knowledge to carry out a task; appropriate motivation to
persist in a task; and have access to organizational supports such as policies, procedures, and
supplies to complete a task (Clark & Estes, 2008). Faculty burnout levels are significantly
impacted in all three areas and thus each will be explored for this stakeholder group.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Knowledge types. There are multiple knowledge-related influences which affect the
success of goal implementation and execution. The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives
(Krathwohl, 2002) provides a detailed description of three primary knowledge types: declarative,
procedural, and metacognitive. All three of these knowledge types, along with sufficient
motivation, are needed for successful learning and performance (Clark & Estes, 2008; Memmott
& Brennan, 1998).
Declarative knowledge represents two knowledge types, factual and conceptual. Factual
knowledge includes basic facts, terminology, and content considered foundational to learning
(Ennis, 1994). Conceptual knowledge is more complex and represents organized knowledge,
such as theories, frameworks, and other schema (Carpenter, 2011). Both factual and conceptual
knowledge characterize what someone needs to know about a subject or topic. Procedural
knowledge is needed in order to know how to do something, or the process associated with a task
ADJUNCT LIFE 29

(Billett, 2001). Metacognitive knowledge can be described as knowledge and awareness of
cognition, and has been found to greatly enhance learning across populations (Baker, 2006).
Assumed stakeholder knowledge influences.
Declarative knowledge influences. Prior to beginning work as an adjunct field faculty
member, employees must acquire knowledge of their specific position including standard roles
and responsibilities. Knowledge of their role, coupled with an understanding of the implications
of fulfilling their professional duties, assists in the development of self-efficacy and engagement
which are protective against burnout (Letier & Maslach, 2011). Overarching knowledge of the
values and ethics of the profession, as well as the nine Core Competencies set forth by the
Council on Social Work Education (CSWE, 2015), are crucial to building a center of knowledge.
The combination of multiple knowledge types aids in the development of professional expertise,
of which declarative knowledge is the foundation (Ennis, 1994). If adjunct field faculty
members lack understanding about their role and level of responsibility, they are unlikely to
experience success and fulfillment.
Procedural knowledge influences. Once declarative knowledge is established, field
faculty need knowledge regarding the steps necessary to engage in the online faculty community,
including consultation group participation, committee membership, and curriculum development.
This sense of community may be difficult to obtain given that multiple studies indicate adjunct
faculty, and those teaching online, commonly experience feelings of isolation or a sense of
disconnection from the University (Dolan, 2011; Klein, Weisman, & Smith, 1996). Currently,
70% of part-time and full-time social work faculty are female. The application of feminist
principles in curriculum development and classroom practices has been suggested as a strategy to
ensure awareness and support of female learning needs (Pease, 2011; Dore, 1994).
ADJUNCT LIFE 30

Metacognitive knowledge influences. Finally, adjunct field faculty need knowledge of
how to evaluate their own strengths and challenges with regard to monitoring their own levels of
burnout. Metacognitive knowledge has been identified as crucial to learning as it increases self-
awareness and self-regulation of performance (Baker, 2006). Adjunct field faculty regularly
engage in problem-solving to assist students and agency personnel in achieving success while in
field placement. Increasing metacognitive knowledge has been positively correlated with an
increase in problem-solving abilities and would be anticipated to have a positive effect on
adjunct field faculty (Swanson, 1990). Memmott and Brennan (1998) developed an adult
learning model for social work education which applies the commonly used Person-Environment
framework to adult learning. Three phases were identified as follows: (a) decision to learn, or
motivation; (b) the learning process which is comprised of learner capabilities and the learning
environment; and (c) learning outcome, which is a desired change in knowledge and/or skill
level. Although this model addresses the importance of declarative, procedural, and
metacognitive knowledge, the acquisition of metacognitive knowledge is the ultimate goal.
Table 2, on page 36, provides an overview of all knowledge influences identified in this
discussion.
Motivation. Relevant literature related to motivational influences of the stakeholder
group will be examined below (Clark & Estes, 2008; Pajares, 2006; Vasil, 1992). This
discussion will focus on adjunct field faculty self-efficacy and adjunct field faculty interest.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), motivation is comprised of three key factors; active choice,
persistence, and mental effort. In other words, a person must decide to take action toward
meeting a goal, must continue forward progress, and contribute sufficient effort to improve their
performance (Clark & Estes, 2008).
ADJUNCT LIFE 31

Assumed stakeholder motivation influences.
Field faculty self-efficacy. The concept of self-efficacy is rooted in social cognitive
theory and can be simply defined as one’s belief about their own ability to accomplish a task
(Cox & Steiner, 2013; Pajares, 2006). Adjunct field faculty need to feel efficacious in their
ability to teach courses, mentor students, and communicate across University and community-
based systems. Self-efficacy is critically important to motivation as field faculty will not likely
engage in active choice, persistence, and appropriate mental effort in the absence of expectation
of success (Clark & Estes, 2008; Pajares, 2006). Self-efficacy is also related to self-awareness
which is highly valued in the field of social work among students, faculty, and practitioners
(Holden, Meenaghan, Anastas, & Metrey, 2002). Further, high self-efficacy has also been linked
to productivity amongst research faculty (Vasil, 1992).
Field faculty interest. In addition to self-efficacy, adjunct field faculty need to have a
personal interest in their professional development because development of personal interest
leads to acquisition of expert knowledge (Schraw & Lehman, 2009). Although adjunct field
faculty interest may begin as situational as individual learning opportunities arise, sustained
attention and engagement will only occur with the development of personal interest (Schraw &
Lehman, 2009). The Four-Phase Model of Interest Development proposes four separate stages
that further delineate the process of transitioning from situational to personal interest (Hidi &
Renninger, 2006). These phases include triggered situational interest, maintained situational
interest, emerging individual interest, and well-developed individual interest.
Organizational influences. Although faculty burnout is heavily influenced by
knowledge and motivational factors, organizational influences may be most instrumental in
determining the employee experience. Access to appropriate resources, collegial and
ADJUNCT LIFE 32

supervisory communication, and alignment of policy and procedures with organizational
practice, are keys factors when addressing the needs of employees across a variety of settings
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Historically, burnout has been associated with individual deficits in a professional’s
ability to manage self-care; however, research has clarified that six domains associated with
one’s employment organization have a greater influence upon the likelihood of employee
burnout (Shaufeli et al., 2009; Maslach, 2003). These domains as determined by Maslach (2003)
are a) workload; b) control; c) rewards; d) community; e) fairness; and f) values. According to
Maslach (2014), workers are at risk for burnout when the resources available are outweighed by
the demand for service provision (workload). The work environment overall, including
relationships with co-workers and supervisors (community), as well as organizational culture and
how employees are treated (fairness), may create burnout or help in prevention efforts (Maslach,
2014). Evidence suggests that social workers commonly experience challenges regarding
workload, rewards, community, and fairness. Areas of control, or autonomy, and alignment of
personal and organizational values can also be a challenge or serve as protective against burnout
for social workers (Maslach, 2003; Maslach, 2014).
Assumed stakeholder organizational influences.
Workload. When employees face demands which outweigh their capacity to meet those
demands, they are faced with an issue of workload. Workload is the most common construct
associated with burnout across professions, including social work, and is strongly correlated with
the emotional exhaustion dimension of burnout (Cox & Steiner, 2013; Leiter & Maslach, 2011).
Unfortunately, workload is a pressing issue within the realm of direct practice social work which
may continue during an experience as an adjunct field faculty member (Adams et al., 2006;
ADJUNCT LIFE 33

Hogan & McKnight, 2007). Within higher education, adjunct faculty are often presented with
lower wages and little to no opportunity for promotion, despite carrying a high load of students
or teaching the same courses as full-time faculty (Bettinger & Long, 2010; Fagan-Wilen, et al.,
2006).
Control. The domain of control focuses on the need for employees to have an adequate
level of decision making authority regarding their work, particularly for those tasks under their
control (Leiter & Maslach, 2011). Adjunct field faculty are likely to experience concern in this
domain due to lack of office space and other resources, little to no input into the curriculum or
specific course materials, and often limited input regarding the course schedule offered by an
institution (Colby, 1998; Klein, et al., 1996).
Reward. Closely tied to employee engagement and satisfaction are the concepts of
reward and recognition. Programs designed to boost employee engagement and motivation must
have organizational support and infrastructure to be successful (Hansen, Smith, & Hansen,
2002). Further, organizations must engage in strategic planning around these efforts to ensure
appropriate use of resources.
Although compensation has been widely publicized as a primary complaint of adjunct
faculty members, other types of rewards and recognition are also valuable. Medical and
retirement benefits, job security, and personal relationships with colleagues heavily influence
levels of faculty engagement and worklife satisfaction. Unfortunately, institutions of higher
education have seen a significant increase in unionization efforts among adjunct faculty members
due to perceived or actual lack of rewards and recognition (Dorfeld, 2015).
Organizational resources dedicated to the professional development of adjunct faculty
range widely among institutions. Professional development may or may not be valued in
ADJUNCT LIFE 34

organizational culture, or an organization may or may not have the financial and human capital
resources to devote to such efforts. Considering the return on investment of faculty development
is important as research demonstrates increased productivity and employee retention are
increased with high levels of employee engagement (Berbarry & Malinchak, 2011; Markos &
Sridevi, 2010).
Sense of community. Essential for all organizations is effective professional and
interpersonal communication. Internal and external communication is determined, in part, by
organizational culture. Lack of, or inconsistent, communication has been linked with lower
employee engagement and satisfaction (Berger, 2011; Dolan, 2011). Berger (2011) has
identified three foundational structures which impact employee communication: a.) leaders; b.)
direct supervisors; and c.) organizational culture. Further, research regarding the experiences of
adjunct faculty teaching in online programs indicates that poor communication leads to feelings
of isolation and lower morale (Dolan, 2011).
Feelings of isolation are common among adjunct faculty members and this, in
combination with other dimensions of burnout risk, have contributed to the unionization efforts
of adjunct faculty across the United States (Fagan-Wilen et al., 2006; Hoyt, 2012; Klein et al.,
1996). University resources such as faculty mentoring programs, training workshops, and formal
orientation have been helpful in creating meaningful partnerships with full-time faculty and
diminishing a sense of isolation (Strom-Gottfried & Dunlap, 2004; Wilson, et al., 2002)
Perception of fairness. The concept of fairness is closely tied to constructs of
community and reward and demonstrates consistent employee concern regarding the fairness, or
equity, of workplace decisions (Letier & Maslach, 2011). Research regarding online instructors
indicates interest in the fairness of wages as well as opportunities for professional development
ADJUNCT LIFE 35

and recognition. Dolan (2011) notes many universities operating online programs may focus too
much on the work completed, or courses taught, and neglect the other personal and professional
needs of adjunct faculty. Additional research indicates a lack of preparation, mentorship, and
oversight for adjunct faculty which can be tied to student outcomes or opportunities for
recognition. Further, social work faculty have specifically raised ethical concerns regarding the
pay and working conditions of adjunct faculty noting that this treatment conflicts with the
NASW Code of Ethics which endorses equity and social justice (Colby, 1998; Strom-Gottfried &
Dunlap, 2004; Wilson et al., 2002).
Values. Within the context of burnout, values are defined as “the motivating connection
between the worker and the workplace that goes beyond the utilitarian exchange of time for
money or advancement” (Leiter & Maslach, 2011, p. 8). Experiencing a value conflict is
connected to all three dimensions of burnout; emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and
personal accomplishment. The concept of values is tied both to motivation and turnover
intention across worker populations, including faculty (Dolan, 2011; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).
However, this construct may serve as protective for social work faculty who may accept the
value-driven culture of social work. Research involving 43 adjunct instructors within the field of
social work indicated that the financial benefit of teaching was “slightly important” as compared
to the social/professional connection to a program as “very important” or “important” (Klein et
al., 1996, p. 259).
Table 2 below provides a summary of assumed influences related to knowledge,
motivation, and organizational needs of the LU School of Social Work. Adjunct field faculty fill
an essential role in teaching and mentoring graduate students, yet may experience burnout related
to one or more elements of the KMO Framework. The validation of these elements will be
ADJUNCT LIFE 36

described in Chapter Three.
Table 2
Assumed KMO Influences of Adjunct Field Faculty
Possible Knowledge Influences Source(s)
Declarative
Adjunct Field faculty need knowledge of their employment position
including standard roles and responsibilities which build self-efficacy
and engagement; thus, preventing burnout.

Adjunct Field faculty need to understand how their work contributes
to the mission of the University.
Billett, 2001; Hogan &
McKnight, 2007; Markos &
Sridevi, 2010; Mazza, 2015;
Sowbel, 2012
Procedural
Adjunct Field faculty need knowledge regarding the steps necessary
to engage in the faculty community, including consultation group
participation committee membership, and curriculum development.
Dolan, 2011; Hansen, et al.,
2002; Hoyt, 2012;
Kirkpatrick, 2006;
Swanson, 1990
Metacognitive
Adjunct Field faculty need knowledge of how to evaluate their own
strengths and challenges with regard to monitoring their own levels
of burnout.
Baker, 2006; Kirkpatrick,
2006; Swanson,1990
Possible Motivational Influences
Emotions: Adjunct Field Faculty need to feel positively about their
work and position in the organization to remain engaged and
motivated.
Hogan & McKnight, 2006;
Holden et al., 2002;
Maynard & Joseph, 2008;
Pajares, 2006
Self-Efficacy: Adjunct Field Faculty need to be provided adequate
modeling and timely, accurate feedback regarding their performance
to increase self-efficacy. They need to experience high self-efficacy
to maintain high levels of motivation.
Chaiklin, 2012; Hogan &
McKnight, 2007; Holden et
al., 2002; Vasil, 1992
Possible Organizational Influences
Cultural Model Influence 1: There is a culture of constant change
and a related cultural expectation that faculty must remain adaptable
and enthusiastic about continuous change.
Dolan, 2011; Dore, 1994;
Maynard & Joseph, 2012
Cultural Model Influence 2: Adjunct field faculty receive conflicting
messages regarding work-life balance. There is a supportive,
employee-centered culture yet informal reward structures and
recognition are linked to working after hours and engaging in
additional work projects/committees.

Bettinger & Long, 2010;
Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004
Cultural Setting Influence 1: Adjunct field faculty are provided
vague performance goals and feedback. Positive feedback is usually
provided informally whereas negatively feedback is provided
through formal channels.
Berger, 2014; Dolan, 2011;
Fagan-Wilen et al., 2006;
Hansen et al., 2002
ADJUNCT LIFE 37

Cultural Setting Influence 2: The organization lacks a formal
strategic plan for the School of Social Work (SSW). Although global
(University-wide) goals are set, SSW goals are typically short and
medium-term and rapidly changing. Adjunct field faculty are
typically not involved in goal-setting initiatives and do not have a
strategic plan to reference to gain global perspective.

Dolan, 2011

Summary
The purpose of this dissertation in practice is to identify the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors related to the experiences of burnout and engagement among adjunct filed
faculty members employed with the LU SSW. This research sought to inform the LU School of
Social Work, as well as social work programs nationwide, about the experiences of adjunct field
faculty to prevent and treat symptoms of burnout. Evaluating this issue has the potential to
decrease faculty burnout, increase student satisfaction, prevent turnover, and contribute to a
sparse body of literature focused on the experiences of adjunct field faculty in social work
education.

ADJUNCT LIFE 38

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this project was to identify the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors which contribute to or lessen burnout in adjunct field faculty members employed by the
LU SSW. This study determined strategies which could be used by department leaders to
increase the level of engagement and positive worklife experiences among adjunct field faculty
members and mitigate risk for burnout. Chapter 3 focuses on a discussion of the research
methods used throughout this project including the conceptual framework, sampling, and
recruitment methods. In addition, this chapter will include an exploration of KMO performance
influences relevant for this stakeholder group and a brief overview of ethical considerations,
limitations, and delimitations.
While a complete performance evaluation would focus on all stakeholders, for practical
purposes the stakeholders evaluated in this analysis are all adjunct field faculty members.
Adjunct field faculty compose a core group of faculty assigned to teach within the field
curriculum and to provide guidance and oversight of students while in field placement.
As such, the questions that guided this study are the following:
1. To what extent is the organization meeting its goal of reducing burnout
experienced by adjunct field faculty members?
2. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that impact the
ability of adjunct field to engage in behaviors known to reduce the likelihood
of burnout?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources?

ADJUNCT LIFE 39

Conceptual and Methodological Framework
The conceptual framework for this study was created by translating the questionnaire
methods selected into the KMO framework (Clark & Estes, 2008). Both questionnaires, the
Maslach Burnout Inventory-Educators Survey (MBI-ES), and the Areas of Worklife Survey
(AWS), are explained in further detail throughout Chapter 3. The translation of the underlying
concepts found within these tools into the KMO model is displayed in graphic form below in
Figure 1.
Figure 1 represents the concept that the worklife experiences of adjunct field faculty are
impacted by influences related to knowledge, motivation, and organization. The subscales used
in the MBI-ES and AWS were reviewed and analyzed in order to relate them to the most
appropriate area of influence. For example, the six subscales which comprise the AWS all
connect most with organizational influences upon a stakeholder.
ADJUNCT LIFE 40

Adjunct Field Faculty Worklife
Conceptual Framework
Figure 1. Adjunct Field Faculty Worklife Conceptual Framework
Assessment of Performance Influences
There are multiple performance influences related to the experience of burnout amongst
adjunct field faculty. These influences are divided categorically by knowledge, motivation, and
organizational, and are described in further detail in Table 3 (page 43, left column). Each
influence was evaluated using questionnaire items or interview questions which are delineated in
the right-hand column of Table 3. These tools were used specifically to assess which
performance influencers are present in the LU SSW.

ADJUNCT LIFE 41

Knowledge Assessment
Literature revealed four possible knowledge influences as displayed in Table 3 on page
43. Two of these, adjunct field faculty knowledge of their employment position (roles and
responsibilities) and the need to understand the implications of fulfilling their duties to students
and the University, represent declarative knowledge. These knowledge areas were assessed
through interview questions which assess adjunct field faculty understanding of these areas
(Maxwell, 2013). In addition, procedural knowledge regarding the steps necessary to engage in
the faculty community were also assessed through interview questions which address adjunct
field faculty knowledge of consultation groups, committee membership, and opportunities to
contribute to curriculum development or other University initiatives (Kirkpatrick, 2006;
Swanson, 1990). On a more complex level, metacognitive knowledge of how adjunct field
faculty evaluate their own strengths and challenges related to monitoring their own levels of
burnout was assessed through interview questions.
Motivation Assessment
Research suggests two primary motivational influences for adjunct field faculty burnout
which are emotions and self-efficacy (Anderman & Anderman, 2009; Clark & Estes, 2008;
Pajares, 2006; Pintrich, 2003). As outlined in Table 3 (page 43), each influencer was assessed
through use of the AWS and MBI-ES questionnaires. Each item within these two questionnaires
has been mapped to a specific influencer or multiple influencers.
Organization/Culture/Context Assessment
As explored in Chapter 2, there are multiple organizational influences which may impact
the level of burnout experienced by adjunct field faculty. As explored by Leiter and Maslach
(2011), six domains have been identified which correlate with the organizational contributors to
ADJUNCT LIFE 42

burnout. These domains are community, control, fairness, reward, values, and workload. The
Areas of Worklife Survey (AWS) includes 28 Likert-scale items which assess each of these
areas. Each potential organizational influence listed in Table 3 was assessed through use of the
AWS questionnaire.
Table 3
Assessment Methods for Assumed KMO Influences of Adjunct Field Faculty
Possible Knowledge Influences Method(s) of Assessment
Declarative
Adjunct Field faculty need knowledge of their employment position
including standard roles and responsibilities which build self-efficacy
and engagement; thus, preventing burnout.

Adjunct Field faculty need to understand how their work contributes
to the mission of the University.
Interview questions
regarding their role and
responsibilities.

Interview questions
regarding the scope of their
influence and impact of
their work with students.
Procedural
Adjunct Field faculty need knowledge regarding the steps necessary
to engage in the faculty community, including consultation group
participation committee membership, and curriculum development.
Interview questions
regarding knowledge of
University community and
opportunities for
engagement.
Metacognitive
Adjunct Field faculty need knowledge of how to evaluate their own
strengths and challenges with regard to monitoring their own levels
of burnout.
Interview questions
regarding professional
strengths and challenges.
Possible Motivational Influences
Emotions: Adjunct Field Faculty need to feel positively about their
work and position in the organization to remain engaged and
motivated.
MBI-ES questionnaire
items: 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 13, 14,
16, 20.

AWS questionnaire items:
6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 24,
27, 28.
Self-Efficacy: Adjunct Field Faculty need to be provided adequate
modeling and timely, accurate feedback regarding their performance
to increase self-efficacy. They need to experience high self-efficacy
to maintain high levels of motivation.
MBI-ES questionnaire
items: 4, 7, 9, 12, 17, 18,
19, 21.

AWS questionnaire items:
4, 5, Control (Q 6-9), 10,
11, 14, 15, 16.
ADJUNCT LIFE 43

Possible Organizational Influences
Cultural Model Influence 1: There is a culture of constant change
and a related cultural expectation that faculty must remain adaptable
and enthusiastic about continuous change.
Interview questions
regarding organizational
culture and expectations.

AWS questionnaire:
Fairness (Q 19-24 and
Values (Q 25-28).
Cultural Model Influence 2: Adjunct field faculty receive conflicting
messages regarding work-life balance. There is a supportive,
employee-centered culture yet informal reward structures and
recognition are linked to working after hours and engaging in
additional work projects/committees.

Interview questions
regarding organizational
culture, expectations, and
communication.

AWS questionnaire:
Workload (Q 1-5) and
Values (Q 25-28).
Cultural Setting Influence 1: Adjunct field faculty are provided
vague performance goals and feedback. Positive feedback is usually
provided informally whereas negatively feedback is provided
through formal channels.
Interview questions
regarding feedback and
performance evaluation
process.

AWS questionnaire:
Reward (Q 10-13) and
Fairness (Q 19-24).
Cultural Setting Influence 2: The organization lacks a formal
strategic plan for the School of Social Work (SSW). Although global
(University-wide) goals are set, SSW goals are typically short and
medium-term and rapidly changing. Adjunct field faculty are
typically not involved in goal-setting initiatives and do not have a
strategic plan to reference to gain global perspective.

Interview questions
regarding involvement in
organizational strategic
planning and goal setting.

AWS questionnaire:
Control (Q 6-9) and
Community (Q14-18).

Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection
Sampling
Stakeholders for this research study included adjunct (part-time) field faculty members
affiliated with a large School of Social Work. The demographics of this population did vary in
terms of age and racial/ethnic background. Gender was more homogenous with 85% of survey
respondents being female and one interview participant being male. However, this gender mix is
ADJUNCT LIFE 44

representative of the field of social work in general (Pease, 2011). The geographic location of
each survey respondent was not requested; however, 85% of respondents indicated employment
with the online academic program as opposed to campus-based program. All interview
participants (n=8) are assigned to the online program. Two of the interview criteria are identical
to those for survey criterion.
Survey criterion 1. Participants must have been currently employed by the organization
and are classified as adjunct field faculty. The stakeholder group being studied is specific to this
classification and including other parties would have likely skewed results. This research sought
to evaluate the current experiences of faculty so including former faculty members would not be
appropriate.
Survey criterion 2. Participants all had a minimum of one semester of experience in the
role of adjunct field faculty. This criterion excluded newly hired adjunct field faculty as
surveying these members would have likely skewed the results because they cannot yet reflect on
the role and associated experience being evaluated.
Interview criterion 1. Participants must have been currently employed by the
organization and are classified as adjunct field faculty. The stakeholder group being studied is
specific to this classification and including other parties would have likely skewed results. This
research sought to evaluate the current state so including past faculty members would not be
appropriate.
Interview criterion 2. Participants all had a minimum of one semester of experience in
the role of adjunct field faculty. This criterion excluded newly hired adjunct field faculty as
surveying these members would have likely skewed the results because they cannot yet reflect on
the role and associated experience being evaluated.
ADJUNCT LIFE 45

Interview criterion 3. Interview participants were selected based on scores received on
the MBI-ES questionnaire and based on willingness to be contacted by the researcher to
participate. The scores in the depersonalization subscale were low for all 27 participants and
similarly no participants indicated low personal accomplishment which are both correlated with
burnout. Based on this, the subscale of emotional exhaustion was identified as most relevant for
the selection of interview participants. Adjunct field faculty who score high in emotional
exhaustion (27 or over), high in depersonalization (14 or over), and who score low in personal
accomplishment (0-30) are at the highest risk for burnout (Maslach et al., 1986). Adjunct field
faculty who score low in emotional exhaustion (0-16), low in depersonalization (0-8), and who
score high in personal accomplishment (37 or over) are at the lowest risk for burnout (Maslach,
et al., 1986).
A total of four participants with the highest scores in the emotional exhaustion subscale
were contacted to participate in an interview with two completing an interview. A total of nine
participants with low scores in emotional exhaustion were contacted to participate in an
interview and six completed an interview.
Recruitment
Surveys. The use of two formal questionnaires (surveys) were used at the beginning of
the data collection process. To reach a goal of a 30% or better response rate, the questionnaire
was sent to all 67 adjunct field faculty members employed by the department. Average
responses rates of 30%-35% are common in when using an online tool in an organizational
context (Baruch & Hotom, 2008; Nulty, 2008).
Interviews. In order to secure interview participants, purposeful sampling was used.
Participation in this phase of the research was voluntary, as was participation in the survey
ADJUNCT LIFE 46

questionnaires. The interviews were conducted after the questionnaire instrument was provided
and partially analyzed in order to build upon those findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2009). The use
of sampling based on questionnaire data assisted the researcher in avoiding selection bias due to
preexisting professional affiliations.
Data Collection
This study included quantitative and qualitative data collection methods. The
combination of two formal questionnaires (surveys) and interviews were used in hopes of
gaining a greater understanding of the proposed research questions. The use of mixed methods
research has found to aid in triangulation of data sources and to increase the depth and breadth of
research phenomena studied (Maxwell, 2013). Permission to conduct this research was obtained
from University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (UP-17-00026).
Surveys
Two previously-validated questionnaires were used at the beginning of the data collection
process. The Maslach Burnout Inventory-Educators Survey (MBI-ES) has been identified as a
widely validated measure of symptoms of burnout. Further, it includes language specific to
educators. For example, using the word “students” instead of “clients” as seen in the Human
Services version of this tool (Maslach, Jackson, & Schwab, 1986). Although available in
languages other than English, all potential respondents were reasonably assumed to possess
fluency in the English language. The MBI-ES contains 22 items, was anticipated to take 5-10
minutes to complete, and measures emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal
accomplishment. Appendix A, located on page 98, includes three sample items which is the
maximum allowed in the appendices per copyright restrictions.
The second survey fielded was the Areas of Worklife Survey (AWS), which includes 28
ADJUNCT LIFE 47

items and was anticipated to take 10-15 minutes to complete. The AWS addresses six areas of
worklife which were described in Chapter 2 and are as follows: workload, control, reward,
community, fairness, and values. Appendix B, located on page 99, includes the three sample
items which is the maximum allowed in the appendices per copyright restrictions.
Research indicates an average response rate of 30% to online surveys when they are
administered internally within an organization (Nulty, 2008). The questionnaires were sent to all
67 adjunct field faculty members employed by the department with the goal of reaching a
minimum response rate of 30%. Because adjunct field faculty telecommute across the country, a
link to the questionnaires was sent electronically through email from the researcher's’ doctoral
student email account. This study utilized convenience sampling through the recruitment of
participants who are accessible and readily available (Creswell, 2014).
Multiple strategies were utilized to reach, and surpass, this minimum response rate. An
initial request was sent to potential respondents 10 days prior to initial administration of the
survey to introduce the purpose of the research and the survey instruments. It was imperative
that clear instructions for completion be included to enhance participation as well as consider the
timing of emailing a survey (Nulty, 2008). Reminders to participate were sent at day 7 and day
13, prior to the closing of the survey link on day 14.
Interviews
Interviews were conducted on an individual basis and occurred one time with each
participant. Interviews were informal, semi-structured, and were conducted only in English. A
total of 7-10 interviews were targeted to identify a representative sample and a total of eight
interviews were completed. The interviews were conducted after the questionnaire instrument
was provided and analyzed in order to triangulate and expand upon those findings (Merriam &
ADJUNCT LIFE 48

Tisdell, 2009). Interviews were conducted via phone which removed the need for the researcher
to travel nationally to meet with participants. The use of phone also allowed for recording (with
participant consent) and transcription of the interviews. Each interview was scheduled for 60
minutes; all interviews lasted between 30 and 60 minutes. The interviewer requested permission
to audio record for transcription purposes and all participants consented to recording. Appendix
C (page 100) includes the 10 interview questions which were used in this research study.
All interview questions used were open-ended with the intention of gathering as much
feedback as possible. Follow up questions were developed to expand upon the existing protocol.
Interview questions were based on the conceptual framework and informed by the KMO model
or the Areas of Worklife Survey and were designed to expand upon context-specific experiences
of adjunct field faculty members.
Data Analysis
Trustworthiness of data
Credibility refers to a concept of whether one’s research is believable and may also be
connected to the perceived competence of the researcher. Closely related to credibility is the
concept of trustworthiness which is essential for research to be considered viable and honest
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2009). It was essential for this researcher to evaluate any biases present and
to openly explore the relationship with potential research subjects. Further, a researcher must be
willing to disclose any errors made in the research process and to share data regardless of
whether it supports the researcher’s anticipated findings (Maxwell, 2013).
Validity and reliability are two important concepts which should be considered to
increase the credibility of a study. Validity refers to whether or not a study is sound and the
degree to which research findings measure what is intended to be measured (Maxwell, 2013).
ADJUNCT LIFE 49

Reliability refers to the degree to which research results are stable over time, or can be replicated
with similar results (Merriam & Tisdell, 2009). This research study included the use of two
questionnaires already used extensively with strong validity and reliability. In order to maintain
a high level in both these research qualities, ensuring an adequate response rate is most essential.
Although minimum response rates are rarely prescribed and will vary depending upon the
research questions and methodology, setting targets is important for establishing validity and
credibility (Merriam & Tisdell, 2009). The selected questionnaire was provided in electronic
format to 67 participants and the minimum response target was set at 30%.
Ethical Considerations
Within the context of any research study, consideration of ethical principles are essential
and integrally tied to credibility and trustworthiness (Merriam & Tisdell, 2009). Particularly in
qualitative social science research where there is direct contact with participants, risks must be
considered and steps must be taken to protect human subjects. The researcher for this study
received Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval through their host organization (UP-17-
00026). This approval is required and allows for a panel of experts to evaluate the proposed
study, any benefits and risks to participants, and may include alteration to the planned research
before it begins (Merriam & Tisdell, 2009).
Another essential ethical consideration is informed consent. Informed consent is the
concept that participants are fully informed about the study and understand any risks or benefits.
Further, informed consent aims at ensuring voluntary participation and informing participants of
their right to discontinue their involvement at any time, for any reason (Merriam & Tisdell,
2009). Informed consent was described in writing within an introduction to the online
questionnaires and participants denoted their consent prior to entering the questionnaire to
ADJUNCT LIFE 50

complete survey items. If a participant did not indicate consent to participate in the
questionnaire, they would not move forward in the process to complete the tool. Informed
Consent information was repeated verbally prior to conducting qualitative interviews with
voluntary participants. Participants were provided an opportunity to consent (or not) to
recording the interview and were provided an opportunity to review any questions or concerns
they may have had. Appendix D, located on page 101, includes Informed Consent information.
The quantitative data collection through two web-based questionnaires was anonymous
for the participants who did not provide any identifying information that was tied to expressing
interest in participating in the follow up interview (UP-17-00026). Quantitative data remained
confidential for all participants. Special attention must be paid to ensure confidentiality because
this study takes place within their employment context. Not only should confidentiality be
protected to ensure participation does not influence their work environment, addressing
confidentiality may assist with increased participation and participants feeling comfortable to
provide honest responses. All data was stored on a password protected computer which is not
associated with the researcher’s employment organization.
Prior to the data collection period, the researcher transitioned from a highly visible
regional leadership role. Although participants were not subordinates of the researcher, nor did
she make decisions regarding their employment, there could have been a perception of power
and professional connections to administrators who do make significant decisions regarding
adjunct field faculty members. To minimize the potential of respondents feeling coerced or
obligated to participate, the online survey was sent through the researcher's’ doctoral student
email account. The email referenced the researcher's’ role as a doctoral student and did not
reference the researchers’ employment position. Respondents were provided written and verbal
ADJUNCT LIFE 51

reassurance that their responses were confidential and would not be linked presently, or in the
future, to performance evaluation. Furthermore, the researcher did not attempt to recruit
participants through private or public means and did not use her professional position to request
participation in her survey through staff meetings or other similar venues.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
Limitations of this study included the time of administration of the two questionnaires
selected for use in this study. Because these tools measure intellectual and emotional constructs,
it was reasonable to assume that current events as well as both personal and professional events
may affect respondent answers. Although burnout develops over time, the data collected reflect
a window in time that may or may not be generalizable to future conditions. Levels of burnout
and personal accomplishment (protective against burnout) may fluctuate slightly between
semesters based on faculty workload, stress levels, and whether faculty have had a recent break
from work.
Delimitations
Delimitations of this study included the unique application of the use of MBI-ES survey
in the context of higher education. The MBI-ES was updated from the MBI-General Survey
(GS) primarily by using the word “student” as opposed to the word “client” when responding to
questionnaire statements. This researcher proposes that the use of the word “student” as opposed
to “client” is most appropriate when evaluating work related feelings and experiences of adjunct
field faculty. Faculty members do not typically view their students as “clients” receiving social
work services but consumers of educational experiences.
This project is being conducted within the context of a large institution that has a national
ADJUNCT LIFE 52

presence and employs faculty who reside across the United States. The student enrollment of
this MSW program, and background of the faculty, may be not generalizable to all MSW
programs, particularly those significantly smaller in size, regionally or rurally based. Adjunct
field faculty were specifically selected, as opposed to all adjunct faculty, because of the
frequency of interaction with students. Adjunct teaching faculty typically have less frequent
interaction with students, may be less involved with students outside of class time hours, and are
very minimally involved with students regarding field placement. Adjunct field faculty tend to
be exposed more to student’s personal and professional challenges and are involved in
addressing them in the context of student learning needs. It was the researcher’s hypothesis that
adjunct field faculty may be at higher risk for burnout due to exposure to student situations
which more closely mirror those of clients.
Although these data may be beneficial for Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) programs,
and the adjunct field faculty associated with those programs, this project will focus on adjunct
field faculty teaching only in an MSW program. Because much of the research around burnout
has been deemed generalizable across multiple professions, reviewing these data may prove
helpful to BSW programs.
Summary
Chapter 3 provided an overview of the methodology for this study. Details of the
conceptual framework were provided along with information regarding sampling, recruitment,
and data collection. Strategies for data analysis were outlined along with identified limitations
and delimitations of this project. The associated results and findings are presented in Chapter 4.

ADJUNCT LIFE 53

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS

This chapter will provide an overview of the findings, presented by categories of assumed
causes according to the KMO framework. In addition, the validation conclusion for each
assumed cause will be discussed. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected to validate the
assumed causes (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Specifically, survey and interview
data were collected to understand the knowledge, motivation, and organizational challenges
faced by adjunct field faculty at LU. An assumed cause was considered validated if present
among 65% of the participants. In other words, if survey or interview data suggest a gap for
65% or more of the respondents, the gap has been validated. If this threshold was not met, the
gap is not considered validated.
This study began with the collection of quantitative data using two electronic survey
tools. The Maslach Burnout Inventory-Educators Survey (MBI-ES) includes 22 statements
about job related feelings. Participants use a Likert scale of 0-6 to rate the frequency with which
they have experienced these feelings in their current job. The Areas of Worklife Survey (AWS)
includes 28 statements that participants score using a Likert scale of 1-5 indicating their
agreement or disagreement with a particular statement. Out of 67 potential participants, 28
responded to the survey and 27 provided consent to participate and completed the survey
instruments, yielding a 40% response rate.
Qualitative data, in the form of individual interviews, was collected after the quantitative
phase in order to build upon findings and further explore trends and patterns during the interview
process. The use of multiple methods may aid in the triangulation of findings thus reducing bias
and allowing the researcher to expand upon initial results (Maxwell, 2013). Fifteen interviewees
were self-selected and eight interviews were completed via phone. Three additional interviews
ADJUNCT LIFE 54

were scheduled but not completed due to participant attrition. Overall, 30% of all respondents
participated in an interview with the researcher. All interviews were recorded, with participant
verbal consent, and later were transcribed, coded, and analyzed. Sample items from each survey
instrument are included in Appendix A (page 98) and B (page 99), respectively. In addition, the
interview protocol can be found in Appendix C (page 100).
Overview of Findings
Participants in this study are all adjunct field faculty members with the LU School of
Social Work. The site name used here is a pseudonym used to provide anonymity to the host
organization. These important stakeholders are responsible for teaching within the field
curriculum and serve as student field liaisons and assist students throughout their field placement
experience. Although the survey was sent to all 67 potential respondents assigned to multiple
academic centers, 27 responses (40%) were received from instructors employed across campus
locations. Eight survey respondents also participated in a semi-structured interview with the
researcher (UP-17-00026).
At the conclusion of the two online survey instruments, the researcher included eight
general or demographic questions. Table 4, on page 57, provides summary information
regarding gender and ethnicity for survey and interview participants, respectively.
Approximately 85% of survey respondents (n=23) and 100% of interview participants work
exclusively with the online program. Over 66% of adjunct field faculty in this sample held
another employment position outside of LU and 72% of these positions are part-time or as
needed. Additional noteworthy results are that all respondents fall within the ages of 35 and 69
years, respectively. Further, 40% of all survey respondents are between the ages of 45-54 and
nearly 63% of all respondents have held employment with LU for between three and five years.
ADJUNCT LIFE 55

Table 4
Demographic Summary-Gender and Ethnicity

Gender Survey Interview
Female 23 7
Male 4 1

Ethnicity Survey Interview
White 16 4
African American 4 1
Hispanic 3 1
Middle Eastern 1 1
Multiethnic 1 1

All versions of the Maslach Burnout Inventory include the use of three subscales which
measure the constructs of emotional exhaustion (EE), depersonalization (DP), and personal
accomplishment (PA) (Maslach, Jackson, & Schwab, 1986.) The definitions for these terms are
provided below for ease of reference and may also be found in Chapter 1.
Depersonalization: As defined by Maslach, Jackson, and Leiter (1996), depersonalization
describes the “unfeeling and impersonal response toward recipients of one’s service, care,
treatment, or instruction” (p. 4).
Emotional exhaustion: As defined by Maslach, Jackson, and Leiter (1996), encompasses
“feelings of being emotionally overextended and exhausted by one’s work” (p. 4).
Personal accomplishment: As defined by Maslach, Jackson, and Leiter (1996), “feelings of
competence and successful achievement in one’s work with people” (p. 4).

ADJUNCT LIFE 56

Table 5 includes the participant group average for each construct and provides an
overview of how many participants scored in the high, moderate, and low categories for each
construct.
Table 5
MBI-ES Subscale Scoring

Emotional Exhaustion Participants (n=27) Average EE
High (27+) 2 12.63
Moderate (17-26) 6
Low (0-16) 19
Depersonalization Participants (n=27) Average DP
High (14+) 0 1.77
Moderate (9-13) 0
Low (0-8) 27
Personal Accomplishment Participants (n=27) Average PA
High (37+) 19 40.74
Moderate (31-36) 8
Low (0-30) 0

Depersonalization was minimally reported among the group with a maximum score of 6, which
still falls within the low (0-8) range. 100% of survey participants scored low in
depersonalization which is protective against burnout. Further, personal accomplishment was
very high among the group with zero participants scoring in the low category, eight participants
scoring the moderate range, and 19 participants (70%) scoring high in this subscale. An average
score of 40.74 in personal accomplishment is also protective of burnout and indicates this group
of employees feels a strong sense of purpose and fulfillment about their work. These results are
ADJUNCT LIFE 57

consistent with research that indicates social workers experiencing high levels of career
satisfaction despite challenges (Chaiklin, 2010).
Emotional exhaustion, which is most strongly correlated with high workload and burnout,
may present an area of risk (Maslach, 2003). Although 70% of participants reported low
emotional exhaustion, thus creating a low group average, two participants reported a high
burnout score and six scored in the moderate range. Addressing the needs of this 30% of
stakeholders would be imperative in reducing burnout and preventing the experience for those in
the moderate risk group.
Standard deviation is a calculation used to quantify the amount of variation throughout a
set of data (Creswell, 2014). The smaller the standard deviation is, the higher the level of
agreement among group members. Table 6 includes the standard deviation for each MBI-ES
subscale. There is strong agreement among the group with regard to depersonalization and
personal accomplishment which strengthens the value of these results.
Table 6

MBI-ES Subscale Means and Standard Deviation

Subscale Mean Standard Deviation
Emotional Exhaustion 1.4 1.1
Depersonalization 0.4 0.3
Personal Accomplishment 5.1 0.6

The Areas of Worklife Survey includes the use of six domains which measure the
constructs of Community, Control, Fairness, Reward, Values, and Workload. The definitions for
these terms are provided below for ease of reference and may also be found in Chapter 1.
Community: As defined by Leiter and Maslach (2011), community refers to “the overall quality
ADJUNCT LIFE 58

of social interaction at work, including issues of conflict, mutual support, closeness, and the
capacity to work as a team” (p. 6).
Control: As defined by Leiter and Maslach (2011), the concept of control “includes employees’
perceived capacity to influence decisions that affect their work, to exercise professional
autonomy, and to gain access to the resources necessary to do an effective job” (p. 5).
Fairness: As defined by Leiter and Maslach (2011), fairness is “the extent to which decisions at
work are perceived as being fair and people are treated with respect” (p. 7). Fairness may relate
to multiple areas of work life including workload, compensation, promotion, or performance
evaluation.
Reward: As defined by Leiter and Maslach (2011), “extent to which rewards —monetary,
social, and intrinsic — are consistent with expectations” (p. 6).
Values: As defined by Leiter and Maslach (2011), the concept of values within the workplace is
“the motivating connection between the worker and the workplace that goes beyond the
utilitarian exchange of time for money or advancement” (p. 8).
Workload: The relationship between the amount of work one must complete and the resources
available to complete this work (Leiter & Maslach, 2011).
The Areas of Worklife Survey results are less conclusive with regard to group averages.
As displayed in Table 7 (page 61), the categories of Community and Values, respectively, have
the highest averages and indicate positive worklife experiences in these categories. Average
scores in the remaining categories require further analysis of individual items to draw
conclusions about worklife experiences in this area due to the score of 3 on the Likert scale
referring to “Hard to Decide.” After respondents completed the Areas of Worklife Survey (and
before they completed the MBI-ES), they were provided an opportunity to provide any
ADJUNCT LIFE 59

comments about their work or workplace, in general. One respondent noted, “The number of
‘hard to decide’ responses is indicative of the disconnect I often experience as Adjunct.”
The Areas of Worklife Survey uses the following agreement scale: (1) Strongly Disagree,
(2) Disagree, (3) Hard to Decide, (4) Agree, and, (5) Strongly Agree.
Table 7
AWS Subscale Means and Standard Deviation
Subscale Mean Agreement Standard Deviation
Workload 3.2 0.8
Control 3.6 0.7
Reward 3.4 0.9
Community 4.2 0.7
Fairness 3.1 0.7
Values 4 0.5

The standard deviation for the Areas of Worklife Survey group results is also significant
with values for each category measuring between 0.5 and 0.9. The smaller the standard
deviation is, the higher the level of agreement among group members. Table 7 (above) includes
the standard deviation for each AWS category. The strongest agreement among the group lies
within the worklife experience of Values.
Findings for Knowledge Influences
Assumed knowledge influences previously presented in chapter 3 were validated using
interview data only (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Survey items are more appropriate for the
ADJUNCT LIFE 60

exploration of motivational and organizational influences which are included later in this
chapter.
Declarative knowledge.
Understanding of role contribution to the organization. Interview results did not
validate a gap in declarative knowledge regarding adjunct field faculty understanding how their
work contributes to the mission of the University. All interviewees expressed that they feel their
role is “very important” to students (Interview Q7) as well as to the social work profession at
large (Interview Q9). One interviewee described their role as invaluable to the organization
noting that adjunct field faculty provide the University, and students with current practice
knowledge. All interviewees expressed that relationships with their students, and often
colleagues, continued to validate their role contributions which is a sentiment commonly found
in related literature (Klein et al., 1996).
Procedural knowledge.
Understanding how to engage with University community. Interview results validated a
gap in procedural knowledge with regard to adjunct field faculty needing knowledge regarding
the steps necessary to engage in the faculty community, including consultation group
participation, committee membership, and curriculum development (Dolan, 2011; Klein,
Weisman, & Smith, 1996). Gaps were assessed through analysis of interview questions 3, 5, and
9 which demonstrated that 75% of adjunct field faculty have a lack of knowledge or access to
information in this area. Table 8 includes interview questions and sample responses which
highlight the gaps present.

ADJUNCT LIFE 61

Table 8

Procedural Knowledge Gaps

Interview Question Participant Comments
Q3: Could you please describe what
challenges you the most in this role on a
professional level.
“Sometimes information is hard to get to
because it’s in different places.”
“Access to opportunities...finding the right
people to talk to and finding the right
opportunities.”
“Feeling of belonging [lack thereof].”
Q5: What resources available to you through
the University have been most supportive of
your role as an adjunct field faculty member?

“Nobody can give me an organizational chart
or point me to an employee manual that
states...how do people become promoted.”
“We have a list now of resources in terms if
they [student] need writing support..academic
assistance. There’s teaching manuals.”
“The library system has been fantastic.”

Metacognitive knowledge.
Understanding of one’s own strengths and challenges. Gaps in metacognitive
knowledge were not validated. This result is somewhat expected given that the concepts of self-
awareness and reflection are valued in the social work profession and are included in social work
curriculum (Holden et al., 2002). Interview data indicates that adjunct field faculty have
adequate knowledge of how to evaluate their own strengths and challenges in order to monitor
their own levels of burnout. All interviewees were readily able to discuss both professional and
personal challenges they experience in their role, which vary widely. One respondent noted that
she struggles with required paperwork (workload) but found this manageable by only teaching
one class instead of two. The choice to teach only one course was intentional on the part of the
ADJUNCT LIFE 62

interviewee with the goal of striking a balance between personal and professional
responsibilities. Most respondents could identify solutions for the challenges experienced;
however, some of these are more specific to organizational systems.
One interviewee described reflecting upon the concept of burnout after completing the
survey tools and had considered why they were not experiencing levels of burnout they had
observed in many (clinical practice) colleagues. This interviewee demonstrated strong
metacognitive knowledge when asked what advice they would give to a new member of the
adjunct field faculty (Interview Question 11), “Realize you have limits and so do your students.
Take really good care of yourself.” They also stated, “I do recognize I have limits, I do
recognize clients have limits...and so do students...It’s being [important to be] realistic, have fun,
having good boundaries.”
Table 9 provides a sample list of challenges noted by interviewees and the construct
associated with the Areas of Worklife Survey, if applicable. Despite high levels of personal
accomplishment, participants still noted a wide variety of work-related challenges in nearly all
AWS constructs.
Table 9
Professional Challenges of Adjunct Field Faculty & AWS Constructs
Challenge AWS Construct
Paperwork Workload
Holding students accountable Workload
Lack of influence/control over course
assignments
Control
Use of technology in program N/A
Lack of long-term contract Control, Fairness
ADJUNCT LIFE 63

Professional gatekeeping function of field
liaison role
Workload, Values
Access to professional development
opportunities
Community, Control, Fairness

Synthesis of Knowledge Causes
Through analysis of data in this study, a gap was identified in procedural knowledge;
however, gaps were not validated in declarative or metacognitive knowledge. These results
indicate that this stakeholder group understands their core function and their role contribution to
the University. Adjunct field faculty who participated in this study demonstrate high levels of
self-awareness and self-reflection. However, there are gaps in knowledge regarding engagement
with the University community and navigating their home department.
Results and Findings for Motivation Influences
Assumed motivational influences previously presented in chapter 3 were validated using
survey and interview data. An exploration of specific survey and interview questions used to
analyze the influences of emotions and self-efficacy is included below.
Emotions
Survey data strongly suggest little to no gap in adjunct field faculty experiencing positive
feelings about their work. However, interview data are inconclusive.
Survey results. Question 9 on the MBI-ES states: “I feel I’m positively influencing
other people's lives through my work.” The group average was 5.48 which places the average
feeling between a 5 (a few times a week) and a 6 (every day) in terms of frequency. A total of
26 respondents, or 96%, indicated a score of 5 or 6 with one respondent indicating a score of 4
(once a week). Although no employment position is without challenges, adjunct field faculty
experience positive feelings about their work and their influence on a regular basis, which is
ADJUNCT LIFE 64

protective against burnout.
In addition, Question 20 on the MBI-ES was used to support this gap not being validated.
This question states, “I feel like I’m at the end of my rope,” and had an average group score of
0.3. A score of 0 indicates that respondents “never” experience this feeling and a score of 1
indicates respondents experience this feeling “a few times per year or less.” A total of 25
respondents, or 92%, indicated a score of 0 or 1. It should be noted that one respondent selected
a 2 (once a month or less) and one respondent selected a 4 (once a week).
Self-efficacy
Survey data strongly suggest no gap in adjunct field faculty self-efficacy. Although
survey data indicate that adjunct field faculty are experiencing high self-efficacy overall,
interview findings suggest gaps in modeling and feedback regarding performance which are
needed to increase self-efficacy. These findings are explored in the area of organizational
influences under performance goals and feedback (page 66).
Survey results. Survey data from the MB-ES indicate that adjunct field faculty are
experiencing feelings of self-efficacy on a regular basis. Question 7 states, “I deal very
effectively with the problems of my students.” The average group score was 5.1, indicating that
respondents experience this a few times per week. Overall, nearly 78% of respondents (n=21)
reported a score of 5 or 6 on question 7. The other 22% of respondents (n=6) indicated a score
of 4, or experiencing this feeling once a week.
Question 9 on the MBI-ES was used to explore feelings around self-efficacy as well as
emotions, as explored above on page 63. This question states: “I feel I’m positively influencing
other people's lives through my work.” The group average was 5.48 which places the average
feeling between a 5 (a few times a week) and a 6 (every day) in terms of frequency. A total of
ADJUNCT LIFE 65

26 respondents, or 96%, indicated a score of 5 or 6 with one respondent indicating a score of 4
(once a week).
Results and Findings for Organizational Influences
Assumed organizational influences previously presented in chapter 3 were validated
using survey and interview data. An exploration of specific survey and interview questions used
to analyze organizational influences is included below.
Culture of Constant Change
Interview findings. Survey results did not evaluate this potential organizational
influence. Interview findings were inconclusive as the interview questions did not result in
consistent messages about cultural change. One interviewee remarked that the program had
faced some regular changes in leadership; however, change was not a consistent theme.
Work-Life Balance
Survey and interview data validated that adjunct field faculty receive conflicting
messages regarding work-life balance. Although there is a strong sense of community, there are
work-related pressures with regard to networking and competing for professional development
opportunities.
Survey results. Results from the Areas of Worklife Survey include exploration of the
perception of workload. Question 5 states, “I leave my work behind when I go home at the end
of the workday.” The group average response was 2.6, falling between a 2 (disagree) and 3 (hard
to decide). These results indicate some respondents may have mixed feelings about their
workload or do feel that they are unable to separate work from home adequately. A total of 20
respondents, or 74%, indicated a score of 3 (hard to decide), 4 (agree), or 5 (strongly agree). The
remaining respondents (n=7) selected a response of 1 (strongly disagree) or 2 (disagree).
ADJUNCT LIFE 66

Interviewing findings. Interview findings also support a gap in messaging around work-
life balance though the findings are more mixed among interviewees. Only 50% of interviewees
(n=4) indicated significant concern in this area. Participants noted concerns about competing for
opportunities and experiencing confusion about who to contact to discuss their professional
development interests. One interviewee noted, “I definitely feel some pressure to compete...and
stay on top of the learning that I need to do for my own personal development and growth. I find
myself constantly...asking myself ‘Am I doing enough to get recognized?’”
Additional findings suggest that adjunct field faculty experience tension between a desire,
or professional need, to network with colleagues and balance this with other employment or
personal commitments (Dolan, 2011; Klein et al., 1996). For example, one interviewee noted,
“Since I don’t get paid for anything outside of my work assignment, I have to keep a close eye
on [whether or not] I am doing something that won’t get paid and taking time and money away
from...where I do make the money.” Further, 50% of interviewees noted that the workload is, or
has been, an issue that has competed for their personal or professional time. One respondent
noted, “So finding [spending] a good amount of time in this role is not my primary job...and
yet...it has taken up almost more occupational hours than my regular position.”
Performance goals and feedback
Survey and interview data validated that adjunct field faculty are provided vague
information regarding performance goals and receive limited structured feedback.
Survey results. Results from the Areas of Worklife Survey also explore the perception
of fairness in one’s organization. Question 20 states: “Opportunities are decided solely on
merit.” The group average response was 2.6, falling between a 2 (disagree) and 3 (hard to
decide). Of particular significance is that 18 out of 27 respondents (66%) selected a 3 (hard to
ADJUNCT LIFE 67

decide), which may indicate ambiguous feelings in this area. Three respondents selected a 1
(strongly disagree), five selected a 2 (disagree), and only one respondent selected a 4 (agree).
Interview findings. Interview findings in this area were relatively consistent with the
majority (n=6) of participants expressing concern regarding a lack of reporting structure in the
department and a lack of formalized feedback. Although 100% of interviewees expressed
appreciation for autonomy and flexibility in their positions, this is offset by stress related to not
knowing how they would receive constructive feedback, if necessary, and whether or not this
information would be used to determine future teaching assignments. One interviewee expressed
concern about having been employed by LU for a few years and “I still don’t really know who
my boss is.”
Summary
Chapter 4 included a discussion of results and finding for this study. These results and
findings are organized by knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences (Clark & Estes,
2008). Gaps were validated in procedural knowledge, but not in the areas of declarative or
metacognitive knowledge. Further, no gaps were identified in the motivational influences of
emotions and self-efficacy. Most significantly, gaps were identified in all organizational
influence areas. Although adjunct field faculty may be experiencing minimal levels of burnout,
organizational concerns regarding fairness, workload, and control may contribute to burnout risk
or otherwise negatively affect adjunct field faculty. Chapter 5 will present recommendations for
solutions to address these gaps and improve the quality of worklife for adjunct field faculty.

ADJUNCT LIFE 68

CHAPTER FIVE: SOLUTIONS, IMPLEMENTATION, AND EVALUATION PLAN
In Chapter Four, assumed influences were validated by exploration of quantitative and
qualitative data analysis. Various challenges were identified related to the stakeholders’
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences and other strengths were identified among
the stakeholder group. Multiple results presented above demonstrate a high level of consistency
across research participants, which may result in increased effectiveness in the implementation
of solutions.
The following chapter seeks to address research question 3: What are the
recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational resources? Various solutions to address identified gaps will be presented along
with a plan for implementation and evaluation of the proposed solutions. Similar to prior
chapters, recommendations will continue to be organized categorically by knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences. The New World Kirkpatrick Model will be presented
as a framework for evaluating proposed training and other recommended solutions to address
performance gaps (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Knowledge Recommendations
The following discussion will provide recommendations for practice based on the KMO
framework. According to Clark & Estes (2008), knowledge enhancement can take place using
four primary resources which include information, job aids, training, and education. The use of
these tools will be discussed in relation to the identified stakeholder and their specific needs.
Declarative, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge influences are explored in Table 10 (page
69) and context-specific recommendations are provided.
ADJUNCT LIFE 69

The knowledge influences in Table 10 represent a complete list of assumed knowledge
influences and indicates whether they were validated based on the literature review in Chapter 2
and through analysis of quantitative and qualitative data.
Table 10

Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations

Assumed Knowledge
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*

Influence
Validated
Yes or No
(V, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Adjunct Field faculty
need knowledge of
their roles and
responsibilities; this
knowledge builds self-
efficacy and
engagement; thus,
preventing burnout. (D)
V Y Feedback and
modeling increases
self-efficacy (Pajares,
2006).

Learning and
motivation are
enhanced when
learners have positive
expectancies for
success (Pajares,
2006).

Provide faculty
orientation (upon
hire) which
provides them with
oral and written
information about
their roles and
responsibilities.

Provide job aid
which provides
instruction and
referral regarding
common issues
they may
experience
working with
students.
Adjunct Field faculty
need to understand how
their work contributes
to the mission of the
University. (D)
V Y Feedback and
modeling increases
self-efficacy (Pajares,
2006; Clark & Estes,
2008.)
Provide faculty
training on a
monthly basis
which includes
topics identified by
administration and
by faculty as areas
of needed.
Training should
directly address the
adjunct faculty role
in context with
University
programs and
ADJUNCT LIFE 70

operations.
Adjunct Field faculty
need knowledge
regarding the steps
necessary to engage in
the faculty community
including consultation,
group participation,
committee membership,
and curriculum
development. (P)
V Y Use cooperative and
collaborative groups to
allow for opportunities
to attain both social
and academic goals
(Pintrich, 2003).

Positive emotional
environments support
motivation (Clark &
Estes, 2008).

Faculty
Orientation (upon
hire) will include
information about
University
committees,
mentorship
opportunities, and
other options for
engaging in the
University
community.

Encourage or
assign field faculty
involvement in
committee
assignments and
university
workgroups.
Adjunct Field faculty
need knowledge of how
to evaluate their own
strengths and
challenges with regard
to monitoring their own
levels of burnout. (M)
V Y Information learned
meaningfully and
connected with prior
knowledge is stored
more quickly and
remembered more
accurately because it is
elaborated with prior
learning (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).

The use of
metacognitive
strategies facilitates
learning (Baker,
2006).
Provide a Faculty
Mentoring
Program for
adjunct faculty to
assist in learning
about the
organization, role
and processes.
This is also an
excellent tool for
two-way feedback
and supportive
supervision.

Provide training
specific to Self-
care assessment
and management.
This training
ADJUNCT LIFE 71

would include self-
reflective exercises
which enhance
metacognition and
may protect
against burnout.

Declarative knowledge solutions. Self-Efficacy is closely tied to declarative knowledge
needs for the adjunct field faculty population. An adjunct field faculty members’ belief about
their ability to understand and execute their role will greatly affect transfer of learning as well as
motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008; Pajares, 2006). Further, learning is enhanced with the
expectancy of success so adjunct field faculty are more likely to excel in their roles when they
expect to do so (Pajares, 2006). As described in Table 10 (above), field faculty must understand
their role and their importance to the University, have knowledge of methods to engage with the
University community, and be able to evaluate their own practice and level of wellness within
the context of their work.
Although informal orientation occurs, the development of a formal orientation program
for adjunct field faculty would be a helpful resource. A committee comprised of both full-time
and adjunct field faculty created a Mentorship Committee that provides all new adjunct
instructors with an experienced mentor for up to two semesters. Thorough evaluation and
improvement of this program would also be an asset to supporting this group of employees as
feedback and modeling increase self-efficacy (Pajares, 2006).
Procedural knowledge solutions. Procedural knowledge solutions focus on goal
orientation and emotions (Clark & Estes, 2008; Pintrich, 2003). Adjunct field faculty need
knowledge of how to engage with the academic community, to set goals for performance, and
manage the emotions associated with these processes and relationships. Faculty orientation and
ADJUNCT LIFE 72

mentorship remain solutions; however, professional development and training, occurring at
regular intervals, should also be considered (Clark & Estes, 2008). Early intervention can occur
through the provision of formal orientation and written reference materials which faculty can
refer to throughout their academic experience. The investment of providing these organizational
resources also sends a clear message to adjunct field faculty regarding the importance of their
role.
Metacognitive knowledge solutions. Metacognitive knowledge solutions for adjunct
field faculty should emphasize the need for reflection and self-care (Baker, 2006). Organizations
must provide support for these activities and provide training for faculty as a tool to increase
awareness (Memmott & Brennan, 1998). The use of formal assessment in evaluating burnout
will allow for less individual subjectivity, which may lack accuracy.
Motivation Recommendations
The vast majority of performance problems are linked to issues of motivation and thus
organizations must be mindful to address the motivational needs of their stakeholders (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Table 11 includes a summary of motivational influences for adjunct field faculty
and specific recommendations to assist in meeting these motivational needs. The assumed
motivational influences (column 1) have been validated or invalidated through data collection
and analysis.
Table 11
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*

Validated
Yes or No
(V, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Emotion
Adjunct Field Faculty
V Y Positive emotional
environments support
Institute faculty
mentoring program
ADJUNCT LIFE 73

need to feel positively
about their work and
position in the
organization to remain
engaged and motivated.
motivation (Clark &
Estes, 2008, Goette et
al., 2012).

which pairs new
adjunct faculty
with experienced
faculty. Increasing
engagement with
peers will lead to
enhanced
motivation.
Self-Efficacy
Adjunct Field Faculty
need to be provided
adequate modeling and
timely, accurate
feedback regarding
their performance to
increase self-efficacy.
They need to
experience high self-
efficacy to maintain
high levels of
motivation, thus
preventing burnout.
V Y Feedback and
modeling increases
self-efficacy (Pajares,
2006).

Provide immediate
feedback for simple
tasks and delayed
feedback for complex
tasks (Borgogni et al.,
2011).

In providing feedback,
balance comments
about strengths and
challenges (Borgogni et
al., 2011).
Provide formal
annual
performance
review (APR)
criteria upon hire
which includes
specific metrics
regarding teaching
evaluation scores
and specific
expectations
around scholarship
and service
activities.

Institute a monthly
or quarterly award
for adjunct field
faculty who have
performed well in
their duties as a
professor or field
liaison. Adjunct
field faculty may
be nominated by
adjunct peers, FT
colleagues, staff
members or
supervisory
personnel.

Emotions. Employees need to feel positively about their work and establish a connection
to the mission of the organization to be successful and prevent burnout. Adjunct field faculty,
particularly those working in a virtual environment, may be significantly influenced by the
ADJUNCT LIFE 74

emotions associated to their role and work. Research demonstrates that positive emotional
environments support motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008, Goette et al., 2012). Establishing faculty
mentoring programs and other formal and informal systems of support will increase the
likelihood of positive emotional experiences for adjunct field faculty.
Self-Efficacy. Self-efficacy refers to our own belief in our ability to successfully
complete a task or perform our role. One’s level of self-efficacy may be impacted by the above
influence of emotions. Adjunct Field Faculty must experience high levels of self-efficacy to
maintain motivation which will positively impact their worklife experience (Pajares, 2006).
Feedback and modeling through mentoring, training programs, and regular individual and group
meetings increases self-efficacy (Pajares, 2006).
Organizational Recommendations
Introduction. Organizational influences are also paramount in addressing performance
needs and gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008). Although individual knowledge and motivation are also
key, ignoring the cultural context where work is completed renders any assessment incomplete.
Table 12 explores assumed organizational influences and recommendations for the stakeholder
group of adjunct field faculty.
Table 12
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Organization
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*

Influence
Validated
Yes or No
(V or N)
Priorit
y
Yes,
No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Model
Influence 1: There is a
culture of constant
change and a related
cultural expectation that
N N Effective leaders know
how to use
effective
communication during
the time
Organizational
leaders should
develop a regular
schedule for
information
ADJUNCT LIFE 75

faculty must remain
adaptable and
enthusiastic about
continuous change.
of organizational
change (Hattaway &
Henson, 2013).

Effective leaders are
aware of the influence
of motivation as it
relates to
communication and its
role in organizational
change (Gilley, Gilley,
& McMillan, 2009).
sharing with
adjunct field
faculty in order to
keep them
informed of
organizational
challenges.
Forums should be
provided in order
for faculty to
express questions
and concerns.
Cultural Model
Influence 2: Adjunct
field faculty receive
conflicting messages
regarding work-life
balance. There is a
supportive, employee-
centered culture yet
informal reward
structures and
recognition are linked
to working after hours
and engaging in
additional work
projects/committees.
V Y Organizational culture
is created through
shared experience,
shared learning
and stability of
membership. It is
something that has
been learned. It cannot
be imposed (Schein,
2004).

Employee attitudes,
particularly feeling as
though they matter and
their work makes a
difference, are
correlated with
numerous
organizational outputs
(Buckingham and
Coffman, 1999; Harter,
Schmidt, Killham &
Asplund, 2006;
Schlossberg, 1989).
Policies and
procedures
regarding
expectations of
scheduling, work
quality, time off,
etc. should be
developed and
disseminated to
adjunct field
faculty.

Professional
development
resources should
be provided to
support adjunct
field faculty in
protecting
themselves from
professional
burnout.
Cultural Setting
Influence 1: Adjunct
field faculty are
provided vague
performance goals and
feedback. Positive
feedback is usually
provided informally
whereas negatively
V Y People are more
productive when goal
setting and
benchmarking are
essential to evaluating
progress and driving
organizational
performance in
accountability (Dowd,
Adjunct field
faculty should
complete an APR
(annual
performance
review) which is
used for all
faculty. This tool
should be designed
ADJUNCT LIFE 76

feedback is provided
through formal
channels.
2005; Levy & Ronco,
2012).
specifically for
their role and
program
leadership should
meet with them to
discuss ratings.
Cultural Setting
Influence 2: The
organization lacks a
formal strategic plan
for the School of Social
Work (SSW).
Although global
(University-wide) goals
are set, SSW goals are
typically short and
medium-term and
rapidly changing.
Adjunct field faculty
are typically not
involved in goal-setting
initiatives and do not
have a strategic plan to
reference to gain global
perspective.
V N Accountability is
increased
when individual roles
and expectations are
aligned with
organizational goals
and mission. Incentives
and rewards
systems need to reflect
this relationship
(Elmore,
2002).

University
leadership should
develop and
publish a strategic
plan for review by
all faculty. At
least one adjunct
field faculty
member should be
selected to assist a
panel of faculty
who will be
requested to assist
program
leadership in the
development of
this document.

Cultural models. Adjunct field faculty within this organization are provided overt and
covert messages around expectations and norms for the School of Social Work. As described
above, the cultural context of this organization includes a focus on rapid and near continuous
change which can be both exciting and exhausting. Pressure may be experienced by those
faculty who question these change processes or who are easily frustrated with the flexibility that
is required because of this expectation.
Multiple stakeholder groups, including adjunct field faculty, may receive mixed messages
regarding worklife balance which may lead to behavior that contributes to burnout. The School
of Social Work is represented heavily by professional social workers who are very aware of the
concept of burnout and its consequences. The administrative and faculty teams are supportive
ADJUNCT LIFE 77

when emergencies arise and support is needed for personal and professional issues. However,
many faculty are rewarded for going above and beyond their positions’ responsibilities, working
extended hours, and offering to participate in uncompensated activities. The disparity in these
messages may impact adjunct field faculty in the areas of motivation and worklife satisfaction.
Cultural settings. Lack of adequate and timely feedback for adjunct field faculty
represents both a cultural issue and a motivational influence. There is currently no formal
structure in place to evaluate adjunct field faculty apart from student evaluations. Although
student evaluation of courses and instructors include a great deal of helpful information, the
scoring is not explained to the instructors and follow up usually does not occur unless the
evaluations are overtly negative. Minimal formal feedback was a recurring theme throughout
participant interviews and is explored in Chapter 4.
Although the School of Social Work has a strong mission and vision for their work, there
is a lack of direction for multiple stakeholders which could be provided through a formal
strategic plan. For adjunct field faculty, a strategic plan could allow for further clarity about the
purpose and goals of their position and allow a more formal channel for stakeholder feedback.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The New World Kirkpatrick Model will serve as the selected framework to guide the
implementation and evaluation plan described below. This model, which has been recently
updated, seeks to provide a structured way to evaluate training programs in four levels which are
presented in reverse order. Level four considers the desired results of the training and requires
the developer to consider how the training contributes to the overall goal (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level three focuses on participant behavior demonstrated after the training is
ADJUNCT LIFE 78

identified to ensure application of knowledge. Level two evaluates the degree of knowledge,
skill, and attitude acquisition which is intended through the training program (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Finally, level one relates to learner engagement and assessment of relevance
to their job which the creators of the New World Kirkpatrick Model refer to as participant
reaction (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
As an implementation and evaluation plan is developed, the mission of the organization
must be considered to ensure value alignment for training participants and facilitators. The
stakeholder group identified for this study is adjunct field faculty and a stakeholder goal was
identified by the researcher and program administrators to support this stakeholder group with
the intention of preserving a valuable faculty resource. Adjunct field faculty are, along with
many other stakeholders, directly responsible for the success of the organizational mission and
for sharing this mission with the student body.
As stated in the beginning of this chapter, the LU School of Social Work (by May 2018)
will create a strategic plan to address the burnout and engagement levels of adjunct field faulty.
Further, by December 2018, adjunct field faculty members will report a 5% decrease in
symptoms of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization per results of Maslach Burnout
Inventory-Educators Survey (MBI-ES). This evaluation will establish a baseline for the
experience of burnout among adjunct field faculty and be used to develop training tools and
resources which are intended to decrease the experience of burnout across this stakeholder group.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Level 4 of the Kirkpatrick model identifies results and specific indicators which confirm
movement toward a stakeholder goal (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). This discussion will
ADJUNCT LIFE 79

focus on internal outcomes as the study focuses on individual adjunct field faculty members and
the way in which they experience their worklife. However, research suggests that student
satisfaction (external outcome) is impacted by faculty engagement (Berbary & Malinchak, 2011;
Dolan, 2011). Table 13 includes the leading indicators of outcomes, metrics, and methods to
address external and internal outcomes.
Table 13

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
MSW Program
performance will improve
and be noticeable to
external evaluators.
The School of Social Work will
remain ranked in the Top 3
Online MSW programs in the
United States.
Review school rankings twice
per year and disseminate
updated information regarding
ranking criteria to program
administrators, staff, and
faculty.
Internal Outcomes
Student satisfaction with
field courses will be
increased.
Course evaluations for courses
taught by adjunct field faculty
will average a score of 4 or
better (scale of 1-5)
Review course evaluations and
provide supportive resources
and coaching for faculty falling
below desired score. Course
evaluations will be reviewed on
a semester to semester basis.
Improved adjunct field
faculty engagement within
the University which will
lead to decreased turnover
and a decrease in
associated hiring costs.
Completion of one semester
(minimum) of field faculty
mentoring program.
All new adjunct field faulty will
be assigned an experienced field
faculty mentor who will provide
support and aid in the
orientation process. Faculty
must participate for a minimum
of one semester and a maximum
of two semesters.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. Level 3 of the Kirkpatrick model includes behavior, or the degree to
which adjunct field faculty apply what they have learned through training opportunities
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level 3 is very important because it determines the actual
ADJUNCT LIFE 80

capacity for organizational change through application of newly acquired knowledge and skills.
Table 14 includes critical behaviors which demonstrate application of learning as well as metrics,
methods, and timing to evaluate these critical behaviors (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Table 14

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
Adjunct field faculty
will respond to
student emails within
48 hours or 2 business
days.
Number of student
complaints regarding
responsiveness to
student emails.
Regional Field Director
will review number of
complaints each
semester and provide
feedback to instructors.
Per semester basis
(three times yearly).
Adjunct field faculty
will hold consistent
virtual office hours to
address student
questions and
concerns.
Number of student
complaints regarding
absent or lacking
office hours held by
adjunct field faculty.
Regional Field Director
will review number of
complaints each
semester and provide
feedback to instructors.
Per semester basis
(three times yearly).
Adjunct field faculty
will attend weekly
consultation groups
for the duration of
their first teaching
semester.
Attendance taken
during each weekly
consult group will
indicate 100%
attendance for
required members.
Attendance will be
reviewed by
consultation group host
on a weekly basis and
follow up will occur
with adjunct field
faculty members.
Weekly and per
semester (three
times yearly).

Required drivers. The critical behaviors explored above are influenced by specific
drivers which are required to ensure stakeholder achievement. Table 15 (page 82) includes
specific drivers which assist to reinforce, encourage, reward and/or monitor desired behaviors
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).

ADJUNCT LIFE 81

Table 15
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Provide job aid which denotes
policy and procedure around
job expectations.
Upon hire and updated
ongoing.
1, 2, 3
Provide reminders through
meetings and email
communication of critical
tasks for adjunct field faculty.
1-2 times per semester. 1 & 2
Encouraging
Provide access to Mentoring
Committee for all new adjunct
field faculty members.
Upon hire for up to two
semesters.
1, 2, 3
Rewarding
Field team leadership will
identify an Adjunct Field
Faculty Member of the Month
and provide formal
recognition/reward through
email and group faculty
meetings.
Monthly. 1, 2, 3

Monitoring. Ensuring accountability for the required drivers will ensure that critical
behaviors are taking place and Level 3 evaluation is successful. Monitoring will occur once per
semester through a survey sent to the adjunct field faculty members to evaluate their knowledge
and motivation for engaging in critical behaviors. Further support and monitoring will both
occur through monthly meetings held with all full-time and adjunct field faculty. The exchange
of information and reinforcement of expected behaviors will occur regularly through this
scheduled time.

ADJUNCT LIFE 82

Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. The following learning goals have been established for the stakeholder
group if the above solutions are implemented.
1. Identify and articulate their role and responsibilities. (D)
2. Understand the organizational structure which includes their access to
participation in faculty meetings, consultation groups, and mentorship committee.
(P)
3. Know how to evaluate their own strengths and challenges with regard to
monitoring their own levels of burnout. (M)
4. Experience positive emotions regarding their position in the organization which
will increase their engagement and motivation. (Emotion)
5. Receive timely and accurate feedback which attributes increases self-efficacy
which is protective of burnout. (Self-efficacy)
6. Demonstrate high self-efficacy which will be reinforced through formal
evaluations from students and peers. Awareness of self-efficacy levels will lead
to decreased burnout. (Self-efficacy)
7. Create a professional self-care plan which identifies resources inside and outside
the organization which may mitigate or reduce the experience of burnout. (M,
Self-efficacy)
Program. The primary program recommended for the stakeholder group of adjunct field
faculty is a mandatory 8-hour orientation and training program upon initial hire. This training
will be administered over the course of two 4-hour sessions and will include an overview of the
following topics: roles and responsibilities, field practicum policies and procedures,
ADJUNCT LIFE 83

organizational reporting structure, grading expectations, human resources information, and
University resources and supports. These topics were selected based upon support for the
stakeholder group.
The facilitation of in-person training may be beneficial and address a feeling of
disconnection adjunct field faculty may have with the organization and/or peers. However,
financial barriers may exist regarding the resources needed to provide transportation and lodging
for a large group of faculty. This training program, pending financial barriers, could be offered
on-campus, or offered in a regional location which would minimize cost but still allow for face-
to-face interaction. This would be preferred over hosting the training online because adjunct
field faculty are already attending classes and multiple meetings on a virtual platform.
Components of learning. Table 16 provides a list of the methods to be used to evaluate
the learning goals identified for adjunct field faculty.
Table 16
Components of Learning for the Program.
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Stakeholder group/facilitator discussion
regarding key takeaways from training.
Multiple points during the training.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Stakeholder group members will successfully
complete case vignette exercise during training
which will assess understanding of applied
policies and procedures. The use of an observer
will assist in evaluation of understanding.
Facilitator will review vignettes during training
lunch break to ensure follow up in necessary
areas later in the training.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Small group discussion regarding the relevance
of the training to adjunct field faculty role.
Each small group will report out to larger
group.
During the training.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Facilitator will send survey after the training to
evaluate continued self-efficacy around roles
One month after the training.
ADJUNCT LIFE 84

and responsibilities.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Adjunct field faculty will be paired with
faculty mentor through Mentorship committee.
Will be assessed by mentor on an ongoing
basis for up to two semesters.

Level 1: Reaction
Level one includes the reaction of training participants, whether positive or negative, to
the training experience and influences their ability and willingness to apply the learning that
occurs during the training (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 17 includes methods that
will be used to determine participant reaction to the orientation and training program.
Table 17
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Instructor Observation: Instructor will use
observation skills to assess level of participant
interest, engagement, and/or distraction while
attending the training.
During the training; will continue throughout
the training and during breaks.
Relevance
Pulse-check: Instructor will pause the
orientation and training program to inquire
about the facilities/temperature/non-training
concerns. Instructor will also pause training
for feedback and reflection regarding
relevance; adjustments will be made
accordingly.
During the training; two times in 4 hours. One
additional pulse-check if indicated.
Customer Satisfaction
Participant Survey: All participants will be
asked to complete a survey which will assess
knowledge and skill acquisition as well as
customer satisfaction.
Immediately after the orientation/training.
Also 1 month after the training.

Evaluation Tools
A survey evaluation tool will be designed to assess Level 1 and 2 (reaction and learning)
after the adjunct field faculty orientation and training is implemented. This survey will be
ADJUNCT LIFE 85

provided to training participants immediately following the training, preferably while remaining
in the training location. Subsequent survey tools will be administered with follow up training
programs to reinforce knowledge, skills, and application of learning.
Data Analysis and Reporting
The New World Kirkpatrick Model includes robust information regarding data analysis
and reporting which is essential to demonstrate the value (or lack thereof) of training programs.
In many organizations, being able to provide comprehensive data regarding a training program
will increase the likelihood of future funding and support (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick 2016). Data
will be analyzed immediately after the orientation and training program and at one month post-
training upon participant completion of the follow up survey. Quantitative data will be analyzed
using standard methods and the program overall (including qualitative feedback) will be analyzed
using the data analysis questions provided by the model.
Summary
Adjunct field faculty are an integral and indispensable component of social work
education at colleges and universities across the United States. The prevention and management
of work-related burnout is essential in preserving this valuable stakeholder group for the benefit
of the stakeholders, students, and the organization. The New World Kirkpatrick Model is an
excellent tool which can assist in a multi-level assessment of training programs which may be
designed to support the adjunct field faculty group.
The use of the World Kirkpatrick Model will allow for the orientation and training
program provided to adjunct field faculty to yield the highest return on investment possible. The
model is particularly strong in that it will allow for concrete analysis of the training on four
levels which include results, behavior, learning and reactions (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
ADJUNCT LIFE 86

Ensuring a dynamic evaluation of the orientation and training program will yield clearly
identified strengths and opportunities for improvement, thus leading to continual improvements
in the participant experience. Organizational support for this initiative is expected to be strong
and continue to grow as reporting of results leads to data-driven decisions.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis framework provided an important opportunity
to translate constructs found in the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Educators Survey and the Areas
of Worklife Survey into a model for evaluation. These survey tools provide a preliminary
analysis of each individual's worklife experiences and current risk for burnout. However, the
application of the Gap Analysis framework allows for the identification of specific knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences which impact these experiences. Thus, results are
more comprehensive and may be subject to more complex or innovative solutions. On the other
hand, the utilization of this framework serves to limit the reporting of data that may be
significant, or interesting, yet does not relate directly to any of the performance influencers
identified.
Limitations
As with all research studies, there are limitations or factors which could be improved
should a study be replicated or expanded. A primary limitation of this study is the sample size
and the limited generalizability of findings outside of LU. Although the number of survey
respondents (n=27) represented a 40% response rate overall, a larger study pertaining to adjunct
field faculty as a stakeholder may allow researchers to draw more general conclusions about this
group overall. Further, this study offers limited insight about the experiences of adjunct field
faculty associated with the campus-based program. Although four survey respondents were
ADJUNCT LIFE 87

associated with the campus-based program, the other 23 respondents were associated with the
online program. Further, all interviewees were affiliated with the online program. Therefore,
generalizability to campus-based adjuncts is limited as is comparison between the two groups.
As referenced above in the Strengths and Weakness of the Approach section, the use of
the KMO Framework could be viewed as a limitation in the interpretation and dissemination of
results. Although helpful in identifying gaps and opportunities for systemic organizational
improvement, this research study could utilize alternate frameworks more closely aligned with
the constructs associated to burnout and worklife satisfaction.
Future Research
The management and support of adjunct field faculty in Schools of Social Work remains
an important, albeit complex, undertaking. This study aimed to identify performance influencers
which impact adjunct field faculty and identify gaps according to the KMO Framework which
addresses knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors related to performance (Clark &
Estes, 2008). To control the size and scope of this project, the researcher identified a readily
available stakeholder group to assess which was limited in size. Future research could include a
regional or national scope to include adjunct field faculty from multiple organizations to explore
common themes across groups of faculty. In addition, these larger studies could yield a response
rate which allows for enhanced comparison of experiences between online and campus-based
programs.
Additional research is recommended to include other groups of adjunct faculty in social
work and perhaps inclusion of full-time field faculty for direct comparison between adjunct and
full-time groups. Research gaps regarding burnout and worklife experience exist regarding
faculty in programs of social work. Additional contributions to this literature will be impactful
ADJUNCT LIFE 88

in supporting faculty which in turn will support organizational systems and improve student
outcomes (Bettinger & Long, 2010; Fagan-Wilen et al., 2006; Klein et al., 1996).
Limitations in time and resources resulted in specific programmatic goals being set and
approved by a small group of leaders and this researcher. In further research, or to expand this
study, stakeholders could be consulted directly to assist in determining performance goals. This
would enhance ownership for both leaders and stakeholders and allow for a collaborative
performance improvement process.
Recommendations provided in Chapter 5 are based upon literature review along with
both quantitative and qualitative findings. Because of the depth and breadth of these constructs,
and associated findings, additional solutions may need to be considered over time. A more
complex, varied approach to addressing the needs of adjunct field faculty may need development
to include the implementation of multiple solutions and the regular use of assessment tools. For
example, results from this study (or additional research) could be used to develop a strategic plan
to address the needs of adjunct field faculty. The strategic plan could be developed by a small
committee of organizational leaders and full-time and adjunct faculty who would have
responsibility for monitoring and evaluating outcomes.
Conclusion
Institutions of higher learning in the United States continue to rely more heavily on
adjunct faculty; however, research gaps exist regarding the worklife experiences of this
important workforce. Preventing and treating burnout across professions continues to be an issue
of paramount importance and, in large part, determines the health of our organizations and the
quality of services we provide. Although burnout does not discriminate, social workers and
those involved in human services have historically been impacted by the stress of high intensity,
ADJUNCT LIFE 89

high workload jobs. Less is known about social workers who have transitioned out of direct
practice and into roles within higher education. This study sought to evaluate the worklife
experiences and risk for burnout in adjunct field faculty and to address any knowledge,
motivation, or organizational gaps which may be present in this organizational context.
Results and findings indicate participants are not experiencing significant levels of
burnout; however, organizational gaps present risk factors for adjunct field faculty. Although
minimal gaps were identified in knowledge and motivation areas, the feeling of disconnection
from the university and faculty peers may create motivational issues over time. This feeling of
disconnection is likely to lead to a decrease in personal accomplishment which may increase risk
for burnout and contribute to lower morale or employee turnover.
Recommendations for practice for enhancing the worklife experience of adjunct field
faculty include a combination of strategies that will prepare them for their role and provide
supports throughout their employment. A formalized orientation and training program will
ensure adjunct field faculty understand their role and responsibilities and have an enhanced
understanding of organizational systems and resources. Additional mechanisms to recognize and
reward adjunct field faculty, as well and professional development options should be provided to
increase positive emotional experiences and self-efficacy. The continuation of the Mentorship
Committee and other formalized methods of support provision will be instrumental in providing
ongoing orientation and oversight. Lastly, implementation of a formal annual performance
appraisal would allow for timely, useful feedback which creates connection, increases self-
efficacy and motivation, and provide an increased sense of job security.
As the academic landscape continues to evolve in the years to come, organizations have
an opportunity to evaluate the worklife experiences of their adjunct faculty and to apply support
ADJUNCT LIFE 90

and resources which could prevent and mitigate the impact burnout. These efforts will protect
the valuable resource of adjunct field faculty and lead to enhanced student outcomes and
increased organizational health.

ADJUNCT LIFE 91

References
Adams, R. E., Boscarino, J. A., & Figley, C. R. (2006). Compassion fatigue and psychological
distress among social workers: A validation study. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
76(1), 103.
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/metacognition/
Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational
research. Human relations, 61(8), 1139-1160.
Berbary, D., & Malinchak, A. (2011). Connected and engaged: The value of government
learning. The Public Manager, Fall, 55–59.
Berger, B. (2014). Read my lips: Leaders, supervisors, and culture are the foundations of
strategic employee communications. Research Journal of the Institute for Public
Relations, 1(1), Retrieved from
http://www.instituteforpr.org/wp-content/uploads/BergerFinalWES.pdf
Bettinger, E. P., & 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.
Billett, S. (2001). Learning throughout working life: Interdependencies at work. Studies in
continuing education, 23(1), 19-35.
Blosser, J., Cadet, D., & Downs Jr, L. (2010). Factors that influence retention and professional
development of social workers. Administration in Social Work, 34(2), 168-177.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2015). Occupational Outlook Handbook,
2014-15 Edition, Social Workers. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/ooh/community-and-
social-service/social-workers.htm
ADJUNCT LIFE 92

Chaiklin, H. (2010). The results are in: What social workers say about social work. NASW
center for workforce studies. Washington, DC: NASW Press.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. IAP.
Colby, I. (1998). Adjunct faculty in social work education. Journal of Teaching in Social
Work, 16(1-2), 133-147.
Council on Social Work Education. (2015). 2015 Educational Policy and Accreditation
Standards. Alexandria, VA: CSWE.
Cox, K., & Steiner, S. (2013). Self-care in social work: A guide for practitioners, supervisors,
and administrators. Washington, D.C.: NASW Press.
Didham, S., Dromgole, L., Csiernik, R., Karley, M. L., & Hurley, D. (2011). Trauma exposure
and the social work practicum. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 31(5), 523-537.
Dolan, V. L. (2011). The isolation of online adjunct faculty and its impact on their performance.
The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(2), 62-77.
Dore, M. M. (1994). Feminist pedagogy and the teaching of social work practice. Journal of
Social Work Education, 30(1), 97-106.
Dorfeld, N. M. (2015). National adjunct walkout day: Now what? College Composition and
Communication, 67(1), A8.
Duncan Jr, J. C. (1998). The indentured servants of academia: The adjunct faculty dilemma and
their limited legal remedies. Ind. LJ, 74, 513.
Ennis, C. D. (1994). Knowledge and beliefs underlying curricular expertise. Quest, 46(2), 164-
175.

ADJUNCT LIFE 93

Fagan‐Wilen, R., Springer, D. W., Ambrosino, B., & White, B. W. (2006). The support of
adjunct faculty: An academic imperative. Social Work Education,25(1), 39-51.
Florio, C. (2010). Burnout & compassion fatigue: A guide for mental health professionals and
care givers. CreateSpace.
Hansen, F., Smith, M., & Hansen, R. (2002). Rewards and recognition in employee
motivation. Compensation & Benefits Review, 34, 64–72.
Harr, C. R., Brice, T. S., Riley, K., & Moore, B. (2014). The impact of compassion fatigue and
compassion satisfaction on social work students. Journal of the Society for Social Work
and Research, 5(2), 233-251.
Holden, G., Meenaghan, T., Anastas, J., & Metrey, G. (2002). Outcomes of social work
education: The case for social work self-efficacy. Journal of Social Work Education,
38(1), 115-133.
Hoyt, J. E. (2012). Predicting the satisfaction and loyalty of adjunct faculty. The journal of
continuing higher education, 60(3), 132-142.
Internal Revenue Service. (2017). Identifying full-time employees. Retrieved from
https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act/employers/identifying-full-time-employees
Kezar, A., & Maxey, D. (2014a). Faculty Matter: So why doesn’t everyone think so? Thought &
Action, 29.
Kezar, A., & Maxey, D. (2014b). Student outcomes assessment among the new non-tenure-track
faculty majority. Occasional Paper, (21).
Kirkpatrick, J.D. & Kirkpatrick, W.K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training and
evaluation. ATD Press.

ADJUNCT LIFE 94

Klein, W. C., Weisman, D., & Smith, T. E. (1996). The use of adjunct faculty: An exploratory
study of eight social work programs. Journal of Social Work Education, 32(2), 253-263.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218.
Lawson, G. (2007). Counselor wellness and impairment: A national survey. The Journal of
Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 46(1), 20-34.
Lawson, G., & Myers, J. E. (2011). Wellness, professional quality of life, and Career ‐Sustaining
behaviors: What keeps us well? Journal of Counseling & Development, 89(2), 163-171.
Leiter, M. P. & Maslach, C. (2011). Areas of Worklife Survey Manual and Sampler Set (5th ed.).
Mind Garden, Inc., California.
Markos, S., & Sridevi, M. S. (2010). Employee engagement: The key to improving performance.
International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12), 89.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M.P, (1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual. Mind
Garden, Inc., California.
Maslach, C. (2003). Burnout: The cost of caring. Los Altos, CA: ISHK.
Maslach, C. (2014). Thriving in science lecture: "understanding burnout.” Retrieved from
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kLPyV8lBbs
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Maynard, D. C., & Joseph, T. A. (2008). Are all part-time faculty underemployed? The influence
of faculty status preference on satisfaction and commitment. Higher Education, 55(2),
139-154.

ADJUNCT LIFE 95

Mazza, E. (2015). Experiences of social work educators working with students with
psychiatric disabilities or emotional problems. Journal of Social Work Education, 51(2),
359-378.
Memmott, J., & Brennan, E. M. (1998). Learner-learning environment fit: An adult learning
model for social work education. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 16(1-2), 75-98.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
McCann, J. T., & Holt, R. (2009). An exploration of burnout among online university professors.
International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 23(3), 97-110.
National Association of Social Workers. (2017). About NASW. Retrieved from
https://www.socialworkers.org/nasw/default.asp
Newell, J. M., & MacNeil, G. A. (2010). Professional burnout, vicarious trauma, secondary
traumatic stress, and compassion fatigue. Best Practices in Mental Health, 6(2), 57-68.
Nulty, D. D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be
done? Assessment & evaluation in higher education, 33(3), 301-314.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/
Pease, B. (2011). Men in social work: Challenging or reproducing an unequal gender regime?
Affilia, 0886109911428207.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 Dimensions of Improving Student Performance: Finding the Right
Solutions to the Right Problems. Teachers College Press. New York, NY.

ADJUNCT LIFE 96

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship
with burnout and engagement: A multi‐sample study. Journal of organizational
Behavior, 25(3), 293-315.
Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (2009). Burnout: 35 years of research and
practice. Career Development International, 14(3), 204-220.
Sowbel, L. R. (2012). Gatekeeping: Why shouldn't we be ambivalent? Journal of Social Work
Education, 48(1), 27-44.
Sprang, G., Clark, J. J., & Whitt-Woosley, A. (2007). Compassion fatigue, compassion
satisfaction, and burnout: Factors impacting a professional's quality of life. Journal of
Loss and Trauma, 12(3), 259-280.
Strom-Gottfried, K., & Dunlap, K. M. (2004). Assimilating adjuncts: Strategies for orienting
contract faculty. Journal of Social Work Education, 40(3), 445-452.
Swanson, H. L. (1990). Influence of metacognitive knowledge and aptitude on problem solving.
Journal of educational psychology, 82(2), 306.
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Characteristics of postsecondary faculty. Institute of
Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/Indicator_CSC/coe_csc_2015_05.pdf
U.S. Department of Labor (2017). Part-time employment. Retrieved from
https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/workhours/parttimeemployment
van Dernoot Lipsky, L., & Burk, C. (2009). Trauma stewardship: An everyday guide to caring
for self while caring for others Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Vasil, L. (1992). Self-efficacy expectations and causal attributions for achievement among male
and female university faculty. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 41(3), 259-269.
ADJUNCT LIFE 97

Whitaker, T., Weismiller, T., Clark, E., & Wilson, M. (2006). Assuring the sufficiency of a
frontline workforce: A national study of licensed social workers—Special report: Social
work services for children and families. Washington, DC: National Association of Social
Workers.
Wilson, P. P., Valentine, D., & Pereira, A. (2002). Perceptions of new social work faculty about
mentoring experiences. Journal of social work education, 38(2), 317-332.
Workers, N. A. (2008). NASW code of ethics. Washington, DC: NASW.

ADJUNCT LIFE 98

APPENDIX A
Maslach Burnout Inventory Educators Survey Sample Items
MBI-ES Copyright © 1986 by Christina Maslach, Susan E. Jackson, & Richard L. Schwab
The purpose of this survey is to discover how educators view their job
and the people with whom they work closely.

Instructions: On the following pages are 22 statements of job-related feelings. Please read each
statement carefully and decide if you ever feel this way about your job. If you have never had
this feeling, write the number “0” (zero) in the space before the statement. If you have had this
feeling, indicate how often you feel it by writing the number (from 1 to 6) that best describes
how frequently you feel that way.

If you have never had this feeling, select the button under the Never column. If you have had this
feeling, indicate how often you feel it by selecting the phrase that best describes how frequently
you feel that way.

The phrases describing the frequency are:

How Often:
Never
A few times a year or less
Once a month or less
A few times a month
Once a week
A few times a week
Every day

Sample Items

7. I deal very effectively with the problems of my students.
9. I feel I'm positively influencing other people's lives through my work.
20. I feel like I'm at the end of my rope.

ADJUNCT LIFE 99

APPENDIX B
Areas of Worklife Survey Sample Items
AWS Copyright © 2000 by Michael P. Leiter & Christina Maslach
Please use the following rating scale to indicate the extent to which you agree with the following
statements. Please circle the number corresponding to your answer.
1: Strongly
Disagree
2: Disagree 3: Hard to
Decide
4: Agree 5: Strongly
Agree

Sample Items

Workload
1. I leave my work behind when I go home at the end of the workday.

Community
2. Members of my work group cooperate with one another.

Fairness
3. Opportunities are decided solely on merit.

ADJUNCT LIFE 100

APPENDIX C
Interview Protocol
1. What factors motivated you to become a member of the adjunct field faculty?
2. What factors motivate you to continue serving in the role of adjunct field faculty?
3. Could you please describe what challenges you the most in this role on a professional level.
4. Could you please describe what challenges you most in this role on a personal level.
5. What resources, if any, available to you through the University have been most supportive of
your role as an adjunct field faculty member?
6. What resources, if any, do you think are not currently provided by the University but would
be helpful to you in your role as an adjunct field faculty member?
8. How important do you feel your role as an adjunct field faculty member is to your students?
9. How important do you feel your role as an adjunct field faculty member is to the University
School of Social Work?
10. How important do you feel your role as an adjunct field faculty member is to the social work
profession at large?
11. What advice would you give to a new member of the adjunct field faculty team?
12. Is there anything else you would like to add regarding our discussion today?

ADJUNCT LIFE 101

APPENDIX D

Informed Consent
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Pkwy, Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Addressing Burnout Among Adjunct Field Faculty: An Evaluation Study
3

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Amber Ford under the
supervision of Dr. Melora Sundt at the University of Southern California (USC). Research
studies include only people who voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains
information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This research study seeks to understand worklife experiences among adjunct field faculty
members and to evaluate level of burnout experienced. Information gained from this study may
provide important information to the field of social work education.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT - SURVEY
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete an online questionnaire
comprised of 50 statements related to your employment role and associated worklife
experiences. The questionnaire will take approximately 20-30 minutes of your time. You may
decline to complete the demographic data questions by selecting "Prefer not to disclose." No
potential risks to participants have been identified; however, you may stop participating at any
time.
PARTICPANT INVOLVEMENT - INTERVIEW
If you agree to complete the questionnaire to follow, you will be invited to participate in an
audiotaped interview that will take approximately 30-45 minutes. You do not have to answer any
questions you do not want to and if you do not want to be audiotaped, handwritten notes will be
taken. No potential risks to participants have been identified; however, you may stop
participating at any time.
If you participate in both the questionnaire and interview, the total time commitment will range

3
The title of this study was changed after period of data collection.
ADJUNCT LIFE 102

between 50-75 minutes.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be compensated for your participation in completing the questionnaire. However, if
you elect to take part in the interview portion of the study, you will receive a $5 Starbucks gift
card for your time. You do not have to answer all the interview questions to receive the card. The
card will be e-mailed to you after you participate in an interview as described above in
Participant Involvement-Interview section of this document.
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate. Your relationship with your employer will not be affected
whether you participate or not in this study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential.
Your responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained separately. The
audiotapes will be destroyed once they have been transcribed. Participants have the right to
review their own interview transcript one time for accuracy and provide feedback to the
researcher. In order to review an interview transcript, the participant must provide an email
address during the interview and the researcher will email a copy for review.
All data will be stored on a password-protected computer indefinitely after the study has been
completed with a maximum storage time of seven (7) years, after which time the data will be
destroyed.
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Principal Investigator: Amber Ford via email at amberlfo@usc.edu or phone at 310-905-4949 or
Faculty Advisor: Dr. Melora Sundt via email at sundt@rossier.usc.edu or phone at 310-403-
6671.
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
ADJUNCT LIFE 103

University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Adjunct faculty now represent a numerical majority in most U.S. colleges and universities. This dynamic is also present within many Schools of Social Work. Research gaps remain regarding the worklife experiences of adjunct faculty and their risk for burnout. Specific to social work, little is known about the specific role of adjunct field faculty, or those responsible for teaching within the field curriculum and assisting students throughout their field placement experiences. This study used the Clark and Estes’ gap analysis framework to evaluate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers and strengths which influence the worklife experiences of adjunct field faculty in a large School of Social Work. The study design included literature review, surveys, and semi-structured interviews. Specifically, the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI-ES) and Areas of Worklife Survey (AWS) were administered to assess the experience of burnout and evaluate organizational risk areas. ❧ Adjunct field faculty who participated in this study demonstrated strong metacognitive knowledge and were self-aware regarding occupational strengths and challenges. Organizational risk factors were most significant and included receiving mixed messages regarding work-life balance and receiving minimal feedback regarding work performance. Overall, participants reported minimal burnout and a consistently high sense of personal accomplishment. Recommendations for organizational practice, program evaluation, and future research are included.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Inclusion of adjunct faculty in the community college culture

PDF

Developmental education pathway success: a study on the intersection of adjunct faculty and teaching metacognition

PDF

Examining the faculty implementation of intermediate algebra for statistics: An evaluation study

PDF

Building leaders: the role of core faculty in student leadership development in an undergraduate business school

PDF

Managing successful organizational change for faculty in higher education: an innovation study

PDF

Staff engagement within an academic shared governance model for nursing education: an evaluation study

PDF

Social work faculty practices in writing instruction: an exploratory study

PDF

Factors impacting faculty research productivity at a highly-ranked university

PDF

Experience of belonging for full-time hybrid physical therapy faculty

PDF

Establishing a systematic evaluation of an academic nursing program using a gap analysis framework

PDF

Improving pilot training by learning about learning: an innovation study

PDF

Job placement outcomes for graduates of a southwestern university school of business: an evaluation study

PDF

Mandatory reporting of sexual violence by faculty and staff at Hometown University: an evaluation study

PDF

An evaluation of project based learning implementation in STEM

PDF

Graduation rates in college of students with disabilities: an innovation study

PDF

Evaluating the teacher residency model: a new first way

PDF

Violence experienced by registered nurses working in hospitals: an evaluation study

PDF

Examining the relationship between doctoral attrition and a redefined fatherhood: a gap analysis

PDF

Retention rates and burnout among medical assistants: an evaluation study

PDF

Improving faculty participation in student conduct hearing boards: a gap analysis

Asset Metadata

Creator Ford, Amber Lynn (author)

Core Title Adjunct life in a full time world: evaluation of worklife experiences and risk for burnout in social work field faculty

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 07/21/2017

Defense Date 06/23/2017

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Adjunct,areas of worklife survey,Burnout,engagement,faculty,field faculty,Maslach Burnout Inventory,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational,Social work,social work education,worklife

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Sundt, Melora (committee chair), Ferrario, Kimberly (committee member), Pringle-Hornsby, Elizabeth (committee member)

Creator Email amberlfo@usc.edu,ambiford@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-407879

Unique identifier UC11264298

Identifier etd-FordAmberL-5582.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-407879 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-FordAmberL-5582.pdf

Dmrecord 407879

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Ford, Amber Lynn

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA