University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Part-time non-tenure track faculty, motivation, and departmental governance: a grounded theory approach

(USC Thesis Other)

Part-time non-tenure track faculty, motivation, and departmental governance: a grounded theory approach

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE 1

PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY, MOTIVATION, AND DEPARTMENTAL
GOVERNANCE: A GROUNDED THEORY APPROACH

by

Veronica Vazquez Allen

________________________________________________________________________

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

December 2014

Copyright 2014 Veronica Vazquez Allen

PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

2
DEDICATION
I dedicate my research to the part-time non-tenure track faculty who honorably serve
their students, academic disciplines, and higher education institutions. I especially dedicate this
very personal, academic, and professional endeavor to the participants of my study, who were
gracious and generous with their time. I hope the stories shared in this study will inform,
motivate, uplift, and enable us to value the part-time non-tenure track faculty experience in
higher education.

PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First, I would like to thank God for giving me the opportunity to accomplish a life-long
goal. I must thank Dr. Adriana Kezar, my dissertation chair for sharing with me her knowledge
and expertise on non-tenure track faculty in higher education. Without her guidance and
patience, this dissertation would not have come to fruition. It is Dr. Kezar’s passion and devotion
to this research topic, which informed me of the pressing need to fill the gap in the literature on
part-time non-tenure track faculty at community colleges. Thank you for always being
responsive and supporting me throughout this challenging process. I appreciate the high standard
of work that you expected from me in order to give the research topic the respect, attention, and
integrity it deserves.
In addition, I would like to thank my two dissertation committee members, Dr. Ginger
Clark and Dr. Christine Daryabigi Mendoza. I am grateful for the time you spent providing me
feedback and encouragement. This study would not be complete without your substantial
support.
I thank my entire family. A special thanks to my husband who was faithfully beside me
throughout the entire Ed.D. journey. I could not have accomplished such a task without his
encouragement, patience, and belief in my goals. I owe my work ethic and perseverance to my
wonderful parents, who have never doubted my ability to succeed even when I faced challenges
along the way. I must acknowledge my twin sister who has always been honest with me, and
been my cheerleader. I would like to thank my friends and family who understood why I was
missing in action for a few years.
My academic and professional mentors were a significant part of this journey. They
championed my efforts towards my aspirations. I am grateful to Dr. Helena Seli who gave me the
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

4
opportunity to serve as an EDPT 110 teaching assistant. My USC experience would not have
been the same without doing so. I thank Dr. Anupama Joshi for giving me my first opportunity to
teach as a part-time non-tenure track faculty in higher education. I especially thank Dr.
Kimberley Radmacher, who was my Chancellor Doctoral Incentive Program mentor. Dr.
Radmacher was generous with her feedback and support, while providing me with sound
professional advice.
Finally, I would like to thank every member of my thematic group. I appreciate the
warmth, feedback, and encouragement from my peers and colleagues, throughout this process. I
am blessed and proud to have shared this experience with all of you. A special thanks to Dr. Yun
Kim and Dr. Lillian Coye for always being responsive to my questions, and lighting the way
ahead of me.

PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication…………………………………………………………………………………….. ...2
Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………………………….. ...3
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………….....6
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………....7
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………….. ...8
Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………………......10
Chapter 2: Literature Review………………………………………………………………. ...31
Chapter 3: Methodology……………………………………………………………………....62
Chapter 4: Findings……………………………………………………………………….. ...100
Chapter 5: Discussion, Implications, and Recommendations…………………………….. ...144
References………………………………………………………………………………….. ...169
Appendices
Appendix A: Referral Request Letter…………………………………………….. ...177
Appendix B: Participant Solicitation……………………………………………... ...178
Appendix C: Participant Consent Form…………………………………………......179
Appendix D: Demographic Survey……………………………………………….....181
Appendix E: Interview Protocol………………………………………………….. ...182

PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of Literature Review……………………………………………………...61
Table 2. Overview of Criteria Used to Consider Appropriateness of PTNTTF…………… ...77
Participants and Sites where Participants were Employed
Table 3. Demographics: Overview of the 15 Participants…………………………………. ...80
Table 4. Demographics: Overview of Participants’ Gender and Years of Experience……. ...81

PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Process of grounded theory……………………………………………………… ...84
Figure 2. Process of data analysis………………………………………………………….....93
Figure 3. Conditions which motivate PTNTTF…………………………………………... ...142
Figure 4. Additive and bidirectional relationship of sub-themes in climate of department ...143

PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

8
ABSTRACT
Two thirds of the instructors at community colleges are part-time non-tenure track faculty. The
growth of non-tenure track faculty in higher education has been documented in the literature.
However, there is a gap in empirical data specifically focused on part-time non-tenure track
faculty and their involvement in departmental governance at two-year community colleges. The
research to date on part-time non-tenure track faculty at two-year community colleges has mostly
focused on issues related to the differences in instructional practices and teaching effectiveness
of adjunct faculty compared to their full-time faculty counterparts; describing working
conditions; listing the causes for the increase of this faculty appointment; and differences in
financial compensation between adjunct and full-time faculty appointments. This study sought to
understand the experiences of part-time non-tenure track faculty and their involvement in
departmental governance at community colleges by asking the question: What conditions
motivate part-time non-tenure track faculty to participate in departmental governance at a
community college? A qualitative study using a grounded theory approach was used to interview
15 part-time non-tenure track faculty who teach at six distinct community colleges, across six
different academic disciplines, and spanning four separate two-year community college districts.
This study shed light on the stories and experiences part-time non-tenure track faculty at
community colleges had to share regarding involvement in departmental decision-making.
Specifically, a substantive theory and model based on the analysis of the data is presented. The
substantive theory that emerged begins to describe three main categories or themes such as the
climate of a department, part-time non-tenure track faculty commitment to a department, and
self-determination as influencing adjunct faculty motivation to get involved in departmental
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

9
governance. Based on the three main categories or themes that emerged from interviews with
part-time non-tenure track faculty, suggestions for practice conclude this study.

PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

10
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
John is a part-timer at a two-year community college. He has taught one or two
courses each semester over the last six years. John has never inquired on when
faculty meetings take place, nor has he been invited to attend. He does not feel
compelled to attend meetings with colleagues, who he believes perceive him as a
“second class citizen” of the department, especially when he is not paid for
attending meetings (Wallin, 2004, p. 373). Additionally, John does not have the
time to do so because he has a non-teaching full-time job elsewhere. He does not
know about the departmental decision-making process and complains about
learning of changes to department policies on short notice through emails from
the chair. Another part-timer named Lucy asked the chair if she could attend the
annual departmental advisory board meeting in the first year that she was hired.
Since then, Lucy has attended department events where she informally provides
input and suggestions about department policies such as developing an effective
system for adding students to courses when there is limited space and inquiring
on how to get adjunct faculty technical support during after-hours when she
teaches on campus. Although Lucy has a full-time job elsewhere as a practitioner,
she makes an effort to be involved in departmental governance and seeks to be
known and mentored by some of the full-time faculty. As a result, Lucy feels more
informed of the issues within the department, performs more effectively with
students compared to John, and feels committed to the institution by contributing
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

11
to the department’s goal of effectively preparing budding practitioners in a
helping profession.
Professionalizing Part-time Non-tenure Track Faculty
The quote above illustrates the challenges and benefits that part-time non-tenure track
(PTNTTF) faculty in community colleges face. For instance, some challenges that PTNTTF
encounter at two-year community colleges include having limited time on a campus due to
working outside of academia to earn a living; not having a formal orientation to a college campus
or department; not knowing other faculty of a department and experiencing isolation; non-stable
employment for PTNTTF without long-term contracts or seniority; and wages that are not
comparable to full-time faculty of a college.
Some benefits of being PTNTTF at a community college are having the option to choose
what projects or activities of a department to participate in, as full-time faculty may have
contractual obligations to do so; being able to connect industry know how or expertize that is
current to classroom instruction; and collaborating with colleagues that have different faculty
appointment types. Overall, PTNTTF and the academy could benefit from including PTNTTF in
governance, although PTNTTF are often challenged to do so in part by a lack of concrete
institutional policies that promote PTNTTF involvement.
Governance is a term that emerged in the 1960’s in community colleges when “dividing
decision-making between faculty which had authority over curricula, instruction, research, and
classroom issues and administration who had authority over finance, student affairs, physical
plant, and public relations” (Kater & Levin, 2004, p. 1). Involvement in academic governance is
a professional characteristic of faculty in higher education, especially in community colleges
where faculty are given the power to have input on key institutional decisions because they are
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

12
considered to have important expertize that can assist the institution (Kezar & Sam, 2010a; Kater
& Levin, 2004). Part time non-tenure track faculty at two-year community colleges do not
typically have the opportunity to contribute to departmental decision-making in the same manner
as full-time faculty (FTF) or full-time tenured faculty (FTTF), either because there are a lack of
contractual obligations to do so, or due to PTNTTF not having specific guidelines on how to get
involved in governance (American Federation of Teachers (AFT), 2006; Gappa & Leslie, 1993;
Kezar & Sam, 2010a; Kezar & Sam, 2010b; Kezar, 2012).
According to Wallin (2007) a recommendation by the American Association of
University Professors for four-year institutions can also be used at two-year community colleges
in order to include, value, and professionalize the PTNTTF workforce. For instance, exemplar
community colleges “invite adjunct faculty to faculty meetings” and “encourage inclusiveness”
by allowing non-tenured faculty to assume a role within governance such as in committees and
the academic senate (Wallin, 2007, pp. 72-73). If community colleges have departments that
invite PTNTTF to attend meetings and if PTNTTF encounter a welcoming environment, then
PTNTTF involvement could collaborate with full-time faculty and contribute to the undertakings
of a department.
According to Kater and Levin (2004), at some community colleges it is a fundamental
faculty right of PTNTTF to participate in departmental governance at the institution where they
teach and the inclusion of contingent faculty in governance would dispel the notion that
“community college part-time faculty have very little status in the academic hierarchy” (Wallin,
2004, p. 375). By colleges making adjunct faculty aware that they have a right to participate in
decision-making, PTNTTF are recognized as “essential to the success of the institution” and feel
as part of the college (Wallin, 2004, p. 375). When higher education institutions inform PTNTTF
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

13
that they have a right to attend and provide input to the decision-making process of an institution,
then this practice professionalizes contingent faculty which benefits all stakeholders (Kezar &
Sam, 2010a; Kezar & Sam, 2012). Inclusion of PTNTTF in governance starts with institutional
practices that dismiss the myth that PTNTTF participation in governance is a “luxury” (Kezar &
Sam, 2012, p.13). Unfortunately, most contingent faculty believe that involvement in governance
at any level is secondary to issues such as employment security, multi-year contracts, rehire
rights, health benefits, promotion schedules, and salary increases (Kezar & Sam, 2010a). There
are many benefits to a community college and its stakeholders when adjunct faculty are included
in governance, given opportunities to draw on their professional and academic expertise for input
on departmental affairs, and PTNTTF effort and contribution are acknowledged by full-time
faculty and administration.
Currently, data does not indicate formal practices that are in place or whether there is any
uniformity within American community colleges to address the role PTNTTF assume in
departmental governance (Kezar, 2012; Wallin, 2004; Eagan, 2007). Although the growth of
NTTF has been extensively documented in the literature, there is a gap in empirical data on
PTNTTF and their involvement in departmental governance at two-year community colleges
(Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Kezar & Sam, 2010b). In addition, for
PTNTTF to assume responsibilities beyond teaching such as involvement in departmental affairs
without being legitimately recognized as official participants in the decision-making process,
may present a conflict of expectations among the various faculty appointment types (Hardre &
Kollmann, 2012).
Research on PTNTTF at two-year community colleges has mostly included the
investigation of the differences in instructional practices and teaching effectiveness between
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

14
PTNTTF and their FTTF counterparts; describing PTNTTF working conditions; documenting
the causes of growth for this faculty appointment type; indicating differences in financial
compensation among faculty appointment types; and describing PTNTTF access to professional
development (Twombly & Townsend 2008; Wallin, 2004; Wallin, 2007).
Although Kater and Levin (2004) studied shared governance in American community
colleges and described the areas of governance which faculty get involved in, their research
primarily focused on FTF. There is a lack of empirical evidence on the topic of PTNTTF
motivation and their experiences with governance at community colleges (Kezar & Sam, 2010b;
Twombly & Townsend 2008). Relatively no research on PTNTTF at two-year community
colleges and their experiences with departmental decision-making exists (Twombly &
Townsend, 2008; Outcalt, 2002). Pisani and Stott (1998) have reported that involvement in
departmental decision-making was the strongest predictor of PTNTTF being motivated to
commit to better quality interactions with their students. Based on this finding, it would be
beneficial for departments of community colleges and academia as a whole, to learn more about
PTNTTF experiences with departmental governance.
Although PTNTTF are essential to the academic and fiscal operations of a community
college (Wallin, 2004; Wallin, 2007; Gappa et al., 2007), we still lack knowledge of PTNTTF
involvement in governance, especially at the department level. Clarity on the experiences of
PTNTTF and their motivation to participate in departmental governance will elucidate
differences in the professional experiences and involvement among NTTF; inform us about
PTNTTF commitment to an institution; and describe PTNTTF perception of campus climate and
culture (Kezar & Sam, 2010b). Therefore, this dissertation will provide background on the
conditions that motivate PTNTTF to participate in departmental governance at two-year
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

15
community colleges. Departmental decision-making in higher education institutions on topics
that directly affect PTNTTF, such as curriculum development and class scheduling, is a process
which has primarily included FTF (Kezar & Sam, 2010a/2010b). In order to better understand
the context of involving PTNTTF in departmental governance, it is important to understand the
changes in faculty appointment type from primarily a full-time tenured track faculty to a
contingent faculty population, which has occurred in the professoriate.
Background
Rise of the PTNTTF Appointment
The landscape of the faculty in the American academy has changed over the last several
decades (Cohen & Brawer, 2008; Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006; Wallin, 2004). A shift in the
type of faculty appointment from the traditional tenured to NTTF characterizes this significant
change. Non-traditional faculty appointment types are a result of higher education institutions
responding to a wave of tenured faculty retiring, fiscal challenges, and increased enrollment
(Eagan, 2007; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; National Education Association Research Center, 2007;
American Federation of Teachers, 2003; Kezar & Sam, 2010b; Wallin, 2004). Currently, the
faculty make-up at two-year community colleges is comprised primarily of a NTTF sub-group
also referred to as PTNTTF, contingent, temporary, or adjuncts (Wallin, 2004).
Two-year community colleges in America experienced a boom in hiring PTNTTF since
the 1970’s and 1980’s for several reasons. First, states experienced fiscal constraints due to the
recession of the mid 1980’s (Kezar & Sam, 2010b; Kezar & Sam, 2010c; Gappa et al., 2007). As
a result of the economic downturn, higher education institutions faced a challenge with the high
cost of traditional FTTF appointments. Second, community colleges needed to meet an
increasing student demand for courses and a large enrollment of students (Wallin, 2004). Third,
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

16
with an increase in non-traditional students enrolling in two-year community colleges, there was
a need to “maintain flexibility in both their hiring practices and their schedule of classes” and
PTNTTF appointments can be hired or released on short notice based on the teaching needs for a
particular semester of a college (Kezar & Sam, 2010a, p. 27). Lastly, PTNTTF bring “industry
expertise, professional know-how and workplace experience to the classroom” which “many
full-time faculty, long removed from business and industry, if they ever were involved, may
lack” (Wallin, 2004, p. 377; Eagan, 2007; Twombly & Townsend, 2008).
In fall of 2003 PTNTTF represented 67% of the faculty in American community colleges
(Eagan, 2007). Currently, there is no indication that the percentage of PTNTTF will begin to
decrease over time (Eagan, 2007; Wallin, 2004). Usually, PTNTTF are experts in a specialized
field and they close the gap in instructional needs for institutions, while offering flexibility to a
college (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). Further, the growth of PTNTTF appointments at two-year
community colleges, across all academic disciplines is an indicator that “administrators and
policymakers need to continue to develop their understanding of the needs and characteristics of
this component of the academic labor force” (Eagan, 2007, p. 13).
More recently, Twombly and Townsend (2008) indicated that two thirds of the faculty at
community colleges are PTNTTF. Although some researchers posit that “Community college
faculty receive scant attention from postsecondary researchers” (Twombly & Townsend, 2008, p.
5), others have documented a disparity between NTTF experiences compared to their FTTF
counterparts, where the former has “limited or no input to department decisions” (Kezar & Sam,
2012, p. 2). Specifically, PTNTTF represent a growing segment of the teaching workforce at
two-year community colleges and “more than any other entity, adjunct faculty are the link
between the community and the college” (Wallin, 2004, p. 377). Therefore, it is important to
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

17
better understand conditions that inform us why PTNTTF may or may not have input in
departmental governance (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Kezar & Sam, 2012; Hollenshead, et al.,
2007).
Importance of PTNTTF Involvement in Governance
Collaboration and Mentoring
It is essential to understand the role of PTNTTF in the decision-making process within an
institution of higher education because PTNTTF represent a majority of the teaching workforce
at two-year community colleges. Kezar and Sam (2010a) list multiple reasons for the importance
of including contingent faculty in departmental governance. For instance, when contingent
faculty are encouraged to be involved in governance, collaborative and mentoring relationships
emerge between FTF and adjunct faculty. When collegial partnerships among the various faculty
appointment types in a college emerge, then contingent faculty are respected, used as a resource,
and valued. Also when PTNTTF are active participants in departmental governance, then this has
a positive impact on the institution’s economic bottom line because more faculty, other than FTF
are contributing to the daily tasks and projects of a department (Wallin, 2004).
Inclusion
Challenging fiscal times in the academy and higher accountability standards require that
all faculty demonstrate “effort[s] and mutual commitment to the well-being of the college”
(Gappa, Austin & Trice, 2007, p. 157). In addition, Gappa and colleagues (2007) state “All
members of the academic community must work together to ensure high-quality, supportive
academic workplaces where each member is respected and valued for their contributions” (p.
157). Similarly, inclusion of PTNTTF in departmental governance encourages their ownership of
the academic community and makes “Non-tenure track faculty [PTNTTF] valued, legitimate and
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

18
credible community members” (Kezar & Sam, 2010a, p. 83). In addition, effective governance
that is inclusive of all faculty appointment types is the most important factor in implementing
and institutionalizing equity, social, and policy change in the academy (Kezar & Sam, 2010a;
Kezar & Sam, 2012; Twombly & Townsend, 2008; Kater & Levin, 2004).
Employee Performance
Pisani and Stott (1998) suggested that “a sense of belonging within the department
[decision-making] might rouse their [faculty] motivation to educate students and broaden their
scope of teaching to extend beyond the classroom” (Pisani & Stott, 1998, p. 135). Moreover,
when PTNTTF participate in departmental governance, they are then likely to perform at higher
levels of professionalism and positively influence student growth in the cognitive and affective
domains (Pisani & Stott, 1998). Therefore, if there are conditions that are conducive to PTNTTF
being motivated to participate in governance, then PTNTTF may experience a “stronger teaching
desire”; which in turn has a positive effect on their engagement with students and colleagues (p.
135).
Employee Satisfaction
The level of employee satisfaction of PTNTTF is another reason to learn more about
PTNTTF involvement in departmental decision-making. The literature on work performance has
emphasized that a happy employee is a productive worker (Kezar, 2012; Gappa et al., 2007).
Outcalt (2002) suggests that higher levels of participation in professional development,
instruction, service, and departmental affairs, leads to higher employee satisfaction among
PTNTTF. Therefore, given the fact that the academy has experienced fiscal constraints and
higher standards for accountability and transparency, it would be helpful to learn more about
what makes PTNTTF happy employees of an institution regarding departmental governance.
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

19
When employees are satisfied, then this serves as a condition that motivates PTNTTF to
perform their professional duties in a more meaningful manner. For instance, “undertaking
innovative and spontaneous activities beyond the prescribed role” of an instructor such as
participating in departmental governance can lead to higher levels of satisfaction for PTNTTF
(Vigoda-Godot, et al., 2007, p. 463). Higher levels of employee satisfaction may affect NTTF
motivation to become involved in more than just a teaching role within a department, which may
lead to positive outcomes for all stakeholders (Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Kezar, 2012).
Campus Climate and Culture
Effective and inclusive governance in the American academy is important for the
advancement of institutional goals and the well-being of a college or university (Birnbaum,
1991; Kezar & Sam, 2010a; Kezar, 2012; Pisani & Stott, 1998; Kater & Levin, 2004). Academic
departments in institutions of higher education benefit from a more positive work climate among
colleagues when governance includes access and equity for PTNTTF to become involved in the
decision-making process (Kezar, 2012; Birnbaum, 1991). Involvement and inclusion of
contingent faculty in departmental decision-making can also have a positive impact on student
performance (Kezar, 2012; Pisani & Stott, 1998); which is at the forefront of the mission and
purpose of two-year community colleges which aim to effectively instruct and prepare students
for either earning a certificate, transferring to a four-year university, or entering the workforce
(Pisani & Stott, 1998; Twombly & Townsend, 2008). Further, a positive department and campus
climate may ensue when PTNTTF feel valued, have the autonomy to choose what department or
institutional affairs to participate in, and have a sense of concrete and significant contributions to
the decision-making process (Kezar & Sam, 2010a; Kezar & Sam, 2012).
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

20
The campus culture and climate of an institution are positively affected when PTNTTF
are recognized by FTF and administrators as active participants in departmental governance
(Kezar & Sam, 2010a). Further, when PTNTTF assume active roles in governance that are
meaningful, both FTF and administrators report a more favorable view of contingent faculty and
their “ability, competence and engagement” in governance (Kezar & Sam, 2010a, p. 88). Also,
Birnbaum (1991) states that all faculty regardless of appointment type should have involvement
in governance as it is essential in order to promote important functions of institutional well-
being, such as collegiality, relationship building, social capital, trust, cooperation and
collaboration among faculty.
Kezar and Sam (2010a/2012) assert that there is a benefit to the culture of an institution
when increasing NTTF participation in governance because FTF are often overburdened with
heavy teaching loads, requirements to do research, and or obligations to serve on both
department and institution wide committees. However, the literature does not indicate “the
quality, nature, or impact of [PTNTTF] participation” in governance, especially at the
department level (Kezar, 2012, p. 4). It would be helpful for the academy to understand the
extent of PTNTTF contribution to departmental governance and the strategies used to maximize
the time and effort that PTNTTF invest in the decision-making process. Therefore, because most
PTNTTF hold full-time employment outside of college teaching, their schedules should be
considered when requesting PTNTTF to be involved in non-instructional duties as it may require
a balance of the institution’s needs and PTNTTF availability (Eagan, 2007; Wallin, 2004; Gappa
& Leslie, 1993).
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

21
Challenges of PTNTTF Involvement in Governance
Specific practices related to governance at some higher education institutions have been
cited in the literature as a challenge to both inclusive and effective governance (Kater & Levin,
2004), which may deter PTNTTF from becoming involved in the decision-making process of a
department. For instance, it is not ideal for PTNTTF who teach at multiple campuses, or hold a
full-time position outside of academia in order to earn decent wages, to not receive financial
compensation for the time spent attending meetings or events where decision-making takes
place; especially if PTNTTF are asked to prepare materials or work on projects. The primary
function of PTNTTF at two-year community colleges is to teach students and when PTNTTF
experience working conditions that make class instruction a challenge, then PTNTTF will have a
difficult time being motivated to participate in departmental governance. Finally, if a department
or college does not have specific policies guidelines or contractual bylaws that indicate the
expectations and requirements of PTNTTF involvement in departmental affairs, then PTNTTF
motivation to get involved in decision-making will be challenged.
Compensation and Inclusion
When PTNTTF are not incentivized or financially compensated to participate in
departmental decision-making such as FTF do, then PTNTTF are inadvertently deemed unequal
to their FTF counterparts (Kezar & Sam, 2010a; Wallin, 2004; Wallin, 2007). Additionally,
involvement of PTNTTF in departmental affairs may be challenged when “rank and file NTTF
[PTNTTF] also recognize unequal treatment” regarding which faculty are allowed to attend or
vote at formal department meetings (Kezar & Sam, 2010a, p. 85). Although there are benefits to
professional collaboration between PTNTTF and FTF such as mentoring relationships, it is likely
to be a challenge for FTF to mentor contingent faculty in their participation with governance
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

22
because of FTF heavy workloads and non-instructional responsibilities on a college campus
(Johnsrud & Heck, 1998). Given the growth of the PTNTTF population in the academy, if they
are not mentored and included in departmental governance at two-year community colleges, then
there may be a limited amount of faculty left to serve in this role (Twombly & Townsend, 2008;
Kater & Levin, 2004).
Working Conditions
Poor working conditions while on campus may be another challenge to PTNTTF
involvement in departmental governance (Baldwin, 1998; Bland, Center, Finstad, Risbey, &
Stapler, 2006; Colbeck & Wharton-Michael, 2006). For instance, a lack of orientation to the
department as a new hire; unstable employment from semester to semester; a lack of professional
development on an ongoing basis; little to no contact with other faculty in the department; a
climate of conflict and competition between PTNTTF and their FTF counterparts may detract
PTNTTF from getting involved in departmental governance (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001;
Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Johnsrud & Heck, 1998; Kezar & Sam, 2012; Wallin, 2004).
When PTNTTF working conditions are improved, such as inadequate office space to
meet with students, a lack of clerical or technical support, and advance notice of course
assignments and textbooks, then PTNTTF demonstrate higher levels of “productivity” or better
performance (Baldwin, 1998; Bland, et al., 2006; Colbeck & Wharton-Michael, 2006; Elman,
2003; Thompson, 2003). The aforementioned working conditions negatively affect employee
satisfaction and commitment to the department and institution (Wallin, 2004). Specifically,
when PTNTTF perceive poor working conditions, this negatively influences their level of
employment satisfaction and commitment to the department beyond teaching; which in turn may
lower levels of employee motivation to get involved in departmental affairs such as decision-
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

23
making (Vigoda-Godot, Beeri, Birman-Shemesh, Somech, 2007). Thus, if PTNTTF are not
satisfied with their employment due to perceived poor working conditions, then PTNTTF may be
less committed to an institution, perform at lower levels, and will be unwilling to meet the
community college mission of teaching students to their highest potential (Jacoby, 2006; Jaeger
& Eagan, 2011; Nebel, 1978; Umbach, 2007; Vigoda-Godot, et al., 2007). Conversely, PTNTTF
are more productive, more satisfied, and perform better when they are offered at a minimum,
working conditions that are conducive to an “inclusive environment” where their ideas and
feedback regarding departmental affairs are encouraged and considered (Baldwin, 1998; Bland,
et al., 2006; Colbeck & Wharton-Michael, 2006).
Institutional Policies
Blunt (1987) reports “formal and informal constraints in public organizations may be
affecting levels of employee motivation” and PTNTTF participation in departmental governance
(p. 64). Evidence suggests that the formal constraints, such as institutional policies which do not
require or allow PTNTTF to be involved in governance, may influence whether PTNTTF are
motivated to assume a role in the department beyond teaching responsibilities. For instance,
Hollenshead, Waltman, August, Miller, Smith, and Bell (2007) indicate 35% of PTNTTF have
partial access to actively participating in the academic senate compared to 78% of full-time non-
tenured track faculty (FTNTTF). While, 95% of higher education institutions allow FTNTTF to
participate in departmental affairs compared to 66% of PTNTTF (Hollenshead, et al., 2007).
In addition PTNTTF involvement and access to governance, especially at the
departmental level may be due to formal constraints of an institution. Formal constraints may
include the lack of collective bargaining agreements that cover PTNTTF interests regarding the
extent to which they can participate in governance and shared governance (Kezar & Sam,
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

24
2010a). For instance, Kater and Levin (2004) studied shared governance in 301 American
community colleges and found that 55% of their sample institutions’ collective bargaining
agreements covered only full-time faculty; while the remaining 45% of the sample institutions’
collective bargaining agreements covered both FTF and PTNTTF (Kater & Levin, 2004).
However, specifics regarding what areas of governance PTNTTF get involved in at unionized
community colleges was not specified (Kater & Levin, 2004).
Statement of the Problem
Part-time non-tenure track faculty are the majority who instruct students at two-year
community colleges, but relatively little to no current empirical data regarding the conditions
which motivate PTNTTF to participate in departmental governance exists (Eagan, 2007; Kezar
& Sam, 2010b; Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991; Nebel, 1978; Wallin, 2004). The
literature states that some higher education institutions have not empirically addressed the issue
of PTNTTF involvement in governance (Twombly & Townsend, 2008). For instance, PTNTTF
have reported a sense of “anger and frustration” in their perceived exclusion of the decision-
making process but the research has not been specific to governance at the departmental level
(Kezar & Sam, 2010a, p. 69). Specifically, PTNTTF have reported being frustrated about a lack
of opportunity to either provide ideas related to curriculum development for the courses they
teach and or to contribute towards professional development endeavors that are relevant to
PTNTTF (Gappa & Leslie, 1993).
Some community college faculty have the perception of the academy as “bureaucratic
institutions in which administrators have more power and faculty members less” (Twombly &
Townsend, p. 16). For this reason, we need to better address contingent faculty involvement in
governance with empirical data. Further, when PTNTTF at two-year community colleges
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

25
perceive the administration as autocratic rather than democratic, then inclusive decision-making
and PTNTTF involvement is unlikely to occur (Twombly & Townsend, 2008). Moreover, some
NTTF sense they may be limited in opportunities to be involved in governance by an
institution’s policies or practices (Kezar & Sam, 2010a). In order to minimize any conditions of a
negative campus culture and or climate among faculty, it is necessary to empirically address
PTNTTF and their involvement in departmental governance within American community
colleges (Kezar & Sam, 2010a). To this end, it is beneficial for researchers, policy makers,
academy leaders, administrators, and all faculty appointment types of community colleges to
explore, understand, address PTNTTF experiences with governance, identify conditions which
motivate PTNTTF to initiate, sustain, and persist in the decision-making process (Kezar & Sam,
2012).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this qualitative study is to understand the experiences of PTNTTF who
teach at American community colleges regarding governance. My focus is on PTNTTF and
specific to departmental governance. To this end, I will describe what PTNTTF understand as
their role in departmental governance. I will describe the conditions which contribute to
PTNTTF initiating goal-directed behavior, exerting effort, and persisting in the departmental
decision-making process. Currently, research on the role PTNTTF assume within departmental
governance at two-year community colleges is underdeveloped (Twombly, et al., 2008; Wallin,
2004).
Research Questions
Part-time non-tenure track faculty and their involvement in departmental governance at
two-year community colleges is still an understudied area in the literature (Gappa & Leslie,
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

26
1993; Kezar & Sam, 2010; Wallin, 2004). The current literature describes the causes of the
growth of PTNTTF appointments, the reasons professionals choose to teach as PTNTTF,
working conditions, and PTNTTF career trajectories (Eagan, 2007; Wallin, 2004; Wallin, 2007;
Kezar & Sam, 2010b). Additionally, researchers have addressed issues related to PTNTTF
presence on campus, employee satisfaction, PTNTTF commitment to their institution other than
teaching, and PTNTTF instructional performance compared to FTF (Kezar & Sam, 2012;
Twombly & Townsend, 2008; Wallin, 2004). However, there is not a single study that directly
addresses the conditions that motivate PTNTTF to be involved in departmental governance at
two-year community colleges (Twombly & Townsend, 2008; Kezar & Sam, 2010a). To better
understand the experiences of PTNTTF with departmental decision-making, in order to
professionalize, legitimatize, and guide PTNTTF, and to address the professional needs of
PTNTTF, I will use the following research questions to guide this dissertation:
• Central question: What conditions motivate PTNTTF to participate in departmental
governance at two-year community colleges?
• Sub-questions:
o What do PTNTTF perceive is their role in departmental governance?
o What motivates PTNTTF to participate (or not) in departmental governance?
Significance of the Study
Part-time non-tenure track faculty represent the majority who instruct students at two-
year community colleges compared to their FTTF counterparts (Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Eagan,
2007; Twombly & Townsend, 2008; Wallin, 2004). Therefore, it is important for the academy to
cultivate a campus culture and climate where all faculty appointment types have a voice in the
departmental decision-making process (Kezar & Sam, 2010a; Kezar, 2012). It is essential to
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

27
broaden our knowledge of the experiences PTNTTF have regarding departmental governance
because this topic is underdeveloped in the current literature (Giancola, 2010; Kezar & Sam,
2010). Higher involvement in departmental governance on behalf of PTNTTF may positively
impact PTNTTF perceived working conditions, employee satisfaction, commitment to the
institution, and professional performance. In turn, these aspects may positively influence student
outcomes, which are at the core of community colleges’ mission to prepare students to either
earn certificates, enter the workforce, or transfer to four-year universities (Eagan, 2011; Jacoby,
2006; Jaeger & Eagan, 2009; Umbach, 2007).
With this study completed, I have an understanding of the following: First, I was able to
identify a set of conditions or themes that motivated PTNTTF to participate in departmental
governance at two-year community colleges. Second, I gathered qualitative data on PTNTTF
involvement with governance at two-year community colleges in order to distinguish this NTTF
subgroup from FTF and FTTF. Third, I was able to generate a list of specific sub-themes that
motivated PTNTTF to get involved in governance. Fourth, I developed a substantive theory and
a diagram to illustrate and inform the broader literature on PTNTTF at community colleges.
Lastly, as a result of my research, I am able to suggest a set of evidence-based guidelines to
promote PTNTTF involvement in departmental decision-making at two-year community
colleges.
Organization
Chapter 1 has provided a brief introduction to the purpose of this study and its
significance to all stakeholders at the academy. Chapter 2 will provide a review of the literature
relevant to this study. Chapter 3 will discuss the methodology used for this dissertation. I will
describe the population that was studied, and the process of data collection and analysis. Chapter
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

28
4 will summarize the data collected and describe the substantive theory and diagram that
emerged from the data. Lastly, Chapter 5 will provide a synthesis of the information,
recommendations for field practice and future study, and concluding thoughts.
Conclusion
This dissertation is well positioned to inform all stakeholders of the American academy
on the experiences of PTNTTF and their involvement in departmental governance at two-year
community colleges. It is my intention to contribute evidenced-based knowledge regarding this
topic in order to close the gap in the broader literature regarding “What [is] the role of
governance in creating institutional change for non-tenure track faculty” (Kezar & Sam, 2012, p.
4). Clarity on the role of PTNTTF regarding governance at the department level at two-year
community colleges will inform higher education institutions of the differences in the
experiences between FTF, FTTF, and PTNTTF commitment to their institution (Kezar & Sam,
2010a). Therefore, this study will provide a framework for future research.
Definition of Terms
The following definitions of terms provides a foundation for understanding the
terminology used throughout this dissertation.
Full-time non-tenured track faculty (FTNTTF) — members of the faculty with full-time,
non-permanent appointments. Appointments are on a contractual basis (a quarter, semester, a
year, two years, etc.) with unlimited renewals (AFT, 2006).
Full-time faculty (FTF) — full-time permanent faculty who may or may not hold a tenure
position as defined by the institution (AFT, 2006).
Full-time tenured faculty (FTTF) — full-time permanent faculty who hold a tenure
position as defined by the institution (AFT, 2006).
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

29
Full-time tenure-track faculty (FTTTF) — full-time permanent faculty in positions in
which they may become eligible for tenure, as defined by the institution (AFT, 2006).
Non-tenure track faculty (NTTF) — collective term that classifies full-time, non-tenure
track and part-time faculty, both of who hold temporary contracts within an institution. Also
referred to as “contingent”, “part-time”, “adjunct”, or “lecturer” (Kezar & Sam, 2010b, pp. 33-
37).
Part-time non-tenure track faculty (PTNTTF) — part-time faculty who hold temporary
contracts within an institution typically on a per quarter or semester basis (Wallin, 2004). And
are compensated less than their full-time counterparts; they are also referred to as “contingent”,
“part-time”, “adjunct”, or “lecturer” (Kezar & Sam, 2010b, pp. 33-37).
Motivation — an internal state, where one initiates and maintains goal-directed behavior
through exerting effort (Mayer, 2011).
Inclusion — an environment that provides the opportunity and ability for participation,
contribution, and action by members of a community.
Participatory decision-making — a democratic practice in organizational management
where a group makes a choice or judgment about something after collecting, sharing, and
gathering significant ideas from different sources (Hashim, Alam, & Siraj, 2010).
Governance — refers to formal mechanisms for institutions to make decisions about
policy (Kezar & Sam, 2012).
Faculty governance — all of the mechanisms that have been delegated to faculty for
making decisions including university, college, and departmental committee structures (Kezar &
Sam, 2012).
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

30
Shared Governance — formally recognized set of practices under which administration
and college faculty participate in significant decisions affecting the entire institution’s operation,
or one or more components thereof; it requires delegation of authority to each stakeholder to
make decisions appropriate to its responsibility (Scott, 2002; Kezar, 2004; AFT, 2006).
Team — a group of diverse individuals with varying experiences and interpreted
understanding which engage in collaborative action. A fluid set of beliefs, understandings, and
differences (some consistent and complementary, others inconsistent and contradictory) that
encompasses and exceeds individuals in the group as they create and recreate meaning, conflict,
and uncertainty. It emphasizes group consensus and shared understandings of reality (Bensimon
& Nuemann, 1993).

PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

31
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
In order to understand why people do what they do, scholars have used the construct of
motivation to research various issues in learning, sports, health, and organizational or workplace
contexts (Gagne & Deci, 2005). The word motivation comes from the Latin word movere, which
means to move or be in action (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Murphy & Alexander, 2000).
Motivation may be difficult to understand because it is not easily observed, not a concrete object
or thing that can be identified or experienced through the senses. Moreover, social science
literature indicates that motivation is an abstraction or “a hypothetical construct, an invented
definition that provides a possible concrete causal explanation of behavior” (Wlodkowski, 1999,
p. 7). Motivation is a construct that will be used for this study in order to describe and understand
the conditions that cause PTNTTF to move or be in action regarding their involvement in
departmental decision-making. Further, the term motivation will provide a description of
PTNTTF behavior and frame PTNTTF experiences at community colleges.
Research suggests that departmental decision-making can be more effective with input
from PTNTTF, which promotes the well-being of an academic institution because of the
inclusion of all faculty (Kezar & Sam, 2012). In addition, inclusion of PTNTTF in the shared
responsibility of the decision-making process within a department serves the function of valuing,
legitimatizing and recognizing PTNTTF as credible members of an academic institution, while
also distributing the workload among all faculty of a department (Kezar & Sam, 2010). In this
chapter, I will review the literature on the characteristics of community colleges, describe the
PTNTTF professoriate, discuss governance in community colleges, list conditions which may
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

32
influence PTNTTF participation in the departmental decision-making process, and describe
motivation and related constructs(Curtis & Jacoby, 2006; Kezar & Sam, 2010b; Twombly &
Townsend, 2008; Anderson, 2002; Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Shaker, 2008; Deci, Connell &
Ryan, 1989; Gagne & Deci, 2005; Vroom, 1964; Porter & Lawler, 1968).
This literature review informs this study by providing a framework for the construct
known as motivation and various other relevant concepts such as self-efficacy, relatedness, and
belongingness that will be considered when studying PTNTTF’s role within departmental
decision-making at two-year community colleges. Further, this literature review can address the
research questions of this study by using existing literature to inform the lens through which data
will be analyzed. The purpose of including the literature is first, to understand the evolution of
PTNTTF as distinct from other types of non-tenure track faculty in community colleges. Second,
to understand the context and conditions which may influence whether PTNTTF are motivated to
engage in departmental decision-making; and finally, to use current and relevant literature on
motivation and related constructs to frame the emerging data and data analysis of this study.
However, before the literature review is presented, the history and characteristics of the
PTNTTF professoriate in two-year community colleges will be described (Wallin, 2004). Then, a
description of governance and shared governance in community colleges will be described. The
literature which suggests potential challenges to PTNTTF motivation to participate in
departmental governance will be discussed. Finally, in order to understand the construct of
motivation and how it applies to the focus of this study, the chapter closes with an analysis of the
concept of motivation which indicates that motivation is not only an attribute of a person; rather
it is influenced by the environment in which the PTNTTF work, and elaborate on how
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

33
motivation and related constructs apply to understanding the focus of this study (Graham &
Weiner, 2012).
Part-time Non-tenure Track Faculty and the Community College Professoriate
The growth of NTTF initially began at two-year community colleges due to the
implementation of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act in 1944, also known as the GI Bill. As a
result of the GI Bill, there was an influx in student enrollment in American two-year community
colleges which required hiring more faculty to teach courses. In addition, the introduction of the
President’s Commission on Higher Education in 1947 influenced an increase in college
attendance in the United States, therefore another reason for the increase in the demand for
faculty off the tenure track. The need for faculty off the tenure track was due to the cost saving
measures of community colleges that did not want to pay full-time or tenured faculty wages to
PTNTTF, as well as a need for a teaching workforce that was not required to do research. Then
in the 1990’s NTTF spread to four-year universities (Cohen & Brawer, 2008; Schuster &
Finkelstein, 2006). The broad category of NTTF is distinct from the tenure-track faculty
appointments in regards to aspects of working conditions, expectations of faculty, career
trajectories, financial compensation and benefits, and experiences with academic governance
(Kezar, & Sam, 2010b; Twombly, & Townsend, 2008; Pisani, & Stott, 1998; Outcalt, 2002;
Wallin, 2004).
According to the American Federation of Teachers (2009) two-year community colleges
experienced a growth of PTNTTF from 65% in 1997 to 69%by 2007. Other data sets indicate
that among higher education institutions, two-year community colleges employ the majority of
PTNTTF, as opposed to four-year institutions. In some cases PTNTTF make up to 80%of faculty
at community colleges (Eagan, 2007; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; National Education Association
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

34
Research Center, 2007; American Federation of Teachers, 2003). There are also variations in the
extent to which PTNTTF are employed in particular disciplines at community colleges (Gappa &
Leslie, 1993).
Research indicates that at the onset of the evolution of the contingent workforce,
PTNTTF were perceived as the “experts, the visiting professors, who were so valued for their
specialized knowledge that they had to be shared among institutions” (Wallin, 2004, p. 376).
However, with the increase in the use of adjunct or PTNTTF in higher education, colleges and
universities have used PTNTTF primarily to respond to the changing environmental conditions
while saving money by not hiring faculty full-time (Wallin, 2004). According to Jacobs (1998)
adjunct faculty at two-year community colleges are an “expendable workforce” (Wallin, 2004, p.
376). Further, Jacobs (1998) writes that there are four reasons for the use of PTNTTF: (1) To
teach multi-section courses; (2) to substitute for full-time faculty until they return from a leave or
are replaced; (3) to cover unanticipated enrollment in both terms of numbers of students taught
and subjects taught; and (4) to provide labor-intensive work such as supervising practicum or
internship students (Jacobs, 1998).
The distribution of PTNTTF varies among disciplines or academic fields (Wallin, 2004).
For example, PTNTTF are hired for particular disciplines in the following percentages:
agriculture/home economics 21.6%; engineering 21.8 %; natural sciences 23.5%, and social
sciences 29.7% (Forest Cataldi, Fahimi & Bradburn, 2005). Overall, the largest increase in
PTNTTF appointments in the academy from 1987 to 2003, was in education related disciplines
(National Education Association Research Center, 2007).
With dynamic faculty trends taking shape in the academy, especially in community
colleges, new or updated departmental and institutional policies that ensure participation and
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

35
input from all types of faculty appointments should be established (Kezar & Sam, 2012; Kezar &
Eckle, 2004; Lyons, 1999). As a result of PTNTTF representing the new majority in the teaching
force at two-year community colleges, this population and their involvement in departmental
decision-making should be empirically studied. Further, current research about PTNTTF
experiences with academic shared governance on a departmental and institutional level are either
outdated or lacking in breadth and scope (Kezar & Sam, 2010b).
Many scholars have undertaken the task of investigating the broad category of NTTF at
two-year community colleges and universities, including the causes of their growing numbers,
their professional trajectories, and the experience of being NTTF (Chronister, 2001; Gappa &
Leslie, 1993; Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006; Wallin, 2004). Few studies have attempted to inquire
on the NTTF sub-group known as PTNTTF (Twombly & Townsend, 2008; Wallin, 2004). Part-
time non-tenure-track faculty have been referred to in the literature as the “invisible” faculty, for
this reason we should learn more about the experiences of this faculty workforce (Gappa &
Leslie, 1993). In addition, the history of two-year community colleges that rely on PTNTTF as a
major teaching force indicates PTNTTF experiences need to be better understood in order to
support PTNTTF professional growth and needs. Therefore, the topic of PTNTTF and their
experiences with departmental governance is paramount, in light of the presence of the PTNTTF
professoriate in community colleges.
Governance
The focus of this study is governance or the process of decision-making within an
academic department at two-year community colleges where PTNTTF are employed.
Departmental decision-making is the most appropriate level of governance for this study for two
reasons: (1) In interviews at eighteen colleges and universities, PTNTTF indicated that their job
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

36
satisfaction and the extent to which they felt like a member of the institution’s academic
community was a result of how PTNTTF were treated in their academic department (Gappa &
Leslie, 1993); this study can help inform the extent to which all PTNTTF feel this way. For
instance, some PTNTTF report a sense of disconnection to their institution, alienation,
powerlessness, and being invisible (Gappa & Leslie, 1993). In addition, focusing on the
departmental level of governance is best for this study because typically, the first level of
interaction between a PTNTTF and a community college may be with the head of the
department, as hiring is usually done informally or by word of mouth (Gappa, Austin & Trice,
2007); (2) as a result of the faculty make-up at community colleges shifting from primarily full-
time tenured to mostly PTNTTF, it is important to understand how departmental decision-
making is undertaken and consider the role which PTNTTF assume in the process (Gappa &
Leslie, 1993; Outcalt, 2002). For the purpose of this study the concept of academic governance is
necessary to define. Empirical research on institutional governance until recently was rare
(Kezar, 2004: Kezar & Sam 2010a; Kezar & Sam, 2010b). Therefore a definition of
departmental governance is even more limited, especially at the community college level (Kezar,
2004). However, scholars have provided a working definition of faculty governance that can be
used for this study; the definition states governance includes “all of the mechanisms that have
been delegated to faculty for making decisions including university, college, and departmental
committee structures” (Kezar & Sam, 2012, p. 4). For the purpose of this study, I will build on
this definition of governance in the following sections, and include a description of faculty
governance and shared governance.
Faculty governance in higher education involves making decisions regarding multiple
types of issues, including but not limited to work conditions, curriculum, student affairs,
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

37
learning, institutional planning, budget, and policy development (Kezar & Sam, 2010a; Kezar &
Sam, 2012). Although the make-up of members in faculty committees or academic senates may
vary by institution type, community colleges typically have full-time staff and faculty which
comprise the governance bodies (Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Wallin, 2004). As a result of groups or
committees that include members such as staff, faculty and administrators, the concept known as
shared governance emerged. Shared governance is recognized as a principle characteristic of an
effective and inclusive institution (American Federation of Teachers, 2006; Kezar & Sam, 2012).
Although governance is a hallmark of the well-being of an institution, its policies and
implementation vary across institutions (Eckel & Kezar, 2006; Kezar & Sam, 2012; Gappa,
Austin & Trice, 2007). For example, recent research suggests that some higher education
campuses need more policies and practices to maximize contingent faculty participation in
governance. Further, although many higher education college handbooks or contracts state that
contingent faculty should be involved in institutional governance, they often do not delineate
guidelines of how PTNNTF can participate in a meaningful manner in the decision-making
process (Kezar & Sam, 2012). Additionally, there is evidence that in the current context of
higher education where the faculty appointment types are the most diverse, PTNTTF are to a
large extent left out of the decision-making process (Eckel & Kezar, 2006; Kezar & Sam, 2012;
Gappa & Leslie, 2007). For example, PTNTTF are often excluded from activities related to
decision-making such as input for courses they teach and contributing towards professional
development opportunities (Gappa & Leslie, 1993). In addition, PTNTTF have limited access to
the decision-making process within a department when they are not invited to attend or given
guidelines on how to become more active with departmental affairs. Further, researchers have
noted a disparity among access to departmental governance among full-time non-tenured faculty
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

38
and PTNTTF. For example, 66% of PTNTTF are allowed to participate in departmental
governance compared to 95% of full-time non-tenured faculty who are included in departmental
governance (Hollenshead, 2007).
Shared Governance
The 1967 Statement on Government in Colleges and Universities, regarding shared
governance, indicates that all members of the institution, including governing committees,
administration, faculty, and councils share responsibility for the decision-making process within
the institution (AAUP, 1967). Therefore, shared governance ensures that institution boards,
councils, task forces, or committees work in small groups on specified issues (i.e., faculty work
on curriculum), where all faculty, administrators, or entities provide input and communicate
transparently in campus wide decisions (AAUP, 1967; Kezar & Sam, 2012).
The concept of shared governance as a participatory decision-making model may provide
PTNTTF opportunities to have input in department decision-making. Research suggests that
shared governance provides many benefits such as: (1) providing the structure for broad
participation from staff, faculty, and administrators to make decisions in their respective areas of
expertise; (2) shared governance results in a form of collegiality in the academy; (3) shared
governance increases the capacity of all participants in decision-making; (4) shared governance
increases institutional effectiveness; (5) shared governance improves productivity within
organizations (Twombly & Townsend, 2008; Gappa & Leslie, 2007; Birnbaum, 1988; Minor,
2004). Moreover, for the purpose of this study shared governance may enhance the conditions
which motivate PTNTTF to participate in governance at a departmental level. Specifically,
because PTNTTF access to shared governance may professionalize this population by virtue of
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

39
shared governance being a hallmark of deliberative decision-making, which contributes to the
well-being of an institution (Tierney & Minor, 2003; Kezar & Sam, 2012).
Conditions Part-time Non-tenure-track Faculty Encounter with Departmental Governance
Although some non-tenured faculty prefer to not participate in the decision-making
process at their institution because PTNTTF report it as being a waste of time and without
meaning (Anderson, 2002; Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Shaker, 2008; Kezar & Sam, 2012).
Some PTNTTF have reported specific concerns about not being asked to be involved in
governance. For instance, research indicates that PTNTTF are concerned that they are not asked
or invited to be involved in the decision-making process related to issues that have a direct
influence on their employment or working conditions (Kezar & Sam, 2010a; Kezar & Sam,
2012; Hollenshead, 2007). Therefore, it is important to consider conditions which PTNTTF
encounter in the workplace that are conducive to getting involved in tasks beyond teaching at an
institution. Further, by reviewing workplace conditions this literature will inform the study on
ways that PTNTTF are potentially motivated to participate in departmental governance. For the
purpose of this study, three specific conditions which may influence PTNTTF motivation to
participate in the decision-making process include: (1) the leadership style of the academic
department in which the PTNTTF teach, (2) the decision-making approach of the department in
which the PTNTTF teach, and (3) PTNTTF commitment to the department where employed.
Condition 1: Leadership Style
A condition which may either ensure or detract the involvement of PTNTTF in
departmental governance includes the leadership style of the department. Research suggests that
when a leader or a department chair knows how to bring together diverse faculty which possess
various types of talents and skills, then mechanisms for faculty participation in governance are
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

40
strengthened (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993; Kezar & Eckel, 2004). Thus, an effective leader of
an academic department recognizes that in order to minimize the marginalization of any faculty,
especially PTNTTF, departmental or institutional structures must be in place to allow PTNTTF
to have input in the decision-making process (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993; Kezar & Sam, 2012;
Kezar & Eckel, 2004).
An effective leader of an academic department has the ability to gather all of the faculty,
regardless of appointment type, and encourages the group of faculty to consider different points
of view and problem solve collaboratively (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993). When this occurs
PTNTTF experience an inclusive, positive, and productive working environment and are at the
center of departmental governance, besides their FTF counterparts (Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Kezar
& Sam, 2012). Part-time non-tenured track faculty are likely to report higher job satisfaction as a
result of positive interactions with administrative leaders such as a department chair (Gappa,
Austin & Trice, 2007). Further, a skilled department leader will foster a respective environment
where even though differences in opinions exist among faculty, they are addressed in a non-
threatening and non-retaliatory manner (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993). As a result, the leader of
the department can support in the governance structure of a department by prioritizing tasks and
guiding the decision-making process towards a concrete goal (Kezar & Eckel, 2004). When
opportunities for PTNTTF to participate in department governance are present because of the
department leadership, then this may potentially motivate PTNTTF to participate in governance.
The aforementioned characteristics of an effective department head make up a specific
leadership style known as servant or transformational leadership (Kark & Shamir, 2000).
Servant leaders work towards creating a sense of shared goals within an organization and
“listen[ing] deeply to understand the needs and concerns of others” (Kock, 2004, p. 19).
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

41
Moreover, a servant leader has a primary intent to “serve others, not to lead others” and
possesses a self-concept of a “servant and steward, not leader or owner” (Sendjaya & Sarros,
2002, p. 59).Another effective characteristic of a servant leader is that S/he does not desire
compliance, rather S/he seeks to positively influence others to promote collaboration, individual
success, organizational success, harmony, and joint decision-making (Hamilton & Nord, 2005;
Kark & Shamir, 2000; Spears, 2002). The literature on servant leadership is relevant to this study
because it has mostly been applied to organizational behavior; thus a servant leader can inform
us on the behavior of PTNTTF at community colleges. However, one limitation of this construct
is the lack of substantial empirical data to create a systematic theory; as opposed to its current
state as a movement and relatively untested theory (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002). Nonetheless, a
leadership style that includes characteristics of a servant leader can be transformational to the
degree to which this type of leader promotes a decision-making approach which includes
PTNTTF in departmental governance.
Condition 2: Decision-Making Approach
A second condition which may have an influence on whether PTNTTF are motivated to
participate in departmental governance is the decision-making approach of a department. A top
down approach to decision-making, where only FTF are involved in voting and making
department policy, is not a suitable aspect of departmental culture (Kezar & Sam, 2012;
Locander & Luechauer, 2005). Moreover, the lack of involvement of PTNTTF in the
departmental decision-making process prevents a sense of shared governance within an
institution (Gappa & Leslie, 2007). Further, if PTNTTF are not involved in departmental
governance, then they will lack any ownership in the department and this may contribute to a
polarized mindset, where the faculty may perceive that FTF are against PTNTTF (Ackerman,
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

42
Ball & Squire, 2002). In addition, an inclusive decision-making process will foster a sense of
employment equity and collegiality, which are key elements of effective faculty work (Gappa,
Austin & Trice, 2007).
If academic departments in community colleges include high percentages of PTNTTF as
instructors, it may be imperative to utilize a decision-making approach where all faculty are
recognized and included in the growth and development of the academic department in which
they teach (Gappa, Austin & Trice, 2007; Economic Development Calgary, 2005; Schuster &
Finkelstein, 2006; Twombly, & Townsend, 2008). If an academic department uses a decision-
making approach where PTNTTF are not included in the process, then the department itself is
likely to begin to fail to meet the needs of all its stakeholders (American Federation of Teachers,
2006). An inclusive decision-making approach may lead to all of the faculty of a department
feeling free to take initiative and develop their confidence in their ability to contribute to the
governance structures within the department (Spreitzer & Quinn, 1997).
Condition 3: PTNTTF Commitment to Department
A third condition which may influence PTNTTF motivation to participate in
departmental governance is PTNTTF commitment to the department. Organizational citizenship
behavior is defined as “discretionary behavior directed at individuals or at an organization as a
whole, which goes beyond existing role expectations and benefits or is intended to benefit the
organization” (Organ, 1997, p. 86). In other words, organizational citizenship behavior includes
organizational beneficial behaviors that cannot be enforced upon the employee due to contractual
obligations (Somech & Ron, 2007). Participating in departmental decision-making is an example
of how PTNTTF could display organizational citizenship behavior because it is often not a
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

43
contractual requirement or financially compensated activity (Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Kezar &
Sam, 2010b).
Although the research on citizenship behavior has focused on individual characteristics,
recent literature examines how the behaviors of individuals within an organization are embedded
in contexts such as “the work group, the department, or the organization” (Somech & Ron, 2007,
p. 41). For instance, if an organization such as a community college department is structured in a
way that inclusion of all faculty types are encouraged to participate in decision-making, then
their job satisfaction may be enhanced; which in turn may influence their commitment to the
organization (Gappa, Austin & Trice, 2007). The literature on organization citizenship behavior
can inform this study by considering the conditions which motivate PTNTTF go above and
beyond their official call for teaching by participating in departmental governance.
Participation in governance at the department level is an example of institutional service.
As previously mentioned, both the leadership style and the approach to decision-making of the
department in which PTNTTF teach, may influence whether PTNTTF engages in governance.
For example, Lee and Allen (2002) found that there is an important link between organization
citizenship behavior and employee satisfaction. Further, researchers indicate that individual
dimensions of organization citizenship behavior include altruism, conscientiousness, and having
civic virtue are positively related to employee perceived support from a supervisor (i.e. the leader
of the department) and a sense of collectivism which may reinforce participation in activities
such as departmental decision-making (Somech & Ron, 2007).
If faculty at community colleges are disengaged from the department decision-making
and do not exhibit organization citizenship behavior, it may be in part due to the fact that
committee work and involvement in governance are “unacknowledged in faculty work lives”,
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

44
especially because PTNTTF do not typically conduct research or are required to do service at a
community college (Lawrence, 2011, p. 2). Due to fiscal constraints in higher education,
increasing accountability measures, and an expansion of student success initiatives in recent
years, administrators have called upon contingent or part-time faculty to be involved in more of
an institution’s efforts (Gappa, Austin & Trice, 2007; Kezar & Sam, 2010b). There has also been
a simultaneous decline in recognition of faculty involvement in institutional service (Tinberg,
2009). Therefore, the conditions that do not promote organization citizenship behavior in
PTNTTF are not conducive to PTNTTF being motivated to participate in departmental
governance or being committed to the department or institution where they teach.
Organization citizenship behaviors are efforts that serve the general well-being of a
department and a common cause for the lack of PTNTTF demonstrating organization citizenship
behavior, is a lack of organizational commitment (OC) (Lawrence, 2011). Some research has
shed a negative light on higher education faculty who do not “take seriously their departmental
and college responsibilities (and) to serve on committees. They wish to concentrate on their own
affairs and not those of the institution” (Thelin, 2001, p. 3). A suggestion to address a lack of
organization commitment on behalf of contingent faculty is to create institutional policies and a
social contract indicating the rights and obligations of PTNTTF in regards to department and
institutional service (Lawrence, 2011; Kezar & Sam, 2012).
In conclusion, not all part-time faculty want to participate in governance at the institution
they teach at due to reasons such as a lack of meaning in doing so (Anderson, 2002; Baldwin &
Chronister, 2001; Shaker, 2008; Kezar & Sam, 2012). Nonetheless, there are PTNTTF who
report being concerned about not being invited to participate in the decision-making process
related to issues that directly affect them, including their working conditions and curriculum
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

45
issues (Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Kezar & Sam, 2010a; Kezar & Sam, 2012; Hollenshead, 2007).
For the purpose of this study, it is important to consider conditions that PTNTTF encounter in
the workplace which either promote or hinder their involvement in departmental affairs. Further,
by reviewing the literature on the three aforementioned conditions, will inform this study on
ways that PTNTTF are potentially motivated to participate in departmental governance.
Motivation
Definition
Motivation is described as one’s personal investment in reaching a desired outcome
(Maehr & Meyer, 1997). Educational psychologists have defined motivation as “the process
whereby goal directed behavior is instigated and sustained” (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002, p. 4). For
the purpose of this study, a definition borrowed from the literature on learning motivation will be
applied, due to its relevance to the goal of this study, which is to better understand the
experiences of PTNTTF in community colleges. For example, based on the aforementioned
definition of motivation, for this study, process refers to PTNTTF motivation regarding
involvement in departmental affairs or the decision-making process at a community college.
Indices of Motivation
Goal directed behavior in the aforementioned definition of motivation, refers to the three
indices of motivation which include one’s active choice, effort, and persistence on a task
(Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008). For instance, PTNTTF choice, effort, and persistence on
tasks associated with departmental governance. Also, in the definition of motivation for this
study, activity refers to departmental governance, events, tasks or activities associated with the
decision-making process of the department in which the PTNTTF teach. Finally, the initiated
and sustained portion of the definition for motivation refers to PTNTTF starting and sustaining
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

46
their participation in the decision-making process until a goal is attained. Thus, motivation is
defined as an individual’s natural capacity to demonstrate goal directed behavior, where the
individual exerts active choice, effort, and persistence towards attainment of a goal related to
decision-making in a department (Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro, Lovett, & Norman, 2010;
Wlodkowski, 1999).
Active Choice
Although the concept of motivation that is used for this study is borrowed from
educational psychology, the notion that one can infer the presence of motivation in PTNTTF
from behavioral indicators or the three indices of motivation, is appropriate to use in order to
understand the experiences of PTNTTF with departmental governance at community colleges.
An indicator or index of motivation known as active choice, refers to whether one chooses to
engage in an activity or task, or not to do so (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008). When PTNTTF
have a choice to participate in the decision-making process of their department, what PTNTTF
actually choose to do for an in their department, indicates where PTNTTF motivation lies (Clark,
2003; Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008). A possible challenge with this indicator of motivation
is that PTNTTF may have an intention to participate in the decision-making process of a
department at a community college, but the PTNTTF may not demonstrate action (Schunk,
Pintrich, & Meece, 2008).
Effort
Once one chooses to engage in an activity, a second indicator or index of motivation
includes one’s effort that is exerted in the activity or task; physical and or mental effort may be
exerted on an activity or task (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008). Participating in the decision-
making process at a community college may not be easy for some PTNTTF, therefore, more
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

47
cognitive effort may be needed. In addition, PTNTTF that have buy in for their department and
are motivated to participate in departmental affairs are more likely to expend greater mental and
physical effort in order to complete a task or activity that is associated with departmental
decision-making (Clark, 2003; Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008).
In the learning literature, one’s self-efficacy is related to the level of mental effort exerted
on a task; therefore, PTNTTF self-efficacy may be correlated positively with PTNTTF mental
effort on tasks or activities associated with departmental governance (Clark, 2003; Schunk,
Pintrich, & Meece, 2008). Some challenges of this indicator of motivation for PTNTTF may
include PTNTTF being overconfident in their abilities to execute a course of action to complete a
task; PTNTTF making mistakes in the decision-making process and projecting responsibilities
externally, or PTNTTF using inaccurate knowledge skills to complete a specific task or activity
associated with departmental governance at a community college (Clark, 2003).
Persistence
The final indicator or index of motivation is the actual time spent on a task associated
with the decision-making process, or persistence of PTNTTF (Clark, 2003; Schunk, Pintrich, &
Meece, 2008). Part-time non-tenure track faculty are more likely to spend more time on a
decision-making task or activity, especially when PTNTTF experience challenges in the process
(Schunk, Pintrich, Meece, 2008). This indicator is important because learning how to participate
and be successful in the decision-making process takes time for PTNTTF develop. Persistence on
a task or activity relates directly to the “sustains” feature of the definition of motivation above,
because greater persistence from PTNTTF leads to higher task accomplishments with
departmental governance (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meecce, 2008). A challenge to PTNTTF with this
indicator of motivation occurs when PTNTTF choose to participate in an activity or task, exert
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

48
some effort on it, but cease working on the task or activity because PTNTTF become distracted
by other personal goals or interests; or PTNTTF do not spend enough time on a decision-making
task or activity that was initiated (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008).
Theoretical Frameworks
In order to study PTNTTF motivation, the literature which states that this construct is a
broad term that encompasses many different factors, will be considered. Motivation cannot be
reduced to only one factor of a person’s behavior. Rather, motivation has a beginning, middle
and end, until a goal is attained. Motivation is not an attribute of a person (Schunk, Pintrich, &
Meece, 2008); instead motivation is much more contextualized and affected by an individual’s
environment, for instance the climate of a department in which PTNTTF teach at a community
college (Graham & Weiner, 2012).
Motivation theory is central to the focus of this study and it is essential in understanding
its role in the conditions that motivate PTNTTF to participate in departmental decision-making,
or not. There are many categories of motivation that can be used to better inform this study
(Schunk, Pintrich & Meece, 2008; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Further, researchers have examined
motivation in developmental and educational psychology, based on an individual’s beliefs,
values, and goals and have contributed to the literature on how these factors contribute to the
achievement behaviors of individuals by delineating four areas of motivation (Eccles &
Wigfield, 2002). The four areas of motivation to consider for this study include: (1) expectancy
theories, (2) reasons for engagement, (3) integration of expectancy and value constructs, and (4)
integration of motivation and cognition (Schunk, Pintrich & Meece, 2008; Eccles & Wigfield,
2002; Murphy & Alexander, 2000).
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

49
Specifically, Eccles and Wigfield (2002) describe expectancy theories as including
constructs such as self-efficacy and locus of control. Whereas, intrinsic motivation, interest, and
goals are described as concepts related to motivation, also known as reasons for engagement.
Thirdly, researchers indicate that concepts related to motivation which combine expectancies and
value constructs would include attribution, expectancy-value models, and self-worth. Lastly,
aspects of social-cognitive and self-regulation are related to motivation, where motivation and
volition are integrated and motivation and cognition are integrated (Schunk, Pintrich & Meece,
2008; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002).
This body of literature on motivation and related concepts can inform this study and
assist in identifying conditions that either promote PTNTTF engagement or disengagement in
activities related to departmental governance. For example, some motivation frameworks that are
well suited to inform this study include, behavioral theories of motivation and cognitive theories
of motivation. Behavioral theories state that motivation is a response to environmental events or
stimuli; such that positive reinforcement will increase behavior and punishments will decrease
behavior. Applying a behavioral theory of motivation as the framework for the current study
could facilitate my understanding of whether PTNTTF participate in departmental governance
when they are positively reinforced to do so. Cognitive theories of motivation posit that
motivation is the result of an individual’s thoughts, beliefs and emotions. In addition, that an
individual’s attributions, perceptions of competence, values, affect, goals, and social
comparisons are important processes of motivation (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Murphy &
Alexander, 2000).
Theoretical frameworks from educational psychology and organizational literature will
be applied to this study. In this section, self-efficacy, which is related to motivation, and is a
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

50
construct that came out of the broader social cognitive learning theory (Bandura, 1977; Pintrich
& Schunk, 2002) will be discussed. In addition, reasons for engagement, intrinsic motivation,
and self-determination theory will be discussed.
The rationale for concepts related to motivation such as self-efficacy, reasons for
engagement, intrinsic motivation, and self-determination theory were utilized for the current
study and are substantiated by the nature of each theory. More specifically, self-efficacy can
inform this study because it is defined as the degree to which an individual believes she or he
possesses the skills to be successful at a task; also self-efficacy focuses on a sense of self-
confidence and the degree of PTNTTF self-control (Bandura, 1997). For instance, the self-
confidence of PTNTTF to participate in the decision-making process of a department at a
community college stems from their expectations of success in a specific situation or task (Clark,
2003). In addition, self-efficacy is influenced by four aspects such as an individual’s prior
success on a similar task, vicarious experiences, social persuasion by a peer, and physiological
responses to a specific situation (Bandura, 1977). Additionally, the literature on self-efficacy can
inform this study about PTNTTF perceptions or judgments of their ability to perform a task
related to departmental governance; while also allowing me to address whether a PTNTTF
perceive their motivation to participate in the departmental decision-making due to any of the
four aspects which influence self-efficacy beliefs.
In addition, intrinsic motivation can inform this study in respect to whether PTNTTF are
motivated to participate in departmental governance due to their genuine enjoyment in the
process (Ryan, & Deci, 2000). Finally self-determination theory as a theory of work motivation
builds on intrinsic motivation theory and locus of control, which is whether one believes that
their participation in governance is controlled internally or externally. Whereas, self-
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

51
determination theory was employed for the purpose of illuminating the conditions which
motivate PTNTTF to participate in departmental governance as stemming from either an
autonomous motivation source or a controlled motivation source (Gagne & Deci, 2005). More
specifically, self-determination theory was used in this literature review in order to provide a lens
for the concepts such as relatedness, competence, and autonomy, which may influence the
motivation of PTNTTF to get involved in governance.
Expectancy Theories
Expectancy theories of motivation are relevant frameworks for this study because they
are process theories. Process theories of motivation can inform why PTNTTF may choose one
behavioral option over another (Dalton, 1971). Expectancy theories suggest that work motivation
is based on an individual’s perceived association between his performance and outcomes
(Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Vroom, 1964). Therefore, an individual will modify his or her
performance based on calculated outcomes. Further, this type of theory will inform this study
because it suggests three essential tenets. First, that an individual has goals and will be motivated
if he or she believes there is a positive correlation between his efforts and performance on a task.
Second, an individual’s belief that a coveted reward will be attained as a result of good
performance on a task. Finally, and most importantly, an individual’s belief that the desired
reward will satisfy an important need (Dalton, 1971; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Vroom, 1964).
Therefore, expectancy theories can inform the question of what conditions motivate PTNTTF to
participate in departmental governance.
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is a moderator of motivation and it is defined as one’s personal judgments
of one’s capabilities to organize and execute courses of action to complete a task (Bandura,
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

52
1977). Although this construct was originally intended to be applied to issues of learning, self-
efficacy has been described by scholars as affecting an individual’s choice, effort and persistence
towards a goal; while also being related to a person’s emotions towards a goal. Therefore, this
construct is appropriate to use for this study. In addition, an individual feels most efficacious
towards a task when S/he previously experienced success on a similar task (Pintrich & Schunk,
2002; Zimmerman, 2000). Thus, it is appropriate to consider the construct of self-efficacy and
how it moderates PTNTTF motivation to participate in departmental governance.
Self-efficacy includes an individual’s judgment about their capability to complete a task
successfully, which is usually prospective for future functioning (Bandura, 1977; Zimmerman,
2000). Further, an individual’s self-efficacy is context-specific or domain specific (Pintrich &
Schunk, 2002). For example, a PTNTTF may consider how well S/he may perform on a
departmental governance task, such as preparing a literature review for a department meeting
where the creation of a bilingual component to the department teaching will be discussed or
creating a presentation on a topic of discussion for a faculty meeting. If a PTNTTF has low self-
efficacy towards accomplishing a literature review on strategies to create an effective bilingual
program, then S/he may avoid participating in a departmental meeting as a form of self-worth
protection (Schunk, Pintrich & Meece, 2008). Conversely, if a PTNTTF believes S/he is capable
of both creating a literature review on the strategies to create a bilingual component for a
department and presenting it to the other faculty, then S/he may be motivated to participate in the
departmental decision-making process.
Self-efficacy as a moderator of PTNTTF motivation for participating in departmental
governance may be influenced by several sources. Specifically, enactive attainment, vicarious
experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological states are sources that influence an individual’s
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

53
self-efficacy (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Enactive attainment refers to an individual learning
something by having a concrete experience or hands on practice. Actions which lead to success
are internalized by an individual, while those that lead to failure are discarded (Schunk, Pintrich,
& Meece, 2008). Vicarious experience as a source of one’s self-efficacy refers to an individual
learning something through observing a similar peer or model and then practicing the actions
necessary to reach a goal. Verbal persuasion as the third source of one’s self-efficacy includes an
individual receiving positive feedback or encouragement while completing a task. Finally,
physiological states as a source of one’s self-efficacy refers to an individual’s physical and or
biological responses to a task, such as adrenaline that causes excitement or a headache and
sweaty palms (Bandura, 1997; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008).
These four sources of self-efficacy can further inform this study and the conditions that motivate
PTNTTF to participate in departmental governance. For example, research suggests that service
self-efficacy, or self-efficacy for participating in departmental affairs is influenced directly by
the faculty feeling “nourished and rewarded by a department for engaging in research, service,
and teaching tasks” (Landino & Owen, 1988, p. 10); which is the manifestation of the source of
self-efficacy known as enactive attainment because the faculty experience feeling nourished and
rewarded, or the faculty internalization of success for engaging in departmental governance.
Self-efficacy as a moderator of PTNTTF motivation will further inform this study
through the application of the aforementioned four sources of self-efficacy. For example, a
PTNTTF may learn how to participate in departmental governance after having a concrete
experience by attending a department meeting on curriculum development at the community
college where S/he is employed. In turn, this hands on experience may influence the PTNTTF’s
motivation to be involved in the decision-making process. Whereas, a PTNTTF can develop a
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

54
goal to improve the quality of his participation in a faculty department meeting by observing a
similar colleague’s behavior which is perceived as effective in the decision-making process.
Then, with practice the PTNTTF may apply the techniques that were observed at a departmental
governance event by a more experienced colleague; thus cycling back to enactive attainment as a
source of self-efficacy (Schunk, Pintrich & Meece, 2008).
In addition, if PTNTTF believe that the observed behavior of a similar colleague or peer
will be useful, then PTNTTF are likely to attend to the model. Verbal persuasion, or positive
feedback or encouragement as a source of self-efficacy may influence a PTNTTF’s motivation to
participate in departmental governance on a consistent basis. Finally, if a PTNTTF experiences a
positive physiological state while participating in departmental governance, then S/he may be
more likely to engage in such activities. Conversely, if a PTNTTF experiences negative
physiological responses to participating in departmental decision-making, then S/he is more
likely to refrain from doing so (Schunk, Pintrich & Meece, 2008).
Intrinsic Motivation
To be motivated means that an individual initiates actions towards attaining a goal or
desired outcome. Intrinsic motivation refers to when an individual participates in an activity
because S/he finds it inherently interesting or personally enjoyable. On the other hand, extrinsic
motivation is when an individual will engage in an activity as a means to an end. Both intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation are on separate individual continuums; and both are time and context
dependent. The degree of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can be low to high; an individual
may possess a high degree of intrinsic motivation towards a particular task and simultaneously
possess a low degree of extrinsic motivation towards another task (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002;
Ryan & Deci, 2000).
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

55
Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are related to an individual’s locus of control. Locus of
control refers to the extent to which one believes S/he can control events in his or her life
(Pintrich & Schunk, 2002); for the purpose of this literature review, locus of control can be used
to understand the extent to which a PTNTTF believes he can control the events related to
participating in departmental governance. With an internal locus of control, a PTNNTF will
believe S/he is in control when it relates to participating in departmental decision-making.
Conversely, if a PTNTTF has an external locus of control, S/he believes that others are in control
of whether S/he participates in the departmental governance. The concept of locus of control and
the relationship it has with intrinsic and extrinsic motivation informs this study because when
PTNTTF are intrinsically motivated to participate in departmental governance, then they feel
they are in control of their actions. As opposed to the case where a PTNTTF is extrinsically
motivated to participate in the departmental decision-making process, then S/he will feel like
other individuals are in control of his or her participation (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Self-Determination
The application of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation theory to work settings has led to the
development of a framework which is suited for this study, known as self-determination theory
(Deci, 1971; Deci, Connell & Ryan, 1989). Self-determination (SDT) is “the process of utilizing
one’s will” (Schunk, Pintrich & Meece, 2008, p. 248). Deci (1987) defines will as the ability to
choose how to satisfy one’s needs. In order for one to be self-determined, S/he must be aware of
his or her strengths and weaknesses, be aware of factors which work to influence the individual,
and be able to make decisions of how to satisfy needs in one’s environment (Deci & Ryan,
1987).
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

56
Self-determination theory can be applied as a theory of work motivation, which informed
the focus of the current study because it suggests that motivation is a process, it is not a
dichotomy. Rather, self-determination theory emphasizes the level of autonomy of one’s actions;
where the level of autonomy is a result of how self-determined one is (Deci, 1970). This
theoretical approach is most relevant to this study because it posits that humans have
psychological needs that underlie behavior (Schunk, Pintrich & Meece, 2008). The three
psychological needs include: that one maintain an optimal level of competence, autonomy, and
relatedness in their environment (Deci, Connell & Ryan, 1989). Specifically, the use of self-
determination theory may inform this study about how PTNTTF need to maintain an optimal
level of competence, autonomy, and relatedness in order to be motivated to participate in
departmental governance. Further, self-determination theory can be utilized to understand the
conditions that motivate PTNTTF to participate in departmental governance, while also
providing the framework to support an emerging grounded theory which will explain this
process. Due to the high level of relevance of self-determination theory to this study, a
discussion of each of the aforementioned psychological human needs will follow.
SDT and Competence
Central to self-determination theory is the notion that humans have a psychological need
to feel competent (Deci, Connell & Ryan, 1989). The underlying premise of this basic human
need to be self-determined includes that one has the skill and ability to accomplish a task in the
attainment of a goal (Deci, 1987). Further, a need for competence refers to one possessing a
sense of mastery of one’s environment. For example, according to self-determination theory a
PTNTTF would have the need to feel competent in their abilities to complete tasks, to interact
with colleagues, and to be involved in activities (Schunk, Pintrich & Meece, 2008).
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

57
SDT and Autonomy
Self-determination theory postulates that humans have a psychological need to be
autonomous (Deci, Connell & Ryan, 1989). The literature on self-determination theory defines
autonomy as a human need, where one acts with a sense of volition. Further, volition is the act of
using will or the process whereby one implements actions to attain a goal (Schunk, Pintrich &
Meece, 2008; Gagne & Deci, 2005). This aspect of self-determination theory is also referred to
as autonomous motivation and will inform the current study as it pertains to identifying the
conditions which motivate PTNTTF to participate in departmental governance because they find
the activity interesting or acting without external pressure (Gagne & Deci, 2005). According to
self-determination theory, in contrast to autonomous motivation in the workplace, is the sense
that one is working on a task under external pressure or “having to engage in the actions” within
a workplace (Gagne & Deci, 2005, p. 334). In addition, early experiments on work motivation
using self-determination theory concluded that when extrinsic rewards are used to persuade an
employee of an organization to engage in actions that he feels pressured to do, then the employee
experiences controlled motivation (Deci, 1971). Researchers posit that employee behaviors can
be characterized in terms of the degree to which they are autonomous versus controlled;
therefore this aspect of self-determination theory can inform whether the conditions which
motivate PTNTTF to participate in departmental governance promote autonomous or controlled
motivation (Gagne & Deci, 2005).
SDT and Relatedness
Self-determination theory suggests that humans have a psychological need for relatedness
in their work (Deci, Connell & Ryan, 1989). Relatedness refers to one’s psychological need to
belong to a group, otherwise referred to as a need for belongingness. In addition, the notion of
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

58
relatedness is similar to the concept of one having an affiliation to a group (Schunk, Pintrich &
Meece, 2008). This aspect of self-determination theory can inform the current study by
illustrating that PTNTTF have a psychological need to have a sense that they belong to a group,
or specifically belong to the academic department that they teach for. In addition, this aspect of
self-determination theory can elucidate the conditions which enhance a PTNTTF’s sense of
belongingness, which in turn may motivate them to participate in departmental governance.
For the purpose of this study, motivation is defined as an individual’s natural capacity to
demonstrate goal directed behavior, where the individual exerts active choice, effort, and
persistence towards attainment of a goal (Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro, Lovett, & Norman, 2010;
Wlodkowski, 1999). Motivation theory is central to the focus of this study. Therefore, it is
essential to understand its role in the conditions that motivate PTNTTF to participate in
departmental decision-making. Towards this aim, the aforementioned literature included a
synthesis of the concept of motivation and other concepts such as self-efficacy, intrinsic
motivation, and self-determination theory. Specifically, self-determination theory is most
relevant to this study because it suggests that motivation is a process, while emphasizing the
level of autonomy of one’s actions; where the level of autonomy is a result of how self-
determined one is (Deci, 1970). In addition, this theoretical approach is most appropriate for this
study because it proposes that humans have psychological needs such as competence, autonomy,
and relatedness. These three psychological needs underlie PTNTTF behavior (Schunk, Pintrich
& Meece, 2008).
In conclusion, self-determination theory as a work motivation theory is more appropriate
for this study as opposed to less relevant theories, such as goal setting theory and action
regulation theory (Gagne & Deci, 2005). For example, Locke and Latham’s (1990) goal-setting
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

59
theory has been applied to work motivation but does not differentiate between different kinds of
motivation. Whereas self-determination theory posits that autonomous motivation and intrinsic
goals are predictors of effective performance on tasks (Gagne & Deci, 2005). For example, a task
that a PTNTTF may assume in the departmental decision-making process. Secondly, action
regulation theory has been utilized mostly in Germany in work motivation research. Action
theory suggests that maximal motivation and action result when an individual has “considerable
decision latitude” or autonomy (Gagene & Deci, 2005, p. 341). The difference between action
regulation theory and self-determination theory is that action regulation theory views decision
latitude or autonomy as just one important factor in predicting behavior; as opposed to self-
determination theory which considers at least three psychological needs (i.e. competence,
autonomy and relatedness) in predicting behavior (Deci, Connell & Ryan, 1989).
Conclusion
This chapter included an analysis of the literature discussing characteristics of the
community college PTNTTF professoriate, including the historical evolution of this professional
workforce in the United States. Also, aspects of community college governance and shared
governance were explored as a foundation for understanding the topic of this study. The
conditions which PTNTTF at two-year community colleges encounter were considered, such as
leadership style and department culture. The aspects of PTNTTF commitment to department and
institution were presented and relevant literature on motivation was synthesized. An emphasis on
self-determination theory was presented as the framework best suited for this study, in an effort
to develop an emerging theory to explain the conditions which motivate PTNTTF to participate
in departmental governance at two-year community colleges. The following chapter reviews the
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

60
methodology that was utilized for this qualitative study. Table 1 presents a visual summary of the
field literature discussed in Chapter 2.

PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

61
Table 1
Summary of Literature Review
Theory Characteristics Key Areas Related to Study
Informs Specific Research
Question(s)
Motivation An individual’s capacity to demonstrate goal
directed behavior, where the individual
exerts active choice, effort, and persistence
towards attainment of a goal (Ambrose,
Bridges, DiPietro, Lovett, & Norman, 2010;
Wlodkowski, 1999).
PTNTTF motivation is the primary
focus of the study.
Central question
Sub-question B
Expectancy An individual has goals and will be
motivated if he believes there is a positive
correlation between his efforts and
performance on a task.
An individual’s belief that a coveted reward
will be attained as a result of good
performance on a task.
An individual’s belief that the desired
reward will satisfy an important need
(Dalton, 1971; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002;
Vroom, 1964).
Can inform why PTNTTF may choose
one behavioral option over another
(Dalton, 1971).
Suggest that work motivation is based
on an individual’s perceived association
between his performance and outcomes
(Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Vroom,
1964).
Sub-question A
Self-efficacy
(SE)
Self-efficacy includes an individual’s
judgment about their capability to complete
a task successfully which is usually
prospective, or future functioning (Bandura,
1977; Zimmerman, 2000).
An individual’s self-efficacy is context-
specific or domain specific (Pintrich &
Schunk, 2002).
SE as a moderator of PTNTTF
motivation through the four sources of
SE: vicarious experience, mastery
experience, social persuasion,
physiological state.
SE for participating in departmental
affairs is influenced directly by the
faculty feeling “nourished and rewarded
by a department for engaging in
research, service, and teaching tasks”
(Landino & Owen, 1988, p. 10).
Central question
Sub-question A
Sub-question B
Intrinsic Intrinsic motivation refers to when an
individual participates in an activity because
he finds it inherently interesting or
personally enjoyable (Vroom, 1964; Porter
& Lawler, 1968).
Intrinsic motivations are related to an
individual’s locus of control (LC).
LC refers to the extent to which one
believes he can control events in his life
(Pintrich & Schunk, 2002).
LC can be used to understand the extent
to which a PTNTTF believes he can
control the events related to participating
in departmental governance.
Sub-question A
Sub-question B
Self-
determination
Motivation is a process, it is not a
dichotomy; emphasis on the level of
autonomy of one’s actions. Where the level
of autonomy is a result of how self-
determined one is (Deci, 1970).
3 Psychological needs: to maintain
competence, autonomy, and relatedness in
one’s environment (Deci, 1970).
PTNTTF need to maintain an optimal
level of competence, autonomy, and
relatedness in order to be motivated to
participate in departmental governance.
To understand the conditions which
motivate PTNTTF to participate in
departmental governance.
Provides a framework to support an
emerging grounded theory
Central question
Sub-question A
Sub-question B

PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

62
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
In this chapter, I will discuss the methodology, the rationale for utilizing grounded
theory, the process of selecting sites and participants, data collection, data analysis,
trustworthiness, limitations, and conclude by addressing ethical considerations. As previously
discussed in the first and second chapters, there is limited research on the conditions which
motivate PTNTTF to participate in departmental governance at the community college level.
Therefore, the academy would benefit from better understanding this topic. This study explores
the conditions which motivate PTNTTF to participate in departmental governance at two-year
community colleges. Specifically, the study considers the experience of fifteen PTNTTF who
teach at six different community colleges, across four community college districts in Southern
California.
The purpose of this qualitative study was to build on the existing literature regarding
adjunct faculty of two-year community colleges in the U.S. The findings of the study informs the
academy of those conditions that promote or hinder participation of PTNTTF in governance at
the departmental level. By applying grounded theory as the methodology for this study, I have
developed a substantive theory and a diagram which explains my findings. The substantive
theory can be applied by other researchers interested in understanding the experiences of
PTNTTF with governance; specifically where there are similar two-year community colleges and
adjunct faculty, in order to better address the experiences of PTNTTF in higher education
(Charmaz, 2006).
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

63
The knowledge acquired from exploring the experiences of PTNTTF regarding their
motivation to participate in departmental governance, is transferable to other two-year
community colleges in Southern California, especially where there are adjuncts that are similar
to the participants in this study (Charmaz, 2006). In addition, the findings of this study are
transferable to two-year community colleges that are a part of a large district and institutions
where the student and faculty population are diverse in age, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status
level. Further, the findings of this study have implications for department heads and
administrators to use strategies that are more effective and inclusive of PTNTTF in governance;
the study also has implications for the active role which PTNTTF assume in their own
motivation to participate in departmental governance at two-year community colleges. The
research questions which guided this study included one central question and two sub-questions:
• Central question: What conditions motivate PTNTTF to participate in departmental
governance at a two-year community college?
• Sub-questions:
o What do PTNTTF perceive is their role in departmental governance?
o What motivates PTNTTF to participate in departmental governance?
Rationale for Methodology
Qualitative Research
A qualitative research design was appropriate for this study for several reasons. Creswell
(2009) writes “qualitative procedures rely on text and image data, have unique steps in data
analysis, and draw on diverse strategies of inquiry” (Creswell, 2009, p. 173). As a form of
qualitative research, there are several aspects of grounded theory that were well suited for this
dissertation and included “advocacy, participatory, and self-reflexive perspectives of qualitative
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

64
inquiry” (Creswell, 2009, p. 175). In addition, there were eight separate characteristics of
qualitative research which aligned well with the use of grounded theory as the methodology for
this study.
First, qualitative research is characterized by collecting data in a natural setting, which I
did as a participant observer for this study. Therefore, through the use of grounded theory I had
“face-to-face interaction” with the participants throughout the data collection process, which is
key to this form of qualitative research (Charmaz, 2006; Creswell, 2009, p. 175). The second
characteristic of a qualitative design for a study is related to the researcher assuming the role of
the primary research instrument (Merriam, 2009). Using a grounded theory approach for this
study, I was the primary source of data gathering. A third characteristic of qualitative research
which strengthened this dissertation was the use of inductive data analysis (Charmaz, 2006;
Creswell, 2009). By using grounded theory, Creswell (2009) writes, “researchers build their
patterns, categories, and themes from the bottom up” (Creswell, 2009, p. 175). A fourth
characteristic of qualitative research which suited this dissertation well was a “focus on learning
the meaning that the participants hold” (Creswell, 2009, p. 175). For instance, by using grounded
theory as the methodology, it enabled me to properly analyze and interpret the stories and
statements which PTNTTF shared with me about their experiences with departmental
governance (Charmaz, 2006).
A fifth characteristic of qualitative research included an emergent design, where “the
initial plan for research cannot be tightly prescribed” (Creswell, 2009, p. 176). For instance,
grounded theory allowed me to begin the data collection phase with a central question and two
sub-questions. However, during the process of data collection and interpretation, questions,
individuals studied, or protocols were changed or modified as needed, in order to answer the
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

65
research questions (Charmaz, 2006; Creswell, 2009). For example, initially there were more than
three research questions for this study. However, when the data collection began, the research
questions were modified to include one central question and two-sub questions. The change in
quantity of questions was related to my effort to eliminate redundancy in the research questions
to be answered with the data. Another characteristic of qualitative research which was best suited
for this dissertation included the theoretical lens through which the study was conducted. For
instance, this study was organized around identifying the social and political context of the topic
which was explored, in order to understand PTNTTF experiences with departmental governance
(Creswell, 2009).
The seventh characteristic of qualitative research which strengthens this dissertation is a
form of interpretive inquiry, where I made unbiased interpretations of what I was able to “see,
hear, and understand” from the stories which participants shared with me (Creswell, 2009, p.
176). Therefore, as a participant observer, my interpretations of the data and my own background
as a PTNTTF at a community college were acknowledged in the analysis of the findings
(Charmaz, 2006; Creswell, 2009). Finally, using a qualitative research design I attempted a
holistic account of the topic under study, which involved reporting on “multiple perspectives,
identifying the many factors involved in a situation…and sketching the larger picture which
emerges” (Creswell, 2009, p. 176). In addition, grounded theory as the qualitative methodology
used for this study allowed me to create a “visual model of the process or phenomenon” which
was studied (Charmaz, 2006; Creswell, 2009, p. 176).
Grounded Theory
Grounded theory is the best suited methodology for this study as opposed to other forms
of qualitative research because it enabled me to examine an internal process such as motivation.
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

66
With the use of grounded theory as the methodology, I focused on the PTNTTF interviews and
allowed participants to explain their own experience of a phenomenon in their own words
(Charmaz, 2006; Merriam, 2009). Moreover, there is not an existing theory that specifically
addresses or describes the conditions which motivate PTNTTF to participate in departmental
governance at two-year community colleges. Therefore, this methodology allowed me to develop
a substantive theory which emerged from the data (Charmaz, 2006). By developing a working
model of a theory to describe my findings, my intent was to contribute to the gap in the literature
on the experiences of PTNTTF and the conditions which motivate PTNTTF to participate in
departmental decision-making at two-year community colleges.
I selected grounded theory as the framework for this dissertation because “most grounded
theories are substantive theories” and “they address delimited problems in specific substantive
areas” such as this study, which focuses specifically on PTNTTF and departmental governance at
two-year community colleges in Southern California (Charmaz, 2006, p. 7). According to
Charmaz (2006), grounded theory was the strongest method for addressing several aspects of my
research topic because “the logic of grounded theory can reach across substantive areas and into
the realm of formal theory, which means generating abstract concepts and specifying
relationships between them to understand problems in multiple substantive areas” (Charmaz,
2006, p. 8). For instance, the substantive theory which emerged from this study allowed me the
opportunity to generate concepts or conditions and relationships among the conditions in order to
describe the experiences of PTNTTF with departmental governance. Specifically, the substantive
theory allowed me to answer the following aspects of the research topic: (1) Describe the role
PTNTTF perceive they assume in departmental governance; (2) learn what conditions exist
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

67
regarding PTNTTF participation in departmental governance at two-year community colleges;
and (3) describe the lives of PTNTTF related to departmental governance.
The concepts and relationships which emerged from this study contribute to the extant
literature on PTNTTF in higher education. In addition, the substantive theory that emerged,
describing PTNTTF motivation to participate in departmental governance at community
colleges, may lead to a formal theory of the phenomenon in other areas (Charmaz, 2006). In
order to develop a formal theory to describe the phenomenon of this study, I examined the
themes or categories which emerged from this study, in other types of higher education
institutions where PTNTTF are employed. Specifically, I looked at potential new and substantive
areas to study, in order to develop a formal theory that could include considering the role
PTNTTF assume in both the department and institution level governance at a public four-year
institution and compare the findings to data collected from a private four-year institution.
Grounded theory is a strong qualitative methodology for this study because the tradition
includes the use of face-to-face interviews, which I used to understand the stories that
represented an internal process. The motivation of PTNTTF is an internal process and was best
understood by speaking directly to the people that the stories were about (Schunk, Pintrich &
Meece, 2008). Merriam (2009) stated that grounded theory is useful for “conceptualizing internal
processes” such as the focus of this study, which was to understand and conceptualize the
motivation of PTNTTF (Merriam, 2009, p. 30; Charmaz, 2006); where PTNTTF motivation was
an internal process which could not be outwardly observed, rather I conceptualized that
motivation through the stories that were shared with me.
Another aspect of grounded theory which made it the best fit for this study was that the
researcher “assumes an inductive stance and strives to derive meaning from the data” (Merriam,
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

68
2009, p. 29). Additionally, I analyzed the data in order to make sense of the participants’
statements and experiences (Charmaz, 2006). As the primary instrument in the data collection
and analysis, I acknowledged my subjectivity in theorizing a working model and considered the
role of non-biased interpretation, clear dialogue, and my genuine understanding of the data, as
the substantive theory emerged. By doing so, I offer a more accurate interpretation of the
phenomenon and a better account of the PTNTTF experience at two-year community colleges
(Charmaz, 2006).
It was my intention to understand the intersection of all the issues within the stories that
PTNTTF shared with me and the statements PTNTTF made during the interviews. Additionally,
grounded theory supported my goals to understand how PTNTTF make sense of their
professional world in the daily situations that the PTNTTF experienced at the two-year
community colleges they teach at; to understand the context that PTNTTF experience, and the
specific experiences PTNTTF have regarding departmental governance (Charmaz, 2006;
Merriam, 2009).
Sample Selection
According to Merriam (2009) after a researcher identifies a topic or problem of inquiry
for a study, “the task becomes to select the unit of analysis, the sample” (Merriam, 2009, p. 76).
Merriam (2009) wrote “The researcher needs to choose what, when, and whom to observe or
interview” (Merriam, 2009, p. 76). In order for me to understand PTNTTF who teach at two-year
community colleges, gain insight into their experiences with departmental governance, and to
answer the research questions for this study, I selected a sample from which the “most can be
learned” (Charmaz, 2006; Creswell, 2007; Merriam, 2009, p. 77). For instance, I selected a
sample of participants that teach at two-year community colleges and who have had experiences
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

69
related to departmental governance, in order to have been able to share relevant stories with me.
In addition, I used convenience sampling based on the time, location, and availability of
participants in order to efficiently and expeditiously complete this dissertation. Purposeful
sampling is common for qualitative research and required a list or criterion to be met (Merriam,
2009). The following four criteria were used to consider whether the sites where participants
were employed at the time of data collection, were appropriate for the sample of this study:
1. The site(s) had to be easily accessible in Southern California and allow me to gain
entry with the participant(s).
2. In order for the findings to be transferable to other like institutions in Southern
California, the site(s) had to be an accredited two-year community college(s).
3. In order for the findings to be transferable to other like institutions in Southern
California, the site(s) had to include a diverse student and faculty population.
4. In order to address the experiences of adjunct faculty in higher education, there must
have been a high proportion of PTNTTF compared to full-time faculty at the
department level of each institution.
The sample for this study included PTNTTF that were employed at multiple sites during the data
collection for this study. The sample was identified by using the aforementioned criteria in order
to learn the most from this population. While using purposeful criteria, the total sample size for
this study was not selected at the onset of the study. I initiated the data collection process with
ten PTNTTF and modified the quantity of participants based on the need to make meaning of the
data collected (Creswell, 2009). For instance, after the initial set of ten interviews for this study, I
selected an additional five participants to interview; therefore, there were a total of fifteen
PTNTTF as the participants for this study. The fifteen participants were employed at six different
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

70
community colleges, at the time of the data collection. The sample for this study included six
distinct academic disciplines that the PTNTTF taught in at the multiple sites, including:
Art/Business; Child Development; Communications; Counseling; English; and Psychology.
All of the sites where the participants taught during this study, are two-year community
colleges that are fully accredited institutions. It was imperative to select participants that taught
at two-year community colleges that were fully accredited because the types of opportunities for
PTNTTF to have genuine input in decision-making may differ when a program or college is not
fully accredited. The sample for this study also included institutions where there were at least an
equal amount of PTNTTF employed in a department, compared to FTF; the purpose of this was
to identify sites where PTNTTF represented at least 50% if the faculty in a department, therefore
having a need to be involved in departmental governance.
For instance, at one of the sites from the sample of this study, there were over fourteen
PTNTTF employed in a department, compared to two FTF. The ratio of PTNTTF compared to
FTF at this particular site was typical of other sites in the sample, as reported by the participants
in this study. With a high ratio of PTNTTF compared to FTF in a department at a two-year
community college, it would seem appropriate if not needed, to include PTNTTF in the decision-
making process. Therefore, the sample selected for this study was appropriate in order to answer
the research questions effectively, because when there are a large proportion of PTNTTF
compared to FTF in a department, the PTNTTF may have more stories to share regarding their
involvement in the decision-making process.
As mentioned before, for this study I used several sites that were similar to each other in
the faculty make-up, faculty appointment types, and the diversity of faculty and students. Below,
Table 2 includes an overview of the criteria that I used to consider the appropriateness of each
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

71
site. For instance, one of the institutions’ webpage indicated the campus was founded in the
1970’s and has grown exponentially in students served, faculty, and campus facilities; the
institution recently renewed its accreditation and was originally established to serve both the
educational (44.6%) and workforce training (21.2%) needs of residents of the surrounding
communities in a suburb of Los Angeles. At the time of the data collection for this study, this
particular site provided students courses to meet the educational requirements for an Associates’
degree, certificate programs, and/or to transfer to a four-year university. All of the specific sites
used as the sample of this study were similar to the aforementioned institution regarding their
mission, goals, and services provided to students and faculty. Based on the aforementioned
characteristics of the sites, they mirror trends at many other two-year community colleges in
California. Therefore, the findings of this study are transferable to other institutions that are
similar in settings, locations, faculty, and student demographics.
The governance environment at the sites where the participants of this study were
employed at the time of the data collection, were typical of the other community colleges in
California. For instance, there are multiple levels of governance at the sites in the sample for this
study; such as departmental governance, governance at the institution-wide level; and
governance at the college district level. At the institution-wide level and in compliance with Title
5 of the California Education Code, all the sites for this study had academic senates, which are
responsible for addressing faculty, academic, and professional matters at an institution. Most
FTF of the sites from the sample of this study are contractually required to participate in
governance at their respective institution, to various degrees; depending on the need of each
particular department and institution. Part-time non-tenure track faculty at the sites in the sample
for this study, typically reported not being contractually obligated or financially compensated to
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

72
participate in departmental or institutional governance. Therefore, the sample for this study
mirrors other two-year community colleges in the United States.
The requirements for PTNTTF to participate in decision-making at institutions of higher
education such as two-year community colleges are primarily voluntary (Cohen & Brawer, 2003;
Kezar & Sam, 2010b; Twombly & Townsend, 2008). The non-contractual requirements of
PTNTTF to participate in departmental governance is typical of the sites that were selected for
the sample for this study; as well as similar to other like institutions based on the demographics
of faculty and institutional policies (Gappa & Leslie, 1993). For instance, at the department level
at nearly all of the sites included in the sample for this study, there were at least one PTNTTF
representative to attend official department meetings, on behalf of other PTNTTF employed by a
department; however, the PTNTTF representative position was voluntary and not paid for by the
institutions. At the institution-wide level the institutions in the sample for this study, although the
colleges encouraged PTNTTF to attend academic senate meetings and other committee events,
direct input on behalf of adjunct faculty was limited in scope and impact of the final decisions, as
reported by the participants in this study.
The participation of PTNTTF in the decision-making process at the sites in the sample for
this study, were typical of other two-year community colleges in the United States because
PTNTTF were unlikely to be paid for their time to attend governance meetings, either at the
department, campus, or district wide levels. The PTNTTF at all of the sites in the sample for this
study reported not having a contractual obligation to participate in governance at any level.
However, according to the website of one of the sites selected for this study, in accordance with
Title 5 compliance, this particular site did pay PTNTTF for participating in professional
development, also known as flex time. This particular institutions’ flex time webpage indicates
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

73
that according to Section 55720 of the California Education Code and Title 5 compliance, the
purpose of flex time is to provide adjunct faculty the “opportunity to work individually or with
groups to achieve improvement in three distinct areas: Staff improvement, Student improvement,
and Instructional improvement”. Therefore, this may actually represent a trend where PTNTTF
are paid for participating in some forms of decision-making on matters related to staff, student,
and instructional improvement.
Participants
For the current study, I used purposeful sampling and had five criteria for selecting the
participants. The first criteria for selecting the participants for this study was related to the years
of experience as an adjunct faculty at a two-year community college. For instance, I only
selected participants for this study, who had a minimum of two years of teaching experience at a
two-year community college. A minimum of two years of teaching experience was a criteria in
order for participants to be able to draw on relevant experiences as a PTNTTF and to provide
“information rich” statements, stories, or behavior to be observed in the interviews (Merriam,
2009, p. 77).
The sample selected for this study exceeded the minimum criteria of having at least two
years of teaching experience at a two-year community college. Specifically, among the fifteen
participants of this study, the PTNTTF reported having a total of 100.5 years of teaching
experience and an average of 6.7 years of teaching experience at a two-year community college.
The years of experience teaching at a two-year community college was important to consider
because a PTNTTF that had been teaching for over ten years may have richer experiences and
stories to draw on compared to a PTNTTF who has only had one year of teaching experience.
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

74
Table 4, which is below, indicates each participant’s years of teaching experience at a two-year
community college.
The second criteria used for the selection of participants for this study included the
condition that a participant could not hold a full-time faculty position at a higher education
institution, while also holding a PTNTTF appointment at a two-year community college, at the
time of data collection. In order to have findings that document experiences exclusive to the role
PTNTTF assume in the decision-making process of a department at a two-year community
college, it was important to select participants that only had an adjunct position in higher
education, in order to eliminate any biases or overlapping roles or experiences that a participant
may have had if S/he also held a FTF position at any higher education institution, at the same
time as the data collection phase of this study.
The third criteria that was used for the selection of participants for this study was related
to the teaching assignment each PTNTTF had when the data was collected. For instance, each
participant in this study was required to be teaching a minimum of one course for the academic
department that the PTNTTF was employed in. The rationale for this criteria was that the stories,
statements, or behaviors to be observed during the interviews had to be current experiences and
needed to reflect the climate of the department at the time the data was collected (Creswell,
2009). In addition, if a participant was not teaching at least one academic course for a department
at a two-year community college at the time of the data collection, then the PTNTTF was not
likely to be on the college campus on a regular basis and may not have had up to date
information or experiences related to opportunities to participate in departmental governance.
Therefore, a PTNTTF that was not teaching at least one course for an academic department at a
two-year community college at the time the data was collected may not have been able to
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

75
provide information rich stories or speak to the issues of importance related to the purpose of
inquiry of this study (Merriam, 2009).
The fourth criteria that was used for the selection of the participants for this study was
related to the inclusion of both male and female PTNTTF. It was essential to inform the literature
on PTNTTF experiences at two-year community colleges in an unbiased and neutral manner,
where stories and statements from both male and female participants were used for this study.
Although I made the effort to include an equal amount of male and female participants, it was a
natural occurrence that the participants of this study resulted in 27% of the sample being male
and 73% of the sample being female. It was important to include the experiences and perceptions
of male and female PTNTTF for this study in order to minimize any limitations in the
substantive theory which emerged, due to including only one gender in the sample of this study.
Table 4, which is below, indicates the breakdown of male and female participants of this study.
The fifth criteria that was used to select the participants for this study was related to
choosing PTNTTF that could speak about their experiences of making at least one attempt to
participate in departmental governance at a two-year community college, over the span of their
experience as an adjunct in higher education. The rationale for this criteria was based on the
stories and perception of the decision-making process that a PTNTTF would have, if a particular
PTNTTF had made at least one attempt to engage in departmental governance at a two-year
community college. Specifically, I wanted to avoid selecting participants that had never made an
attempt to participate in departmental governance or that did not have any experience in the
decision-making process at a two-year community college, because if a PTNTTF never made an
attempt to do so or lacked any experience with departmental governance, then S/he may not have
had rich stories or experiences to draw on, when answering the interview questions that were
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

76
used for this study. For instance, many of the participants shared that they had, at a minimum,
some exposure and experience with the decision-making process of their department, whether it
was direct involvement in making a decision or indirect involvement such as attending a
department meeting. Specifically, at least two of the participants of this study shared that they
were either currently serving as the voluntary adjunct representative for their department or once
held the adjunct representative position. In these cases, because of the involvement in the
decision-making process by virtue of a voluntary role such as an adjunct representative of a
department, PTNTTF more easily accessed experiences or stories about their motivation to
participate in departmental governance at a two-year community college, which was the focus of
this study. Table 2, below, lists the criteria used for selecting a purposeful sample for this study.

PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

77
Criteria for Participants and Sites
Table 2
Overview of Criteria Used to Consider Appropriateness of PTNTTF Participants and Sites
where Participants were Employed
Criteria for Participants Criteria for Sites
1. A minimum of two years of teaching
experience at a two-year community
college is required.
1. The sites had to be easily accessible and
allow me to gain entry with the
participants.
2. The participant cannot hold a full-time
teaching position at another institution of
higher education.
2. The sites had to be accredited two-year
community colleges
3. The participant must teach at least one
course for the academic department where
employed.
3. The sites had to include a diverse student
and faculty population.
4. The sample had to include both males and
females.
4. A high proportion of PTNTTF compared
to full-time faculty in the department.
5. Some of the PTNTTF had to express an
intent to be involved in departmental
governance, at one time in their career at a
two-year community college.

The criteria for this study were established in order to ensure that the sample was relevant
to the topic of inquiry; also, that the information gathered from the participants would answer the
research questions and be useful for the theory construction of a grounded theory design
(Creswell, 2007; Creswell, 2009; Charmaz, 2006). Merriam (2009) wrote the type of sampling
should be chosen to “discover, understand, and gain insight from a sample which most can be
learned” (Merriam, 2009, p. 77). Therefore, the purposeful criteria used to select the participants
of this study allowed me to best learn about PTNTTF, motivation, and departmental governance.
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

78
Therefore by having used purposeful sampling, the findings reflect thick data and informed the
phenomenon of inquiry utilized for this study (Creswell, 2007; Merriam, 2009).
I developed the criteria for the selection of the sample for this study based on my own
knowledge and experience as a PTNTTF. In consideration of my role as the primary instrument
of data collection, I made an effort to use purposeful sampling and specific criteria in order to
most effectively gather relevant data to answer the research questions. Therefore, using the
aforementioned criteria and my own experience as a PTNTTF, I was more equipped to listen,
analyze, and interpret the data in an unbiased manner (Merriam, 2009). Specifically, because I
possess over seven years of first hand experiences as a PTNTTF at a two-year community
college, I was better able to establish the criteria used with purposeful sampling and to recruit
participants which met the criteria; moreover, I was able to connect more easily with the
PTNTTF context, experiences and stories, compared to a researcher with minimal or no prior
experience with the PTNTTF population (Charmaz, 2006).
The quantity of participants selected through purposeful sampling was not set in advance;
although I originally anticipated at the onset of the data collection that I would interview about
ten participants, determining that it may be time consuming to identify more than ten participants
based on the PTNTTF availability, interest, and meeting the minimum criteria set for this study.
However, once the data collection was initiated and memo-writing was done, it was necessary to
have a larger sample in order to reach saturation of the data; otherwise, the sample would have
been too small and I may have excluded some themes or categories of conditions which motivate
PTNTTF, that I was able to identify with a larger sample of participants.
In an effort to provide sound findings that would be transferable to other institutions
similar to those that were selected for this study, the sample of participants was modified from
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

79
ten PTNTTF to fifteen PTNTTF, after the data collection was initiated, in order to have reached
saturation of data about the phenomenon of study and to “contribute to building of the theory”
(Creswell, 2007, p. 128). For instance, the process of data collection began with the initial group
of participants from multiple two-year community colleges; then, I branched out to other
community colleges that are in Southern California to recruit more PTNTTF, which made up the
entire sample for this study. In consideration of time constraints, the availability of PTNTTF, and
in order to complete this dissertation in a timely manner, a maximum of fifteen participants were
selected.
The fifteen participants which represented six different academic disciplines, and from
six separate two-year community colleges, that spanned across four distinct community college
districts. Table 3, which is below, includes an overview of the participant demographics. The
justification for including multiple academic disciplines was to identify the conditions that
motivate PTNTTF participate in departmental governance from a broad and heterogeneous
sample, which also had some of the same basic characteristics such as being an accredited
department or institution.

PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

80
Table 3
Demographics: Overview of the 15 Participants
Sex
Male 4 (27%)
Female 11 (73%)
Total 15
Age range
20s Two (2) participants
30s Three (3) participants
40s Three (3) participants
50s Four (4) participants
60s Three (3) participants
Total 15
Ethnicity
Caucasian 6
African-American 2
Latino / Hispanic 4
Asian 1
Iranian-American 1
Armenian 1
Total 15
Academic Disciplines Art/Business
Child Development
Communications
Counseling
English
Psychology
6 Two-year Community Colleges in the Following Districts El Camino
Los Angeles
Pasadena
Ventura County
Highest Degree Earned
B.A. / B.S. 1
M.A / M.S. 14
Total 15
Average years of experience as an adjunct 6.7 years
Total 15
Average courses taught for a department at a community college
in the Spring 2014 semester
1.7 classes

PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

81
Table 4
Demographics: Overview of Participants’ Gender and Years of Experience
Participant Sex
Years of experience as a PTNTTF at a
community college
1 Female 2
2 Female 11
3 Female 7
4 Male 7
5 Female 5
6 Female 16
7 Female 7
8 Male 5.5
9 Female 3
10 Female 6
11 Female 9
12 Male 13
13 Female 3
14 Male 4
15 Female 2

Data Collection
Qualitative data was collected for this study. Specifically, semi-structured interviews
were audio recorded, when consented to by participants. The data collected included the stories
and statements of PTNTTF at two-year community colleges, regarding PTNTTF experiences
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

82
with departmental governance. All of the semi-structured interviews conducted for this study
were transcribed in order to identify “bits and pieces of information…that can be difficult to
measure” such as an internal phenomenon or the focus of this study which was the conditions
which motivate PTNTTF to participate in the decision-making of a department (Merriam, 2009,
p. 85). Moreover, by using semi-structured interviews for this study, I was able to obtain
“detailed descriptions of people’s activities, behaviors, and actions” to inform the phenomenon
of inquiry of this study (Merriam, 2009, p. 85). After face-to-face interviews were conducted, I
did memo-writing or note taking about an idea that I may have had, after a particular interview
was done, in order to prepare for a subsequent interview which I conducted with PTNTTF
(Charmaz, 2006).
In accordance with the tenets of qualitative research, I assumed the observer-as-
participant role for this study. Merriam (2009) described this relationship between the observer
and the observed as:
The researcher’s observer activities are known to the group; participation in the group is
definitely secondary to the role of information gatherer. Using this method, the researcher
may have access to many people and a wide range of information, but the level of
information revealed is controlled by the group members being investigated. (Merriam,
2009, p. 124)
Therefore, although my activities and interviews were known to faculty of a department other
than the participants of this study, my primary goal was not to interact with the faculty of a
department, rather to gather data through the interviews I conducted. In addition, I acknowledge
that the data collected for this study, and the level of information or details revealed to me by
PTNTTF, was controlled by the participants themselves. Still, as an observer as participant, I
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

83
entered PTNTTF settings and situations to the extent that the research questions of the study
were answered, while simultaneously developing the substantive theory through the data analysis
(Charmaz, 2006).
For this study as an observer-participant, my activities were known to the participants. I
was able to interact closely with PTNTTF in order to establish “an insider’s identity without
participating in those activities” (Merriam, 2009, p. 125). The positives of being a researcher that
assumed an observer-participant role for this study, included better access to the participants
compared to the role of a complete observer (Merriam, 2009); having obtained the trust of the
participants in order to get in depth responses from PTNTTF, and using my knowledge as
PTNTTF at a two-year community college, to interpret the data which was collected (Charmaz,
2006). A drawback of assuming an observer-participant role for this study includes the fact that
as the researcher I had a “peripheral membership role”, as opposed to an “active membership
role” as a participant observer (Merriam, 2009, p. 124). For instance, very private or sensitive
information was revealed to me by some of the participants, but as an observer-participant, I did
not have direct control about the details or depth of information revealed to me; the participants
being investigated had control over the amount and kind of information that was shared. I
ensured the highest level of anonymity and confidentiality to participants of this study. The data
collected informed the themes or categories which emerged and the substantive theory which
described the phenomenon of interest for this study (Charmaz, 2006; Creswell, 2009). Finally,
the specific type of data for this study was collected in a sequential and cyclical manner which
included the following process: (1) interviews with PTNTTF; (2) memo-writing and open
coding; (3) more interviews with PTNTTF; (4) memo-writing and axial coding; (5) more
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

84
interviews with PTNTTF; (6) memo-writing and selective coding (Charmaz, 2006; Creswell,
2007). Figure 1, which is below, illustrates the sequence of data collection.

Figure 1. Process of grounded theory (adapted from Charmaz, 2006; Creswell, 2007)

PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

85
Interviews
Recruitment. First, the participants for the study were recruited for an interview with a
letter sent via email introducing myself and informing PTNTTF of the general purpose of this
study (see Appendix A). This letter also requested the recipient to refer me to any other PTNTTF
in their department that was interested in participating in this study; the letter was emailed to all
PTNTTF listed on each sites’ class schedule for the semester in which the data was collected.
Then, based on the initial response from PTNTTF that were interested in participating in this
study, I selected the PTNTTF which met the purposeful sampling criteria mentioned above. For
instance, there was a PTNTTF that expressed interest in participating in this study, however she
was the full-time director of a child development center at the two-year community college
where she was also employed as a PTNTTF; by virtue of this particular individual’s full-time
director position, she was categorized by the institution as a tenured faculty, and thus did not
meet the criteria to be a participant.
Once each participant expressed interest to participate in this study and met the minimum
criteria for the participant sample, I sent a follow-up email and confirmation to each individual
(see Appendix B). Finally, I either called by telephone or emailed each participant to schedule
the time and date for the face-to-face semi-structured interview. I gave each participant the
option of meeting with me to do the semi-structured interview in either an empty classroom at
the institution the participant was employed at, during the time of the data collection, or an office
at their site of employment, or a professional setting which suited the participant’s availability,
such as at the location of their full-time job. Most interviews were conducted at the site where
the PTNTTF taught, such as in the adjunct office. Other interviews were conducted at the
participants’ office at the site where the PTNTTF was a full-time employee.
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

86
Semi-structured interviews were used because according to the traditions of qualitative
data collection, semi-structured interviews are open-ended and not an oral form of a written
survey as in a structured interview (Merriam, 2009). Moreover, semi-structured interviews were
utilized for this study in order to provide the participants a format where each individual was
given the opportunity to define their world in their own unique manner, relevant to the focus of
this study. Therefore, the interviews for this study included a “mix of more or less structured
questions”, where specific information was desired from the participants regarding the conditions
which motivate PTNTTF to participate in departmental governance at a two-year community
college; but the “largest part of the interview is guided by a list of questions to be explored” in
order for me as the researcher to be able to respond to interviewees by asking each respondent to
elaborate on a statement or story and to ask probing questions, when needed (Merriam, 2009, p.
90). By using semi-structured interviews I collected data from multiple individuals with a range
of stories and experiences, while still emphasizing my focus on the individual face-to-face
interviews with PTNTTF regarding departmental governance at two-year community colleges
(Charmaz, 2006; Merriam, 2009).
Interview protocol. To guide my semi-structured interviews I developed an interview
protocol (see Appendix E). Before using the interview protocol for data collection, I tested the
appropriateness of the questions with two PTNTTF that were not included in this study. By
doing so, I was able to create and modify the list of central and probing questions to use with the
participants of this study. In addition, testing the interview protocol allowed me to practice
listening to each respondent and to build confidence in my skills as an interviewer. Finally, by
testing and modifying the interview protocol, I made an effort to be considerate of the time the
PTNTTF spent with me and to ask clear questions that were not redundant.
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

87
In order to address the research questions of this study, I conducted semi-structured
interviews with fifteen PTNTTF that teach at two-year community colleges in Southern
California (see Appendix E). The duration for each interview was in the range of approximately
one hour to one hour and a half. On some occasions, I took hand written notes during the
interviews when a PTNTTF referred to an idea or issue that I would later probe in order to get
more in depth stories or statements related to the phenomenon of inquiry. In addition, audio
recordings were done for the interviews when the participants consented. Of the fifteen
participants, two did not give consent for their interview to be audio recorded; in these cases the
interviews were transcribed based in my hand written notes of the participants’ responses to the
interview questions. The audio recordings and the transcriptions of the interviews for this study
allowed me to have access to stories and statements made by participants for memo-writing,
coding and data analysis (Charmaz, 2006). All audio recordings were deleted at the completion
of this study. The demographic information of the participants was collected at the onset of each
interview, through a basic background survey I created for this study (see Appendix D).
As mentioned above, the design of my interview protocol was peer reviewed for
appropriateness and allowed me to answer the research questions in the following manner: (1)
“Go beneath the surface of the described experience(s)” of PTNTTF at two-year community
colleges; (2) “stop to explore a statement or topic” made by a participant regarding their
experiences with departmental governance and to note an idea that I used memo-writing prior to
subsequent interviews; (3) “request more detail or explanation” when I was unclear of a
statement or to learn more about the phenomenon that I planned on probing more about in
subsequent interviews; (4) “ask about the participant’s thoughts, feelings, and actions”
specifically about the conditions which motivate PTNTTF to get involved in the decision-making
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

88
process; (5) “keep the participant on the subject” when stories or statements were not relevant to
the research questions; (6) “come back to an earlier point” in order to check my understanding of
PTNTTF experiences at two-year community colleges and governance; (7) “restate the
participant’s point to check for accuracy” and to convey to the participant that I was attentive to
their responses and built positive rapport; (8) “Slow or quicken the pace” when a participant was
off of the subject matter; (9) “shift the immediate topic” when I wanted a participant to pivot to
another question or aspect of their experience; and (10) “respect the participant and express
appreciation for participating” because without PTNTTF participation in this study, I would not
have been able to answer the research questions (Charmaz, 2006, pp. 25-26).
According to Charmaz (2006) an interview is “a directed conversation; which permits an
in depth exploration of a particular topic with a person who has had relevant experiences”
(Charmaz, 2006, p. 25). Therefore, the interview protocol for this study consisted of open-ended
questions that were non-judgmental which focused on obtaining unanticipated statements and
stories from the participants. I also focused on “each participant’s interpretation of his or her
experience” related to the topic of inquiry for this study (Charmaz, 2006, p. 25). As the grounded
theory design suggests, my purpose during the semi-structured interviews was to listen to each
participant, to “observe with sensitivity” and allow PTNTTF to do most of the talking (Charmaz,
2006, p. 26). In addition to listening intently, my questions and comments during the interview
helped each participant to “articulate his or her intentions and meanings” and guide the
respondents through a conversation with me related to their experiences as PTNTTF and
governance (Charmaz, 2006, p. 26). In addition, I asked participants probing questions when
necessary to clarify details in their stories, in order for me to accurately understand their
responses to the interview protocol questions.
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

89
Memo-Writing
Memo-writing is a data analysis tool that is used with interviews which is part of the
grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006). By using memo-writing after interviews with PTNTTF, I
wrote notes to myself about an idea I had for the next interview in order to learn more about the
phenomenon of this study. For instance, I wrote notes about categories or themes as they
emerged from the data, from the overall stories that were shared with me. In the memo-writing
process, I asked myself clarifying questions and these notes captured my thoughts and analysis
regarding the comparisons and/or connections of categories or themes which emerged from the
interviews. Memo-writing was used after each interview and as I prepared for subsequent
interviews.
Memo-writing allowed me to become engaged with the data, create and answer questions
for accurate interpretations of the data, to reduce biases, and it provided me direction for the
construction of the substantive theory (Charmaz, 2006). In addition, memo-writing allowed for
“making comparisons between data and data, data and codes, codes of data and other codes,
codes and the category, and category and concept” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 72). Therefore, memo-
writing was used in tandem with three phases of coding which are used “to enable the
development of a grounded theory” (Merriam, 2009, p. 200). The three phases of coding for the
data analysis of this study included open coding, axial coding, and selective coding. Open coding
is what I did at the beginning of the data analysis. Such as “tagging a unit of data that might be
relevant to the study” (Merriam, 2009, p. 200); axial coding was done when I related categories
or themes to each other; and selective coding was done to create a core category and hypothesis
to describe the phenomenon of this study (Merriam, 2009).
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

90
Data Analysis
Coding
Grounded theory allowed me to develop categories or themes of information which
emerged from the interviews, in order to analyze the data for the development of a theory to
describe the phenomenon of this study. Specifically, grounded theory design allowed me to
construct a “story” from the data analysis of this study (Creswell, 2007, p. 160). As mentioned
above, I used memo-writing which consisted of looking at the data and analyzing my ideas of the
codes or, in the case of this study, the 14 conditions which emerged (Charmaz, 2006). For the
data analysis of this study, three phases of coding were used, which included: Open coding, axial
coding, and selective coding.
The three phases of coding used for the data analysis of this study ensured that the
findings were detailed. For instance, during the first phase of coding known as open coding, I did
memo-writing after interviews with the PTNTTF and identified significant categories of themes
which emerged from the semi-structured interviews (Charmaz, 2006). In an attempt to
triangulate the different sources of the stories that emerged in the data collection phase of this
study, I used the constant comparative approach to reach “saturation” of data or to reach similar
categories of themes (Creswell, 2007, p. 160). This means that I continued to identify instances
of the categories or themes which emerged from the data, until no new information was learned
from the categories or themes regarding the conditions which motivate PTNTTF to participate in
departmental governance at two-year community colleges (Creswell, 2007; Charmaz, 2006).
Open coding. Through the first phase of coding called open coding of data analysis,
categories or themes emerged from the data, along with some sub-themes which represented the
participants’ multiple perspectives of the categories that emerged from the data. The sub-themes
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

91
are referred to as “properties” and together the themes and sub-themes support the hypothesis of
the substantive theory of this study (Creswell, 2007, p. 160). For this dissertation, I referred to
the properties as the 14 individual conditions, within the three major themes, which motivate
PTNTTF to be involved in departmental governance. The three major themes and 14 sub-themes
were identified and linked to one another in a bi-directional relationship, in order to reduce the
database to a small set of themes or categories (Charmaz, 2006).
The three main categories or themes which emerged from the data included: (1) Climate
of a department at a two-year community college; (2) part-time non-tenure track faculty
commitment to the department, and (3) self-determination of PTNTTF at a two-year community
college. Each of these three major themes have a bidirectional relationship and influence on each
other regarding PTNTTF motivation to be involved in departmental governance at two-year
community college. In addition, these three major categories or themes were mostly spoken
about by PTNTTF throughout the interview process. The three main categories or themes which
emerged from the data were presented in the diagram in the order of most importance or most
influential in terms of PTNTTF motivation to be involved in the decision-making process. I
positioned these three prominent categories or themes as the foundation or core of the
substantive theory that emerged from the data analysis.
From the three main categories or themes that emerged from the data, there were 14 sub-
themes, or the properties which support the hypothesis of the substantive theory. The sub-themes
included: Communication style of the department head; interaction between department head and
PTNTTF; commitment of the department head to the department; values of a department head,
and inclusive decision-making for theme 1 or “Climate of the department”. Part-time non-tenure
track self-efficacy; active choice; PTNTTF dedication to teaching; PTNTTF seeking full-time
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

92
employment; PTNTTF time constraints; working conditions; and financial compensation were
sub-themes of the second main theme known as “PTNTTF commitment to the department”.
Finally, relatedness and competence were the sub-themes identified for the third main theme
called “Self-determination”. All of the main themes and the 14 sub-themes are described in detail
in Chapter 4 of this dissertation.
Axial coding. In the second phase of coding, known as axial coding, I reviewed the data
and collected new data in a few cases, where clarification or more details were needed from
participants. Then, I looked for causal conditions that influenced the central phenomenon, the
strategies for addressing the phenomenon, the context of the study, and the intervening
conditions which affected the strategies, and any consequences of utilizing the strategies
(Creswell, 2007). To conclude axial coding, I made the link among the three main categories or
themes and the 14 sub-themes, which represents the basis for the theoretical diagram of the
phenomenon of this study (Charmaz, 2006).
Selective coding. The final phase of coding called selective coding included the
development of statements, hypothesis, and or propositions which interconnected the categories
or themes and their respective sub-themes in the coding process of this study, which are also
described in detail in Chapter 4 (Charmaz, 2006; Creswell, 2007). This was the broadest level of
analysis where I created the diagram that describes the relationship between the three main
themes and the 14 sub-themes of the substantive theory. The diagram allowed me to use it as an
analytical aid in order to visualize, conceptualize, and describe the central phenomenon of this
study (Charmaz, 2006; Creswell, 2007). Figure 2, which is below, demonstrates an overview of
the process of the data analysis described. Figure 3, in Chapter 4 describes the relationships
among the three main themes and the 14 sub-themes which emerged from the data.
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

93

Figure 2. Process of data analysis (adapted from Charmaz, 2006)

Trustworthiness
The value of the findings of this study and its contribution to the extant literature on
PTNTTF who teach at two-year community colleges, are dependent on the trustworthiness of
this study (Merriam, 2009). For the purpose of this study, I use the term trustworthiness to mean
that my research is credible, dependable, and transferable to similar samples at two-year
community college institutions (Merriam, 2009; Creswell, 2007; Charmaz, 2006). This definition
of trustworthiness has positioned the audience of this study to evaluate the product of the data
collected in a non-quantifiable manner (Creswell, 2007). To this aim, I have employed several
strategies to ensure the trustworthiness of this study; for instance: (1) Creswell’s five criteria for
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

94
evaluating a grounded theory study, (2) triangulation, (3) member checks, and (4) rapport
building (Merriam, 2009).
Creswell’s criteria. In order to provide trustworthiness of this study, I applied Creswell’s
(2007) guidelines for evaluating the quality of a grounded theory study. The five guidelines
included: (1) The focus of my study was to better understand an internal process which could not
necessarily be observed. For instance, PTNTTF motivation to participate in governance is an
internal process that cannot be easily observed through behavior, rather I needed to investigate
the internal process by using interviews. (2) A second of Creswell’s (2007) guidelines which was
utilized included a multi-phase process of coding the data that included open, axial, and selective
coding which was described above. The multi-phase coding process resulted in the three main
themes and 14 sub-themes that were the core of the substantive theoretical model that emerged.
(3) The third guideline which was used for trustworthiness of this study was the presentation of
the emergent theoretical model in a diagram (see Figure 3), in order to visualize the themes and
sub-themes and to conceptualize the substantive theory. (4) The fourth guideline to ensure
trustworthiness included a hypothesis or proposition which resulted from the data that connected
the categories or themes of the theoretical model, which also presents further questions to be
answered, which are discussed in Chapter 5. (5) Finally, the fifth of Creswell’s guidelines to
ensure trustworthiness of this study was reflexivity, or my self-disclosure as the researcher and
primary instrument for data collection. Specifically, in the limitations section of this chapter, I
acknowledge and address any biases I may have had during the collection or analysis of the data,
and how any of my own biases may have influenced the data collection and analysis process of
this study because I have over seven years of experience as a PTNTTF (Creswell, 2007).
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

95
Triangulation. A second strategy that I used in order to provide trustworthiness of this
study was triangulation. Specifically, I used triangulation to confirm the emerging findings from
the “multiple sources of data” or the multiple sources of information from the participants
(Merriam, 2009, p. 215). For this study, triangulation consisted of comparing and cross-checking
data collected from interviews, the follow-up interviews that were conducted. For instance, after
conducting an initial interview, I compare my memo-writing notes of the data collected to a
subsequent interview with PTNTTF from a different institution (Merriam, 2009).
Member checks. A third strong strategy that I used in order to provide trustworthiness
for this study included doing member checks, which is also known as “respondent validation”
(Merriam, 2009, p. 217). Member checking consisted of me, as the researche,r taking ideas back
to a particular participant for his or her confirmation of data meaning; clarification and
elaboration from a participant of their statements or stories (Charmaz, 2006). Further, this
strategy ensured internal validity through the process of soliciting feedback from particular
participants, as the findings were emerging and in order to get an accurate understanding of the
phenomenon being studied. As a result of using member checks, I reduced my misinterpretations
of the meaning of a participant’s interview responses. Additionally, member checks allowed me
to identify and address any of my own biases regarding any of the interview data which I
collected, that otherwise, may have been a limitation of this study (Merriam, 2009; Charmaz,
2006).
Rapport building. A final strategy that I used to ensure trustworthiness of my study was
rapport building. I was well positioned to better understand the information shared by the
participants because I have first-hand experience as a PTNTTF at a two-year community college
and have experience with involvement in departmental governance. Therefore, because of my
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

96
own professional experiences related to the topic of inquiry of this study, I may have been more
able to connect with the participants, garner trust from the participants, and convey a sense of
appreciation for their input for this study, compared to a researcher that does not have experience
as a PTNTTF. My role as observer-participant for this study served as the basis for positive
rapport building with the participants of the study while also strengthening the trustworthiness of
the findings (Merriam, 2009). Additionally, my current status as a PTNTTF evoked openness
within me regarding the topic of inquiry, from the participants of this study. Further, because I
have real world knowledge of the benefits, challenges, and concerns of PTNTTF at two-year
community colleges, I was better suited to interpret and triangulate the data. In sum, each of the
strategies discussed above provided trustworthiness and enhanced the validity of this study.
Limitations
The aspects of this study which enhance my position as a researcher because of my own
experiences as a PTNTTF at a two-year community college, may also have been possible
drawbacks to the trustworthiness and transferability of this study (Merriam, 2009). First,
although I have first-hand experience as a PTNTTF at a two-year community college in Southern
California, my experience may have posed a challenge to remaining completely neutral to the
stories or statements that the participants shared with me during the data collection phase. In
addition, the positive and negative conditions that I have experienced as a PTNTTF at a two-year
community college, and my own motivation to participate in departmental governance at my
employment sites, may have put me at risk of misinterpreting the participants’ experiences.
Second, because I am a PTNTTF at a two-year community college and in consideration of any of
my own biases, I made an effort to remain neutral when I made connections with the participants
and conducted impartial reflections during the collection of the data and analysis (Creswell,
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

97
2007; Creswell, 2009). I had to be careful not to empathize with the participants, in regards to the
extent to which my data analysis became biased or skewed one way or the other. As the primary
instrument for data collection and analysis for this study, I had to set aside my preconceived
notions of being a PTNTTF at a two-year community college and allow each participant to share
their own perceptions, meanings, and experiences in order for an accurate, substantive theory to
emerge.
Another limitation of this study was the challenge I faced in determining when saturation
of the data, categories or themes had occurred and at which point the substantive theory had been
developed enough to understand the phenomenon of this study (Creswell, 2007; Charmaz, 2006).
In addition, access to PTNTTF who typically spend a limited amount of time at college campus
where they teach, was a limitation of this study. For example, it was difficult to schedule an
interview with a participant when a PTNTTF was not physically able to meet with me; or to
determine the time when a follow-up interview could be done. Another matter which was a
limitation of this study includes participants’ openness and trust with me as the primary
researcher because in many cases I was a stranger that asked participants to share with me some
very personal and potentially difficult experiences from their workplace (Merriam, 2009). For
instance, in some cases it was a challenge to get participants to go into depth about their
experiences as a PTNTTF and to speak freely with me regarding departmental governance,
especially if a participant shared negative experiences they had. In these cases, participants were
concerned about confidentiality and anonymity, especially if a particular participant perceived
retaliation or employment insecurity. In these cases, the participants did not use actual names of
other faculty mentioned in their stories or declined consent for me to audio record the interview.
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

98
Ethical Considerations
According to the grounded theory design, the participant is the primary source of data
that the ensuing analysis stems from, in order to produce a substantive theory of a phenomenon
(Charmaz, 2006). As the researcher of this study I value the contribution of each participant, the
sample of this study’s shared experiences and statements, each PTNTTF identity, and
perspectives shared with me in the data collection phase. Therefore, in order to address the
ethical considerations for this study, the interplay between the researcher and the participants is
essential (Merriam, 2009). My goal was to understand the topic of this study and to minimize
any type of risk to the participants for this study, such as discomfort or the fear of retaliation, or
loss of employment. I also respected the role of each of the sites in the sample of this study,
especially all the faculty and administration where the participants are employed. For these
reasons, I saw little threat to the participants of this study. In addition, I gained informed consent
from each participant of this study at the onset of each interview (see Appendix C). I provided
confidentiality to all participants, at all times. For instance, on one occasion a particular
participant asked me what I thought of her response to an interview question and asked me what
other PTNTTF of her department I had already interviewed; I informed this particular participant
that I could not make that information known because of my commitment to confidentiality to all
participants of this study. At the onset of each interview I informed each participant that S/he had
access to the findings of this study by contacting me or obtaining it directly from the USC library
database (Creswell, 2007).
Another ethical consideration of this study is the manner in which I used the data that
included depth from participants answers to the semi-structured interview protocol questions. For
example, PTNTTF provided me with personal information which may have led participants to be
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

99
concerned about being retaliated against. Additionally, responding to the open-ended questions
of the interview protocol, participants may have experienced a sense of frustration in the
perceived boundaries of their faculty appointment as a PTNTTF. Further, for some participants
the realization of responding genuinely and candidly to the interview questions may have elicited
in them a sense of stress or discomfort. I ensured all participants that I would keep confidential
any sensitive information that I may learned during the interviews. Finally, an ethical conflict
may have risen after the data collection and analysis, if the substantive theoretical framework
which emerged, inadvertently sheds light on certain individuals as negatively influencing the
conditions which motivate PTNTTF to participate in departmental governance at two-year
community colleges. Lastly, for this study I followed all the rules and guidelines of the IRB and
the University of Southern California.

PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

100
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
Introduction
This chapter presents the findings of data collected from 15 part-time non-tenure track
faculty who teach at various two-year community colleges in southern California. The PTNTTF
were interviewed to answer the central question of this study, which is: What conditions
motivate PTNTTF to participate in departmental governance at a two-year community college?
The first section of this chapter will present an overview of the three broad themes and the 14
corresponding sub-themes which emerged from the one-on-one interviews with the participants
in this study. The themes and sub-themes are presented as they align with the conditions
described in Chapter 2, which influence PTNTTF motivation to be involved in departmental
decision-making at a community college. For instance, the conditions described in Chapter 2
included the climate of the department, the decision-making approach within the department,
PTNTTF commitment to the department, and PTNTTF perceived working conditions.
For this dissertation, three broad themes were identified through the data coding and
analysis process, which includes: (1) climate of the department; (2) PTNTTF commitment to a
department, and (3) self-determination of PTNTTF. The second section of this chapter includes a
model or diagram of a substantive theory to describe the findings of this study and demonstrates
how the conditions within the three main themes that emerged from the data, motivate PTNTTF
to participate in departmental governance at two-year community colleges. I conclude this
chapter with a summary.
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

101
The Climate of a Department
The participants described the climate of a department as being the usual or widespread
mood or atmosphere within a department in which PTNTTF teach. The climate of a department
at a community college may change based on the circumstances or context which the faculty
experience. When PTNTTF experience a climate of a department where there is effective
communication, positive interactions among colleagues, commitment of faculty to the
department, and shared values, then PTNTTF are more likely to be motivated to participate in
departmental governance because PTNTTF experience a positive working environment.
One of the three main themes which emerged from the data was the climate of the
department at two-year community colleges, which PTNTTF teach in. This theme includes five
sub-themes: (a) communication style of the department head; (b) the department head’s
interaction with faculty; (c) the department head’s commitment to faculty; (d) values the
department head communicates to faculty; and (e) an inclusive decision-making approach of the
department. The climate of a department at a community college may influence whether
PTNTTF become involved in the decision-making process, because if PTNTTF perceive a
negative climate within a department then they may not be motivated to get involved in the
decision-making process. There are benefits to a department when PTNTTF experience a
positive departmental climate. For example, when PTNTTF experience a positive climate within
a department and are motivated to get involved in departmental governance, the workload of the
decision-making process is distributed among all faculty types including FTF and PTNTTF.
Further, the benefits of a positive department climate also impact the campus climate when
PTNTTF are recognized as active participants in the decision-making at the departmental level
(Kezar & Sam, 2010a).
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

102
Communication
There are various aspects of communication that the participants spoke about, which will
be reviewed in this section. The first type of interaction between PTNTTF and the community
college is with the head of the department in which PTNTTF teach, as hiring is usually done
informally or by word of mouth directly with the chair of a department (Gappa, Austin & Trice,
2007). As the first representative of a community college, the leader of an academic department
may set the stage for PTNTTF to feel welcomed, informed, and feel as if they were a legitimate
member of the institution. Through their communication either in person, by phone, or via email,
the first interaction between PTNTTF and the department head is significant because it may
influence the conditions that motivate PTNTTF to get involved in departmental governance.
Below I will review various aspects of communication between a department head and PTNTTF,
such as the mode of communication, the tone of communication, and the consistency of
communication.
Mode of communication. For many PTNTTF who teach at multiple community college
campuses or have limited time at the institution where they teach, because of another full-time
job, the mode of communication with the head of the department is important to the PTNTTF
experience. The mode of communication between the head of a department and PTNTTF may
contribute to the climate of the department and influence the conditions which motivate PTNTTF
to get involved in the decision-making process of the department. During their interviews, some
of the participants in this study shared with me how the use of email and internet survey tools
such as SurveyMonkey, were effective modes of communication in being informed of upcoming
meetings in a department and therefore influencing whether PTNTTF got involved in
departmental governance. In addition, some participants shared that they appreciated being
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

103
informed of what happened at a meeting, if the PTNTTF were not available to attend. For
instance, a participant named Terry said the following, when referring to the head of the
department where she teaches:
He’s very understanding. For us part-time faculty, he’s very understanding. He does send
regular email updates and a follow up email saying this is what we discussed at the
meeting. He does keep us in the loop of meetings, upcoming events, or continuing
education opportunities that he believes are great.
Another participant echoed the importance of receiving emails from the department head and
other college representatives. As a result, PTNTTF felt acknowledged, valued, and part of the
team when they were informed of the on goings of a department and institution, regardless of
physically being on the college campus on a regular basis. A participant named Suzanne stated
this:
The communication with the new chair via email has been wonderful. Also the college
and academic affairs and the union reps. I see there is more of that even though we
[PTNTTF] are not face to face with them. I like that we are constantly getting updates.
Other participants described how they have become accustomed to receiving emails from the
department head with information about meetings or events and how they preferred this mode of
communication. Although some of these same participants shared they were not more likely to
be able to attend the meeting or event, which they had been informed about via an email, the
PTNTTF still had a sense of knowing what was going on in the department they teach in. For
instance, a participant named John said:
There used to be an email or poll that would go out and it would indicate which time is
better, A or B. That was handy. That has since been eradicated. Maybe to simplify the
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

104
process. Now, it [meeting] usually happens midday. There is a span of time where there’s
very few classes being taught [by the full-time faculty] on campus, and the meetings now
are held at that particular time. Unfortunately, that conflicts with my other [teaching]
schedule which is across town.
For this participant, there was value in knowing that he could rely on email as a form of
maintaining a connection to the department head; also, John is expressing how his participation
at departmental meetings was influenced by having multiple options for times or days, for a
meeting, to choose from. Therefore, when PTNTTF are given options for meetings, PTNTTF
have a sense of a positive climate of the department. As a result of not having options to choose
from, regarding when meetings take place, PTNTTF are much less likely to attend departmental
meetings at two-year community colleges.
Tone of communication. The tone that a department head uses to communicate with
faculty, is essential when considering how PTNTTF perceive the climate of a department at a
community college. In many cases, it is not what is being communicated, rather, how the
department head communicates with PTNTTF. Specifically, the tone in which something is
being communicated to faculty may influence the climate of the department and whether
PTNTTF get involved in departmental governance. The tone a department head uses
communicates to others, the attitude of the message, whether it is formal, informal, humorous,
intimidating, confident, etc. A participant named Nancy shared this:
The new head of the department influences my participation. It has a large weight on how
much I participate in meetings and the attitude I have when participating. The old chair
made me feel anxious when he spoke to me because if I did not agree with him, then he
automatically thought I was conspiring against him. His voice would seem very
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

105
scrutinizing when he asked how my class was going. Once he asked me about a text book
and I did not agree with him on the usefulness of it. He responded by saying “Reeeaallly”
in a condescending way. I thought it was unpleasant. Like it was personal for him. It
never has been for me. But the new chair, she is so diplomatic and caring and empathetic
that I feel welcome.
Other participants echoed the same sentient and shared how they preferred having interactions
with the department head where the tone was respectful and pleasant. For example, a participant
named James had this to say about his department chair:
My department chair is very friendly. I can literally ask if she has any other time. And
every single time it’s “Yes, come on in. What’s going on?” in a friendly tone. Whether
it’s just a simple hello or an update of something that’s going on. All those things allow
me to feel comfortable there [in the department/college] in asking questions or bringing
issues up, or asking about anything regarding the department.
Both Nancy and James are expressing the value in the department head using a positive tone of
voice when communicating with faculty, especially PTNTTF. For instance, when a department
head uses a tone of voice that reflects engagement in the conversation and is non-intimidating,
then PTNTTF perceive a more favorable department climate. As a result, PTNTTF may be more
likely to get involved in departmental governance when they have an opportunity to do so.
Consistency of communication. In some cases, participants described how either there
was a change in a department head that did not continue the use of email as a mode of
communication, or that the communication via email was not always consistent due to the
overwhelming duties of a department head. John described:
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

106
Our former chair was very diligent about meeting and it was very timely. Now we have a
new chair and he, along with the increased responsibilities due to budget cut backs, really
no fault of his, but I feel he is overwhelmed. I can feel that when I talk to him or through
email conversations.
This statement conveys that PTNTTF may experience inconsistencies in the frequency of being
informed when there are departmental meetings or events as a result of an institution’s
constraints in financial and or human resources available. Also, when PTNTTF perceive a
department head to be overwhelmed with teaching and administrative duties, this then may
negatively influence whether PTNTTF are motivated to get involved in departmental
governance.
Interaction Between Department Head and Faculty
A second sub-theme related to the climate of a department at a community college, which
emerged from the data, includes the interaction a department head has with the faculty.
Specifically, the degree to which a department head is accessible to the faculty is essential to
how PTNTTF perceive the climate of a department. Some key aspects of accessibility include,
for the person of authority, in this case a department chair, to be available, approachable and
easy to talk to.
Accessibility. On several instances, participants shared with me their perception of the
degree to which their department head was accessible to them. In some cases the issue of
accessibility to the department head was a matter of proximity; in other cases, it was a matter of
the department head not being physically or psychologically accessible to PTNTTF , regardless
of proximity. For instance a participant named Jane said this about her experience with accessing
her department chair:
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

107
For a while the department chair was somebody that wasn’t in the same building as I
taught in. So, I didn’t tend to go to him. Then recently since we’ve had this new building,
the chair is in the same building so it’s been easier. Easier to reach him, easier to have
some connection.
Jane is expressing her need to have close proximity to the department head, in order to have a
sense of accessibility to the department chair. When PTNTTF feel that they are not physically
close to accessing their department head or that it is inconvenient to do so, then PTNTTF may be
less likely to experience a positive climate in the department; thus, PTNTTF may be less likely
to get involved in departmental governance. With regards to a department head seeming
physically and psychologically inaccessible, John said this:
The old chair would be in her office and would be able to talk with me or students. Our
new chair not only teaches classes, runs the department , but he is also the head of an
academic club. Between all those responsibilities, and all the responsibilities mandated
by the school, kind of a different environment. He’s always kind of stressed, running
about, definitely hard to fetch. He does his best but I can definitely tell the difference in
accessibility over the years.
This participant is expressing how both the physical and psychological accessibility of a chair is
essential to PTNTTF feeling supported by the department head. When PTNTTF perceive that
their department head is not accessible to answer their questions or concerns, then this
contributes to a climate within the department that is not supportive of the needs of PTNTTF.
Also, when PTNTTF do not feel supported by the department head because the department chair
is overwhelmed, then PTNTTF are not motivated to get involved in departmental governance.
Another participant shared she felt valued when there was a change in the leadership of her
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

108
department. Specifically, a woman named Cheryl shared this with me, when describing that her
department did not have a chair, rather a new dean that is accessible:
We [PTNTTF] now feel like we have partners at the school. This restructuring of the
college I now know who the dean is and I can knock on his door at any moment, and say
hello, and feel welcome. There’s always an open door with the new dean. Yes, he’s
visible, approachable, amiable, and very appreciative.
Here, Cheryl is emphasizing the importance of having access to the person of authority who can
assist when PTNTTF have questions or concerns. Based on this example, it would seem more
likely for PTNTTF to perceive a positive climate of the department when there is administrative
support for part-time instructors at community colleges. When PTNTTF have a sense that their
questions or concerns will be attended to, then this is more likely to lead to PTNTTF
involvement in departmental governance.
In some cases, PTNTTF may be exposed to serious issues that require intervention on the
part of a department head or administrator. In these cases, it is imperative for PTNTTF to have a
sense that the person of authority can be quickly accessed in dire circumstances. Cheryl
continued to describe how prior to the current leadership of her department, she had an
experience which promoted a negative climate within the department:
I had an incident with a student who apparently went off medication and she came into
my classroom, was very disruptive. I had to call campus police, and I filled out a report. I
gave it to my former dean and I also made a copy and gave it to the campus police. Then
things kept happening with the student and it turns out, with the old dean, nothing ever
made it to campus police that I could tell. Now at this point it would never happen. My
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

109
new dean has an open door policy. The new dean would be on top of the matter
immediately.
In this case, Cheryl demonstrates how any concern that PTNTTF bring to a chair or a dean, must
be addressed immediately. If PTNTTF experience a lack of accessibility to the department head,
then it can be detrimental to the climate of a department at a community college. Especially in
the case where PTNTTF submit a request for support and feel their working environment is
unsafe for themselves or their students.
The Department Head’s Commitment to Faculty
A third sub-theme of the climate of a department is the department head’s commitment to
faculty. Generally, PTNTTF commitment was referred to as the extent to which the leader of a
department demonstrates that S/he is dedicated to the professional needs of the faculty.
Specifically, PTNTTF appreciate when a department head displays behaviors to faculty which
illustrate devotion, allegiance, loyalty, support of PTNTTF professional growth, and a hard
working attitude. Then PTNTTF perceive that the department chair is committed to the faculty.
According to PTNTTF, through the stories they shared with me, a department head also
demonstrates his or her commitment to PTNTTF by the manner in which professional growth
opportunities are offered to PTNTTF. The department chair may offer PTNTTF opportunities for
professional growth by expressing his or her confidence in PTNTTF skills, validating and using
the expertize of PTNTTF in decision-making, and providing PTNTTF specific feedback on
teaching effectiveness.
Professional growth of faculty. Many participants found value in a department head that
fosters and encourages professional growth of PTNTTF. Some participants sought out the
department head in order to learn of opportunities to network or to further develop professional
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

110
skills. Other participants shared stories about how they benefited from unofficial mentorships
that evolved between the department head and PTNTTF. When PTNTTF experience a
department climate where the department head facilitates the professional growth of PTNTTF,
then PTNTTF are more likely to get involved on departmental governance. For example, a
participant named Maritza shared this with me about her department chair:
With our previous department chair, there wasn’t a lot of mentorship. I could go to my
previous department chair and get help. But outside of the school, this current department
chair has ... She’s very connected in the field, especially with leadership of other
organizations. It’s really helpful for people like me who are up-and coming to be able to
use the chair in order to branch out.
This participant is expressing that PTNTTF need to be able to use the department head as a
source of mentorship and for professional growth. When the department head is available and
facilitates networking opportunities for the professional growth of PTNTTF, then this fosters a
positive climate in the department; thus, PTNTTF sense that the department chair serves as a
mentor and PTNTTF are more likely to get involved in departmental governance.
Another aspect of professional growth of PTNTTF is related to the leadership of a
department head having confidence in PTNTTF to assume more responsibilities or teach
advanced coursework, usually reserved for FTF. Some of the participants told me that when
PTNTTF have opportunities to assume advanced responsibilities, this makes PTNTTF feel
competent and legitimated as faculty of a department. When PTNTTF perceive that they have
made a legitimate contribution to a department, then PTNTTF are more likely to be motivated to
participate in departmental decision-making at a community college. For example, a participant
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

111
named Reginald told me about a dean’s decision regarding his teaching assignment, after the
dean became familiar with the participant’s area of expertize:
Some more specialized courses such as human sexuality and social psychology, they
were reserved for full-time faculty members. This past summer, the Dean, upon learning
that I was capable of teaching some of those courses, she decided to extend that
opportunity to me without consulting with other faculty members. Of course, when this
came to light, some said that was not correct.
Here, Reginald is articulating that it is important for PTNTTF to have the opportunity to further
their professional skills by teaching coursework that is specific to their area of expertize,
regardless of whether such a course is usually reserved for FTF. In addition, it may be beneficial
to the climate of a department for the department chair and or the dean to be aware of the
expertize of PTNTTF and their teaching interests, when assigning the teaching loads for a
semester. When PTNTTF are offered opportunities to develop their professional skills such as
expanding the courses that they teach, then this promotes the notion that the leadership of the
department is invested in the professional advancement and mentorship of PTNTTF. A climate
where professional growth and mentorships are provided to PTNTTF is conducive to PTNTTF
involvement in departmental governance. However, based on the statement above, a caveat to
the promotion of PTNTTF professional growth is resistance of FTF. Another participant told me
how he does not get motivated to be involved in departmental governance when the department
head is not invested in the professional growth of PTNTTF:
I work at two different community colleges. One of my department heads is very
supportive . In comparison to a previous department head at the other campus, he was
absent minded on many of the things, it definitely made me not want to be part of a lot of
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

112
the meetings. Whereas at the other college I teach at, when I got the feedback from that
chair, the constructive criticism, support, it definitely brings a different feeling. From
simple affection sign ... a smile and if they say to me “My door is open at all times” to
asking me more specifically about how my classes are going. If there’s anything else that
he [department chair] can assist me with, such as facilitating articles that are current in
our field...Sharing or putting me in contact with other faculty members that are teaching
the same thing. Doing that constantly is definitely a lot more inviting than a chair that
says, “Okay, you’re here. Alright. Good. See you later.”
This participant is stating that his experience with a department head that was not engaged or
committed to the professional growth of PTNTTF did not motivate Reginald to get involved in
departmental governance. Rather, when PTNTTF receive constructive criticism or feedback on
teaching or assessments of student learning objectives (SLO), then PTNTTF feel motivated to
learn more about their profession and students. This statement emphasizes that PTNTTF use
their department head as a source of professional growth and this impacts both the climate of a
department and whether PTNTTF get involved in departmental governance.
Values of a Department Head
Participants defined “values” as one’s personal preferences regarding making right or
wrong, ethical or unethical decisions. One’s values influences the courses of action S/he takes
and consequently generates action-oriented behavior. Further, the values a department head
displays to faculty affect the climate of a department. Some examples of values a department
head may express to PTNTTF include teamwork, respect, shared goals, and transparency.
Teamwork. A value which the department head communicates to PTNTTF that emerged
from the data was teamwork. Teamwork refers to a process whereby multiple people collaborate
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

113
on a task that has a shared goal or a desired outcome. The participants described teamwork as
being either a short or long-term process where different roles may be assumed by the multiple
individuals involved in attaining a specific outcome. Some behaviors that contribute to teamwork
include: collaboration, cooperation, coordination, and placing the group’s needs above one’s
personal agenda or goals. The data that emerged, illuminated how effective teamwork
contributes to the climate of a department. A participant named Rebecca shared with me how an
authority figure who oversees her department establishes a climate where teamwork is important:
At meetings, the idea that everything that I do affects everyone else and everything my
colleagues do, affects me. We are all a team.
Here, Rebecca is expressing that when the leadership of her department promotes teamwork as
an important value, regardless of whether it is promoted by the department head or an
administrator, the climate of a department is positively influenced. Further, when the leadership
of a department at a community college emphasizes the bi-directionality of the faculty or staff’s
behavior on one another, then collaborating on a task is likely. Therefore, PTNTTF are more
willing to buy-in to the notion of working within a “team” to accomplish a work related goal
with colleagues. If PTNTTF feel that they are part of a team along with the FTF, then they are
more likely to get involved in the departmental decision-making process.
Other participants told me stories of how they experienced a change in the level of
teamwork within their department. Sometimes, the shift in the level of teamwork among
colleagues resulted from the transition of a former chair of a department to a new head of a
department. For example, a participant named Maria shared with me how she experienced a shift
in the level of teamwork that was non-existent during the former chair’s tenure. When Maria
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

114
experienced teamwork among colleagues, then she sensed a more effective department climate
and got more involved in departmental governance. Specifically, Maria said this:
Everybody [FTF and PTNTTF] got together at multiple meetings. We did research and
brainstorming on the topic of bilingual education. We were included by the chair and
administration in the new policy-making regarding a new curriculum pathway. Now, I
feel that I’m included, I’m part of the team, and I feel collegiality in the department.
Respect. A second value communicated by the department head to PTNTTF that
emerged from the data, was respect. Participants stated that respect from the department head
influences the climate of a department. The PTNTTF referred to respect as either the presence or
lack of a positive feeling of regard from the department head. When PTNTTF are respected by
their department head, then this promotes a positive department climate and there is an increase
in PTNTTF involvement in governance. When asked how the department head influences her
involvement in the decision-making process, Rebecca shared with me that her department head
and the administrator which oversee the department, both respect Rebecca’s professional
judgment to do the best thing for the students she serves for a grant program:
The fact that they [department head and administrator] allow us to do what’s necessary
for our students. They do not micromanage us, at all. But we’re not working in a silo,
either. He [department chair] also holds us accountable for what’s in the grant that is
funding our program.
Here, Rebecca is highlighting PTNTTF need to be respected as professionals by the department
head and or administration. That when appropriate, PTNTTF should be given the opportunity to
indicate the needs and or services that their students require. Also, when PTNTTF have the sense
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

115
that their work with students is micromanaged, then they are less likely to experience a positive
climate within the department and unlikely to get involved in departmental governance.
Another participant told me how her dean respected her by responding to a lack of proper
resources for PTNTTF to conduct their course instruction. Therefore, when the department head,
in this case, a dean, responded to Cheryl’s concern with a lack of proper machinery in a
classroom, then Cheryl felt respected and appreciated by the dean. Specifically, Cheryl said this:
I felt appreciated by the new dean. When we were part of the previous department, we
were forever fighting to get money to keep our machines running. We would start out
semesters with only enough machines for a third of the class. The new dean said, “Oh is
there anything I can do for you ?” I had never been asked that before. So, I told him we
need to have the repair guys here but we’re told we have no funding to fix the machines.
Oh, he got serious. I was so happy to see somebody say this is not right. That my work
was not respected enough to get my class equipment fixed. The machines were fixed the
next day.
This story illustrates how PTNTTF need to feel respected for the actual work that they do with
students. When instructional needs and resources of PTNTTF are met by the department head or
administration, then PTNTTF feel respected and appreciated. As a result, when there is respect
for PTNTTF at a community college, then a positive department climate ensues. Finally, when
PTNTTF experience a positive department climate, then PTNTTF are more likely to get involved
in departmental governance.
Shared goals. A third value that the department head communicates to PTNTTF, which
emerged from the data, was shared goals. Participants expressed that it was important for their
experience as PTNTTF to work in a department where the chair expressed the value of having
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

116
shared goals among the faculty. The PTNTTF told me stories about how they experienced
working towards the same goal with a department head and/or other colleagues. In addition,
PTNTTF reported working in a positive department climate when shared goals were expressed
by the leadership within a department. In some cases, participants stated that they were more
likely to get involved in departmental affairs when there was a sense of having shared goals
because the work was more productive and meaningful. Therefore, when PTNTTF work in a
department where the department head values shared goals among the faculty, then PTNTTF
also want to get involved in departmental governance. A participant named Amber said this:
A meeting on curriculum for a proposed bilingual education program that was held by the
new chair recently was such a great example of being on the same page, because in the
past, it [the issue] kept getting brought up at meetings, and only brought up. Then finally
when we all kind of sat down and decided that everyone had to be involved and work
together to figure it all out for our own department. We all sort of shared our ideas and
research with each other, I thought the decision we made as a group, it was a wonderful
decision-making process.
Another participant told me a story of a department head that did not emphasize the importance
of shared values to the faculty. As a result, PTNTTF may experience that decisions are made in a
department regardless of whether all the faculty have buy-in for a final decision. In this case,
PTNTTF may perceive a negative climate within the department. Reginald shared this with me:
Once at a meeting we were talking about decisions that are minor. I wanted to bring a
guest speaker for a lecture series, the discussion was whether the guest speaker would be
adequate for psychology students. Some faculty disagreed with securing this particular
guest speaker. Other faculty were saying that the speaker was adequate and a difference
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

117
of opinions were exchanged. The decision was that the department was going to proceed
with securing the guest speaker. That decision to actually secure the guest speaker was
made by two senior faculty members.
The following statement is important because it provides a description of how some PTNTTF
may respond to the climate of their department; it may serve as an example of what is an
exception and not the rule. Although PTNTTF are more likely to get involved in the decision-
making process of their department when shared goals is a value of the department chair, it may
not always be the case. This participant describes how some PTNTTF got involved in
governance as a response to a perceived negative climate of a department, where shared goals
was not a value of the department chair. Therefore, PTNTTF may get involved in departmental
governance in both cases—when the department head values shared goals among faculty, and
when such a value is lacking. Amber told me this:
The previous department chair, our suggestions would just be in one ear and out the
other. I felt we [PTNTTF] had zero control. If we had a suggestion or concern and I share
it with the old chair, she would always choose to do what she felt was the best for the
department, without having a meeting to gather input from everyone else. Especially the
part-timers.
Transparency. A fourth value which the department head communicates to PTNTTF
that emerged from the data was transparency. From the interviews, PTNTTF reported
experiencing a positive department climate when the chair of a department valued openness and
accountability through a transparent decision-making process. For a department head to be
transparent, it is important for PTNTTF to have the notion that departmental governance
involves all faculty, regardless of the type of appointment. Also, PTNTTF have a desire to have
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

118
openness and accountability for the decisions that are made within a department. For instance,
Maritza said this:
The decision-making for the program is very cohesive because there are three different
levels of input. First, there are the actual counselors who are interacting with the students.
Then there is the Vice President who is keeping track of what we [counselors] are
implementing. Then there is the chair of counseling who makes sure that we’re doing
everything that’s worth helping students. What is expected is genuine feedback because
the Vice President and the chair of counseling may not have access to the students as
often as we do as part-time counselors.
This statement indicates that PTNTTF perceive a positive department climate when transparency
is valued by the leadership of a department. In this example, transparency of the decision-
making process in a department whereby future decisions are based on accountability and
communication among faculty, is conducive to PTNTTF involvement in departmental
governance. Therefore, it is imperative for department heads to communicate transparency to
PTNTTF as a value, within the structure of academic programs.
Inclusive Decision-Making Approach
The fifth sub-theme of the climate of a department was the extent to which the decision-
making approach of a department at a community college, was inclusive of PTNTTF. The
decision-making process of a department, when it is inclusive of all faculty appointment types,
influences how PTNTTF perceive the climate of a department. Inclusive decision-making is
most effectively approached when PTNTTF are included in presenting options, suggestions, and
alternatives to a course of action taken by a department. The participants shared with me that an
inclusive approach to the decision-making process of a department, is essential to whether
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

119
PTNTTF are motivated to get involved in departmental governance. Some examples of a
decision-making approach which is inclusive of PTNTTF, is in utilizing PTNTTF expertise
when all faculty are receptive and welcoming of one another; when the suggestions that PTNTTF
make are actually considered as viable options for a course of action, and when FTF treat
PTNTTF with professional courtesy.
The participants shared with me that it is essential in the quality of the PTNTTF
experience at a community college to approach decision-making in a manner where PTNTTF
input and expertise are included as part of the process. The following story informs us that when
PTNTTF attend departmental meetings they may not know the extent to which a PTNTTF can
get involved in making a decision. Also, when PTNTTF do not feel comfortable to make
suggestions at a meeting, then it prevents PTNTTF from full participation in departmental
governance. For instance, Terry shared this with me:
There were a couple of times at meetings some of the part-timers were kind of quiet and
weren’t really contributing their opinions. The part-timers present were kind of letting
everybody else [FTF] talk. But not only the department chair, but other full-time faculty
would stop the meeting and ask us part-timers “Hey so what do you think?”
This is an example of FTF impacting the climate of a department in a positive manner by using
an inclusive decision-making approach, where the department chair or other FTF recognize that
PTNTTF are not voicing their professional opinion at a meeting. In this specific example,
PTNTTF are included in the departmental decision-making when PTNTTF are asked to discuss
the topic at hand with colleagues. Therefore, it is important for a department to approach
decision-making in an inclusive manner, where PTNTTF are asked to participate in meetings by
actively engaging in the discussions.
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

120
Some of the stories that participants shared with me were about PTNTTF experiencing a
decision-making approach that was inclusive because when all of the faculty came together, they
were welcoming of one another. When PTNTTF sense that all faculty within a department come
together with a positive and welcoming attitude, then PTNTTF look forward to attending
meetings and contributing to the discussion and decision-making. For example, Suzanne said
this:
Having a positive work environment helps. You feel more relief or comfortable coming
to meetings. You know that you will not be criticized for what you say. They will hear
you out, even if they do not agree with you. It will be more of a conversation. That
motivates me to try my best to change my schedule [from her full-time job] to attend
meetings.
Another participant shared that she is not motivated to attend meetings and get involved in
departmental governance when the suggestions that PTNTTF make are not actually considered
by the FTF or administration, in the decision-making process. For example, Amber told me this
about the department decision-making approach that she once experienced at the community
college where she teaches:
If I didn’t feel like anybody was listening to what I had to share, then why would I go to
meetings? What does not motivate me to go to meetings is if I’m just sitting there and
listening to somebody else speak and if I’m not given a chance to have an active role in
the meeting.
This is an example of a department decision-making approach which is not inclusive of
PTNTTF. In this case, PTNTTF may feel that it is a waste of their time to attend departmental
meetings if PTNTTF are not given an opportunity to voice their professional opinions. Another
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

121
participant shared with me a more serious example of a departmental decision-making approach
that was not professional or conducive to PTNTTF involvement in governance:
One time, I attended the monthly meeting ... I wasn’t invited, but I heard there was a
department meeting. The former department chair told me that I’m not welcome there.
Another faculty member heard and said “Oh, you can stay.” I felt like an outsider because
the former chair basically told me “This is not your department meeting.” I didn’t join
another meeting ever since.
This story which Maria shared with me is important to consider, because it illustrates how
PTNTTF may perceive an atmosphere of exclusion and unprofessionalism when a FTF,
especially a department chair, explicitly or implicitly expresses his attitude that PTNTTF are not
allowed to attend department meetings. In this case, the PTNTTF understood that she was not
allowed, invited, or welcome at the monthly department meeting because of her specific type of
faculty appointment, as compared to FTF. In order for PTNTTF to have a desire and be
motivated to get involved in departmental governance, the types of interactions described above
by Maria must be avoided.
Part-time Non-tenure Track Faculty Commitment
The second broad theme which emerged from the data was the extent to which PTNTTF
were committed the department at a community college, where they teach. This theme includes
seven sub-themes: (a) Self-efficacy of PTNTTF; (b) active choice of PTNTTF; (c) PTNTTF
dedication to teaching; (d) seeking full-time employment; (e) PTNTTF time constraints; (f)
working Conditions of PTNTTF; and (g) financial Compensation of PTNTTF.
It is imperative to note that PTNTTF commitment to a department at a community
college is a broad theme that is moderated to an extent by the first main theme, the climate of a
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

122
department. For instance, participants reported feeling more committed to a department at a
community college when PTNTTF were made to feel welcomed by a department head and had
positive experiences interacting with the department head. For instance, Maria said this:
The chair speaks to everyone in a calm, warm voice. Almost like, in a maternal way, you
know? She says to me that she appreciates how much I do for the students and I feel like
I owe it to her to attend meetings.
In addition, PTNTTF reported feeling committed to having input in the departmental decisions
when PTNTTF experienced challenges or perceived a conflict in the department. Thus, the
expression of commitment from PTNTTF to a department, was not always influenced by the
positive climate with a department. For instance, Amber said this, about why she felt committed
to a department, by being as active as she could be in departmental governance:
When I started to feel uncomfortable in the department, I started to become more active
because I realized that if I didn’t, that there would be problems, so I attended as many
meetings as I could even though I had a full-time job somewhere else. I’m was making
sure that I had a voice on what is going on in the department.
Participants described being committed to the department they teach by demonstrating
dedication to a cause, task, or goal in the department. In addition, participants described
PTNTTF commitment to a department as one where they found themselves working hard or
supporting a course of action which the department chair or FTF wish to accomplish. Some
specific behaviors that PTNTTF described as demonstrating commitment to a department
included PTNTTF having a positive attitude, being loyal, and taking on responsibilities beyond
teaching within a department.
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

123
Self-efficacy of Part-time Non-tenure Track Faculty
The belief that PTNTTF have regarding their ability to successfully, or not, accomplish a
task refers to the construct of self-efficacy. The self-efficacy beliefs of PTNTTF regarding their
ability to participate and contribute to the decision-making process of a department influences
PTNTTF motivation to do so. If PTNTTF are made to feel efficacious when participating in
departmental governance, then PTNTTF are more likely to be committed to the department
decision-making process. Therefore, if PTNTTF actually participate in departmental governance,
this builds their positive self-efficacy beliefs and consequently they have a sense of success on
related tasks; then PTNTTF are more likely to exhibit a sense of commitment to the department.
A participant named Jane told me:
A couple of years ago, we were working on updating several of the classes and coming
up with Student Learning Outcomes. In that case, I felt very much what I had to offer was
of value. I felt satisfied that I had confidence that I could provide input for the SLO’s
because before retiring I had worked for many years as a practitioner in the field.
This is an example of PTNTTF that had low self-efficacy beliefs regarding particular skills with
the use of the computer and other technologies, when it came to being involved in departmental
governance. However, when this PTNTTF realized that she possessed the skills necessary to
contribute to a decision-making task such as revising curriculum and assessing student learning
outcomes, then the PTNTTF felt motivated to contribute to the task. In this story, self-efficacy
was based on the PTNTTF’s previous success as a practitioner in the field. By contributing to a
task where PTNTTF believe they have a specific expertise, then they are likely to feel more
committed to the department, and get involved in decision-making, as Jane described above.
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

124
Active Choice
Many of the PTNTTF expressed that it is essential for part-timers to be active participants
in getting involved in departmental governance. In order for PTNTTF to be motivated to
participate in governance, they have to be committed to the department by taking control and
responsibility for their own professional growth. When PTNTTF are committed to improving
themselves professionally, then PTNTTF actively establish a commitment to the department and
the institution where they teach. When PTNTTF demonstrate active membership within a
department, then PTNTTF have meaningful professional experiences with students and
colleagues. Further, when PTNTTF display commitment to the department by making a
conscious choice to get involved in governance, then FTF perceive PTNTTF as legitimate
members of a department. Maritza said this:
There’s a lot of opportunities for part-timers to get involved. You have to as a part-timer
really take control of your career if you want to ever be a full timer. Don’t expect people
to come and give you opportunities, or to know what you want to be a part of in the
department.
Another participant shared with me that he makes an active choice to be involved in
departmental governance in order to dispel the notion that PTNTTF are not committed to their
department. In this case, Reginald is motivated to be involved in the decision-making process of
the department because he feels like a legitimate member of the department and the institution.
In addition, PTNTTF may be seeking full-time employment at a community college when
PTNTTF make the active choice to be engaged in departmental governance, in order to disprove
the myth that PTNTTF are not as invested in a department compared to FTF. Reginald told me
this:
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

125
Another opinion of some full-timers is that part-timers are not permanent and not always
going to be vested in the well-being of the department and of students. They subscribe to
the idea that full-timers look out more for the overall well-functioning of the department
itself than part-timers do. Therefore, by limiting the opinion or the impact of part-timers
and our vote, all decisions made by the full-timers or college-wide level, they are
presenting some potential poor decisions that were not informed by part-timers.
This is an example of PTNTTF being motivated to get involved in the decision-making process
of their department to dispel the misconception that PTNTTF are not permanent fixtures of a
community college. In this story, the PTNTTF demonstrated that by attending meetings and
other professional events that are not required of PTNTTF, they implicitly attempt to discontinue
non-inclusive traditions. All of the PTNTTF expressed a need to be legitimately recognized by
the FTF and the college for the decision-making they engage in within the department. When
PTNTTF feel that they are perceived by FTF as not being loyal or committed to the well-being
of a department or students, then this may influence the level of commitment that PTNTTF
actually have towards the department.
It is important to note, that in some cases participants reported that when FTF perceive
PTNTTF as not being committed to the department in the same manner that FTF are, then some
of them have a tendency to withdraw from opportunities to be involved in departmental
governance. Finally, the story Reginald shared with me, informs us that PTNTTF demonstrate a
high level of commitment to a department and community college by performing above average
on teaching effectiveness standards and on student learning outcome assessments, when
compared to their FTF counterparts.
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

126
Dedication to Teaching and Students
The dedication to teaching and to students that PTNTTF display when they get involved
in departmental governance is a reflection of their commitment to the department. When
PTNTTF get involved in departmental decision-making they are demonstrating their high regard
for the students that they serve. Another reason that PTNTTF display a moderate to high level of
dedication to teaching and students when participating in the decision-making process is related
to their love of teaching and respect for the academic discipline. This is what Suzanne shared
with me:
I get involved [in meetings] because I am really passionate about teaching the students. I
have had a wonderful experience with the students. I have seen a difference in their skills.
To me, that is what motivates me to be more committed to the department.
Another participant shared with me that each PTNTTF is responsible for putting forth effort to
be involved in departmental affairs and the decision-making process. In the following example,
Suzanne expressed her belief that PTNTTF must be a part of the decision-making process on
their own accord; otherwise the ideas and opinions of PTNTTF will not be considered in
departmental governance. The statement below illustrates how some PTNTTF subscribe to the
belief that inclusion of PTNTTF in the decision-making process relies on the active involvement
of PTNTTF, not on the FTF. Suzanne continued with her previous thoughts as follows:
We all have the same level of decision-making. We [PTNTTF] need to make more of an
effort to be at the meetings. We cannot complain that our opinions or ideas are not being
considered if we do not make an effort to attend. They [FTF] are giving us [PTNTTF]
plenty of advance notice to make arrangements to be at the meetings.
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

127
Some participants described their dedication to teaching and students as the result of observing
students grow academically, economically, and professionally. Many PTNTTF are dedicated to
teaching because they feel that PTNTTF have a positive impact on the academic success of
students. It was common for PTNTTF to describe feeling good about improving the social and
economic future of students, as the main reason that PTNTTF are dedicated to teaching and
students. When PTNTTF have a sense that they are improving the lives of students through their
dedication to teaching, then PTNTTF feel more committed to their department; thus, PTNTTF
would be more likely to be motivated to get involved in the decision-making process. For
instance, Rebecca said this:
I’m highly committed and participate in the meetings. Because I enjoy seeing the
transformation from a high school student to a student in higher education with
aspirations of transferring and continuing with their education. As long as I see some type
of transformation in students, that’s what keeps me committed.
Participants indicated that it is important to consider the impact that the dedication of PTNTTF
to teaching and students, ultimately have on the advancement of a discipline. When an academic
discipline is advanced by the contribution PTNTTF, then PTNTTF feel acknowledged and are
consequently more committed to a department.
Seeking Full-time Employment
On several instances, PTNTTF referred to their major concern of having continued
employment at a college. When PTNTTF are insecure about stable or consistent employment
with a department at a community college, then PTNTTF are less to be committed to their
department. Further, PTNTTF are not likely to be motivated to get involved in departmental
governance if they are more concerned with whether or not they will be offered teaching
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

128
assignments in the future. In addition, many PTNTTF described that their involvement in
departmental governance was a way to work towards the goal of securing a full-time teaching
position. By participating in the decision-making process, PTNTTF that want to get a full-time
faculty appointment with a department, will network with FTF, collaborate with colleagues, and
be visible to the department head. Another important condition whether PTNTTF felt compelled
to be committed to a department was related to whether PTNTTF were consistently offered
classes or employment by the college with the use of a formal contract. Reginald said this:
I think my commitment comes from the fact that they make me feel appreciated as part-
time faculty. Their consideration of me on a regular basis for the classes I am offered.
The most important to me is the continued classes I am assigned each semester, until I get
a full-time.
This is an example of PTNTTF being committed to a department when there is continued
employment from one semester to the next. In many instances, other participants echoed the
same sentiment about seeking a maximum teaching assignments until a full-time faculty position
was secured. Specifically, PTNTTF make an effort to commit to a department when their
experience with departmental governance is welcoming and appreciated; in turn, when PTNTTF
are offered continuous employment at a community college, PTNTTF are encouraged to
continue to seek out full-time employment. James said this:
What encourages me is because as a part-timer we have to learn to be strategic by
contributing at meetings, not only because it’s good to build that support with one
another or for one another but because we [PTNTTF] definitely want to continue working
there in the future, and possibly get a full-time.
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

129
Here, James informs us that PTNTTF may get involved in the decision-making process to ensure
the likelihood of continuous employment. When PTNTTF are offered teaching assignments with
stability, then they are more likely to feel committed to a department; thus more likely to be
motivated to participate in departmental governance. Further, when there is a lack of
commitment to a department by PTNTTF, there is also no protection of employment for
PTNTTF through the use of a contract. If PTNTTF are not provided with consistent employment
due to the lack of a contract, then they will not be committed to a department or be involved in
departmental governance. Reginald shared a similar sentiment with me:
I am looking to land a full-time position. The more knowledgeable I am of the campus,
the better off I will be. If I know about the hot topics of the moment, I believe this will
make me more marketable to the department.
This PTNTTF expressed a desire to be knowledgeable of the current events and mandates of his
department and discipline in order to be considered for a FTF appointment over other PTNTTF
that may not be involved in departmental governance. In many cases, PTNTTF enjoy the process
of involvement in departmental governance, consequently, at the same time PTNTTF are
working on improving their chances of securing a full-time faculty position. Nancy said:
Mostly, when I get involved in meetings it’s because I want to be a full-timer one day and
I think that my presence at meetings will inform me and give others a chance to get to
know me and what I can contribute.
Time Constraints
Another circumstance which influences PTNTTF commitment to a department, is related
to time constraints which PTNTTF have due to teaching part-time at multiple colleges or
universities; or when PTNTTF have a full-time job outside of academia, which makes it hard for
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

130
them to be on a college campus outside of the assigned teaching hours. In some cases, PTNTTF
initially make the active choice to attend meetings and get involved in departmental governance
and put forth a moderate amount of effort in doing so. However, as a result of competing
schedules and/or professional and personal responsibilities of PTNTTF, they may stop persisting
on attending meetings where decisions are made. John told me this regarding the limited time he
had to participate in departmental governance because he teaches at multiple colleges:
I am teaching at two other colleges. I used to change my schedule in order to make it to
the meetings. Sometimes that meant rushing over to one campus from another, or missing
out on a separate event at a particular campus in order to make it to a meeting at another
college. Eventually, I just stopped going to meetings at any campus because it’s too
stressful.
Another participant shared with me a similar sentiment regarding a conflict in teaching schedules
at the multiple institutions he teaches at. James said the following:
Our departmental meetings are optional. Our meetings are not something that we
[PTNTTF] must attend I think because they understand that we have other positions at
other places, or we are going to school, or whatever the case.
Here, we learn that it is important to consider the teaching responsibilities that PTNTTF may
hold at multiple institutions and how this influences their commitment to a department and the
institution. As a result, it is essential to not perceive PTNTTF as being less committed to a
department due to their limited time on a campus, especially when PTNTTF are only on the
college campus once a week or teaching on-line, compared to the time FTF spend on a college
campus. Another participant, David said:
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

131
You don’t have time to get involved because when you walk in it’s about the students and
class time.
Regardless of having teaching assignments spread across multiple institutions, most PTNTTF
expressed a desire to be involved in departmental governance. Terry shared this with me:
Psychologically and emotionally I am highly committed to my department. As far as time
wise I’m moderately committed. I’m willing to contribute more and even take time out of
my personal life. But unfortunately because I do have a pretty hectic schedule, it doesn’t
allow me the freedom to participate in a lot of meetings.
In few cases, PTNTTF are willing to express their commitment to the department by getting
involved in departmental governance even if it means using their personal time. Although it was
not the most common approach to being involved in departmental affairs, the statement above
demonstrates that PTNTTF want to be committed to their department.
Working Conditions
In some cases, PTNTTF described their low level of commitment to the department and a
lack of involvement in departmental governance as a result of their working conditions. Some of
the working conditions which PTNTTF described as not being conducive to PTNTTF being
motivated to get involved in the decision-making process, were not within the control of the
department and more of an institutional issue. When PTNTTF experience less than optimal
working conditions, in order to offer quality instruction to students, then PTNTTF are less likely
to be committed to the department. In most cases, poor working conditions that were described
by PTNTTF were related to institutional conditions that did not motivate PTNTTF to get
involved in governance. However, it is still imperative that a department at a two-year
community college offer working conditions that are conducive to PTNTTF being motivated to
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

132
participate in the decision-making process. If there is a lack of resources such as inadequate
teaching facilities for PTNTTF at a college, regardless of whether the cause is at the
departmental or institution level, PTNTTF do not tend to be motivated to get involved in
departmental governance. For instance, Cheryl told me:
We were fighting to get money to keep our machines running. We would start semesters
with only enough machines for a third of the class. We need to have the repair guys here
but we’re told we have no funding.
Although, I have previously cited this statement in a story above, it is important because it
highlights that PTNTTF are not likely to be committed to a department or get involved in the
decision-making process if the instructional facilities that PTNTTF use are inadequate. Cheryl
expressed that she was frustrated and had been informed by a former department head or
administrators that there were a lack of funds to fix the machinery which Cheryl relies on in
order to teach her students sewing. In this case, the new dean who oversees Cheryl’s department
followed through and facilitated the repair of the machinery. As a result Cheryl was more
satisfied with her experience as a PTNTTF at a community college, felt committed to her
department, and was more likely to get involved in departmental governance.
Financial Compensation
Financial compensation is a very important issue for PTNTTF, who are either
underemployed or earn significantly less than their FTF counterparts. In many cases, PTNTTF
need to work at multiple colleges in order to make ends meet. As a result of working at multiple
institutions, PTNTTF are less likely to have either the time to attend meetings or the financial
stability to get involved in the decision-making process. Some participants stated that one of the
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

133
main reasons they do not attend meetings or get involved in departmental governance was
because PTNTTF may not be paid to do so. James shared this with me:
What motivates me to not participate in meetings, is the compensation. I would say
meaning we’re not paid any differently or extra for attending these meetings. That is a
deterrent for me to get involved.
Another PTNTTF echoed a similar sentiment, but provided a little more context regarding the
lack of her involvement in departmental governance due to not being financially compensated.
Cheryl said this:
I only get paid for the 6.8 hours a week that I’m teaching in the classroom. I started
keeping a record of how much time I put in outside of class. I still have major, major
material for one of the classes with note books to grade. So, so far I have 5 and a half
hours of unpaid time this week and I expect to put in at least that much more time before
class meets again. If you take my hourly wage and divide it by all the hours I work a
week in class and outside of class, I’m not paid very much. I pretty much earn minimum
wage or less. I don’t even have benefits.
Here, the PTNTTF is expressing that she already feels underpaid for the work that she does for
the department and it is unlikely that Cheryl will be motivated to get involved in departmental
affairs beyond her teaching responsibilities. It is important to consider the financial
compensation that PTNTTF receive, and how a lack of it influences PTNTTF commitment to the
department and institution. In many cases, PTNTTF referred to their lack of commitment to
departmental governance because they were not required to do so through a contract, compared
to FTF who are required and paid to do so.

PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

134
Self-Determination of Part-time Non-tenure Track Faculty
Self-determination was presented in Chapter 2 and was used for the purpose of
illuminating the conditions which motivate PTNTTF to participate in departmental governance,
stemming from either an autonomous motivation source or a controlled motivation source
(Gagne & Deci, 2005). Self-determination represents the third main theme or category that
emerged from the data. In most cases, PTNTTF shared with me that their involvement in
departmental governance was a result of an autonomous source, such as their personal interest to
do so. In other cases, PTNTTF described how they did not participate in departmental
governance due to their perceived controlled motivation, such as time constraints which limited
PTNTTF’s availability to get involved in departmental decision-making, as described above.
Specifically, PTNTTF shared stories with me, referring to aspects of PTNTTF self-
determination, which include relatedness and competence. Relatedness was described as
PTNTTF’s need to belong to a group; competence was described as PTNTTF possessing a sense
of mastery of their skills in a professional environment where decision-making is done.
Relatedness
Many PTNTTF described their need to feel affiliated to a group, such as being a part of
the department or discipline of the community college where they teach. In several stories,
PTNTTF conveyed a psychological need to feel that they belong as legitimate members of their
department. In some cases, PTNTTF were made to feel like they do belong to the group by other
faculty members in terms of how the FTF interacted with PTNTTF at meetings. In other cases,
PTNTTF remarked on feeling isolated as a part-timer because they are on a college campus
perhaps only once a week; and PTNTTF experience limited face-to-face interactions with
colleagues. Moreover, in the latter case, PTNTTF are not likely to be motivated to participate in
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

135
departmental governance if PTNTTF do not know who the other faculty are. As a result,
PTNTTF are not likely to be committed to a department beyond teaching responsibilities. Amber
told me why she did not feel like a member of the group in her department:
It takes a little bit longer for a part-timer to get a feeling that you belong. So I had this
distance with other faculty because I usually taught on Saturdays when there was no one
else there. I started working on week nights and now I’m enjoying seeing everybody and
talking to the other people.
Here, we are informed that it is essential for PTNTTF to see and interact with other faculty on a
formal and informal basis. When there is visibility of PTNTTF within the department, PTNTTF
feel connected to others and are more likely to feel committed to the department and put forth the
necessary effort in becoming involved with departmental decision-making. David told me that he
initially began attending department meetings when he was a new hire at a community college
because he wanted to feel like he was part of the department culture:
I guess just wanting to be a part of the department and wanting to get to know the culture.
I think it was more about just knowing who they are, being seen by the full-time faculty.
Kind of just having an opportunity to interact with them. Kind of to have that sense of
camaraderie. But after a while that kind of got really difficult.
This participant is also highlighting the need that PTNTTF have to know the other faculty in the
department, and to learn the culture among his colleagues. If PTNTTF do not have a sense of the
department culture because they do not know the other faculty, then PTNTTF are less likely to
feel committed to the department. Another constraint of PTNTTF getting to know their
colleagues and having a sense of belongingness to a group is due to conflicts in teaching
schedules between PTNTTF and FTF. Most PTNTTF said they tend to teach during the week in
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

136
the evenings, on weekends, or on-line; whereas FTF tend to teach during the workday, Mondays
through Fridays. In the statement above, David acknowledges that feeling isolated from other
faculty in a department is a drawback of the PTNTTF scheduling and experience at community
colleges. If PTNTTF feel isolated from other faculty, then PTNTTF are less likely to be
committed to their department and will not get involved in departmental governance. James told
me this:
We have to make sure that we do get to know other individuals. It’s about developing
genuine relationships, and when I do go to meetings, I really enjoy learning how I can
contribute. But developing genuine relationships when you can.
PTNTTF stated that they were asked by another faculty member of the department to get
involved in the decision-making process. In this case, although the decision be a part of the
group and to get involved in departmental governance may not have been initiated by PTNTTF,
the outcome of PTNTTF involvement was similar to other cases, where PTNTTF wanted to
improve the department. A participant, Erin told me this:
The chair at the time asked me to get involved in the department as a representative. I had
the time to do so.
This participant informs us that if PTNTTF are asked to assume a role as part of the group in the
decision-making process of a department, then it is likely to occur if the person who is making
the request of the PTNTTF is held in a positive regard by the PTNTTF. From this example, it
seems PTNTTF sometimes assume a role in departmental governance not only to feel a sense of
belongingness to a group, but because PTNTTF are asked to assume such a role in the decision-
making process.

PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

137
Competence
A need for competence was described by PTNTTF as possessing a sense of mastery of
one’s skills in a professional environment. From Chapter 2, according to self-determination
theory, PTNTTF have the need to feel competent in their abilities to complete tasks related to the
decision-making process and to feel competent when interacting with colleagues. When
PTNTTF stated that they felt competent in their abilities and or professional skills related to
departmental governance, then PTNTTF were more likely to be committed to a department and
be involved in the decision-making process. Suzanne shared this with me:
I have been a practitioner in many different supervisory positions for a long time. I want
to make sure that I have a positive impact on the future educators. I am building my
expertise and my knowledge by being at meetings and immersing myself in the
department.
This statement conveys the notion that PTNTTF need to feel that they have the abilities and
experience to contribute to the decision-making process at meetings. Suzanne is expressing the
idea that PTNTTF may possess mastery or expertise as a practitioner in the field, and PTNTTF
may have a knowledge base to draw on when contributing to meetings, and such instances
influence whether PTNTTF are motivated to participate in departmental governance. If PTNTTF
are inexperienced in teaching at a community college or do not have any other relevant mastery
experiences, then PTNTTF are less likely to be motivated to participate in the decision-making
process of a department and not be committed to a department. John told me this:
I feel that both the past Chair and present Chair have had a belief in me. As a part-timer
you’re not really supposed to teach the online classes, but they saw that I had the ability
to do so. That definitely boosted my confidence.
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

138
This statement inform us that when PTNTTF are given the opportunity to develop mastery on a
task, such as teaching on-line, even though it may usually be reserved for FTF, then this mastery
is likely to motivate PTNTTF to get involved in the decision-making process by believing in
their abilities to get involved in governance activities. In addition, PTNTTF feel appreciated and
valued when they are given opportunities to develop mastery experiences. When PTNTTF do not
have mastery experiences it is necessary for the department to offer activities or events where
PTNTTF can experience a sense of being competent at decision-making tasks.
Substantive Theory
A grounded theory approach was used for this study. An aspect of the grounded theory
framework which was appealing to me was the opportunity to develop a substantive theory to
describe my findings. The substantive theory which has emerged is directly from the data
collected through one-on-one interviews with 15 PTNTTF who teach at various two-year
community colleges in southern California.
Specifically, the substantive theory has allowed me to generate relationships among the
themes and the properties that emerged from the data. In addition, grounded theory made it
possible for me to address the following aspects of the research topic: (1) Describe the role
PTNTTF perceive they assume in departmental governance; (2) identify conditions which
motivate PTNTTF to participate in departmental decision-making; (3) describe the conditions
which exist regarding PTNTTF participation in departmental governance at two-year community
colleges; and (4) describe the lives of PTNTTF who teach at a community college, related to
departmental governance.
Part-time non-tenure track faculty are motivated to participate in departmental
governance at two-year community colleges when there are certain conditions present. The three
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

139
main themes that emerged from the date represent categories of conditions which motivate
PTNTTF to get involved in the decision-making process of a department. The three main themes
or categories include: (1) The climate of the department; (2) PTNTTF commitment to the
department; and (3) self-determination of PTNTTF.
All three of the broad themes or categories include properties or sub-themes, which are
the specific conditions that motivate PTNTTF to get involved in departmental governance. For
example, the climate of the department is one of the three main themes and includes a set of five
sub-themes or conditions that motivate PTNTTF to get involved in the decision-making process
of their department at a community college. For instance, the climate of a department includes
sub-themes or conditions such as the communication style of the chair, interaction of the chair
with PTNTTF, the commitment of the department head to PTNTTF, the values a department
head communicates to PTNTTF, and an inclusive decision-making approach.
When there are multiple sub-themes or conditions within a main theme, such as in the
case for climate of a department, then the sub-themes have an additive and a bidirectional
relationship to one another. Specifically, when the five sub-themes of a climate of a department
are all experienced in a positive manner by PTNTTF, then PTNTTF have a higher likelihood of
being motivated to participate in departmental governance. However, if one of the five sub-
themes of theme 1 is not experienced in a positive manner by PTNTTF, then a negative
experience with a single sub-theme or condition of theme 1 will lower the likelihood of PTNTTF
being motivated to participate in departmental governance, because the sub-themes or conditions
are properties or dimensions that make up the climate of a department.
Figure 4 below provides an example of how PTNTTF experience sub-themes or
conditions of a climate of a department at a community college that are additive and
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

140
bidirectional, which lead to PTNTTF motivation to participate in departmental governance. In
addition, when PTNTTF have positive experiences with all of the sub-themes or conditions in
theme 1, then PTNTTF are more likely to be motivated to participate in departmental
governance.
The second broad theme which emerged from the data is PTNTTF commitment to the
department and includes eight sub-themes or conditions such as PTNTTF self-efficacy, active
choice, dedication to teaching, seeking full-time employment, time constraints, working
conditions, and financial compensation. These specific sub-themes or conditions also have an
additive and bidirectional relationship to one another, as the sub-themes in theme 1. Finally, the
third main theme which emerged from the data was PTNTTF self-determination and includes
two sub-themes or conditions, relatedness and competence, which also have an additive and
bidirectional relationship to one another, as the conditions in themes 1 and 2. For instance, when
Rebecca shared with me that she is motivated to participate in department meetings because she
likes to feel a part of a group, which refers to the sub-theme or condition called relatedness:
My supervisor the VP of student services was an athlete, as well as the current
department chair. They bring in the whole teamwork aspect to our work, and I like the
way we all are part of a group with a shared goal and purpose.
Figure 3 is the diagram below which demonstrates the structure of the three broad themes
and the 14 corresponding sub-themes or conditions. If any of the themes do not offer an optimal
experience for PTNTTF, then PTNTTF are less likely to be motivated to participate in
departmental governance at a two-year community college. The PTNTTF experience with the 14
sub-themes conditions that motivate PTNTTF to participate in departmental governance is fluid,
dynamic, and influenced by specific circumstances and contexts of a particular department.
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

141
Conclusion
This chapter has reviewed the findings from 15 interviews with PTNTTF who teach at
community colleges in southern California. By using some of the themes from the literature
presented in Chapter 2, we understand the PTNTTF experience related to specific conditions that
motivate them to be involved in departmental governance. Not all PTNTTF experiences at
community colleges are the same. Many PTNTTF expressed a desire to be involved in the
departmental decision-making process and to be acknowledged as a legitimate member of a
department. Also, PTNTTF are as committed to a department where they teach, in the same
manner as FTF. The participants informed us on the false perception that PTNTTF do not want
to contribute to the well-being of a department and institution.

PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

142

Figure 3. Conditions which motivate PTNTTF

PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

143

Figure 4. Additive and bidirectional relationship of sub-themes in climate of department (Theme
1)

PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

144
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
What brings me to the department is the love of the topic, my loyalty to some of the
faculty, my loyalty to the college, my love of the students. What stops me from wanting
to get involved in the department is sometimes practical. I can’t because I have a full-
time job elsewhere. That is priority. Another thing that has kept me from going to
meetings in the past, if you don’t feel like anybody’s listening why go to meetings?
(Participant: Amber)
This quote from Amber, a PTNTTF who teaches at a two-year community college
provides insight on several reasons that motivate her to get involved in departmental decision-
making. This PTNTTF also states what does not motivate her to get involved in departmental
governance. Essentially, Amber is saying that there are specific conditions which motivate her
to be involved in departmental governance at the two-year community college where she is
employed. Some of the conditions that motivate PTNTTF include dedication to teaching and
students, and PTNTTF commitment to a department and colleagues. Some conditions which do
not motivate PTNTTF to participate in departmental governance are time constraints in PTNTTF
schedules because many adjuncts are employed full-time elsewhere. In the quote above, Amber
is also conveying that she is not motivated to attend departmental meetings if her professional
opinions or suggestions are not legitimized and not considered as real options, by FTF and/or the
administration of a community college.
This chapter presents a summary and interpretation of this study. After interviewing
fifteen PTNTTF who teach at two-year community colleges in southern California, this study
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

145
attempted to answer the question: What conditions motivate part-time non-tenure track faculty to
participate in departmental governance at a community college? Through the interviews of this
study, data was collected, analyzed, and presented in Chapter 4. Specifically, Chapter 4 describes
in detail the experiences of PTNTTF with departmental governance and the conditions that exist
which motivate PTNTTF to be involved in the decision-making process of a department. This
chapter seeks to bring together the focus of this study and the findings, by providing an
interpretation of the key findings; also, by addressing how the findings of this study contribute to
the extant literature on PTNTTF in higher education; also, by stating the implications of this
study on practices related to PTNTTF in the academy; and finally, make suggestions for future
research and a conclusion to the study.
Summary of Findings
This study sought to answer the following question: What conditions motivate part-time
non-tenure track faculty to participate in departmental governance at two-year community
colleges? Using a grounded theory approach and through the use of interviews, memo-writing,
and coding of the data, the fifteen interviews were analyzed to attempt to understand PTNTTF
experiences with departmental decision-making. After interviewing fifteen PTNTTF from six
different academic disciplines and from six separate two-year community colleges in southern
California, it appears that there are three main categories or themes which consist of sub-themes
or specific conditions which motivate PTNTTF to get involved in departmental governance at
community colleges.
The three main categories or themes which emerged from the data include: (A) Climate
of the department, (B) PTNTTF commitment to the department, and (C) self-determination of
PTNTTF. The fourteen sub-themes or specific conditions that influence whether PTNTTF are
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

146
motivated to be involved in departmental governance consist of: (A) Climate of the department-
(1) communication style of the department head, (2) the interaction between the department head
and PTNTTF, (3) commitment of department head to PTNTTF, (4) the values of a department
head, and (5) inclusive decision-making of a department; (B) PTNTTF commitment to a
department- (6) self-efficacy, (7) active choice, (8) dedication to teaching, (9) seeking full-time
employment, (10) time constraints, (11) working conditions, and (12) financial compensation;
(C) self-determination of PTNTTF- (13) relatedness and (14) competence. Each of these sub-
themes or conditions directly influences whether PTNTTF are motivated to get involved in
departmental governance, or not. The three main categories or themes and the 14 sub-themes are
mutually exhaustive, meaning that PTNTTF can be influenced by any or all of the themes and
sub-themes at the same time; therefore the three main themes or categories should be considered
by the academy, when addressing PTNTTF motivation and involvement in departmental
governance.
The climate of a department was described by PTNTTF as being the usual or widespread
mood or atmosphere within a department at two-year community colleges. The first type of
interaction between PTNTTF and an institution is with the head of the department in which
PTNTTF teach, as hiring at two-year community colleges is usually done informally or by word
of mouth directly with the chair of a department (Gappa, Austin & Trice, 2007). Therefore the
communication style of the department head, which includes the mode, tone, and consistency of
the communication, is essential to whether PTNTTF are motivated to get involved in
departmental governance. Of the three main themes or categories that emerged from the data, the
climate of a department seemed to be the most influential, to whether PTNTTF got involved in
the decision-making process of a department.
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

147
The interaction of the department head with PTNTTF is important in determining
whether PTNTTF are motivated to get involved in departmental decision-making. Specifically,
whether the department head is accessible to PTNTTF is important and affects the climate of the
department that PTNTTF experience at community colleges. For instance, in some cases the
issue of accessibility to the department head was a matter of proximity; in other cases, it was a
matter of the department head not being physically or psychologically accessible to PTNTTF,
regardless of proximity.
The department head’s commitment to the department was found to be influential to
whether PTNTTF were motivated to be involved in departmental governance. Specifically,
PTNTTF commitment was referred to as the extent to which the leader of a department
demonstrates that S/he is dedicated to the needs of the faculty. The PTNTTF expressed
appreciation when a department head displayed behaviors such as devotion, allegiance, loyalty,
support, a hard working attitude, and the opportunity to offer professional growth to PTNTTF.
Based on the findings, PTNTTF are more likely to be motivated to participate in
departmental governance, when PTNTTF have a chair who demonstrates their commitment to
PTNTTF by assisting adjuncts in networking with colleagues and help part-timers to become
better professionals in their field. In addition, when a department head communicates that S/he is
committed to PTNTTF and their professional growth, PTNTTF perceive that as the department
head taking the time to get to know the skills, interests, and capabilities of each PTNTTF. When
department heads at a community college convey an interest in getting to know each PTNTTF,
then PTNTTF are motivated to engage in departmental governance.
The values of a department head also influences whether PTNTTF are motivated to get
involved in departmental governance. Part-time non-tenure track faculty defined values as one’s
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

148
personal preferences regarding making right or wrong, ethical or unethical decisions. For
instance, when values such as teamwork among all faculty, respect of PTNTTF, shared-goals,
and transparency were displayed by a department head, then PTNTTF were more motivated to
get involved in the departmental decision-making. When there is a department climate where
PTNTTF sense that the values of a department head are conducive to participating in the
decision-making process in a safe and accepting manner, then PTNTTF will do so.
The inclusive decision-making approach of a department also impacts the climate of a
department at a community college, and influences whether PTNTTF are motivated to get
involved in departmental governance. The decision-making process of a department at a
community college is most effectively approached when PTNTTF are included in presenting
options and alternatives to a course of action taken by a department; and when the suggestions
and opinions of PTNTTF are considered as viable courses of action to take. Some examples of a
decision-making approach which is inclusive of PTNTTF are utilizing PTNTTF expertise to
make a decision, when all faculty are receptive and welcoming to one another at meetings, and
when the suggestions that PTNTTF make are followed up on, by the department head or
administration.
Part-time non-tenure track faculty described being committed to a department they teach
in by demonstrating dedication to a cause, task, or goal of the department. In addition, PTNTTF
demonstrate their commitment to a department by working hard or supporting a course of action
which a department head or FTF wish to accomplish. The self-efficacy beliefs of PTNTTF,
regarding their ability to participate and contribute to the decision-making process of a
department, influences PTNTTF motivation to do so. Therefore, if PTNTTF do not have
experiences that build their confidence in contributing ideas in the decision-making process of a
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

149
department, then PTNTTF are not likely to do so. In addition, if PTNTTF possess efficacious
beliefs about their skills to participate in departmental governance, then PTNTTF are more likely
to exert more mental and physical effort on a decision-making task or activity.
Many of the PTNTTF expressed that it is essential for part-timers to be active participants
in getting involved in departmental governance. In order for PTNTTF to be motivated to
participate in governance, they have to be committed to the department by taking control and
responsibility of their own professional growth. It is important to note that in some cases
participants reported that when FTF perceive PTNTTF as not being committed to the department
in the same manner that FTF are, then some PTNTTF may withdraw from opportunities to be
involved in departmental governance. In some cases, PTNTTF indicated that there would be a
cost for not participating in departmental governance, greater than the cost in time and effort
expended in actually engaging in departmental affairs.
The dedication to teaching and to students that PTNTTF display when they get involved
in departmental governance is a reflection of their commitment to the department. Some
participants described their dedication to teaching and students as the result of observing students
grow academically, economically, and professionally. Many PTNTTF are dedicated to teaching
because they feel that PTNTTF have a positive impact on the academic success of students. It
was common for PTNTTF to describe feeling satisfied about improving the social and economic
future of students, as that is the main reason that PTNTTF are dedicated to teaching and students.
Part-time non-tenure track faculty dedication to teaching and students also contributes to the
institution’s mission and goal, which is to prepare students to transfer to a university or enter the
workforce.
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

150
When PTNTTF are insecure about whether they will have stable or consistent
employment with a department at a community college, then PTNTTF are less likely to be
committed to their department because the prospect of being unemployed or underemployed is a
stressor. Some of the PTNTTF described that their involvement in departmental governance was
a way to work towards a goal of securing a full-time teaching position. By participating in the
decision- making process, PTNTTF who want to get a full-time faculty appointment with a
department, will network with FTF, collaborate with colleagues, and be visible to the department
head.
Time constraints which PTNTTF have due to teaching part-time at multiple colleges or
universities, or when PTNTTF have a full-time job outside of academia, is another condition
which influences PTNTTF commitment to a department and their motivation to participate in
departmental governance. The time constraints which PTNTTF have make it difficult for many
PTNTTF to be on a college campus outside of the assigned teaching hours. It is important to
consider the teaching responsibilities that PTNTTF may hold at multiple institutions and how
this influences their motivation to get involved in departmental governance. Also, it is essential
to not perceive PTNTTF as being less committed to a department due to their limited time on a
campus. Time constraints of PTNTTF to be on a college campus when they are not teaching,
may influence the active choice of PTNTTF to get involved and the level of mental or physical
effort exerted in the decision-making process.
Another condition which influences PTNTTF motivation to get involved in departmental
governance may be a result of their working conditions. Some of the working conditions which
PTNTTF described as not being conducive to PTNTTF being motivated to get involved in the
decision-making process, were to an extent, out of the control of the department and more of an
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

151
institutional issue. Part-time non-tenure track faculty are not likely to get involved in the
decision- making process of a department if the instructional facilities that PTNTTF use are
inadequate. Negative, poor, or inadequate working conditions cause frustration for PTNTTF and
when PTNTTF are frustrated about their working environment, then PTNTTF are unable to be
committed to their department.
Many of the PTNTTF were not motivated to be involved in the decision-making process
when they reported not being financially compensated or contractually obligated to do so. Part-
time non-tenure track faculty in higher education are either underemployed or earn significantly
less than their FTF counterparts. In many cases, PTNTTF need to work at multiple colleges in
order to make ends meet. As a result of working at multiple institutions, PTNTTF are less likely
to have either the time to attend meetings or the financial stability to get involved in the decision-
making process of a department.
Self-determination of PTNTTF included two sub-themes or conditions, such as
relatedness and competence. Relatedness was described as PTNTTF’s need to belong to a group;
competence was described as PTNTTF possessing a sense of mastery of their skills in a
professional environment where decision-making is done. Therefore, when PTNTTF feel part of
the group and experience competence in decision-making tasks, then they are more likely to be
motivated to get involved in departmental governance. The involvement of PTNTTF in
departmental governance is a result of their personal interest to do so in order to be active in
establishing a role within the faculty group and to develop a sense of being confident in
contributing ideas or suggestions for the decision-making process of a department.
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

152
Contributions to the Literature
Through the interviews with fifteen PTNTTF, this study gathered information about
PTNTTF experiences at two-year community colleges and informed us about PTNTTF
involvement with departmental governance. This study also helped us understand specific
conditions PTNTTF encounter and how each condition either motivates PTNTTF to be involved
in departmental decision-making, or dissuades PTNTTF to do so. Although there has been
research on PTNTTF who teach at community colleges, most of the focus has been on matters
related to teaching effectiveness between PTNTTF and FTF, describing working conditions,
reasons PTNTTF appointment was popularized at institutions, career trajectory of PTNTTF, and
financial compensation. There is a lack of studies that specifically focus on PTNTTF and their
motivation to be involved in departmental governance at two-year community colleges.
Furthermore, previous studies on PTNTTF have described how working conditions impact
PTNTTF involvement in governance. However, this study lists broad themes and fourteen
cascading sub-themes that are complex and consequently, add depth to the literature. In addition
this study provided insight on how PTNTTF perceive their role within a department where they
teach.
While this study has described three main themes, which consist of fourteen specific
conditions which influence PTNTTF motivation to participate in departmental governance, this
study adds to the existing literature regarding motivation for career development, adult
development, professional behavior and departmental governance at an institution; as well as
adds to the literature on PTNTTF as a distinct population from FTF; in addition to contributing
to the literature on two-year community colleges and the formal or informal approaches to
governance. The following section highlights how this study contributes to the literature on
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

153
career development, adult development, motivation, departmental governance, and that of
PTNTTF at two-year community colleges.
In Chapter 2 I examined motivation concepts. The word motivation comes from the Latin
word movere, which means to move or be in action (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Murphy &
Alexander, 2000). Motivation may be difficult to understand because it is not a concrete object
or thing that can be identified or experienced through the senses. Therefore, motivation is a
construct that provided this study with a concrete explanation of PTNTTF behavior and
experiences in relation to the conditions that motivate PTNTTF to participate in departmental
decision-making at community colleges. This study verifies that in order for PTNTTF to
demonstrate a sense of motivation towards participating in departmental governance, PTNTTF
must experience conditions that make participating in decision-making appealing.
In Chapter 2 motivation is described as one’s personal investment in reaching a desired
outcome (Maehr & Meyer, 1997). Although this definition was borrowed from educational
psychology it was appropriate to apply to this study because it frames how PTNTTF invest their
time and or effort in reaching a desired outcome with regards to PTNTTF involvement in the
decision-making process of a department at a community college. The findings of this study
suggest that motivation plays a significant role when PTNTTF have a personal investment in
reaching a desired outcome regarding their involvement in departmental governance. In addition,
PTNTTF motivation was influenced by the three indicators or motivation known as active
choice, effort, and persistence. In addition PTNTTF motivation comprised various features such
as the climate of a department, PTNTTF commitment to a department, and PTNTTF self-
determination; while PTNTTF motivation was mediated by the specific conditions such as the
communication style of a department head, PTNTTF self-efficacy, and PTNTTF having a sense
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

154
of relatedness to a department. If these conditions exist, then PTNTTF will demonstrate agency
to be more likely to engage in activities related to department governance. An individual feels
most efficacious towards a task when they have previously experienced success on a similar task
(Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Zimmerman, 2000).
This study posits that PTNTTF are more likely to make the active choice and be
motivated to engage in departmental governance when they have had prior success in doing so.
For instance, in Chapter 4, I described a story about a PTNTTF that demonstrated agency in
attending a departmental meeting, but was asked to leave by the department head because the
PTNTTF was not FTF. In this story, the PTNTTF stayed at the meeting only because another
senior FTF ensured the PTNTTF that she was welcome to stay as a member of the department. In
this case, the PTNTTF expressed to me that she felt defeated and unwelcomed. This experience
translated to the PTNTTF as an instance of failure and thus did not motivate her to continue
attending departmental meetings as a PTNTTF until the climate of the department changed and
an inclusive approach to decision-making was taken. This finding contributes to the literature on
self-efficacy regarding employees or faculty within educational institutions. More specifically,
this study points to the notion that PTNTTF experiences with successful involvement with
departmental governance builds self-efficacious beliefs that are conducive to PTNTTF
motivation to participate in departmental affairs at community colleges. In addition, the findings
of this study based on the aforementioned story, contributes to the literature on self-efficacy
because self-efficacy focuses on a sense of self- confidence and the degree of PTNTTF self-
control (Bandura, 1997). For instance, the PTNTTF that shared stories of being active in their
involvement with departmental governance felt confident in their ability to do so.
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

155
This study suggests that the climate of a department at a community college contributes
to whether PTNTTF feel like a member of a department, and how PTNTTF perceive they are
treated by FTF and administration at an institution. Specifically the four conditions within the
theme known as the climate of a department, such as the communication style of a department
head, the interaction between the department head and PTNTTF, the commitment of the
department head to PTNTTF, and the values a department head displays to PTNTTF. In Chapter
2 I define governance as “all of the mechanisms that have been delegated to faculty for making
decisions including university, college, and departmental committee structures” (Kezar & Sam,
2012, p. 4). Departmental decision-making was the most appropriate level of governance for this
study because PTNTTF indicate that their job satisfaction and the extent to which they felt like a
member of the institution’s academic community was a result of how PTNTTF were treated in
their academic department (Gappa & Leslie, 1993). In addition, focusing on the departmental
level of governance was described in Chapter 2, because typically, the first level of interaction
between a PTNTTF and a community college may be with the head of the department which
PTNTTF teach in, as hiring is usually done informally or by word of mouth (Gappa, Austin &
Trice, 2007). The findings of this study emphasize that many PTNTTF do not interact with other
faculty, regardless of appointment type and typically only communicate with the department
head.
Although the study does not identify one main condition or theme which either motivates
or does not motivate PTNTTF to be involved in departmental governance, this study does
provide a description of four broad categories or themes which consist of fourteen conditions or
sub-themes that mediate PTNTTF motivation to get involved in decision-making at the
departmental level of community colleges. It was found that all the conditions or sub-themes
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

156
have a bidirectional relationship to one another; the conditions which motivate PTNTTF to get
involved in departmental governance are not mutually exclusive to one another. The relationship
among the sub-themes as mediators of PTNTTF motivation adds to the literature on how to
foster collegiality among various types of faculty appointment that promotes institutional well-
being.
Finally, the findings of this study contribute to the literature on self-determination. In
Chapter 2 I describe that self-determination theory was employed in this study for the purpose of
illuminating the conditions which motivate PTNTTF to participate in departmental governance
as stemming from either an autonomous motivation source or a controlled motivation source
(Gagne & Deci, 2005). There were several examples of PTNTTF motivation to participate in
departmental decision-making as both from autonomous and controlled sources. For instance, in
Chapter 4 I describe stories about PTNTTF participation in departmental meetings because a
department head that was favored by a PTNTTF made the request to do so, or another PTNTTF
story about participating in meetings because of a desire to get a full-time position; these are
examples of a controlled motivation source because a desire to please a department head or to be
favored with full-time employment. Another PTNTTF shared a story about participating in
department meetings because she thought there was unfair treatment by the department head,
thus the PTNTTF became more active in departmental governance; this is an example of an
autonomous source of motivation according to self-determination theory.
Central to self-determination theory is the notion that humans have a psychological need
to feel competent (Deci, Connell & Ryan, 1989). For this study, a need for competence refers to
PTNTTF possessing a sense of mastery of one’s environment. For example, according to self-
determination theory and the findings of this study, PTNTTF have the need to feel competent in
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

157
their abilities to complete tasks, to interact with colleagues, and to be involved in activities
related to departmental governance (Schunk, Pintrich & Meece, 2008). Also, the findings of this
study contribute to the literature on self-determination theory. Specifically, the concept of
relatedness which refers to the notion that PTNTTF have a psychological need to belong to a
group, otherwise referred to as a need for belongingness. This study describes stories of PTNTTF
having a desire to be affiliated with a group, or rather with the other faculty of a department
(Schunk, Pintrich & Meece, 2008). For instance, in Chapter 4, I describe many stories of
PTNTTF being motivated to participate in departmental meetings from a desire to feel like a
team, collaborative group, and a member of the discipline.
Implications for Practice
This study provides insight into the experience of part-time non-tenure track faculty who
teach at two-year community colleges. Specifically, this study elucidates the experience of
fifteen PTNTTF and the conditions that motivate PTNTTF to be involved in departmental
governance. The findings are a result of interviews with PTNTTF including six different
academic disciplines, and from six distinct community colleges.
Of the three themes that emerged from the data, the climate of the department was the
category that PTNTTF spoke about the most, as having specific relevance regarding their
motivation to get involved in governance. Specifically, the sub-themes of a climate of a
department that were spoken about the most by PTNTTF included communication style of the
department head, interaction between department head and PTNTTF, the commitment of the
department head to PTNTTF, and the values of a department head. As a result of the findings of
this study, there are several implications for departments, the heads of departments, and for
PTNTTF.
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

158
Implications for Departments
As described in Chapter 2, the literature states that it is common for FTF to do most of
the decision-making in a department at two-year colleges. In many cases, FTF input in
departmental governance outweighs PTNTTF input in the decision-making process, even though
PTNTTF faculty appointments are more widespread within a department compared to FTF
appointments. Most PTNTTF are not aware that they have a right to participate in the decision-
making process in the department where they teach for at community colleges. Therefore, it
would be helpful for FTF to provide an orientation or workshop for PTNTTF, to inform
PTNTTF of the opportunities, topics, or projects that will be available for PTNTTF to participate
in, each academic year. By FTF providing information to PTNTTF on when and how to
participate in the decision-making process of a department, this fosters transparency, while also
having welcoming and inclusive practices. The findings of this study also indicate that FTF
should make an effort to communicate with PTNTTF both in-person and in electronic forms such
as email messages or updates, letting them know that PTNTTF professional opinions and
suggestions in the decision-making process are valued and important. If the FTF of a department
do not establish practices that communicate to PTNTTF that the department needs the
participation of PTNTTF, then FTF will not communicate respect to PTNTTF and PTNTTF will
not feel like legitimate members of a department; thus, any motivation to participate in
departmental governance will diminish.
The findings of this study also have implications for how departments of community
colleges plan and schedule the time and place that departmental meetings or decision-making
takes place. If opportunities for PTNTTF to participate in decision-making occurs on days or at
times of the day that PTNTTF cannot attend due to having other professional commitments such
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

159
as a full-time job outside of academia or teaching at multiple campuses, then PTNTTF are not
likely to be motivated to participate. However, if FTF or departments take a survey of when all
faculty are available to attend a meeting, and schedule governance activities or events at times
when most of the faculty can attend, then this is a best practice for inclusion of PTNTTF in
governance. Also, departments can hold elections to select one or two adjuncts for terms of a
year or two, which can attend most or all of the departmental meetings in order to be a liaison
between the FTF and the adjunct faculty of a department.
An elected adjunct representative can be the point person for collecting and disseminating
information to the adjuncts of a department regarding what occurs at departmental meetings or
events. Further, if PTNTTF of departments elect an adjunct representative, it would be beneficial
to have an opportunity for the PTNTTF to come together either in person or through electronic
means, in order to share concerns or suggestions for topics that are being discussed and decided
on at departmental meetings. It would be helpful to allow PTNTTF to have a vote in the
department when decisions are made by FTF based on votes; where it would be inclusive if
PTNTTF as a group are given the opportunity to make a democratic decision on a matter, and
then the adjunct representative is allowed to contribute that particular vote to the department on
behalf of the contingent faculty. Also, if PTNTTF cannot be on campus during department
meetings, technology could be used to offer flexibility and inclusion of PTNTTF in the decision-
making process. For instance, meetings can be held in an on-line format where a discussion
board could be set up for all faculty to contribute ideas on a matter regardless of location. Such
platforms could be supported through the use higher education media tools such as Moodle,
Blackboard, or Skyping with faculty that are not physically present at a meeting. A final
implication for departments is to review the contracts and collective bargaining units to assess
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

160
the extent to which adjunct faculty contracts include bylaws specifying the extent of PTNTTF
rights to participate in departmental decision-making.
Implications for Department Heads
As examined in Chapter 2, the literature informs us of the importance of the interaction
between the department head and PTNTTF at two-year community colleges. In most cases the
department head is the initial contact for PTNTTF, as the hiring process is usually done directly
with a chair of a department. The literature, as well as the findings of this study, informs us that
the department head often serves as the primary source of information and resources to PTNTTF
at community colleges. Therefore, the climate of a department is largely affected by the
department head of a department.
In order for PTNTTF to be motivated to participate in governance, they need to
experience a climate of a department where the department head’s tone of communication is
positive; for example meetings could start by asking all faculty present to share a positive
comment or concern regarding the major topic of discussion of a particular meeting. Also, the
department head should be accessible and interact often with PTNTTF; for instance a department
head could hold a welcome back event at the onset of the fall and spring semester for all faculty,
either on campus or at a social gathering space. In addition, the department head should
demonstrates accessibility by always having the door to his or her office open, informing all
faculty of the office hours specifically for PTNTTF to speak to the chair, and being visible to
PTNTTF, especially at the times that PTNTTF teach on campus. In addition, the findings of this
study have implications for a department head’s interaction with faculty. For instance if a
department head has practices such as sending consistent weekly emails to all faculty that
include updates of department matters, announcing individual professional accomplishments of
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

161
faculty, providing reminders of upcoming professional events, or information to support faculty
with academic matters, then PTNTTF sense the department head has a genuine commitment to
PTNTTF.
The findings of this study have implications for the department head and the promotion
of transparency of a department. For instance, the department head should be open and receptive
to having an evaluation done by all faculty, on the effectiveness of a department head, similar to
a teaching evaluation that PTNTTF undergo; this evaluation should be anonymous and carried
out by a third party outside of the academic department in order to provide PTNTTF the
confidence and safety to provide genuine feedback to the department head. Based on the
feedback from the faculty regarding the effectiveness of a department head, re-appointment or
professional development should be provided to the leader if needed. In addition, a department
head can communicate respect for PTNTTF by having practices such as inviting a consultant or
third party to survey PTNTTF either with items on a Likert scale or holding focus groups,
regarding PTNTTF perception of the climate of a department, and then plan activities according
to what PTNTTF report they need.
This study has implications for training and or mentoring of department heads that either
inherit a department with a poor climate, or if a department head’s own behavior contributes to
the climate of a department where PTNTTF are not motivated to participate in the decision-
making process. If a department head at a two-year community college does not possess the
knowledge, experience, or skills to be receptive to the needs of PTNTTF regarding PTNTTF
motivation to participate in departmental governance, then training or professional development
for the department head to learn how to do so, is necessary. For example, if there is a poor
climate within a department due to a lack of cooperation or collaboration among faculty, then the
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

162
department head may receive peer mediation training in order to assist faculty to mediate
misunderstandings or the lack of cooperation. The findings of this study indicate the new or
inexperienced department heads should collaborate and learn from other department heads at
their institution that have been rated as being effective by PTNTTF and that do display effective
interaction with PTNTTF, in relation to PTNTTF involvement in departmental governance.
Implications for Part-time Non-tenure Track Faculty
Chapter 2 describes the literature on motivation that describes one’s behavior as
including active choice, effort, and persistence towards a desired goal or outcome. This
definition of motivation was used to describe PTNTTF behavior related to participating in the
decision-making process of a department. The findings of this study have implications for
PTNTTF motivation and the level of agency PTNTTF display towards participating in decision-
making activities. For instance, PTNTTF should be aware of their own level and quality of
engagement in departmental governance while considering how the level and quality of PTNTTF
participation in governance contributes to the overall well-being of the department. More
specifically, PTNTTF must take responsibility for their motivation and whether PTNTTF
actively choose to get involved in departmental affairs at two-year community colleges.
Regardless of the competing professional responsibilities of adjunct faculty, PTNTTF
should make the choice to participate in at least one departmental meeting per semester, in order
to learn more about the decision-making process of a department. Adjunct faculty should inquire
with the department when future governance events will take place and make an effort to
contribute to the conversation either in person, sending the department notes of suggestions to be
shared at a meeting, or requesting minutes of meetings in order to provide comments to the
department on an issue. Absence on a college campus due to time constraints should not deter
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

163
PTNTTF from submitting their professional opinions to be considered, to the department head or
FTF. The level of effort to attend faculty meetings and to provide input on the decision-making
process should be followed through with persistence on behalf of PTNTTF, in order for FTF and
administration to value PTNTTF contribution to governance. Part-time non-tenure track faculty
should not wait to be invited or asked by the department head or FTF, to participate in
departmental governance.
A final implication of this study regarding PTNTTF is related to the development of a
sense, where one feels like a member of a group when PTNTTF are involved in departmental
decision-making. In order to have a sense of belongingness, PTNTTF must make an effort to get
to know other PTNTTF and FTF of their department. When PTNTTF make themselves known to
other faculty and administration of their institution, this allows for networking opportunities and
potential career advancement. For instance some PTNTTF indicated that when a dean or
department head learned that a particular PTNTTF had expertise in an advanced area of a
discipline, then the particular PTNTTF was offered more courses to teach; thus, the PTNTTF felt
he was appreciated more and given an opportunity to grow at the institution. Therefore, it
behooves PTNTTF to attend faculty events, training, or social gatherings held at the institution,
such as flex days or the first professional training day of the academic year in order to impact
PTNTTF motivation to participate in departmental governance. Finally, PTNTTF should actively
seek out professional relationships with other PTNTTF that have been at the institution longer in
order to learn from the more senior PTNTTF about opportunities to get involved in departmental
affairs.

PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

164
Future Research
The purpose of this study was to investigate the motivation of PTNTTF and governance
at two-year community colleges. Specifically, this study described the experiences of fifteen
PTNTTF who teach at two-year community colleges, from six different community colleges, and
across four specific college districts in southern California, in an attempt to understand what
conditions motivate PTNTTF to be involved in departmental governance. Despite the findings of
this study, there is still limited research on PTNTTF at two-year community colleges and their
motivation to participate in departmental governance. There is still much to be learned about
PTNTTF at two-year community colleges, especially regarding the roles PTNTTF assume with
governance, and how the roles which PTNTTF assume, or do not, influence PTNTTF’s
experience in academia, and the well-being of a department and institution. The following are
several suggestions for future research.
Although research on leadership styles on higher education was described in Chapter 2,
currently there is no literature which examines effective department heads that promote inclusion
of PTNTTF in the decision-making process, and the extent or type of training that effective
department heads at two- year community colleges receive. It would be beneficial to describe
how effective department heads become so, and what are the specific experiences or training
which creates department heads that foster a climate where PTNTTF are involved in
departmental governance. Another area of research that could be investigated further in the
future is related to addressing the myth that PTNTTF are not as committed to their department
and institution, compared to their FTF counterparts. Specifically, examples of PTNTTF
commitment that is displayed to equal or greater extents as FTF need to be known in the
literature, in order to value the PTNTTF contribution to academia. Further, PTNTTF are
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

165
professionalized when they are acknowledged for their commitment to students, departments,
and institutions where PTNTTF teach. In addition to empirically documenting examples of
PTNTTF commitment to departmental governance, the steps to developing PTNTTF competence
regarding tasks associated with decision-making, needs to be researched. With more research on
PTNTTF experiences at community colleges, the academy will become aware of how to develop
PTNTTF competence on tasks associated with departmental governance.
Another area of research that is underdeveloped to date is related to investigating
PTNTTF financial compensation for involvement in departmental governance, on a local and
national level. Specifically, research is needed on whether financial compensation for
participation in departmental governance impacts the quality of PTNTTF contribution to
decision-making and whether paying adjuncts to participate in governance impacts their
motivation to do so. Also, we need to learn more about the extent to which PTNTTF are
contractually required to participate in departmental decision-making, and how it differs from
institution to institution; also, the extent to which PTNTTF input is actually used in the final
decisions that are taken at the departmental level should be investigated, as one participant
shared, there was no point in contributing ideas at meetings if what PTNTTF said went in one ear
and out the other, of the individuals who made the final decision. It is necessary to investigate
the extent and reasons PTNTTF are involved in governance at the institution level and consider
whether the conditions of involvement in governance differ at the department versus the
institution level.
It would be beneficial to the academy to learn of the similarities and or differences in
experiences of PTNTTF involvement in departmental governance, at two-year community
colleges, compared to PTNTTF who teach at four-year or private universities. Currently there is
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

166
no research that investigates these types of institutions and provides a comparison in conditions
which motivate PTNTTF to be involved in decision-making. For instance, some issues to address
in future research in order to learn about differences or similarities in PTNTTF experiences
include how males compared to females perceive their experiences as PTNTTF with governance;
or whether PTNTTF from different types of disciplines such as math compared to a social
science perceive their experiences with governance in a similar manner; or whether adjuncts that
seek to have a full-time position perceive their experiences with governance differently
compared to PTNTTF that are retired professionals who do not seek full-time employment.
Because this is an underdeveloped area of research on non-tenure track faculty, any difference or
similarities that emerge between institution types, can provide strategies to improve the
experience of PTNTTF in the academy. By learning how to be a more effective department head,
understanding how the financial compensation of PTNTTF involvement in departmental
governance may influence their motivation to do so, and comparing experiences of PTNTTF at
different types of institutions, a college or university can be better prepared to value legitimize,
properly utilize, and professionalize PTNTTF who teach at community colleges.
Based on the findings of this study, it would be beneficial to learn more about the
significance of each major category or theme that emerged from the data and was described in
Chapter 4. For instance, although PTNTTF spoke about and shared the most stories about the
theme known as the climate of a department, it could be helpful to have PTNTTF rank the order
of significance of each major theme and the sub-themes. A final suggestion for future research
on PTNTTF experiences with departmental governance includes learning which sub-themes are
most influential to PTNTTF motivation which leads to positive experiences in academia, based
on PTNTTF ranking the sub-themes that emerged in this study, on a Likert scale from 1 to 4,
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

167
where 1 represents “not significant” and 4 represents “very significant”, in order to inform
institutions on how to develop strategies to address the sub-themes that lead to a poor faculty
experience for PTNTTF.
Conclusion
This study sought to elucidate the experiences of fifteen PTNTTF who teach in six
different academic disciplines, and across six separate higher education institutions, and their
motivation to be involved in departmental governance at two-year community colleges. Building
on the literature on motivation and non-tenure track faculty in higher education, it was found that
there are fourteen specific conditions or sub-themes which influence whether PTNTTF are
motivated to participate in the decision-making process at the departmental level. Overall what
was most spoken about by PTNTTF regarding their motivation to participate in departmental
governance is the climate of the department where PTNTTF teach, at two-year community
colleges. Although, the findings do not suggest significance of this theme in comparison to the
two other major themes that emerged from the data. At this time and within the scope of this
study, the climate of the department was the most popular theme that emerged from most of the
stories from the interview. The findings of this study do not suggest that the climate of the
department is more important to PTNTTF than the other two major themes; this will need to be
addressed in future research.
Based on the literature presented in Chapter 2, the trend of hiring PTNTTF as the primary
workforce to teach at two-year community colleges will not change in the future. In addition to
accountability standards of institutions and challenging fiscal times in higher education, the
hiring of PTNTTF is an important issue to be well informed about and to develop effective
strategies, policies, and practices to improve the experiences of PTNTTF. The findings of this
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

168
study about climate were inclusive on the issue of whether climate of a department at community
colleges is more important than other categories or themes that influence PTNTTF to get
involved in departmental governance. If a genuine effort to include PTNTTF in departmental
governance and to professionalize PTNTTF is undertaken by two-year community colleges, then
the academy is likely to benefit and have stronger institutional outcomes (Kezar & Sam, 2010).

PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

169
REFERENCES
Ambrose, S.A, Bridges, M.W., Lovett, M.C, DiPietro M., & Norman, M.K. (2010). How
learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco CA.
Jossey-Bass.
American Federation of Teachers. (2006). Shared governance in colleges and universities.
Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO. Retrieved from
http://www.aft.org/pdfs/highered/sharedgovernance0806.pdf
Antony, J. S., & Valadez, J. R. (2002). Exploring the satisfaction of part-time college faculty in
the United States. Review of Higher Education, (2) 5, pp 41-56.
Baldwin, R. G. (1998). Technology’s impact on faculty life. New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, 76, 7-21.
Baldwin, R. G., & Chronister, J. L. (2001). Teaching without tenure. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bensimon, E. M., & Neumann, A. (1993). Redesigning collegiate leadership. Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins Press.
Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

170
Birnbaum, R. (1991). The latent organizational functions of the academic senate: Why senates do
not work but will not go away. In M. Peterson, E., Chaffee, & T. White (Eds).
Organization and academic governance in higher education (4th ed), Needham Heights,
MA: Ginn Press.
Bland, C., Center, B. A., Finstad, D. A., Risbey, K. R., & Staples, J. (2006). The impact of
appointment type on the productivity and commitment of full-time faculty in research and
doctoral institutions. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(1), 89-121.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative
Analysis. London: Sage Publications.
Clark, R.E. (2003). Fostering the work motivation of individuals and teams. Performance
Improvement, 42 (3), 21-29.
Colbeck, C. L., & Wharton-Michael, P. (2006). Individual and organizational influences on
faculty members’ engagement in public scholarship. New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, 105, 17-26.
Cohen, A. M., and Brawer, F. B. (2003). The American Community College. (4th ed.) San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches (3
rd
Ed.). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.
Curtis, J.W. & Jacobe, M.F. (2006). AAUP non-tenure track faculty index, 2006. Washington,
DC: American Association of University Professors.
Dalton, G.W. (1971). Motivation and control in organizations. Homewood, IL: Irwin-Dorsey.
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

171
Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally-mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 18, 105-115.
Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 580–590.
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024-1037.
Deci, E., L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. C., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education:
The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26, 325–346.
Eagan, K. (2007). A national picture of part-time community college faculty: Changing trends in
demographics and employment characteristics. New Directions in Community Colleges,
140, 5-14.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 109-132.
Eckel, P.D. & Kezar, A. (2006). The shifting frontiers of academic decision making:
Contemporary issues and steadfast structures. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Gagne, M., & Deci, E.L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, (26) 331-362.
Gappa, J. M., Austin, A. E., & Trice, A. G. (2007). Rethinking faculty work: Higher education’s
strategic imperative. Jossey-Bass.
Gappa, J., & Leslie, D. (1993). The invisible faculty: Improving the status of part-timers in
higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Giancola, F.L. (2010). Examining the Job Itself as a Source of Employee Motivation.
Compensation and Benefits Review, 43 (23).
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

172
Graham, S. & Weiner, B. (2012). Motivation: Past, Present, and Future. In K. R. Harris, S.
Graham & T. Urdan (Eds.). APA Educational Psychology Handbook, Vol. 1.
Hashim, F., Alam, G.M., & Siraj, S. (2010). Information and communication technology for
participatory based decision-making. E-management for administrative efficiency in
higher education. International Journal of Physical Sciences, 5(4), 383-392.
Hollenshead, C., Waltman, J., August, L., Miller, J., Smith, G., & Bell, A. (2007). Making the
best of both worlds: Findings from a national institution-level survey on non-tenure-track
faculty. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Education of Women.
Jacobs, F. (1998). Using part-time faculty more effectively. New Directions for Community
Colleges, 104, 9–18.
Jacoby, D. (2006). The effects of part-time faculty employment upon community college
graduation rates. Journal of Higher Education, 77, 1081-1103.
Jaeger, A., & Eagan, K. (2011). Examining retention and contingent faculty use in a state system
of public higher education. Educational Policy, 25(3).
Kater, S. & Levin, J.S. (2004). Shared governance in the community college. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 29 (1), 1-23. DOI:
10.1080/10668920390276849
Kezar, A. (2004). What is more important to effective governance: Relationships, trust, and
leadership, or structures and formal processes? In W. Tierney (Ed.) New Directions for
Higher Education, 127 (pp. 35-46). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Kezar, A. (2012). Examining Non-Tenure Track Faculty Perceptions of How Departmental
Policies and Practices Shape Their Performance and Ability to Create Student Learning at
Four-Year Institutions. Research in Higher Education,
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

173
Kezar, A. & Eckel, P. (2004). Meeting Today’s Governance Challenges: A synthesis of the
literature and an examination of a future research agenda. The Journal of Higher
Education, 74 (4), 371-400.
Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2010a). Beyond Contracts: Non-Tenure Track Faculty and Campus
Governance. NEA Almanac, 15, 83-91.
Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2010b). Understanding the new majority of non-tenure track faculty in
higher education: Demographics, experiences, and plans of action, ASHE Higher
Education Report, 36 (4)
Kezar, A. & Sam, C. (2010c). Non-tenure track faculty in higher education: Theories and
tensions, ASHE Higher Education Report, 36 (5).
Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2012). Governance As a Catalyst for Policy Change: Creating a
Contingent Faculty Friendly Academy. Educational Policy, XX (X)
Landino, R.A. & Owen, S.V. (1988). Self-efficacy in university faculty. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 33, 1-14.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The
role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131-142.
Maehr, M., & Meyer, H. (1997). Understanding motivation and schooling: Where we’ve been,
where we are, and where we need to go. Educational Psychology Review, 9, 371-409.
Maxwell, J.A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson: Boston, MA.
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

174
Maynard, D., & Joseph, T. (2008). Are all part-time faculty underemployed? The influence of
faculty status preference on satisfaction and commitment. Higher Education, 55(2), 139-
154.
Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco CA: Jossey Bass.
Minor, J.T. (2004). Understanding faculty senates: Moving from mystery to models. The Review
of Higher Education, 27(3), 343-363.
Murphy, P. K. & Alexander, P. A. (2000). A motivated exploration of motivation terminology.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 3-53.
Nebel, E.C. III. (1978). Motivation, Leadership, and Employee Performance: A Review. Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 19 (62).Organ, D. W (1997).
Organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management, 20, 465-478.
Organ, D.W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean up time. Human
Performance, 10:2, 85-97.
Outcalt, C. (2002). A profile of the community college professoriate, 1975-2000, New York:
Routledge.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education. Merrill.
Pisani, A.M., & Stott, N. (1998). An investigation of part-time faculty commitment to
developmental advising. Research in Higher Education, 39(2), 121-142.
Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. III. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood,
IL: Irwin-Dorsey.
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E.L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new
directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

175
Schunk, D.H, Pintrich, P.R & Meece, J.L. (2008). Motivation in Education: Theory, research,
and applications. New Jersey: Pearson
Schuster, J.H., & Finkelstein, M.J. (2006). The American faculty: The restructuring of academic
work and careers. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Scott, J.W. (2002). The critical state of shared governance. Academe Online. Retrieved from
http://aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2002/JA/Feat/Scot.htm
Senjaya, S. & Sarros, J.C. (2002). Servant leadership: It’s origins, development, and application
in organizations. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9 (2), 57-64.
Somech, A. & Ron, I. (2007). Promoting Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Schools: The
impact of individual and organizational characteristics. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 43 (1), 38-66.
Tierney, W.G. & Minor, J.T. (2003). Challenges for governance: A national report. Center for
Higher Education Policy Analysis, 1-25.
Twombly, S., & Townsend, B. K. (2008). Community college faculty what we know and need to
know. Community College Review, 36(1), 5-24. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/213288060?accountid=14749
Umbach, P. D. (2007). How effective are they? Exploring the impact of contingent faculty on
undergraduate education. The Review of Higher Education, 30(2), 91-123.
Vigoda-Godot, E., Beeri, I., Birman-Shemesh, T., & Somech, A. (2007). Group-level
organizational citizenship behavior in the education system: A scale reconstruction and
validation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

176
Wallin, D.L. (2004). Valuing professional colleagues: Adjunct faculty in community and
technical colleges. Community College Journal of Research an d Practice, 28 (4), 373-
391.
Wallin, D.L. (2007). Part-time faculty and professional development: Notes from the field. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 140, 67-73.
Wlodkowski, R.J. (1999). Motivation and Diversity: A framework for teaching.
Wlodkowski, R.J. (2003). Fostering motivation in professional development programs.
Zimmerman, B. (2000). Self-Efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 25, 82-95.

PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

177
APPENDIX A
REFERRAL REQUEST LETTER
Dear [Name],

Hello! My name is Veronica Vazquez Allen and I am a Doctorate of Education (EdD) student at
the University of Southern California in the Rossier School of Education. I am conducting a
research project and am contacting you for assistance. The purpose of my study is to understand
the experiences of part-time non-tenure track faculty with governance and decision-making.

I am contacting you because you are an adjunct faculty at LAUC. I need your help in identifying
other part-time non-tenure track faculty in your department. I am also a part-time non-tenure
track faculty at a community college and I am very interested in connecting with people like you
who have experience as an adjunct. There is limited research on the topic of community college
part-time non-tenure track faculty and departmental governance. By participating in this study
you can contribute towards closing the gap on the lack of research on this topic! Also, you can
help to identify ways to enhance the experiences of part-time non-tenure track faculty at two year
colleges.

Please let me know if I can interview you and if you can refer me to one of your colleagues
which is also part-time non-tenure track faculty. Your referrals represent an important
contribution to this study and to matters of equity and inclusion of part-time faculty at this
college. I thank you in advance for your time and support.

To recommend adjunct faculty for an interview for this study, please reply to this email and
provide the name, email, and if possible, phone number for each individual. If you have
questions about the project, please contact Veronica Vazquez Allen, veroniva@usc.edu or (818)
339-3765.

Thank you again for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Veronica Vazquez Allen

PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

178
APPENDIX B
PARTICIPANT SOLICITATION
Dear [Name of Referral],

Hello! My name is Veronica Vazquez Allen and I am a Doctorate of Education (EdD) student at
the University of Southern California in the Rossier School of Education. The purpose of this
email is to extend to you an invitation to participate in a study on the experiences of adjunct
faculty at two year colleges and governance. The specific intent of the study is to develop an
understanding of what motivates adjunct faculty to participate in the decision making process. I
am seeking your participation in this study. Much of the literature does not include the
experiences of adjunct faculty and their motivations to participate in governance. I want to share
the experiences and perceptions of individuals such as you and close the literature gap on this
topic.

If you accept this invitation to participate in this study, I will contact you to schedule a one-on-
one interview that will last approximately twenty five to thirty minutes. All replies will remain
confidential. Only I will know your identity. The interview questions will address your
experiences and perception of the decision-making environment in your academic department. If
you would prefer to see the questions prior to the interview, I will send them to you ahead of
time. Participation in the study is completely voluntary; it will aid me in fulfilling the USC
Rossier School of Education, EdD dissertation requirement. You may withdraw from the study at
any point.

I recognize the significant time commitment associated with your participation in this study but I
am confident that your personal insights on being an adjunct at a community college are
invaluable. By taking the time to share your experiences and perceptions you will help me
develop an understanding of the governance and decision-making process as well as share your
knowledge and perspective with other higher education faculty, staff, and administrators who
also wish to bring about change on their campuses.

If you would like to volunteer to participate or have questions regarding this study, please
contact me at veroniva@usc.edu or (818) 339-3765. I will be calling you to follow-up if I have
not heard from you in a week. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Veronica Vazquez Allen

PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

179
APPENDIX C
PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM
DESCRIPTION: You are invited to participate in a research study on adjunct faculty and
governance. The specific intent of the study is to develop an understanding of the factors which
motivate part-time non-tenure track faculty to participate in governance at a community college.

PROCEDURE: You will be asked to share your experience and considerations in an individual
interview with me. The interview will last about a half an hour. Upon your consent, the interview
may be audio-recorded and transcribed. The audio will be kept in a secure location. You will be
invited to review the interview and make corrections. All publications and presentations will
ensure your confidentiality. This research is being conducted as part of the requirement for the
Doctorate of Education at the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California.

RISKS AND BENEFITS: There are no anticipated risks associated with this study. Upon your
consent, the interview will be audio recorded. The audio may be transcribed for research
purposes, but will never be played for any audience other than the researcher directly involved in
the project. Upon completion of the study, audio recordings will be erased.

Other than contributing to the existing body of literature about part-time non-tenure track faculty
at a community college level, there are no direct benefits to you associated with this research
project. You will not be paid for participating in this study.

SUBJECT RIGHTS: If you have read this form and have decided to participate in this study,
please understand that your participation is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw your
consent or discontinue participation at any time with no consequence to you. You have the right
to refuse to answer particular questions.

Granting consent does not waiver your legal rights. If you have questions about your rights as a
study participant, you may contact the University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB) with
any questions or concerns by calling (213) 821-5272.

FOR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STUDY: Please contact Veronica Vazquez Allen, USC
Rossier School of Education, veroniva@usc.edu or (818) 339-3765.

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT

I understand the procedures described above and I understand fully the rights of a potential
subject in a research study involving people as subjects. My questions have been answered to my
satisfaction and I agree to participate in this study. I have been given a copy of this form.

PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

180
Please circle one:

I agree to be audio recorded

I disagree to be audio recorded

___________________________________________

Printed Name

___________________________________________ ______________________

Signature Date

___________________________________________ ______________________

Email Phone Number

PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

181
APPENDIX D
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY
1. What is your gender? Male / Female

2. What is your age range? 20’s / 30’s / 40’s / 50’s / 60’s / 70’s

3. What is your ethnicity?

Caucasian / African-American / Latino / Hispanic / Asian / Other
If other, indicate:

4. Highest Degree Earned?

B.A. / B.S. M.A/M.S. Ed.D. / Ph.D. M.D. / Other:

5. Years of experience as an adjunct?

6. How many courses are you teaching for this department in the current semester?

PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

182
APPENDIX E
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
I’m here to talk to you about the experience of being a part-time non-tenure track faculty at a
community college.

Lead off question:

*1. What is your role within the department as a PTNTTF?
Possible probes, if not answered as part of the response to the main question:
a. What do you believe is the role of full-time faculty versus part-time faculty within the
department you teach in?

*2. Describe aspects of your job as PTNTTF which are non-instructional?
Possible probes, if not answered as part of the response to the main question:
a. Besides classroom teaching, what other duties do you have in your department?
*3. How does the decision making process take place within the department which you work?
Possible probes, if not answered as part of the response to the main question:
a. What is expected of you regarding departmental decision making?
b. To what extent have you participated in a decision making process?
c. What are the reason(s) you became involved in the decision making process of your
department.
d. Is it informal or formal participation?
e. How confident are you in your ability to participate in the decision-making process in
your department?
f. Can you give me an example of why you feel this way?

*4. What impact have you had on creating or changing policies, procedures, or other aspects of
your department?
Possible probes, if not answered as part of the response to the main question:
a. Are you satisfied with the impact you have made? Explain.

*5. What motivates you to participate (or not) in the decision making in your department?
Possible probes, if not answered as part of the response to the main question:
a. How does the department head influence your participation?
b. What approach does the department use for decision making?
c. How much effort do you put into participating in decision making? Low, moderate, or
high? Explain.
PART-TIME NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY AND GOVERNANCE

183
*6. How committed are you to your department? Why?
Possible probes, if not answered as part of the response to the main question:
a. Does this influence your motivation to participate in departmental decision making?

*Indicates a top question to ask

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Two thirds of the instructors at community colleges are part-time non-tenure track faculty. The growth of non-tenure track faculty in higher education has been documented in the literature. However, there is a gap in empirical data specifically focused on part-time non-tenure track faculty and their involvement in departmental governance at two-year community colleges. The research to date on part-time non-tenure track faculty at two-year community colleges has mostly focused on issues related to the differences in instructional practices and teaching effectiveness of adjunct faculty compared to their full-time faculty counterparts

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

How do non-tenure track faculty interact with Latino and Latina students in gatekeeper math courses at an urban community college?

PDF

Supporting non-tenure-track faculty in a physical therapy program: a case study

PDF

Developing effective mentoring programs for non-tenure track faculty

PDF

Participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in school-level goveranance and decision making

PDF

Part-time and time faculty conceptualizations of academic community: a case study

PDF

How the departmental cultures experienced by part-time, non-tenure track faculty affect their ability to meet first-year college student needs

PDF

The work identity of full‐time non‐tenure‐track faculty at a four year research university

PDF

Experiences in academic governance and decision-making of full-time nontenure track faculty in communications fields

PDF

Reforming Ph.D. programs to address the changing academic labor market

PDF

Community college transfer student involvement experiences at a selective, private four-year university

PDF

Adjunct faculty engagement at the community college: an exploration of work engagement and perceived motivational factors through the lens of Self-Determination Theory

PDF

Part-time faculty and their sense of belonging

PDF

Collaboration across institutional silos: a case study of a postsecondary professional learning community

PDF

Exploring faculty-student interactions in a comprehensive college transition program for low-income and first-generation college students

PDF

Parental involvement and student motivation: A quantitative study of the relationship between student goal orientation and student perceptions of parental involvement among 5th grade students

PDF

Community college transfer student involvement experiences at a selective, private four-year university

PDF

Professional development opportunities for non-core teachers

PDF

Evaluating how education faculty spend their time at a private research university

PDF

Globalization, internationalization and the faculty: culture and perception of full-time faculty at a research university

PDF

An exploratory, quantitative study of accreditation actions taken by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges' Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges Since 2002

Asset Metadata

Creator Allen, Veronica Vazquez (author)

Core Title Part-time non-tenure track faculty, motivation, and departmental governance: a grounded theory approach

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 10/28/2014

Defense Date 09/23/2014

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

Tag adjuncts,community college,departmental governance,governance,Higher education,Motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,part-time non-tenure track faculty

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Kezar, Adrianna J. (committee chair), Clark, Ginger (committee member), Mendoza, Christine Daryabigi (committee member)

Creator Email vallen@csudh.edu,veroniva@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-509836

Unique identifier UC11287994

Identifier etd-AllenVeron-3037.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-509836 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-AllenVeron-3037.pdf

Dmrecord 509836

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Allen, Veronica Vazquez

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